Neocon Latina

Did Islam Play a Role in the Murder of Steve McNair?

2009-07-05T18:23:00.000-07:00

Speculation abounds about who killed former NFL star Steve McNair, but nary a word has been said about whether Islam had any role in McNair's murder. As has been reported, the bloodied bodies of Steve McNair and Sahel Kazemi were discovered yesterday in a Nashville apartment. Who was Sahel Kazemi? All we know right now is that she was of Iranian descent and was carrying on an affair with McNair. That means it's possible that Kazemi and McNair could both have been the victim of an "honor killing," whereby typically a relative of the "disgraced" young woman avenges the family's "honor" by murdering her (and perhaps her lover). But there simply is no evidence of that at this time (indeed, we don't even know if the family is Muslim). And it seems far more likely that Kazemi herself was McNair's killer, and that she then turned the gun on herself.

But an intriguing tidbit -- mentioned in passing in The Tennessean article -- is that, 11 years ago, Kazemi's mother "was killed in their native Iran." Notice the use of the word "killed." People who die of natural causes, or even in car accidents, are generally not described as having been "killed" in Iran. The use of the word "killed" connotes murder. So who killed Kazemi's mother? The Tennessean doesn't say. But it's entirely possible that Kazemi's mother was herself the victim of a barbaric Islamic murder, either an "honor killing" carried out by family members or a murder carried out by the Iranian regime. In either case, if it turns out that Kazemi is McNair's killer, it is not unreasonable to speculate that her own mother's murder may have played some role in yesterday's sordid affair.

(By the way, if you haven't yet seen the film The Stoning of Soraya M., please do so).

Update: This article says that the Kazemis are members of the Bahaii faith, which makes the "honor killing" theory even less likely. Unfortunately, the article does not shine any light on the circumstances surrounding the killing of Kazemi's mother in Iran, but it does say that the family fled Iran in 2002 because it was "in danger." If Kazemi's mother was in fact murdered by Islamic fascists, that event would have had a profound effect on Kazemi. Some can overcome that type of trauma; others cannot.

Ahmadinejad Has Jewish Roots? Oy Vey!

2009-07-02T22:35:00.000-07:00

Today's news of the weird, via the Jerusalem Post:

The son of a prominent, conservative pro-Ahmadinejad ayatollah, Khazali wrote on his Web site earlier this year that the president - a Holocaust denier and relentless critic of Israel - was of partially Jewish origin, asserting that Ahmadinejad had changed his family name from Saburjian, and calling for the origins of the Saburjian family in the town of Aradan to be investigated.

The assertion featured in the bitter presidential election campaign, when rival reformist candidate Mehdi Karroubi challenged Ahmadinejad in a live TV debate, reportedly stating: "My full name is Mehdi Karroubi. What is your full name?"

Ahmadinejad gave his full name, according to an Al-Arabiya TV report, but left out one surname which is said to indicate Jewish ancestry.

Oy vey. But who knows if this is true. There are also rumors, largely unsubstantiated, that Hitler may have had partial Jewish ancestry.

May Allah Be With The New York Times Always

2009-06-26T20:02:00.000-07:00

As a follow-up to this story, the New York Times is now admitting that it made a mistake, and that what Jermaine Jackson actually wished his late brother Michael Jackson was, "May Allah be with you always":

Correction: June 27, 2009
An article on Friday about the death of Michael Jackson misstated the number of songs from his album “Off the Wall” that became No. 1 singles. There were two, not four. The article also misstated part of a comment that Mr. Jackson’s brother Jermaine offered for Mr. Jackson after speaking with reporters. He said, “May Allah be with you always,” not “May our love be with you always.”

So who do you trust: the Neocon Latina or the NY Times?

New York Times Covers Up Islam Reference in Jermaine Jackson Farewell to Michael Jackson

2009-06-25T21:31:00.000-07:00

As media outlets have reported, Jermaine Jackson had the following farewell message to his late brother, Michael Jackson: "May Allah be with you always." Watch for yourself here.

But strangely, the NY Times omits the "Allah" reference altogether and instead reports that Jermaine said, "May our love be with you always." Ah, the New York Times -- what would we do without The Paper of Record?

And, I'm not holding my breath, but let's see if any of the tributes for this child-molesting, drug-abusing psychopath mention that he was also a raving anti-Semite, who had this to say about Jews in 2003: "They suck... they're like leeches... It's a conspiracy. The Jews do it on purpose." Not to mention Jackson's 1995 song They Don't Care About Us, which contained the following anti-Semitic slurs: "Jew me, sue me, everybody do me/ Kick me, kike me, don't you black or white me."

No wonder Michael Jackson converted to Islam in his later years and also became affiliated with the Nation of Islam.

He was a great musician, but this creep will not be missed.

UPDATE: See here. The New York Times admits its error.

Who Is Worse: Sotomayor or Imus?

2009-05-28T20:52:00.001-07:00

Remember when Don Imus referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos"? A crass comment, to be sure. But Imus was a "shock jock." Making crass remarks was his job. And it wasn't a comment Imus had prepared in advance -- it was an off-the-cuff attempt at humor. The very same kind of "shock" humor Imus had practiced for decades.

But uttering those infamous words proved to be the downfall of Don Imus. The outrage was universal. Although he was almost immediately suspended from his job, that wasn't enough. They wanted his head. Nothing short of an outright firing would satisfy the morally-outraged, "anti-racist" crowd. Obama himself called for Imus to be fired. Obama explained:

He didn't just cross the line. He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women -- who I hope will be athletes -- that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment.

And so Imus was fired. His career was taken from him, he was publicly humiliated, and now he's got cancer, which he claims was caused by the stress of his public ordeal.

By comparison, Judge Sotomayor seems to be getting a pass for her racist comment that Hispanic female judges are inherently "better" than white male judges. In Sotomayor's words, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

There is simply no excusing that remark. And there was nothing off-the-cuff about it. Sotomayor delivered that line during a prepared speech at University of California, Berkeley. So she can't claim it was a slip of the tongue. What's more, as the New York Times has shown, Sotomayor's remark was part of larger pattern of remarks, which demonstrate not only that she entertains anti-white, anti-male, pro-Hispanic bigotry, but also that Sotomayor believes that it is actually desirable for her biases to affect the way she decides cases.

Condemnation from Obama? Are you kidding -- he nominated her for the Supreme Court.

And so I ask you, dear reader, who is worse: Sotomayor or Imus? Sotomayor appears to be a bigot, and appears to believe it is desirable for her bigotry to influence the way she decides cases. Impartiality is the most important quality for a judge. Not only is Sotomayor not impartial, but her impartiality stems from racism and sexism. Yet, she is qualified to be on the Supreme Court?

But Don "nappy-headed hos" Imus? Off with his head!

Sotomayor: A Civil Rights Set-Back For Latinas (Neocon or Otherwise)

2009-05-26T19:25:00.000-07:00

I do not know Judge Sotomayor. I've never met her in person, and I don't recall any legal opinions she's authored. By all accounts, she is a competent, albeit not particularly distinguished, jurist. In saner days, being undistinguished would in itself disqualify a candidate from consideration for the Supreme Court. Those days are long gone.

Yet it is not Sotomayor's unremarkable legal talent that makes her a poor choice, but rather her "race-conscious" and "gender-conscious" approach to the law. Sotomayor's predilection to view legal disputes through the prisms of race and gender is illustrated by three quotes published in today's New York Times.

Quote #1:

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences," she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

This quote is objectionable, but not overwhelmingly so. One the one hand, it is true enough that all of us -- to a certain degree -- are influenced by our backgrounds. On the other hand, by asserting that her race and gender "will make a difference" in how she decides cases, Sotomayor seems to be suggesting that she is at least to an extent captive to her race and gender. In a sense, then, Sotomayor seems to be validating the bigots who would claim that women and racial minorities cannot do the same job as a white man. So when the next promising Hispanic female judge comes along, it may simply be understood that she too cannot be trusted to decide cases on their merits, but will instead inevitably be influenced by her race and gender. That is unfortunate.

Quote #2:

Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality "is possible in all, or even, in most, cases." She added, "And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society."

Here, Sotomayor crosses the line. Quote #1 is forgivable in that Sotomayor seemed to be suggesting that some degree of bias is inevitable, but there was no indication that Sotomayor meant that judges should aspire to be biased. In Quote #2, however, Sotomayor asserts not only that bias is inevitable, but that bias is actually a desirable trait in judges. Indeed, she claims that minority judges do a "disservice" to the law and society by attempting to be non-biased. That is astounding.

Quote #3:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

Now this is simply David Duke in reverse. Here, Sotomayor seems to be asserting that being Latina ipso facto makes her "reach a better conclusion" than white male judges. That is insane. Can you imagine if Roberts had said that being a white male makes him a better judge than a Hispanic judge? That Sotomayor would even utter such a comment is profoundly disturbing; that she is almost certain to be confirmed to sit on the Supreme Court is a sad commentary on the current state of our society.

NY Times Calls AIG Scandal "a distraction, a diversion — an outright red herring"

2009-03-22T09:45:00.000-07:00

The latest pro-Obama propaganda from the NY Times is almost too ridiculous to be believed. Referring to the AIG bonus scandal, the Times asserts:

Mr. Obama is hardly the first American president to grapple with a distraction, a diversion — an outright red herring, some might call it — that grew bigger than itself. Ronald Reagan had the Air Force’s $7,622 coffeepot and the Navy’s $435 claw hammer, as well as an ill-fated effort to save money by classifying ketchup as a school lunch vegetable. Bill Clinton had midnight basketball and a high-priced haircut from a Beverly Hills stylist aboard Air Force One.

So there you have it. Obama signed legislation that specifically authorized payments of the bonuses in question, but later feigned outrage when it turned out that many of us ordinary folks -- ya know, the "bitter" people who "cling to guns and religion" -- were none too pleased about it. But for the NY Times, this whole scandal is tantamount to an overpriced coffeepot, a fancy haircut or an assertion that ketchup qualifies as a vegetable.

Of course, I actually agree with the Times that the bonus scandal is a "distraction" insofar as it is merely the tip of the iceberg of the money that's being wasted by this administration. But that's not how the Times meant it.

Arguably the Most Insane Left-Wing Rant in History

2009-03-18T23:14:00.000-07:00

While searching for updates on Tristan Anderson, the American leftist who was recently injured during an anti-Israel protest in the West Bank, I came upon this gem posted on the San Francisco Bay Area Indymedia website:

On Friday, March 13th, 2009, my friend and tree sit colleague, Tristan Anderson was critically wounded by the Israeli Army with a tear gas canister. He is in an induced coma and as time goes by, the chances that he will come out of it at all decreases.

What this has to do with U. C. Berkeley is this: Tristan was involved with the Oak Grove tree sit which lasted for 648 embarrassing days to the university. He has also written a number of articles that put the university to shame.

Furthermore, it is no secret that U. C. Berkeley has strong ties to the U. S. government, which is an ally of Israel and it's inhumane military.

Lastly, the tear gas canister which hit Tristan was aimed directly at his head with pinpoint accuracy, instead of on the ground where all it would do would be to release the tear gas. Tristan's injury was no accident.

U. C. Berkeley has the resources, the connections, and the motive for attempting to kill my friend Tristan. I can't help be see connections here.

Wow. Just wow.

Obama Approval Ratings Sinking Like a Stone

2009-03-07T14:11:00.000-08:00

The latest Rasmussen poll shows that Obama's approval ratings have hit a new all-time low. He's down to 56% approve; 43% disapprove.

So much for "hope and change."

Saudis Get Repaid for their "Investment" in Obama's Harvard Education

2009-03-07T11:03:00.000-08:00

We've previously seen that, at the same time Obama was applying to Harvard Law School, a representative of the Saudi government was raising money for Obama and pulling strings to help get him into Harvard. Watch this interview with former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton again on YouTube if you have forgotten this extraordinary -- but almost entirely overlooked -- story.

Well, it now appears that the Saudi government is finally being repaid for its "investment" in Obama's Harvard education. Incredibly, Obama has appointed a paid agent of the Saudi government to head the National Intelligence Council. Rich Lowry writing in National Review has the sordid details:

This is the career trajectory of Chas Freeman, the former diplomat whom the Obama administration intends to make chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Freeman was ambassador to Saudi Arabia, the most lucrative diplomatic posting in the world because the ambassadors usually end up in the employ of the Saudis after leaving public service.

Sure enough, Freeman is now president of the anti-Israel Middle East Policy Council, which might not exist without Saudi largesse. In a 2006 interview with a Saudi news outlet, Freeman explained that the council couldn’t continue without an endowment it had set up through “the generosity of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz.”

I've tried -- very hard in fact -- to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. But for me, this is the last straw.

And the Oscar Goes to ... an Islamic Propaganda Movie

2009-02-28T11:21:00.000-08:00

I went to see Slumdog Millionaire the other night, just looking to be entertained. Instead, I found myself being indoctrinated with pro-Islam propaganda. (WARNING: read no further if you don't want me to "ruin" the plot for you).

The protagonists of the film are brothers Jamal and Salim Malik, young Muslim boys from the slums of Mumbai, India. In one of the opening scenes, Jamal and Salim are orphaned when an angry Hindu mob attacks their slum while yelling, "Kill them! They are Muslims!" The Hindu mob kills their mother, thus leaving the poor Muslim youths to fend for themselves. Where have we seen this before? Bollywood, Palliwood -- it's all the same. Of course, no mention of the fact that the "the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history."

Interestingly, this bit of pro-Islam propaganda was not in the original book. Indeed, it appears to have been specially written just for the movie:

The Mumbai Hindu-Muslim riots played no role in the book, as the ethnic heritage of the main character was uncertain. In the book, the character of Jamal is instead named 'Ram Mohammad Thomas'. He was given a Hindu name, Muslim name and Christian name by the village elders in order to maintain the balance between all the religious communities after his mother abandoned him after birth.

Perhaps CAIR was consulted on the movie?

In any case, as the story progresses, Jamal becomes the "good boy" and big brother Salim becomes the "bad boy." Salim joins a gang, starts drinking and abusing women, whereas Jamal keeps to the straight and narrow. Salim even rapes and beats Latika, his little brother's love interest. Jamal finds this unforgivable and two boys go their own ways.

Have no fear, though -- Islam saves the day! Towards the end of the movie, Salim becomes a devout Muslim. Suddenly, Salim finds his moral compass. He sets Latika free, tells her to go find Jamal and kills the gang leader who had been holding Latika prisoner. In the final scene, after having killed the gang leader and having himself been fatally shot, Salim utters his final words, "God is great." ("Allahu Akbar").

Did Slumdog Millionaire deserve Best Picture? Maybe in Riyadh.

Obama Approval Ratings Hit All-Time Low

2009-02-21T17:56:00.000-08:00

The latest poll from Rasmussen shows that Obama's approval rating has dropped to 57%, an all-time low since Obama assumed the presidency. Similarly, Obama's disapproval rating has increased to 41%, which is a new high.

Despite the media's insistence that Obama is spectacularly popular, the reality is that Obama's approval ratings are virtually identical to those of George W. Bush at the comparable stage of Bush's presidency. And as the economy continues to tank, we can expect that Obama will be below 50% in a matter of time.

A Messiah? Nay.

Queen of England: "Long Live the Iranian Revolution"

2009-02-16T20:08:00.000-08:00

On the official website of UK embassy in Iran, the Queen of England passes along her "warmest greetings" to genocidal Iranian mullahs in celebration of the 30-year anniversary of the Islamic revolution in Iran:

Queen Elizabeth's message to the Iranian people (09/02/2009)

It gives me great pleasure to send the people of the Islamic Republic of Iran my warmest greetings on the celebration of your National Day, together with my best wishes for good fortune and happiness in the coming year.

Barf!!!

What's up with these Royals? We all know that Prince Charles may have already converted to Islam. I wonder how many other Royals are practicing Muslims?

Of course, the pro-fascist stance of the British Royal Family is nothing new. During WWII, King Edward VIII met with Hitler and did the full Nazi salute. Here is a picture of this disgraceful meeting:

And even the regular politicians in England are now giving me the heebie-jeebies. For example, I still don't know what to make of the Koran-reading, Mohamed-loving Tony Blair. And the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, is openly anti-Semitic and enthusiastically pro-Hamas. Is it any wonder that England just banned Geert Wilders from entering the country because he dared to criticize Islam?

There's a reason they call it "Londonistan."

Sarkozy Shamefully in Step with Osama Bin Laden

2009-01-14T15:53:00.000-08:00

In his latest call for jihad against the Zionists, Osama Bin Laden states: "Israelis are in a rush to get rid of their enemies in Gaza, and replace them with (Palestinian President Mahmoud) Abbas and his administration, in order for him to protect their backs. They thus carried out this horrific butchery before the end of Bush's term in office before the American weakness shows even more."

So now that we've been reminded of the fact that the same Bin Laden who has financed terrorist attacks in Europe, Africa and the Middle East against Americans and other Westerners since and before 9-11 is also firmly in the Hamas camp, maybe we can get a retraction from Sarkozy and his ilk. And an apology.

After all, Israel's alleged "disproportionate use of force" (read: "horrific butchery") against the Hamas terrorists in Gaza seems anemic when you consider Israel is trying to wipe out the same guys that count Bin Laden as a fan and fundraiser.

How do you say "stupid blunder" in French?

NY Times Claims Jonah Goldberg As Its Own

2009-01-13T22:19:00.000-08:00

This currently appears on the front page of the NY Times website:

Op-Ed: Why Israel Can’t Make Peace With Hamas

The key to peace in Gaza is to help Fatah prepare the West Bank for real freedom, writes Jonah Goldberg of The Atlantic.

But alas, when you click on the article, you see that it was actually written by Jeffrey Goldberg. Not a bad article, though. I wonder if there is a secret Jonah Goldberg fan working at the NY Times.

Israeli "occupation" of Danish shopping mall provokes "resistance"

2009-01-03T20:15:00.000-08:00

A story that has *not* gotten sufficient attention -- open jihad in the streets of Denmark:

COPENHAGEN, Jan 1 (Reuters) - Danish police on Thursday arrested a 27-year-old man of Palestinian origin on suspicion of shooting and wounding two Israeli citizens at a shopping mall in central Denmark and charged him with attempted murder. ...

The terrorist will probably claim, however, that the shootings were merely intended as symbolic acts of "resistance" against the brutal Israeli "occupation" of the Danish shopping mall. But here's the best part of the story:

A police spokesman told Reuters the suspect had surrendered himself to authorities early on Thursday, but that the motive for the attack was still unknown.

Think hard, coppers. I'm sure it'll come to you.

Tony Blair: "I regularly read the Koran, practically every day"

2008-12-28T09:06:00.000-08:00

Tony Blair recently proclaimed, "I regularly read the Koran, practically every day." He further opined that the Islamic prophet Mohammed had been "an enormously civilizing force."

What to make of this? Getting beyond the knee-jerk revulsion to such comments, it may on balance be a good thing that Blair is apparently studying up on Islam. After all, many of our current problems can be traced to a failure of Western policy makers to grasp the basic tenets of Islam. For example, in explaining US support for jihadis in Afghanistan against the Soviets, Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter's National Security Advisor), poo-pooed any suggestion that Islamic fundamentalism poses a threat to the West:

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Similarly, Israel supported Hamas in its early days, in an ill-advised attempt to create a counterweight to Arafat and the PLO.

Underlying these boneheaded decisions was a total failure to understand that Islam is not merely a religion in the Western sense, but rather an all-encompassing belief system that divides the world into two "Houses" -- the House of Islam and the House of Unbelievers -- and requires Muslims to wage an ongoing jihad against the unbelievers until they either convert to Islam or submit to Islamic law. While not all Muslims subscribe to these principles, the jihadis surely do, and their position is not without support in Islam. So when a fellow as bright as Tony Blair tell us he reads the Koran every day, it is logical to expect that he may be getting a clue.

But the smart money is otherwise. Not only is Blair's description of Mohammed as "an enormously civilizing force" something of a bad sign, but so is Blair's ardently pro-Palestinian wife, Cherrie Blair, who undoubtedly influences him. But probably the most sure-fire sign that Blair's study of Islam will not lead him to speak more plainly about its fundamentally militaristic nature is that, as Middle Envoy for the UN, Blair is now increasingly traveling in "internationalist" circles, which almost inevitably leads individuals to toe the Saudi-funded line on the nature of Islam and its attendant real-world implications.

What is the long-term solution? It's a cliche, but the obvious point is that we need to end our (and therefore the world's) dependence on oil. Until that happens, the discourse on Islam, and the policies we puruse with Muslim nations, can never be disentangled from the fact that Muslims control the global supply of energy.

Surprise, Surprise: Bush Is a Voracious Reader

2008-12-27T20:33:00.000-08:00

In a WSJ column, Karl Rove reports that President Bush has read an astounding 186 books in the last three years. That translates to well over one book per week. I don't read nearly as much, and just in case you didn't know, I am not President.

Rove's column concludes with the following:

In the 35 years I've known George W. Bush, he's always had a book nearby. He plays up being a good ol' boy from Midland, Texas, but he was a history major at Yale and graduated from Harvard Business School. You don't make it through either unless you are a reader.

There is a myth perpetuated by Bush critics that he would rather burn a book than read one. Like so many caricatures of the past eight years, this one is not only wrong, but also the opposite of the truth and evidence that bitterness can devour a small-minded critic. Mr. Bush loves books, learns from them, and is intellectually engaged by them.

That's pretty interesting. Of course, the Left will claim that Rove made it all up.

He Gropes and He Can Write Good Speeches

2008-12-19T16:03:00.000-08:00

This is hysterical. The WSJ's Best of the Web is reporting that the same kid (ok, 27-year-old) who got flack for groping Hillary Clinton's cut-out is none other than the same high-level Obama speechwriter who penned O's speech on race back in April. This was the speech where O threw his grandmother under the bus and stood by Jeremiah Wright, despite all the trash that came out of his mouth. I think these two should go to Hollywood. O is obviously better than Denzel and the speechwriter could be the next star scriptwriter!

Needed: Mass Demonstrations of Freedom-Loving Muslims

2008-12-14T18:18:00.000-08:00

Today’s NY Post had a piece by Phil Mushnick that resonated with me. In it, he recalls the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai that left 200 dead and more than 300 injured and asks a tough question. If it is true that Muslims condemn such senseless carnage against innocent civilians, why is there greater evidence to the contrary?

Mushnick asks, if Muslims are truly up in arms about the violence caused by terrorists in the name of their God, why don’t they get out there and show their anger at the terrorists? Why is it that the only demonstrations for which Muslims turn out in force “call for more blood, more murder, ‘Death to the Infidels!’ and the sustained cry for jihad, the world over?”

Good question, Phil. Now if only the people who make up our free press asked the same question of the next Muslim organization that "condemns" the next Muslim terrorist act.

Obama's Election Is a Vindication of Republican Values

2008-11-30T10:37:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since I've posted anything. Of course, the election of Obama was disappointing and I've been, among other things, taking some time to get acclimated to the news. That said, one thought that's been constantly running through my mind is that, contrary to the notion that the election of Obama represents a "sea change" in favor of "progressive" values, what Obama's ascent actually represents is a vindication of Republican values and American exceptionalism.

Bear in mind, during the campaign, we were told over and over that America is a hopelessly racist country and that any failure to elect Obama could only be attributed to racism. Obama's mentor, Reverend Wright, said we live in the "US of KKKA," and Obama himself revealed that what first attracted him to Wright was a speech wherein Wright intoned "white folks' greed runs a world in need." And let's not forget about Obama's friends, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, whose new book, Race Course Against White Supremacy, will be published in June 2009. "Progressive" axioms -- such as America being "no better" than any other country -- also permeated the message of "Hope" and "Change" that Obama promised to bring. And so it goes.

Now that Obama's been elected, it is perhaps natural to expect that the sort of ideology associated with the rise of Obamanation will gain a new prominence in American life. Interestingly, however, I don't think that will be the case. Indeed, what the election of Obama actually proves is that, whatever its flaws, America is in fact the greatest country in the world, a place where anyone -- regardless of race, religion or creed -- can achieve beyond his wildest dreams. And given that the new understanding of American greatness, patriotism -- oft derided as the last refuge of scoundrels -- may soon be making a comeback.

Remember What Happened to Obama in the NH Democratic Primary?

2008-11-02T18:46:00.001-08:00

Here's a look at what the leading polls said heading into the New Hampshire Democratic primary:

Zogby:
Obama 42
Clinton 29

USA Today:
Obama 41
Clinton 28

CNN/WMUR:
Obama 39
Clinon 29

Rasmussen:
Obama 37
Clinton 30

ACTUAL RESULTS:
Clinton 39
Obama 36

And Obama also underperformed his poll numbers in the Democratic primary in key battleground states Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Does this mean McCain has the election in the bag? Of course not. But what it does mean is that the polls showing McCain down a few points should not be taken as the Gospel truth, particularly given that 14 percent of voters are still undecided, and undecided voters are widely projected to break for McCain.

By the way, guess what was the leading theory for why the NH polls were so wrong in the Democratic primary? They failed to account for undecided voters, who overwhelmingly broke for Clinton.

"John McCain has served this country longer in the POW camp than his opponent has served in the United States Senate."

2008-10-31T17:43:00.001-07:00

Thus spoke Ah-nold today at a McCain rally in Ohio.

It is quite a zinger, but it also makes a profound point. With McCain, you are getting a proven commodity, but does anyone really know who Obama is and what he stands for? I don't think anyone does, but from where I stand, Obama sure looks like a Marxist.

Obama In a Nutshell

2008-10-31T17:33:00.000-07:00

America's Half-Blood Prince: Barack Obama's Story of Race and Inheritance

2008-10-30T20:23:00.000-07:00

Steve Sailer has published a new book, America's Half-Blood Prince: Barack Obama's Story of Race and Inheritance, which can be downloaded for free here. Here's an excerpt:

The overarching thesis of my book is extremely simple: that there’s no secret about Obama’s big secret. He spelled out exactly what he considers the central mandates of his existence in the subtitle of his graceful 1995 memoir Dreams from My Father. To Obama, his autobiography is most definitely not a postracial parable. Instead, it is A Story of Race and Inheritance.

The then 33-year-old Obama who wrote Dreams from My Father is obsessed with ethnicity and ancestry, as he relentlessly documents across nearly each of the book’s 460 pages. For 150,000 words, nothing diverts Obama from the subject of his racial identity.

What is the precise concern about race and inheritance that galvanizes Obama’s innermost emotions?

Once again, it’s not exactly a mystery.

Obama’s 1995 memoir reveals a genetically biracial young man raised by his white relatives who incessantly interrogates himself with the same question that the 139,000 mostly turgid articles and web postings catalogued by Google have asked about him: Is he black enough?

Sailer further argues that Obama has fulfilled this lifelong quest to prove he is "black enough" by becoming a radical leftist:

To be black enough is tied up in Obama’s mind with being left enough. As someone brought up by whites far from the black mainstream, Obama lacks the freedom to be politically unorthodox enjoyed by men of such iconic blackness as boxing promoter Don King, or funk singer James Brown and basketball giant Wilt Chamberlain, both of whom endorsed Richard Nixon in 1972.

Obama's Shocking Post-9/11 Comments

2008-10-29T18:52:00.000-07:00

Chicago Defender
Copyright 2001 Chicago Defender

October 17, 2001

Sen. Obama: Barriers `sad, symbols of fear"

The "ugly" barriers that have been erected outside of the Sears Tower, the Federal Building, the Daley Plaza and other city buildings in downtown Chicago following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks are "sad, symbols of fear" and constant reminders of just how vulnerable America is, Sen. Barack Obama (D-13th) said Monday.

"Sad symbols of fear"? Good lord -- this pansy should be on Oprah; he should under no circumstances be commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces. Worse still, Obama insinuated that U.S. foreign policy may have been responsible for 9/11:

"We should also examine the foreign policies of the the U.S. to make sure that we occupy the moral high ground in these conflicts. In particular, we have to examine some of the root causes of this terrorist activity," Obama said, referring to terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and his "sleeper" cells throughout the world.

Obama: Life Mission Is to Help Blacks and "Plow" Gifts Into Black Community

2008-10-29T10:47:00.000-07:00

Some telling excerpts from a 1990 Boston Globe article in which the supposedly "post-racial" Obama frankly explains that his life mission is to help blacks and "plow" gifts into the black community:

Boston Globe (MA)
Copyright Globe Newspaper Company 1990

February 15, 1990

Section: METRO

A LAW REVIEW BREAKTHROUGH

Linda Matchan, Globe Staff

...

What seems to motivate Barack Obama is a strong identification with what he calls "the typical black experience," paired with a mission to help the black community and promote social justice.

...

In college, he specialized in international relations at Occidental College in Los Angeles and, for his final two years, at Columbia University in New York. He transferred, he said, "because I was concerned with urban issues and I wanted to be around more black folks in big cities."

After short stints as a business journalist and as an advocate for a Harlem-based public interest research group, he conducted what he refers to as a "nationwide search" for community-based social action work with a liveable salary.

He found it in Chicago. He became the director and sole paid employee of the Developing Communities Project, a church-based advocacy organization for low- and middle-income blacks. His annual salary was $13,000. By the time he left, the organization had 13 employees and a solid record of accomplishments, from the removal of asbestos in public housing units to education counseling for disadvantaged youths.

Obama plans to return to Chicago after graduation -- "I've finally found a home," he said, smiling -- and intends to resume community work and possibly to enter politics.

"Having had access to the system, to a language that is sometimes foreign" to blacks, Obama said, "I have a certain mission to make sure that the gifts I've received are plowed back into the community."

Obama: A Lifetime Commitment to Marxism

2008-10-28T10:08:00.000-07:00

A timeline of Obama's lifetime commitment to Marxism:

1960s-1970s

Obama's mother and father were both Marxists. His childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was an open member of the Communist Party USA.

1980s

Obama attends Occidental College in California, where he deliberately befriends the "Marxist professors." Later, Obama transfers to New York's Columbia University, where he begins venturing to the East Village for what he calls "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."

1990s

In the 1990s, Obama launches his political career in the home of two openly-declared Marxists, Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. Also in attendance was state senator Alice Palmer, who had anointed Obama her chosen political successor. Palmer was involved in several Soviet front organizations and had made multiple pilgrimages to the Soviet Union. Also during this time, Obama comes under the tutelage of Reverend Wright, a proponent of black liberation theology, which, as Wright has explained, is Marxist in nature. Obama also becomes of a member of the New Party in Chicago, which was a socialist party.

Post-2000

In 2001, Obama gives a radio interview in which he declares that the "tragedy" of the civil rights movement was that it did not encompass "redistribution of wealth" and issues of "economic justice." Echoing those comments on the campaign trail in 2008, Obama tells "Joe the plumber" that the goal of his tax policy is to "spread the wealth around.". Finally, there is Obama's Senate voting record, which the non-partisan National Journal ranked as most liberal in the Senate in 2007. By comparison, Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist Senator from Vermont, ranked as fourth most liberal.

So there you have it. Despite the best attempts of the mainstream media, the evidence of Obama's lifetime commitment to Marxism is there for all to see. We are now within 7 days of installing a Marxist in the Oval Office. Will Americans wake up before it is too late? Please get the word out.

Obama Wanted Housing Projects for the Homeless in 2003

2008-10-27T21:32:00.000-07:00

Here's a description of a 2003 bill Obama co-sponsored in the Illinois state senate that would have mandated the construction of new housing projects for the homeless:

Synopsis As Introduced
Creates the Illinois Housing Initiative Act of 2003. Requires that a task force, composed of all key State agencies with functions related to housing and other experts in housing, develop an annual comprehensive housing plan that prioritizes the development of a range of permanent housing for certain underserved populations, including low-income and homeless persons.

Boy, that sounds like a great idea -- housing projects for the homeless. This is exactly the type of "economic justice" Obama will pursue if elected president. You work hard, you play by the rules, you try to save a little money for your family and then ...

"STOP! HAND OVER THAT MONEY!" The One has decreed that your property must be confiscated because "economic justice" requires it. Housing projects for the homeless? That's just the beginning.

Obama Bombshell: Civil Rights Movement Failed--Did Not Produce Redistribution of Wealth

2008-10-27T14:17:00.000-07:00

Except it's not a bombshell. This blog and others have been trying for months to inform the public of Obama's socialist leanings. But today it's going more mainstream. Drudge Report's current headline should be a news bombshell, especially a week away from Election Day eve, but that's not the news world we live in.

But now that Obama's words have sunk in ("Wow!"), I still can't believe that Americans may vote this socialist into office.

He is no longer just telling Joe the Plumber that he wants to take some of Joe's money and give it to others who are more deserving. Rather, Obama is asserting that the civil rights movement failed because it did not convince the Supreme Court to venture "into the issues of redistribution of wealth and the sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."

Wow. Let that sink in for a bit...

Obama is revealing his belief that the civil rights movement should have resulted in the redistribution of wealth. This would mean creating a permanent welfare class that would be entitled to money earned by others for having suffered a civil rights injustice in the past. This is economic justice? I see the economy part, but where's the justice?

How about believing in the idea that people create wealth and government should stay out of that business, as much as possible? And how about believing that every American is given the opportunity to become as productive a member of society as he or she wants? And how about believing that you can't walk around feeling entitled to things without having done something to earn them?

Can you imagine the harm that Obama's redistribution of wealth would cause African-Americans (and others who consider themselves beneficiaries of the civil rights movement)? By putting segments of society into a permanent welfare class--entitled to receive a check that somebody else earned for them--Obama would be creating a whole new culture of dependency.

This idea scares me. Dependency is a very ugly thing and entitlement just became a very bad word.

The Man Who Got Obama Into Harvard Law School

2008-10-22T21:51:00.000-07:00

Because Obama's college grades were not stellar, it follows that Obama needed some help getting into Harvard Law School. By now, many conservatives have heard that Khalid Al-Mansour was the man who helped Obama get into Harvard.

This amazing story first came to light during a television interview with Percy Sutton, the former Borough President of Manhattan. During that interview, Sutton revealed that at the time Obama was applying to Harvard, Al-Mansour was raising money for Obama and Al-Mansour also asked Sutton to pull some strings at Harvard on Obama's behalf. If you haven't seen this remarkable clip of Sutton relaying the story, I highly recommend you watch it now on YouTube. It is must-see tv.

Having established that Al-Mansour wanted Obama to get into Harvard Law, the next logical questions are: (i) who is Khalid Al-Mansour? and (ii) why did he want so badly for Obama to be accepted to Harvard Law? As to the first question, Khalid Al-Mansour is an African-American lawyer who converted to Islam in 1964 and later became a close advisor to the Saudi royal family, and in particular, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. That is the same Saudi prince who gave Giuliani a $10 million check after 9/11 on condition that Giuliani acknowledge that 9/11 was caused by America's support for Israel. Thankfully, Giuliani told him to shove it.

As to why Al-Mansour wanted Obama to be accepted to Harvard Law, Al-Mansour ain't telling. Nevertheless, it is easy to determine the man's political goals because Al-Mansour is a prolific writer. In fact, here's a list of some of Al-Mansour's books:

The Challenges Of Spreading Islam In America

The Destruction Of Western Civilization

Americans Beware! The Zionist Plot Against Saudi Arabia

Welcome To Islam

Let those titles sink in for a moment. It is fair to say that, whomever Al-Mansour supports, any feedom-loving person should oppose. Will America wake up before it is too late? We have 12 days left and counting.

BREAKING: 71% Say McCain Qualified to be President, but Only 46% Say Obama Qualified

2008-10-22T18:27:00.000-07:00

Conservatives are excited tonight about a new AP poll showing that Obama and McCain are now in a statistical dead heat: Obama 44% - McCain 43%.

But it gets even more interesting. Looking at the data behind the data, the same poll shows that 71% of likely voters believe McCain has "the right type of experience" to be president (20% do not), whereas only 46% believe Obama has "the right type of experience" (44% do not). In another words, the country overwhelmingly believes McCain is qualified to be president, but is evenly split as to whether Obama is qualified. That seems like awfully good news for McCain. After all, it is hard to imagine that many of the 44% of Americans who believe Obama is unqualified will actually vote for him. So that leaves merely 56% of Americans who could even potentially vote for Obama. That doesn't leave Obama much room for error.

Another extremely interesting finding: although the candidates are in a virtual dead heat, likely voters overwhelmingly believe (67%-25%) that Obama will be elected. So even though voters are evenly divided as to which candidate they prefer, the perception is that Obama is way ahead. Interesting, huh? Reminds me of a fascinating Zombietime essay I just read.

New Book by Ayers and Dohrn: "Race Course Against White Supremacy"

2008-10-21T18:36:00.000-07:00

Here's a peek at a new book by Ayers and Dohrn scheduled to be released in June 2009. From the product description via Amazon.com:

White supremacy and its troubling endurance in American life is debated in these personal essays by two veteran political activists. Arguing that white supremacy has been the dominant political system in the United States since its earliest days—and that it is still very much with us—the discussion points to unexamined bigotry in the criminal justice system, election processes, war policy, and education. The book draws upon the authors' own confrontations with authorities during the Vietnam era, reasserts their belief that racism and war are interwoven issues, and offers personal stories about their lives today as parents, teachers, and reformers.

Got that? White supremacy is "the dominant political system in the United States" and US wars are caused by white "racism." That seems to be the essence of the new Ayers/Dohrn book. More evidence that Ayers and Dohrn are committed radicals to this day, which is precisely why it's disingenuous for Obama to say he was 8 years old when Ayers set the bombs. The issue with Obama is not that he himself is a terrorist, but that his friends/associates seem to be overwhelmingly of the anti-American, anti-white and anti-Semitic variety. Based solely on the title and product description, Race Course Against White Supremacy seems indistinguishable in tone and content from a typical "God Damn America" sermon from Jeremiah Wright or Michael Pfleger.

Now ask yourself this: are Obama's friendships with individuals such as Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Rashid Khalidi merely a remarkable coincidence? Is it possible that if someone examined your friends and associates, a similar array of terrorists, racists and Marxist revolutionaries would emerge? Because that is the essence of the "guilt by association" defense peddled by Obama and his friends in the media.

Oh, and big deal Michelle Obama said she had never in her entire adult life been proud of her country. Hey, it was "out of context" and it's easy to imagine Laura Bush saying the same exact thing in an unguarded moment, right? And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

We are at a critical stage in US history. We have two "official" wars against radical Islamists that need to be won in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are facing a global jihadist threat from Islamists all over, including in our own country. Yet we are on the verge of handing over the White House to a hard-core leftist who was raised Muslim as a child, who has numerous Muslim members of his family, and who's made clear that he still identifies to some extent with his Islamic past.

Change!

NY Times Features Bizarre Photo from McCain Rally on Front Page

2008-10-21T08:13:00.000-07:00

Above is a photo from a McCain rally that is currently running on the front page of the NY Times webpage (link is here, but it will probably soon change). Look carefully. In the front row is a white guy wearing a Halloween mask that makes it appear that he is black. And immediately to his left is a woman wearing what appears to be a Sarah Palin mask.

What does this mean? No idea -- but the Times' caption merely says, "Above, a McCain rally in Concord, N.C."

Any thoughts on what is going on here?

UPDATE: As predicted, the photo is now off the front page, but you can still get it here. And there's a new caption: "Jason Waller, left, in an Obama mask, and Elazbeth Waller as Gov. Sarah Palin while Senator John McCain talks in Concord, N.C., on Saturday."

"I Was Born in Colombia, But I Was Made in the USA"

2008-10-20T22:07:00.000-07:00

I was bursting with pride when I read this account of Colombian-born Tito Munoz giving the liberal media a piece of his mind at a McCain rally in Virginia. Anyone who loves America can relate to Tito, but his story particularly resonates with me. Byron York of the National Review has the scoop:

Someone asked why Munoz had come to the rally. “I support McCain, but I’ve come to face you guys because I’m disgusted with you guys,” he said. “Why the hell are you going after Joe the Plumber? Joe the Plumber has an idea. He has a future. He wants to be something else. Why is that wrong? Everything is possible in America. I made it. Joe the Plumber could make it even better than me. . . . I was born in Colombia, but I was made in the U.S.A.”

Exactly right. Everything is possible in America and that's why so many of us immigrated here in the first place, from Colombia or elsewhere. What I suspect is driving Munoz is the fear that, under an Obama adminstration, no longer will America be the land of limitless opportunity, but will instead become a stagnant socialist economy supposedly built on "fairness" -- just like, say, France. Indeed, Obama's "fundamental change" mantra seems to call into question the very idea that America is fundamentally good and fair, for if it were, why would "fundamental change" be necessary?

Meanwhile, the great debate was continuing, with Tito the Construction Worker and David the Journalist trading points. Much of it wasn’t terribly informative, but there was one lovely moment when a shouting match turned into a lesson on the fundamental meaning of American constitutional rights — and the immigrant was the teacher.

“Let me talk,” Munoz said to Corn. “I know the Constitution, and I know my First Amendment — ”

“I’m not the state,” Corn said. “I can’t take that right away from you.”

“No, no,” Munoz shot back. “Even the state, the state cannot take that right away.”

“Right, right,” Corn quickly agreed.

“Nobody can take that away,” Munoz said.

Gotta love it! The Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones gets schooled by little ol' Tito Munoz! That, folks, is America.

Colin Powell's Bizarre Rant about Obama and Islam

2008-10-19T21:39:00.000-07:00

Colin Powell launched into a bizarre rant on Meet the Press today in which he endorsed Obama largely because of anti-Muslim bigotry that Powell believes has become commonplace in the Republican party. Here is what Powell said:

I'm also troubled by – not what Senator McCain says – but what members of the Party say, and it is permitted to be said: such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is he is not a Muslim. He's a Christian; has always been a Christian.

It is puzzling that Powell would claim that Obama "has always been a Christian" whereas in fact the evidence shows that Obama was raised as a Muslim in his early years in Indonesia. In any event, Powell continued:

But the really right answer is, "What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?" The answer's "No, that's not America." Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be President? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own Party drop the suggestion he's Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America. ... Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as non-discriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that within the Party we have these kinds of expressions.

Let me get this straight. John McCain is as non-discriminatory as anyone Powell knows, yet Powell is endorsing Obama to combat the bigotry of other, unnamed members of the Republican party? So by Powell's own admission, McCain is no bigot, whereas it is an established fact that Obama attended an openly racist church for 20 years and considers the racist Reverend Wright to be his personal mentor. And if the bigotry of other members of each party were somehow relevant, why is it not appropriate to mention that the most senior Democrat in the Senate is a former KKK leader?

McCain's Greatest Act of Patriotism Yet

2008-10-18T21:30:00.001-07:00

Ok, I'll admit it -- I've been as puzzled as anyone about McCain's refusal to use Reverend Wright against Obama. But I'm starting to look at things differently.

Let's be clear about something: Reverend Wright is Kryptonite to Obama. Wright is a racist, America-hating, Farrakhan-supporting lunatic who just happens to have been a father figure to Obama. If I were running McCain's campaign, I'd spend every last dollar running ads juxtaposing Reverend Wright's hate-filled rants with Obama's lavish praise for the man. And I'm sure it would work.

By resisting this tactic, McCain is likely sowing the seeds of his own defeat. The only plausible explanation for McCain's decision is a moral conviction that doing so would greatly diminish the ability of our next president to be a leader for all Americans. That McCain is willing to go down in defeat rather than hang Reverend Wright around Obama's neck is an act of patriotism like none of us has ever before witnessed. This, above all else, may be the greatest act of patriotism that John McCain has ever given his country.

Would I make the same decision as McCain? In all honesty, no. But I am not the patriot that John McCain is.

Confirmed: Vera Baker - - Alleged Obama Girlfriend - - Was His Finance Director

2008-10-12T21:06:00.000-07:00

The conservative blogosphere is buzzing about a potential bombshell -- Obama may have had an affair with a former staffer named Vera Baker. See here, here, here and here. According to the rumor, Baker has now been "exiled" to the Caribbean on Michelle Obama's orders.

Who is Vera Baker and is this story true? I don't know. Apparently, some of the uncertainty centers on whether Baker actually served on Obama's staff, in particular as finance director. Although this hardly constitutes proof of an affair, this 2004 piece from the National Journal confirms that Baker did in fact serve as Obama's finance director:

Congress Daily
Copyright 2004 National Journal, Inc.

April 29, 2004

HOME SWEET HOME. Doug Thornell says his experience as former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's traveling secretary during the Democratic presidential campaign was "thrilling," but he's happy to be back in Washington. "It's nice to get to sleep in the same bed every night now," says the Silver Spring, Md., native, who returned to D.C. in mid-March after a vacation in California. Thornell just started his new job as a deputy political director at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. He replaced Vera Baker, who is now the national finance director for Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama's Democratic U.S. Senate campaign. Thornell shares the deputy political director title with colleague Jamie Linski, former assistant political director at the DSCC, who was promoted to the deputy slot.

And here is some additional background information on Vera Baker:

African American professionals can build prosperous careers in the capital city, especially those hoping to play a role in national politics. "There's a mentality here that there's enough for everyone; you're not competing for what feels like a limited number of opportunities," says 29-year-old Muthoni Wambu.

Like most Washingtonians, Wambu is a transplant. She left New York City's Upper West Side to study journalism at Howard University and then networked her way into a political fundraising job with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. This was a new aspect of politics for Wambu, who soon discovered that it "brought together my strengths in a way that I'd never anticipated."

In 2000, Wambu and Vera Baker, another Howard alum, started Baker-Wambu & Associates. The firm has raised over $3 million for the campaigns of members of Congress and other politicians. "Washington is the best place for our firm to blossom and grow, and one of the only cities where two 24-year-old African American women [could have built a successful business] with pennies and a dream," she says.

Explosive New Details About Osama's Older Brother

2008-10-12T17:54:00.000-07:00

Steve Coll's book, The Bin Ladens, has some explosive new details about Osama's older brother, Salem Bin Laden:

He had a particular habit, remembered by many of his friends and employees, of speaking frankly about the gas he passed. Once, in the company of the august governor of Riyadh, Salman bin Abdulaziz, Salem noisily let himself go. This was as taboo in Bedouin culture as in a French drawing room. Prince Salman asked Salem what had happened. "I just farted, Prince," he answered. Don't you fart sometimes?" [p. 163]

Osama's big bro was even willing to let loose around the King, himself. Once, when King Fahd complained that he was tired of so many Bedouins waiting in a line to meet him, Salem proposed a ripping solution:

"I can solve this problem," Salem replied. You let me know one day before, and all day long I'll eat food. Some dark beans. You put me in front of the queue, and I'll start farting, and all the Bedouins will disappear." Fahd laughed so hard that his doctor feared he might have a heart attack, so Salem was hauled away." [p. 166]

But all kidding aside, it seems there was something profoundly wrong with Salem Bin Laden:

His need for constant companionship grew increasingly awkward. When he used the bathroom, for example, he kept the door open and demanded that his friends sit nearby and talk to him as he sat. If no members of his entourage were around, he called down to the front desk and offered to pay for a maid or maintenance man to come to his room, to sit outside the bathroom and keep him company while he did his business. [p. 316-17]

The New Republic Says It: Obama Hates White People

2008-10-09T17:38:00.000-07:00

A must-read article from The New Republic:

The Barack Obama who appears in Dreams, and, one presumes, in his own continuing interior life, is not a comforting multiracial or post-racial figure like Tiger Woods or Derek Jeter who prefers to be looked at through a kaleidoscope. Though there are many structural parallels between Dreams and Invisible Man, Obama believes in the old-fashioned, unabashedly romantic, and, in the end, quite weird idea of racial authenticity that Ellison rejected. He embraces his racial identity despite his mixed parentage through a kind of Kierkegaardian leap into blackness, through which he hopes to become a whole, untroubled person.
....

Obama's decision to identify with the lineage of his black Kenyan father to the exclusion of his white U.S.-born mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and her parents allows him a measure of release from the cruel racial logic that binds Ellison's narrator--he comes from outside American society, and therefore he is not entirely bound by the overdetermined racial logic that unites the children of slaves and masters. Yet, while Obama's rejection of his "white blood" may seem familiar from the writings of African American authors like Malcolm X, it is actually much stranger; Obama's partial "whiteness" is not the product of an ancient rape by an anonymous slave-master but is instead the color of the mother who raised him.
...

The assumption that Obama racially identifies to some strong extent with his white mother and grandparents comes naturally to white people, but it is contradicted by the evidence of his work. ... Dreams from My Father does not end with the expected discovery that we are all radically alone in the world, but rather with the discovery that he is a member of a strong and loving black African family--even if the father he identified with as a child is a myth created by guilty white liberals. Throughout his narrative, Obama's evolving "blackness" requires a deliberate and increasing degree of mental and physical alienation from the white relatives who cared for him as a child.

And as the author also observes, Obama's campaign is one big cover-up -- he simply cannot reveal who he really is to the American people:

While the identity that he constructed for himself in his autobiography has allowed him to blossom as a man and as a politician, it bears little resemblance to the conventional narratives of white men who run for president--and contains elements that are likely to frighten off large portions of the electorate, before or after November 4. The story of a man who identifies with a foreign father, and with people who are not Americans, and who does so on the basis of the color of their skin, flies in the face of the simplistic racial pieties that white Americans have embraced since the end of Jim Crow. The identity that Obama so painstakingly created for himself is not one that he can share with the electorate, and so the price of his political success is that he is forced to sublimate the material he had so painfully excavated and again become invisible.

Read the entire piece. It is probably the most accurate depiction of Obama I've seen in any mainstream publication.

Was Obama a Member of the Socialist "New Party"?

2008-10-08T21:59:00.000-07:00

I've been attempting to shine light on Obama's hidden Marxist past, so I've been excited to see a buzz in the blogosphere today about Obama's affiliation with a socialist party called the New Party. See here, here and here, for example.

I just wanted to mention that this month's issue of the invaluable Commentary Magazine has the low-down on Obama and the New Party (and much more) in an article entitled Obama's Leftism, which I have linked to before. The article should be mandatory reading for all Americans. In any event, here's the excerpt on Obama and the New Party:

In his campaign for the Illinois senate, Obama was endorsed by the New Party (NP), a coalition of socialists, Communists, and other leftists. According to the newsletter of the local chapter of Democratic Socialists of America, whose members were said to constitute 15 percent of the Chicago New Party, “Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP [which] mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.” Apparently, Obama signed such a pledge. After winning the primary (unopposed because his lawyers had succeeded in knocking all three opponents off the ballot), he appeared at a New Party membership meeting to voice his thanks.

Amazing, isn't it? Four weeks to go and a socialist with a 20-year membership in a black supremacist church is the odds on favorite to be president.

Hamas Offering Jihad Courses Online

2008-10-08T21:02:00.000-07:00

As Israel National News reports, the desperately impoverished Palestinians -- who are dying of starvation but somehow can afford computers and high-speed Internet connections -- have taken the jihad online:

The Islamist Hamas terrorist organization has initiated an online course in explosives, military weapons and tactics for would-be jihad fighters. Aimed at the population of the Palestinian Authority, the course is called "Get Ready" and is designed to prepare the population for war with Israel.

First exposed outside Palestinian Authority and jihadist circles on Monday by Israel's Channel 10 TV, the sophisticated course includes highly detailed practical and theoretical lessons, as well as sample videos of jihadist attacks. All manner of weapons are described, analyzed and their proper use explained by masked Hamas instructors.

Students also learn about such things as the manufacture and detonation of explosives, the functioning of rocket launchers, weak points on IDF tanks, and the physics of firing at a moving vehicle. Lessons cover possible scenarios such as an IDF ground incursion into Hamas-controlled Gaza or an airborne Israeli commando assault.

Each instructive section concludes with test questions. For example, a fatigues-wearing Hamas teacher asks, "A truck is moving at a rate of 15 meters per second, at a distance of 200 meters, from left to right. How will you succeed in hitting this truck?"

When reached at his Georgia home, Jimmy Carter reiterated his previous calls for the United States to fund the Hamas government because he continues to believe "there's a good chance" Hamas will renounce violence. Carter still hasn't cracked open the Hamas charter, apparently.

Three Things Obama Said Tonight That Spoke Volumes

2008-10-07T20:18:00.000-07:00

1. Obama used the phrase "the tragedy of 9/11." But 9/11 wasn't a "tragedy." It was an unprovoked act of mass murder of 3000 innocent civilians carried out by Islamic terrorists.

2. When asked directly if he would commit US troops to support Israel in the event of an Iranian attack, Obama refused to answer, but said the key point was to start changing Iran's "cost-benefit analysis" so that Iran could "rejoin the community of nations." Not only was Obama's non-answer an unmistakable signal to Israel that it'll be on its own, but it also betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of what motivates Iran and its radical Islamic leaders. Ahmadinejad is not a rational actor who engages in cost-benefit analysis, but a Holocaust-denying madman whose main goal is to nuke Israel and do whatever it takes to bring about the return of the Mahdi.

3. Finally, in referring to Pakistan/Afghanistan, Obama said that "the war against terrorism began in that region and that's where it will end." Obama doesn't appear to grasp that we are not up against a small band of fighters confined to a single country or region, but rather a global enemy tied together by a single unifying ideology. Despite what Obama would have you believe, none of the 9/11 hijackers came from Pakistan or Afghanistan; they instead came from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Lebanon. And the essential planning for those attacks occurred not in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but Hamburg, Germany. Similarly, the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 were not Pakistani or Afghani, but instead hailed from Iraq, Kuwait, Egypt and the Palestinian territories. And to go back further still, the main terrorist threat we've faced since 1979 originates in Iran, whose proxy force -- Hezbollah -- has struck all over the world, even in Argentina.

Beyond the unbelievable arrogance in suggesting that he will "end" the war on terror, what strikes me most about Obama is his stunning ignorance of the enemy we face. But hey, he pronounces Pakistan "Pok-ee-stan" so he must know what he's talking about, right?

Barack "Know-Nothing" Obama

2008-10-06T20:15:00.000-07:00

First Obama's racist pastor was exposed. Obama's response: "I might not know him as well as I thought."

Then Obama's buddy, Tony Rezko, went to jail. Obama's response: "This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew."

And now Obama's friend, William Ayers, is being scrutinized. The response from Obama's camp? Obama "didn't know the history."

Folks, Obama is either lying through his teeth or he is the stupidest man on the planet. Either possibility should disqualify him from the presidency.

AP: Obama Is "Certainly Friendly" With Ayers, But To Claim They "Pal Around" Is Racist

2008-10-06T19:09:00.001-07:00

The AP writes:

In February, Obama strategist David Axelrod told the Politico Web site: "Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school. They're certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together." But while Ayers and Obama are acquainted, the charge that they "pal around" is a stretch of any reading of the public record.

Are they friendly?
Certainly.

Do they pal around?
Certainly not.

Anyone who disagrees is a racist. And this concludes today's lesson.

NY Times On Obama-Ayers Relationship: "Obama Lied, But Nothing To See Here, Move Along"

2008-10-04T11:34:00.000-07:00

The NY Times has finally gotten around to covering the Obama-Ayers relationship:

Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths

By SCOTT SHANE
Published: October 3, 2008

CHICAGO — At a tumultuous meeting of anti-Vietnam War militants at the Chicago Coliseum in 1969, Bill Ayers helped found the radical Weathermen, launching a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and United States Capitol. Twenty-six years later, at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper, Barack Obama met Mr. Ayers, by then an education professor. Their paths have crossed sporadically since then, at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama’s first run for office, on the schools project and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors.

Notice how the Times attempts to frame the Obama-Ayers relationship as "paths crossing sporadically." Never mind that Obama consciously chose to launch his political career in Obama's home. It's just "paths crossing sporadically" -- nothing to get worked up about. The article continues:

More recently, conservative critics who accuse Mr. Obama of a stealth radical agenda have asserted that he has misleadingly minimized his relationship with Mr. Ayers, whom the candidate has dismissed as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” and “somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know.”

So it's just "conservative critics" who could even possibly see a problem with Obama's relationship with a committed Marxist who bombed the Pentagon and wishes he had done more? But then it gets better. The Times admits that those "conservative critics" are actually right:

A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63.

So there you have it. According to the Times, Obama has in fact deliberately misled about the nature of his relationship with Ayers. But stop reading there, folks -- the rest of article is pure spin. The relationship has been "greatly exaggerated" and anyone who says otherwise is simply attempting to "smear" Obama. Oh, and Ayers is a great guy now, he's a well-respected professor who "has done a lot of good" for the country. In short, Ayers is a true patriot.

Of course, the Times declines to tell its readers that Ayers is still a committed Marxist who as recently as November 2006 visited Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to celebrate socialism and urge Venezuelans "to continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane."

UPDATE: Sarahcuda slams Obama for Ayers connection during talk in Colorado:

"There's been a lot of interest in what I read lately. Well, I was reading my copy of today’s New York Times and I was really interested to read about Barack’s friends from Chicago. Turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man who, according to The New York Times was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol.’ These are the same guys who think patriotism is paying higher taxes. This is not a man who sees America as you and I do - as the greatest force for good in the world. This is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country. This, ladies and gentlemen, has nothing to do with the kind of change anyone can believe in - not my kids and not your kids. The only man who can take on Washington is John McCain."

It Was Third and Long For The Republicans

2008-10-02T21:25:00.001-07:00

And the Democrats nearly had the White House in their grasp.

But then something amazing happened. Fighting for dear life, the Republicans somehow managed to elude the Democrats' death grip.

. . . And launch one down field. . .

Got it! What a catch! Palin pulls a David Tyree!

* * *
It's a whole new ballgame, folks.

Biden Telling Tales Again

2008-10-01T21:17:00.000-07:00

Joe Biden, aka the gift that keeps on giving, is at it again. Here's the latest tall tale from Biden:

Fact check: Biden spins a helicopter tale

WASHINGTON (AP) - When Joe Biden tells voters he understands the threat posed by Afghan extremists, he dramatically illustrates one reason why: His helicopter was "forced down" on "the superhighway of terror." Actually, snow, not the enemy, persuaded the helicopter pilot to land and wait out a storm.

The Democratic vice presidential candidate has repeatedly left that part out, in an episode that Republicans hope will become an echo of Hillary Rodham Clinton's errant tale during the primaries of landing in Bosnia under sniper fire.

Ah, Joe Biden. He's full of crap and entirely unqualified to be vice president. Now, there's a winning combination.

Meanwhile, since we're on the subject of veeps and heading into tomorrow night's debate, it seems appropriate to revisit this post where I suggested Palin merely needs to beat the points spread to "win" the debate. But given Palin's rather uninspiring recent performances with Couric and elsewhere, I'd say she's now a solid two-touchdown underdog. How will she do? I predict she covers the spread, but that may no longer be enough. Indeed, with the recent Obama surge, we may need a flat-out win from Palin to get back into this thing.

Will it happen? Ya never know -- the Giants were nearly two touchdown underdogs heading into the Superbowl against the Pats. I'll certainly be watching to see if Palin can pull a Tyree.

Who Are The Real "Racists"?

2008-09-30T18:39:00.000-07:00

I've previously commented on the media's pet theory that racism explains much of McCain's support. And whereas McCain's supporters are "racists," it is apparently in Obama's DNA to bring people together because of his biracial background. Or so the media would have us believe.

But let's cut through the nonsense and look at the evidence. Which presidential ticket is actually more racist? First, let's take the Democrats. As we all know, Obama was a member of a racist church for 20 years, and during that time, the racist Reverend Wright married him, baptized his children, and served as his mentor. Obama's ridiculous suggestion that he "never heard" Wright's racist sermons is belied not only by the fact that the core theology of Obama's church is black liberation theology, but also by Obama's acknowledgement in Dreams From My Father that the very first Wright sermon he heard -- the one that first attracted him to Wright -- contained the following gem: "White folks' greed runs a world in need." Additional evidence of Obama's anti-white views is found in another Dreams From My Father passage, where Obama speaks glowingly about Malcolm X:

Only Malcolm X's autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me ... [A]s I imagine myself following Malcolm's call, one line in the book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged.

Finally, Obama's marriage to Michelle Obama -- who complained bitterly in her Princeton thesis of "further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant" -- is further evidence of the racist views that Obama and his wife harbor.

And Joe Biden's no bargain, either. Biden famously called Obama the "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean" and has also said "you cannot go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent."

Now let's look briefly at the Republicans. John McCain adopted a daughter from Bangladesh, and Sarah Palin married a man of Eskimo descent. In other words, both members of the Republican ticket have chosen to share their lives with someone of a different racial background.

Folks, whether racism resides in one's heart is determined not by DNA, but by one's conscious actions, decisions and life choices. McCain and Palin pass that test with flying colors, while Obama and Biden fail miserably. But you'd never know it listening to the mainstream media.

Newspapers Purging Evidence of Obama's Marxist Roots?

2008-09-29T20:43:00.000-07:00

I covered Obama's hidden Marxist past before. That entry -- which explored the communist sympathies of Obama's mother -- relied on a Chicago Tribune article entitled Barack Obama: Mother not just a girl from Kansas. As noted in the Chicago Tribune article:

1. Obama's mother attended a radical, communist-leaning church known as "the little red church on the hill."

2. Obama's mother attended a radical, communist-leaning high school where she was taught the Communist Manifesto and which had a communist school board chairman and which had several communist teachers on staff.

3. Obama's mother was called a "fellow traveler" by her friends, which is code for communist sympathizer.

Now here's where things get weird. If you go to the Chicago Tribune webpage that formerly housed the aforementioned article, you get the following error message:

We are sorry, but we are currently experiencing technical difficulties. Please try back later. Thank you for visiting chicagotribune.com.

But the rest of the Chicago Tribune website works fine. Think I'm paranoid? Well, here's where it gets even weirder. The Chicago Tribune is owned by the Tribune Company, which owns several other papers -- including the Baltimore Sun and Los Angeles Times -- and it appears that those papers also ran the same article on Obama's mother. So what happens when you go to the Baltimore Sun webpage where the article used to be located? You guessed it:

We are sorry, but we are currently experiencing technical difficulties. Please try back later. Thank you for visiting baltimoresun.com.

How about when you go to the LA Times webpage where the article used to be located:

Sorry, the page you requested could not be found. ... Thank you for visiting latimes.com.

Now, I'm not one for conspiracy theories, and it is entirely possible that there is a reasonable explanation for this. But I find this whole thing very suspicious. What do you think?

Behead Those Who Insult Obama

2008-09-28T21:34:00.000-07:00

I have not yet blogged about Obama's outrageous threats to use Missouri law to criminally prosecute entities engaging in speech that is displeasing to The One. If you have not seen this, you owe it to yourself to watch this link from a Missouri tv station. Fortunately, the Governor of Missouri is fighting back, and has issued a statement calling Obama's actions "scandalous beyond words." But this is not the first time Obama has resorted to Gestapo tactics in an effort to silence his critics, and it is alarming to contemplate the assault on the First Amendment that awaits under an Obama presidency. One can just imagine a string of "hate speech" laws -- "hate speech," of course, being defined as speech that is harmful to the interests of Obama and his "progressive" friends.

Obama's assault on free speech reminds me of how Islam deals with speech it does not like: "Behead Those Who Insult The Prophet." The latest incident in Islam's ongoing war against free speech occurred this weekend in London, as the publisher of a new book about Mohammed had his house fire bombed by Muslim extremists.

Islam's assault on free speech in the West is disturbing enough. The last thing we need is fascism from our own elected leaders.

10/1/08 Update: Andy McCarthy from the National Review hits on the same themes:

In London last week, a frightful warning was sounded about encroaching tyranny. At an important conference, speaker after impassioned speaker warned of the peril to Western values posed by freedom-devouring sharia — the Islamic legal code. Like all tyrannies, sharia’s first target is speech: Suppress all examination of Muslim radicalism by threats of prosecution and libel actions, and smugly call it “the rule of law.”But we may already be further gone than the London conferees feared. And without resort to the Islamicization that so startled them. For that, we can thank the campaign of Barack Obama.

"Look, I'm very proud of my vice presidential selection, Joe Biden"

2008-09-27T23:08:00.000-07:00

When challenged during Friday's debate on his foreign policy experience, Obama responded: "Look, I'm very proud of my vice presidential selection, Joe Biden." In another words, "I don't know jack, but Biden will handle foreign policy."

I'm surprised this comment has not drawn more attention, not only because it was an admission by Obama that he's unqualified for office, but also because of the terrifying prospect of Joe Biden actually running U.S. foreign policy. To start with, Biden is dumb as rocks (he ranked 506 out of a class of 688 at the University of Delaware, and 76th out of 85 at Syracuse Law), and his problems with plagiarism and honesty are legendary. But one can just imagine Obama intoning: "Look, Joe may not be book smart and he's made mistakes in the past, but on foreign policy, he's my guy."

The problem is that Biden has been wrong on every major foreign policy issue of this generation. In particular, Biden (i) opposed Reagan on defense spending, which is generally credited with helping to win the Cold War; (ii) opposed the 1991 Persian Gulf war, which would have left Saddam in charge of Kuwait (and possibly Saudi Arabia); (iii) supported the 2003 Iraq war, which Biden now says was a mistake; (iv) called for a partition of Iraq into 3 largely-autonomous states, which now looks pretty foolish; and (v) opposed the surge, which -- had Biden gotten his way -- would have ensured defeat in Iraq.

But perhaps the most striking example of Biden's poor instincts on foreign policy was his reaction to 9/11. This New Republic article from 2001 recounts the disturbing story of what Biden told his staffers a mere three weeks after the 9/11 attacks:

At the Tuesday-morning meeting with committee staffers, Biden launches into a stream-of-consciousness monologue about what his committee should be doing, before he finally admits the obvious: "I'm groping here." Then he hits on an idea: America needs to show the Arab world that we're not bent on its destruction. "Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran," Biden declares.

Where to begin? Biden -- the foreign policy "expert" -- apparently thinks Iranians are Arabs, not realizing that Iranians and Arabs have been arch-rivals since the beginning of time. But worse still, Biden's comment evidences a "touchy-feely" mentality that says, when your enemy punches you in the gut, the best response is to give them money so that they know you still care.

Can you imagine if FDR had suggested that we respond to Pearl Harbor by cutting a check to Imperial Japan? Lord help us if Obama and Biden are elected.

Obama and Biden: The Odd Couple

2008-09-27T16:52:00.000-07:00

I get the feeling Obama and Biden need to make more time for each other. Maybe if they did, they'd be able to work through some of their "issues." Here's a wrap-up of the Dem Dynamic Duo:

(1) Obama says McCain doesn't have the judgment to be president because he voted for the Iraq war. Well so did Biden. That means Obama thinks Biden doesn't have the judgment to be president.

(2) Of course, Biden doesn't think too highly of Obama, either. He's publicly stated Obama isn't ready to be president. So neither thinks the other should be president.

(3) Plus, Biden's got self-esteem issues. He apparently thinks Hillary would've been a better VP choice. I wonder why Biden didn't share that with Obama before he was selected.

(4) And what's the deal with clean coal? In his acceptance speech, Obama said that as president, he would invest in clean coal technology. But last week Biden flatly declared, "No coal plants here in America." So what's a voter to believe?

(5) Have Biden and Obama discussed their campaign ads? It didn't seem that way last week when Biden called anti-McCain ads "terrible" because they criticized McCain for not being able to use a computer. Biden later recanted, saying he had merely reacted to press reports on an ad he had never seen. Yikes.

So there you have it. Neither Obama nor Biden thinks the other is ready to be president, and Biden's got self-esteem issues. With all these problems, it's no wonder these two jokers can't agree on coal or whether it's ok to make fun of McCain's torture-induced typing problems. Heck, these guys don't even like each other. If there's such a thing as a dysfunctional political family, this is it.

Obama: "I've Got a Bracelet Too!"

2008-09-26T21:41:00.001-07:00

After a mediocre first half hour, I thought McCain really started to outclass Obama. McCain came across as a savvy, well-tested leader. This guy is an adult. He knows what he's talking about. That was the impression I got. Not so for Obama. He almost seemed like a child in awe of McCain. Whatever McCain said, Obama would instantly agree. "John is absolutely right." "I agree with John." You can see what I mean in this new McCain ad on YouTube.

But the silliest moment was Obama's "I've got a bracelet too" remark. McCain had just gotten through explaining how the bracelet he wears every day was given to him by a fallen soldier's mother and serves as a constant reminder of the commitment he made to not let her son's death be in vain. Obama's rejoinder? "I've got a bracelet too!" How lame. It reminded me of a little kid jealous that his big bro is getting all of mommy's attention. "I've got a bracelet too, mommy! Look at me! Look at me!"

Silly as that was, the most telling moment for Obama may actually have been precipitated by a McCain gaffe. It began when McCain criticized Obama for failing to support Senator Kyl's resolution to declare Iran's "Republican Guard" a terrorist organization. Now, it's not a major gaffe, but the "Republican Guard" was in Iraq; the group to which McCain referred is called the "Revolutionary Guard." But Obama -- ever unsure of himself -- then repeated the mistake and also made reference to the "Republican Guard in Iran."

You got the feeling Obama was thinking to himself, "Republican Guard? Well, if John said it, it must be right."

Ahmadinejad Endorses Obama

2008-09-26T08:32:00.000-07:00

In a stunning development, Ahmadinejad endorsed Obama this week. As the Boston Globe reported on Wednesday:

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad weighed in on the US presidential election today, noting that only one of the candidates supports restoring diplomatic contact with Iran. In response to a question from an American student about whether he supports Democratic nominee Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, Ahmadinejad did not explicitly name Obama but said: “The American government 28 years ago decided on its own to cut its ties with Iran . . .We do prefer to have relations, whereas one of the candidates in this election would prefer that.”

Are you kidding me? Obama has now been endorsed by Ahmadinejad, Hamas and Farrakhan. Obviously, Obama cannot control who endorses him. Nevertheless, the fact that the world's most prominent Jew haters prefer Obama is certainly indicative of whether Obama will be "good for the Jews."

How can this willful blindness of American Jews be explained? I know there is a long history of Jewish identification with the Democratic Party, but that argument proves too much. After all, Reagan received nearly 40% of the Jewish vote in 1980. Fast forward to 2008 and McCain -- an extremely pro-Israel candidate -- cannot dream of getting 40% of the Jewish vote. Incredibly, Jews support Obama, the candidate who favors unconditional negotiations with Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust-denier who has openly stated his intention to "wipe Israel off the map." And don't even get me started on Obama's mentor, Reverend Wright.

In all seriousness, what's going on here?

Yet Another Ahmadinejad Protest

2008-09-25T18:45:00.000-07:00

Ahmadinejad was inside the Grand Hyatt Hotel in NYC, where he was the guest of honor at a dinner organized by various religious leaders. Read that line again and let it sink in. Notably, the Grand Hyatt is owned by Penny Pritzker, national finance chair of Obama's campaign.

Meanwhile, a crowd of protesters gathered outside.

The crowd was fired up for the protest. American and Israeli flags were everywhere.

It's difficult to see, but the sign in the background says, "Pictures of Iran under shariah." It depicts two Iranian homosexuals being hanged.

Best sign of the night. The crowd was very pro-McCain and anti-Obama. In fact, one of the speakers said he was speaking on behalf of Palin.

I liked this sign, too.

Read this one carefully: Muslims, Christians and Jews against Ahmadinejad .... and Obama!

Right on.

Jews for Ahmadinejad! Yeah, the neturei karta cult was there to support their main man Ahmadinejad and bash Israel. They were chanting, "Israel is a terrorist state."

Jihad is death? Gee, I thought it meant peaceful internal struggle to become a better person.

j

No nukes for the Nazi of Tehran.

Some Hindu folks were in attendance, too. Hindus have arguably been victimized by Islamic aggression more than any other group. Glad to see this nice gentleman get the message out.

Obama's Hidden Marxist Roots

2008-09-24T21:20:00.000-07:00

I've previously covered Obama's hidden Marxist past in this blog. Commentary has an excellent new piece out, Obama's Leftism, with some interesting new details. For example, here is an interesting nugget on Frank Marshall Davis, Obama's high school mentor:

Late in his high-school career he found a mentor of sorts in Frank Marshall Davis, an older black poet. According to Herbert Romerstein, former minority chief investigator of the House Committee on Internal Security, FBI files reveal Davis to have been a member of the Communist party not only in its public phase but also when it officially dissolved and went underground in the 1950’s. According to Obama, Davis told him that a white person “can’t know” a black person, and that the “real price of admission” to college was “leaving your race at the door.”

Another black supremacist with Marxist views -- sounds like someone else we know, doesn't it? And then there's Alice Palmer, whom I entirely overlooked. Commentary notes:

Obama’s target was a legislative seat held by Alice Palmer, who had decided to make a run for the U.S. Congress. She introduced Obama in Democratic-party circles as her anointed successor. (After a later falling-out, the two would dispute whether her support had amounted to a formal endorsement or merely, as she claimed, “an informal nod.”) Like others among his mentors or patrons, Palmer, too, was a radical, a member of the executive body of the U.S. Peace Council, the least disguised of Soviet front organizations. She had made multiple pilgrimages to the Soviet Union, and in 1986 attended the 27th Congress of the Soviet Communist party, telling the party paper on her return that the Soviets “plan to provide people with higher wages and better education, health and transportation, while we in our country are hearing that cutbacks are necessary in all of these areas.” According to a later story in the same paper, Palmer visited Moscow again the following year to attend the World Congress of Women sponsored by another Soviet front organization.

I'll say it again: if the American public truly understood Obama's hard-core Marxist roots, the man would not stand a chance. Indeed, with Russia invading its former republics and threatening to nuke Poland, and Chavez and friends working towards Marxist revolution throughout Latin America, it is terrifying to think that we may be on the verge of installing in the White House a guy who, as Commentary notes, "comes to us from a background farther to the Left than any presidential nominee since George McGovern, or perhaps ever."

We live in interesting times.

Another Reason Why Latinos Should Vote Republican

2008-09-24T06:08:00.000-07:00

Well, at least if you're a Latino who supports democracies, that is. Yesterday here in New York, VP candidate Sarah Palin met with President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia. Thank you Governor Palin. Thank you for taking the time to sit down with Colombia's president and showing the respect to listen to the democratically elected leader of one of our most important allies. And thank you President Bush for greeting Colombia's president warmly on Saturday and having your Commerce Secretary do the same.

I can't thank any Democrats for doing the same, though. Even though Uribe's concerns are not partisan ones, but ones that will benefit both countries. Investor's Business Daily reported yesterday on this shocking refusal of leading Democrats to give Uribe the time of day.

First up, Pelosi. She jettisoned the free trade deal that would have allowed American goods to be sold in Colombia without tariffs. This would have resulted in greater demand for our products abroad. According to IBD, Pelosi "refused to meet Uribe and didn't acknowledge a White House invitation to an event in his honor. Later, her staff regally complained that Uribe didn't call her." Second, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Despite his penchant for trips to "luxury locales in South America, [he] had no time to repay the hospitality to Uribe." Nice. Third, so-called Latin experts, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. If they were truly experts, they'd know that when a head of state comes calling and that head of state is a friend to America, the least they can do is offer him a cafecito, preferably Colombian.

And then there's "citizen of the world" Obama. According to IBD,

[He] only grudgingly permitted Uribe to talk with him by telephone, afterward disclosing no news about why he still opposes cutting tariffs on American goods to Colombia as the free trade pact provides. Nor did he make any public statements, seemingly to make the call go unnoticed.

As a Latina who supports the Republican ticket, I am proud of the Republican leadership and their treatment of our democratic ally, Colombia, which is doggedly struggling to beat back Chavez-inspired socialism throughout the continent. I can now say I have something else in common with Daddy Yankee, besides our native tongues.

The "Saddam Had Nothing to Do with Bin Laden" Canard

2008-09-23T14:46:00.000-07:00

Now that the surge is succeeding beyond Obama's "wildest dreams" (er, nightmares?), the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media have predictably turned down the temperature on the Iraq war debate. But as we move closer to election day, we should fully expect that Obama will reiterate his central argument for why he -- and not McCain -- has the judgment for the job, i.e., Obama's opposition to the Iraq war. Put aside for the moment that Biden -- who was selected to sure up Obama's foreign policy credentials -- vigorously supported the Iraq war. Also put aside that Obama's "courageous" opposition to the war was actually a matter of political expediency, as the New Republic has reported.

Let's address the matter head on. The Democrats' essential argument on Iraq is that Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with Bin Laden. But what this argument overlooks is that Saddam offered Bin Laden safe haven in Iraq in late 1998 and/or 1999 -- the very timeframe during which 9/11 attacks were being planned. In fact, that was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission Report, although it was all but ignored by the mainstream media. Here is the relevant excerpt from the 9/11 Report:

In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December. Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.

So the next time you hear a "progressive" squawk that there was "no relationship" between Bin Laden and Saddam, make sure you hit 'em with the facts.

Nannies on the Bread Line

2008-09-23T10:56:00.000-07:00

Even though New York's Governor has been praised for his stewardship amidst the recent Wall Street meltdowns, he's probably wishing his leadership were needed somewhere else right now. (Like making speeches where he praises those who pass up Wall Street jobs for more virtuous ones like community organizing.)

Despite the routine vilification of the men and women who make the big banks run, we should all see a booming Wall Street as a sign of economic good health and prosperity. That means more jobs for those not working on Wall Street and more money for charities and public institutions. When Wall Street's ailing, so are service sector jobs and non-profits. For each financial industry job, two to three positions in other sectors, from legal to leisure, are created.

This morning I was reminded of all this while chatting with a neighbor's nanny who told me there were suddenly lots of nannies out there without jobs. Apparently, with the pink slip comes the realization that you no longer "need" all those nice extras -- like nannies and personal trainers. Though some may rejoice in such a comeuppance, the reality is that for every person who loses his job, there are two or three more who also lose theirs.

Biden Was Against the Attack Ad Before He Was For It

2008-09-22T21:32:00.000-07:00

The human gaffe machine is at it again. For the record, Biden now officially supports the very attack ad he previously called "terrible." Yeah, I am talking about the ad that criticized McCain for not being proficient at typing on a computer because he took torture in Vietnam for five years. The Trail has the story:

Democratic vice-presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden issued a statement late Tuesday attempting to clarify his comments that an ad the Obama campaign ran earlier this month was "terrible."
Biden, in an interview that aired Tuesday on CBS Evening News, had criticized an ad the Obama campaign released earlier this month that highlighted McCain's inability to use a computer, saying, "I thought that was terrible by the way" and "if I'd have had anything to do with it, we never would have done it."

But Biden now apparently thinks the ad is peachy:

But in the statement issued by the Obama campaign, Biden said he had never seen the ad and only read press reports of it.

"Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that given the disgraceful tenor of Senator McCain's ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize," Biden said in the statement.

Good lord. That doesn't even make sense. Biden is apparently claiming that the act of viewing his own ad somehow made him realize that McCain's ads are "disgraceful." Yeah, that's the ticket. "Now that I've finally seen my own disgraceful ad, I've decided that your ads are ... er... disgraceful." And from that breathtakingly illogical leap, Biden declares that his own crappy ad is fine.

This is Kerry-esque, folks. Biden truly is ... the gift that keeps on giving.

Photos from Ahmadinejad Protest in NYC

2008-09-22T11:48:00.000-07:00

Despite the Palin disinvite controversy, it was great to see so much support for Israel in NYC! Enjoy the photos!

NY Times Own Public Editor Admits Hit Piece on Palin Was Unfair

2008-09-21T20:52:00.000-07:00

You know things are bad at the NY Times when its own Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, is forced to admit that the paper is biased against Republicans. It keeps happening. One notable incident was when the Times ran that ridiculous hit piece about McCain and a lobbyist, which Hoyt ripped to shreds. The latest incident involves a hit piece on Palin -- Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes -- which the Times published on its front page on September 13. Today Hoyt acknowledged that the attack on Palin was unfair:

It began with a sweeping assertion: “Gov. Sarah Palin lives by the maxim that all politics is local, not to mention personal.” Scott Blum of Atlanta said, “To justify stating this conclusion so forcefully in a front-page news article, the body of evidence had better be so compelling that most reasonable people would agree.” But Blum found the article “largely one-sided” and unconvincing. I think it presented a series of unflattering anecdotes, some confusing and incomplete, but never made the connection between style and results necessary to judge a politician who was overwhelmingly re-elected mayor and has an 80 percent approval rating as governor.

So even Hoyt realizes the Times is in the bag for the Democrats. I think the Times should adopt a new logo: "All the news that's fit to print ... if you write for the Daily Kos."

Obama's Academic Record Was Not Stellar; Meanwhile McCain Might Have Highest IQ in Presidential History

2008-09-21T15:52:00.000-07:00

When academic credentials are discussed in the media, what you typically hear is that Obama is brilliant because he was president of the Harvard Law Review, whereas McCain is a dolt because he graduated towards the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy (even though that was because of discipline -- not academic -- issues, caused by McCain's "rebel" personality).

Now imagine a world in which the media is not in the tank for Obama. In such a world, the media might instead focus on the fact that Obama was somehow admitted to Harvard Law even though his academic record at Columbia was not stellar -- Obama graduated from college without any honors. Meanwhile, as Time Magazine once let slip out when McCain was running for president in 1999:

Included in the records is a 1984 IQ test. His score, 133, would rank him among the most intelligent Presidents in history.

In a sane world, you might expect the media to report these facts once in a while. But we don't live in a such world, so what instead passes for "journalism" these days is McCain=Bush=stupid. And oh yeah, Palin's an idiot too!

Thank God for the blogosphere, eh?

AP Blames Obama's Sagging Popularity on Racism

2008-09-21T10:39:00.001-07:00

Check out this gem from the AP (via the NY Post):

RACISM HURTS OBAMA IN POLL

The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the 2004 presidential candidates - about 2.5 points. ... The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain, even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats.

***
Racism is to blame, eh? Funny, I thought Obama's hidden Marxist past and his 20-year membership in a black liberation theology church might have something to do with it. Silly me!

Pictures from Ahmadinejad Protest in NYC

2008-09-20T19:28:00.000-07:00

Here are some pictures from a small anti-Ahmadinejad protest I stumbled upon in NYC in front of the United Nations on Thursday. All of the speakers and attendees seemed to be of Iranian origin. Ahmadinejad's crimes and human rights abuses were detailed and certainly everyone there seemed to hate Ahmadinejad.

But the most interesting aspect of the protest focused on an organization with which I was not previously familiar -- Mujahideen-e-Khalq ("MeK"). From what I gather, MeK is a left-wing, militant Iranian organization that advocates the overthrow of the Iranian government and has been headquartered in Camp Ashraf, Iraq since 1986. Given its goals, MeK was enthusiastically supported by Saddam during his reign. When the U.S. invaded in 2003, we bombed MeK camps because of the alliance with Saddam. But shortly thereafter, the U.S. government reached some sort of an accomodation with MeK.

Since then, MeK has seemingly been caught betwixt and between. The Iraqis hate MeK because it was aligned with Saddam. The Iranians also apparently detest MeK because it is responsible for terrorism in Iran. And the US government has listed MeK as a terrorist organization since 1997. Nevertheless, given our common interest in overthrowing the Iranian regime, some in Washington see MeK as a potential ally, and the MeK camp in Iraq has been under our protection in Iraq since 2003. This 2004 Christian Science Monitor article sums up the situation pretty well.

The recent news is that the US government is preparing to hand over the MeK camp to the Iraqis. The protesters seemed to think that that would be a death sentence for those living inside the camp, presumably because the Iraqis would turn them over to Ahmadinejad.

Whether that is true -- I have no idea. But whatever the case, I think the US government should keep its distance from MeK. After all, it is designated by our government as a terrorist organization, its members are hated by both Iraqis and Iranians alike, and they espouse Marxist revolution. What exactly do we stand to gain here?

Is Charlie Rangel Disabled?

2008-09-20T07:21:00.000-07:00

Charlie Rangel calling Sarah Palin "disabled" was certainly a nasty insult, particularly because Palin just gave birth to a disabled child. Even so, I chuckled when I saw Rangel's comment in the NY Post this morning. It made me think of when we used to mock political correctness by using "challenged" for every so-called shortcoming. For example, if we wore glasses we were "visually challenged." If we were short, we were "vertically challenged" and so on.

Rangel isn't disabled, but he is "ethically challenged." The NY Post recently revealed that Rangel owes Uncle Sam more than $10,000 in back taxes. To make matters worse, he's tried to pin the blame on his wife, suggesting that she was the one who handled their taxes. So maybe Rangel's "tax challenged" too. Now here's the real kicker: Rangel is Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee -- the same Committee that writes our tax laws. So a guy who's not paying his own taxes, and blames his wife for his tax fraud, is in charge of writing our tax laws?

And what a splendid job Rangel has done. Rangel's made our tax laws so complicated that my dear ol' mom -- who's clocking 30Gs a year to survive (extra points for anyone who got the Third Bass reference) -- needs to hire a tax professional to file her taxes. Gotta love Charlie. Another example of our disab -- er, ethically challenged -- Democratic leadership in Washington.

Tancredo Introduces "Jihad Prevention Act"

2008-09-19T20:12:00.000-07:00

Today U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo introduced the "Jihad Prevention Act." The description on Tancredo's website is a bit vague, but this seems to be the gist of it:

Tancredo’s bill, dubbed the “Jihad Prevention Act,” would bar the entry of foreign nationals who advocate Sharia law. In addition, the legislation would make the advocacy of Sharia law by radical Muslims already in the United States a deportable offense.

The first part sounds great. I certainly support barring foreigners who advocate Sharia. It's the second part that has me worried -- banning "advocacy of Sharia law by radical Muslims." What exactly does that mean? Does Tancredo also propose to ban advocacy of Sharia by "moderate" Muslims? How do we distinguish between "radical" Muslims and "moderate" Muslims? And what to do about advocacy of Sharia by sympathetic non-Muslims, e.g., Lynne Stewart? Or does advocating Sharia ipso facto make one a "radical Muslim"?

To be coherent, the legislation must necessarily ban any advocacy of Sharia by anyone. And that scares me. Don't get me wrong; I hate Sharia. I also hate Nazism, Holocaust denial, white supremacism, black supremacism (Reverend Wright), etc. But as deplorable as these things are, the solution is not to stifle free speech, but to encourage it. Indeed, it is free speech -- robust, uninhibited, and non-politically correct -- that is our best defense against Sharia. For if today radical Islamic websites are shut down because of the content of their speech, what is to stop the government censors tomorrow from shutting down sites that criticize Islam? Shall we resign ourselves to a Brave New World where no one can say anything deemed "too radical" one way or the other about Islam?

I say no thanks. Totalitarianism stinks, no matter the nature of the political content sought to be banned.

Of course, this is likely much ado about nothing -- if I understand Tancredo's bill correctly (and perhaps I do not), it would almost certainly violate the First Amendment. But the mere fact that Tancredo would even propose such a bill is troubling.

What do you think?

Hope and Change--In Your Face!

2008-09-19T06:58:00.000-07:00

So much for the politics of hope and change. This is Obama on the campaign trail yesterday serving it up "in your face" style:

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said. Watch the video here.

Can you imagine the media pundits if moose-huntin' Palin had said the same lines?

Confirmation: Obama Did Violate the Logan Act By Meddling in Iraq

2008-09-18T12:40:00.001-07:00

I previously noted that Obama may have violated the Logan Act by trying to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay the withdrawal of US troops until after Bush had left office. In purporting to refute the charge, the Obama camp actually confirmed it by issuing a statement acknowledging that Obama had in fact asked the Iraqi leadership to not "rush through" a withdrawal until Bush left office. Well, now it appears there is additional confirmation of Obama's illegal actions. As Pete Hegseth notes in the National Review:

Taheri’s column comports with second-hand reports I’ve received from those with access to top U.S. decision-makers in Iraq. Rather than use his touch-down trip to Baghdad to fact-find and consult with senior Iraqi and American officials, Sen. Obama made a concerted effort to push his post–Bush administration agenda, undermining — in word and deed — current diplomatic efforts in Iraq.

Obama constantly assures us that he loves his country as much as McCain. Well, McCain took torture for five years for the USA, whereas Obama is attempting to play politics with our national security. You tell me which candidate loves his country more.

Will Palin's "Bush Doctrine" Answer Actually Help the Republicans?

2008-09-18T12:40:00.000-07:00

There has been much discussion about whether Sarah Palin committed a "gaffe" during the ABC interview when she did not seem to immediately understand interviewer's reference to the "Bush doctrine." To be sure, a reasonable argument can be made that Palin committed no such gaffe insofar as the term "Bush doctrine" does not have one set definition. Even so, Palin gave no indication of having any familiarlity with the various meanings of the term, and all in all, did not impress. In short, after her amazing performance during the Republican Convention, Palin has been knocked down a peg.

But might this be a good thing for the Republicans? The next big test for Palin is the debate with Joe Biden. But "success" in a debate is generally determined not by which candidate gives the strongest answers, but by which candidate performs above expectations. In other words, to "win" the debate, Palin must merely "beat the points spread." The Bush-Gore debate from the 2000 campaign was a classic example of this phenonemon. Four years later, Gore was still whining about it.

Since Biden is the elder statesman, he'll definitely be considered the heavy favorite coming into the debate. But the smart money is on Palin and the points.

How Do You Say "Axis of Evil" in Spanish?

2008-09-18T10:19:00.000-07:00

For the record, it's "eje del mal."

We are all now very familiar with the aptly-named triple threat posed by Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. But there's another gathering storm closer to home and the media only feigns interest. Cuba's old news. And Venezuela's rants against colonialism and America have reached the level of parody. But recently Bolivia has stepped up and is trying to play with the big boys.

On September 11th, President Evo Morales declared the US ambassador "persona non grata" after accusing him of aiding and abetting pro-autonomy opposition groups. Chavez's BFF thought it was a good time to kick out America's representative just as anti-Morales Bolivians made it known that they are not too happy about his leftist reforms. (You'd be upset too if the government confiscated your land and gave it those it deemed more worthy.)

Meanwhile, some of Bolivia's indigenous and poor are backing Evo by marching on the American Embassy, burning the American flag, and burning effigies of opposition governors. I wonder how quick they would be to damn America if the US Consulate suddenly started handing out visas. At any rate, America replied in kind and the Bolivian ambassador will no longer be sitting pretty in Turtle Bay. And this week, Evo complained that the US was blackmailing Bolivia by accusing him of not doing enough to fight narcotrafficking. And so it goes.

This growing tension should be viewed in light of four other interesting happenings in Latin America. First, Chavez kicked out the American ambassador in solidarity with his socialist comrade Morales and recalled his own from the US. Second, Russia recently sold two dozen Sukhoi fighter jets to Venezuela and the two countries are planning a joint naval exercise in November. Third, the NY Sun has been reporting that along with Chavez banning the activity of Christian missionaries because they are allegedly American spies, Shiite imams are indoctrinating a growing number of indigenous Venezuelans. "Intelligence sources [say] that newly converted Muslim recruits from Venezuela are receiving military training from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. A Western source recently spoke to the Los Angeles Times of a 'strategic partnership between Iran and Venezuela,' saying Hezbollah is moving 'people and things' into the Americas." And, fourth but undoubtedly not last, the US Treasury Department this past June froze the assets of two Venezuelans after designating them as fundraisers for Hezbollah.

So there you have it -- in one corner, the US and my home country, Colombia, and in the other, Chavez, Castro and Evo. And joining the red team, Iran and Russia. I guess it is a small world after all.

Shocking Poll: Jews Defecting to McCain in Droves

2008-09-17T19:22:00.000-07:00

A shocking new poll shows that Jewish voters in New York prefer McCain over Obama by a margin of 54-32 percent. That is even more remarkable because the last poll showed that New York Jews preferred Obama over McCain by a margin of 55-42 percent. That is a 35-point reversal! More details on the Commentary blog, Contentions.

Is this for real? Are Jews finally waking up to the rather unpleasant scent of anti-Semitism that surrounds Obama? Is Obama's 20-year relationship with the "Zionism is racism" believing, former Nation of Islam member, Rev. Wright, finally catching up to him? Yeah, that's right -- Rev. Wright is former member of the Nation of Islam, as was reported by The New Republic.

To this day, Rev. Wright retains close links with the Nation of Islam. Last year Rev. Wright honored Farrakhan with an award and said Farrakhan "truly epitomized greatness." The Nation of Islam also provides Rev. Wright with bodyguards whenever he appears in public. Bear in mind that the Nation of Islam teaches that whites and Jews are "devils" and were created by a mad scientist named "Yakub."

Or perhaps it was the Hamas endorsement of Obama that finally roused the Jews. The Hamas endorsement makes perfect sense when you consider that Obama was long known in Chicago for his pro-Palestinian views, as Ralph Nader recently acknowledged. To this day, Obama remains friends with Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO spokesman. And if you think this is no big deal, ask yourself why the LA Times recently reported that Palestinians "see a friend in Obama."

So are Jews finally waking up or is this poll merely an outlier? Stay tuned.

Obama's Jewish Lapdog

2008-09-16T19:51:00.000-07:00

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla), Obama's Jewish lapdog, certainly has chutzpah. Today Wexler made a big stink about a Jewish Republican organization calling Jewish voters to test why Obama is having problems gaining support in the Jewish community. The questions that were asked, e.g., "would you still vote for Obama if you knew he was endorsed by Hamas?" -- were "reprehensible" said Wexler. Never mind that Hamas actually did endorse Obama.

In a written statement, Wexler said that "the fact that the Republican Jewish Coalition is targeting Jewish Americans with these disgraceful and deceitful tactics fits in perfectly with the dishonorable campaign that John McCain has chosen to run. Peddling lies and hateful distortions to scare Jewish voters is reprehensible and deeply disrespectful to Jewish Americans."

Deceitful tactics? Hateful distortions? This is coming from the guy who actually insinuated that Sarah Palin was "a Nazi sympathizer." Hmmm.... proudly displaying an Israeli flag in one's office sure seems like an odd way to express "Nazi sympathies."

Wexler sure is a piece of work. Talk about chutzpah.

How Come Bush Isn't Shouting from the Hilltops: The Democrats Caused the Credit Crisis!

2008-09-16T09:33:00.000-07:00

I highly recommend this entry on Hotair.com. It lays it all out for you. President Bush, why aren't you shouting this from the hilltops?

Predictably, the Democrats are attempting to capitalize on the story by vaguely linking notions of "greed," "deregulation" and "Wall Street" to the Republicans. But the true fault here lies with the Democrats. A campaign ad is in tall order!

Can Obama Be Imprisoned for Meddling in Iraq?

2008-09-15T22:11:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the New York Post reported:

While campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

If true, Obama's behavior constitutes a clear violation of U.S. law. In particular, the Logan Act, 18 U.S.C. § 953, provides in relevant part:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Thus, as a technical matter, Obama may be prosecuted -- and potentially imprisoned -- for his violation of U.S. law. As a practical matter, however, any such prosecution by the Bush administration would be seen as politically motivated and would almost certainly backfire. So while I'll be interested to learn more about these allegations, the possibility of Obama being "frogmarched" is essentially zero.

You may be thinking: but if Obama's actions are truly in violation of U.S. law, why shouldn't he be prosecuted? It's a fair question, but given that there have been no prosecutions in the history of this country for violation of the Logan Act, it's hard to imagine that such aggressive action by the Bush administration would fly legally, or more importantly, in the court of public opinion. So while the Republicans would do well to press this issue further, the attack should focus on Obama's judgment and leadership, rather than legal niceties.

What do you think?

Obama and Black Liberation Theology: The Inside Story

2008-09-15T17:49:00.001-07:00

We've all seen the shocking clips of Reverend Wright screaming, "God damn America," "US of KKK," and declaring with seeming delight in his heart -- a mere 5 days after the 9/11 attacks -- that "America's chickens have come home to roost." While Obama unconvincingly attempted to dismiss Wright's rantings as mere out-of-context "snippets," the reality is that such sentiments are entirely consistent with the theology of Obama's church -- that is, black liberation theology.

As Reverend Wright has explained, black liberation theology is based on the teachings of Dr. James Cone. So who is Dr. Cone and what does he espouse? In his most influential work, Black Theology and Black Power, Dr. Cone explained black liberation theology as follows:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community.... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.

Wow. Just Wow.

While it is impossible to determine the extent to which Obama himself subscribes to such views, it's certainly a fair question to ask. After all, if Obama is totally opposed to such radical sentiments, then why did he remain in the church for over 20 years? And why did Obama and his wife donate $22,500 to the church as recently as 2006?

It would be great if the media were interested in investigating these issues, but I am told they are now busy trying to dig up some dirt on the Palin family dog. You heard it here first, folks.

Can a Beauty Queen Save Our Democracy?

2008-09-15T10:47:00.000-07:00

Imagine a world without Hugo Chavez. That's right, imagine Venezuela *not* aligning with Iran, holding joint exercises in the Caribbean with Russia, supporting the Colombian terrorist group FARC, and fomenting revolutions in Bolivia and elsewhere in Latin America.

You know, it didn't have to be this way. In fact, during the 1998 Venezuelan presidential election, it looked for a brief shining moment that Irene Saez, a former beauty queen-turned mayor with a reputation for fighting corruption (sound familiar?), might actually win. As Wikipedia notes:

In the early 1990s Sáez served two terms as the mayor of Chacao, one of the five municipalities that make up Caracas, and gained notoriety by modernizing the municipal administration, raising its efficiency to an unprecedented (and still unsurpassed) level, at par with any modern private enterprise. . . . In 1997, she formed the Integrated Representation of New Hope (IRENE) party as a launching pad for her run in the 1998 elections. For a while, she shocked the Venezuelan political establishment when she led in opinion polls in the race for president and was the most popular politician in the early days of the race. She ran on a platform to end corruption, reducing bureaucracy and refinancing the public debt.

Had the Venezuelan people smiled on Irene Saez and not Chavez, the world would be a much better place today. So I see nothing wrong with mixing beauty and politics. In fact, unlike all the hysterical left-wing pundits out there, I am all for it.

Obama's Hidden Marxist Past

2008-09-14T18:09:00.000-07:00

Why does the media refuse to investigate Obama's Marxist past? Let's look at the evidence:

1. Obama's mother, Stanley Dunham, appears to have been a communist. In this otherwise unremarkable Chicago Tribune article about Obama's mother, it is revealed that Ms. Dunham grew up attending a radical Seattle church known as "the little Red church on the hill" and that her friends referred to her as a "fellow traveler," which is code for communist sympathizer. The same article also notes that the chairman of the school board and several of Ms. Dunham's high school teachers were communists.

2. Obama's father, Barack H. Obama, also appears to have been a Marxist. In fact, the elder Obama penned a scholarly article entitled "Problems Facing Our Socialism" in which he argued in favor of government planning/restribution of resources and lauded an article entitled "Appeals for Confiscation in Economic Development."

3. Then there is the issue of Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, who was an open member of the Communist Party USA. In his autobiography "Dreams From My Father," Obama describes Mr. Davis as "a poet" who was full of "hard-earned knowledge."

4. Next there is Obama's time as a "community organizer" -- a "profession" invented by the Marxist, Saul Alinsky. The Wikipedia entry on Alinsky notes that in his seminal work, "Rules For Radicals," Alinsky explained that "community organizing" was actually the first step towards Marxist revolution:

Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system . . . .

And make no mistake, Obama was a devotee of the Alinsky method, as was recently confirmed by Alinsky's son. Obama also contributed a chapter to a book entitled, "After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois." You can view it here. And Obama also taught workshops on the Alinsky method.

5. Let's not forget Obama's adult mentor for 20 years, Reverend Wright. As Reverend Wright himself has explained, the black liberation theology preached in Obama's church was largely derived from the liberation theology movement in El Salvador and Nicaragua, which was Marxist and aligned with the Sandinista movement.

6. Finally, there are William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, in whose home Obama's political career was launched. Ayers and Dohrn, of course, founded the radical group The Weathermen, whose founding document called for the establishment of a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other "anti-colonial" movements to achieve "the destruction of US imperialism and achieve a classless world: world communism."

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not claiming Obama is a full-blown communist, but if the American people truly understood his background, he wouldn't stand a chance. Too bad the media's in the tank for Obama.

Say... isn't there some more dirt they can dig up about Sarah Palin's children?

October 1 Update: I fixed the link for the Chicago Tribune article. Is something fishy going on here?

McCain-Palin Pulling Away: The Story Behind The Numbers

2008-09-14T14:41:00.000-07:00

By now, those who follow politics closely will have noticed that the McCain-Palin ticket has now surged ahead in the electoral college 227-207 and has established a three-point lead in the Rasmussen presidential tracking poll for the third straight day. Equally telling, McCain has roared back from an 18-point deficit and has now pulled one point ahead when voters are asked whom they think will win. The sense of "inevitability" surrounding The One is fading fast.

But perhaps the most interesting news is that McCain is rated as a "better leader" than Obama by 49%-39% of voters and is preferred 55%-40% on the issue of national security. With the U.S. heading towards confrontation with both Russia and Iran, the "leadership" and "national security" issues will only loom larger in the minds of voters. But even if the Democrats can succeed in keeping the focus on the sputtering economy, the data show that McCain is preferred 49%-45% on that issue as well. By all indication, the Democrats seem to be panicking, most obviously seen in their boneheaded decision to attack McCain for not being proficient at email, even though the reason for that is the injuries he suffered while taking torture in Vietnam.

All in all, this is fantastic news for the McCain-Palin ticket. The swing states are trending in favor of the Republicans, and even former Democratic strongholds like New Jersey seem very much in play.

Is NY's Democratic Governor a Racist?

2008-09-13T08:38:00.000-07:00

I hate to be inflammatory with my post title, but I've had it with the whole, "Barack Obama passed up lucrative jobs on Wall Street and instead became a community organizer" nonsense.

First of all, what's wrong with taking a job on Wall Street? The Democrats simply assume that everyone agrees that working on Wall Street is somehow inherently evil.

But this week David Paterson, the Democratic governor of New York, went a step further and accused the McCain-Palin camp of injecting racism into the campaign by making reference to the Senator's time spent as a community organizer.

"The Republican Party is too smart to call Barack Obama 'black,'" said Paterson, the state's first black governor." But you can take something about his life, which I noticed they did at the Republican convention. A 'community organizer.' They kept saying it, they kept laughing, like what does this mean?"

For Gov. Paterson's sake, I'll remind him that it's Sen. Obama who constantly brings up his experience as a community organizer and that the Republicans are merely responding to that. But beyond that, what Paterson really seems to be saying is that community organizing is a "black" job, and that working on Wall Street is a "white" job. So tell me: who is the racist here?

McCain-Palin to Win New Jersey?

2008-09-12T21:01:00.001-07:00

New Jersey has been plagued by corrupt Democrats, particularly as of late. Between Gov. Jim "I am a gay American" McGreevey resigning after it was revealed that he had been carrying on an affair with another man (whom he had conveniently hired to serve as homeland security advisor even though he was not even a U.S. citizen), or the current Corzine-Katz scandal, or the fraud conviction of the former mayor of Newark, New Jersey Democrats have had a rough go of it. So McCain and Palin -- with their proven track record of reform -- might start looking pretty good to the fine people of New Jersey.

Republicans have not carried New Jersey in a presidential election since 1988, but might this be their year? A new Marist College poll shows that McCain has cut Obama's lead to 48-45 among likely voters. Stay tuned, this could get very interesting.

What's Wrong With Calling Yourself a "Hockey Mom"?

2008-09-12T11:25:00.000-07:00

Remember the hockey mom/pit bull joke? John McWhorter, a regular in the NY Sun, doesn't get it. His piece yesterday in the Sun tries to understand why Gov. Sarah Palin has to refer to herself as a "hockey mom." He doesn't get why the governor of a state needs to describe herself in terms that remind him of "gym shoes and bag lunches."

Mr. McWhorter, have you ever noticed how we like to bunch people up and refer to them as a group? Have you heard of focus groups? Have you noticed how the media likes to refer to baby boomers or soccer moms (and now hockey moms)? It's human nature. These group monikers are used by the media, Madison Avenue, and R&D departments. And of course, we use them to refer to people and relate to others.

So what's the big deal if Sarah Palin likes to refer to herself as a hockey mom? She spent a few years doing the things many hockey and soccer moms find themselves doing and if it means that more than a few people will relate to her on that level, then all the better. The fact that she's also a sitting governor won't be missed by most hockey and soccer moms; they'll just relate to her experiences as a mom better than those of being a governor. It's just a way to connect to people. That's why it's much more effective than calling yourself a "community organizer" but that's another post...

Mr. McWhorter, the hockey mom/pit bull joke was just that--a joke! As in "HaHa." If you worry too much that women have not come far enough because they commonly refer to their domestic duties, then save your pen for something else. Gov. Palin, like millions of other working moms, manages to accomplish such a diverse list of things that she could call herself many things -- wife, mom, hunter, coach, chauffeur, executive, public official, and now spokesperson and role model. Hockey mom is just one aspect of her life. Mr. McWhorter, lighten up!

Joe Biden: the gift that keeps on giving

2008-09-11T16:18:00.000-07:00

Biden has had some interesting things to say about the Democratic ticket. Let's review:

1. Yesterday, Biden said Hillary would have been a better v.p. pick.

2. Biden has also said Obama is "not ready" to be president.

3. And Biden famously called Obama the "first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean."

Hmm.... So by Biden's own reckoning, the Democrats are running a "clean" black guy who is not ready to be president and proved it by selecting Biden, who himself is less qualified than Hillary. What a ticket!

And, if you have never seen this truly classic clip from Biden's 1988 presidential campaign, you must do so at once! In it, Biden tells a stunned reporter that he has a "much higher IQ" than him, and then fabricates a bunch of academic credentials in support of his boast. Too bad they were all lies.

Yes, Biden really is the gift that keeps on giving.

"Intelligent" Women Doing Stupid Things

2008-09-10T17:58:00.000-07:00

I am flabbergasted at the latest group sweeping Facebook, Intelligent Women Against Sarah Palin. The group, which has more than 11,000 members, describes itself as follows:

This is a group for all the women (and men) whom John McCain thought he could sway just because he picked a woman for VP.
Palin is against women's rights and is by far the least feminist candidate McCain could have picked. She has no foreign policy experience and has been proven to be a corrupt governor.
Palin has nothing to offer this country; especially this country's women.

Since I consider myself an intelligent woman, I'll take them on.

First, these "intelligent" members take issue with Gov. Palin's lack of foreign policy experience. Did Gov. of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, have any foreign policy experience before being elected President? Does their presumptive choice Sen. Obama have any? Not if you don't count his Greatest Hits Tour of Europe.

Second, they allege that she's proven to be a corrupt governor, though they fail to cite any evidence for such an accusation. She has unprecendented approval ratings which shows Alaskans are pretty happy with their lady governor. (Some say it's as high as 90s.) She put the jet her predecessor used on eBay, drives herself to work, and has the reputation of being a reformer for having blown the whistle on officials in her own party. She first blew the whistle on an oil and gas commissioner who later paid thousands in fines for an ethics violation. She then filed an ethics complaint against the attorney general who was also close to the Republican governor. Gov. Palin was again vindicated when the official later resigned. Corrupt is the last thing that comes to mind.

Third, Gov. Palin's speech at the convention gave us a hint of what she can offer this country. A mother of five, one with special needs, she governs a state that has enormous amounts of oil and other resources. Her independent, roll-up-your-sleeves, get-the-job-done attitude is just the kind of public official we need in D.C.

And finally, the issue of Gov. Palin's pro-life stance does not negate her feminist credentials. These are not mutually exclusive. The issues of when life begins, protecting the unborn, and a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy do not define a feminist. One's belief in a woman's equal rights does. I consider myself a feminist and I am pro-life. And I see Gov. Palin, a governor and VP nominee at the age of 44, as a quintessential feminist.

Isn't "having it all" what feminism was supposed to be all about?

Obama's Education Report Card: D-

2008-09-10T11:45:00.000-07:00

I would have imagined the Change Candidate would've embraced change AND choice (with capital C's) when it comes to education. The problem of poor performing and dangerous public schools is one that afflicts those families that don't have much of a choice. These families don't have the means to just move to a better performing school district. This would mean higher housing costs. Nor can they just send their kids to pricey private schools. They are left with one choice--continuing to send their kids to the local public school, regardless of how poor the school teaches their children, the caliber of teachers, and how safe or unsafe an environment it is.

Since when is having one choice a good idea for anything?

And unfortunately for students of families with no choice but a bad school, the Change Candidate is offering little relief or options. Today's NY Sun has an editorial discussing Obama's plan versus McCain's and it's worth a read. Obama only yesterday promised to double the federal dollars that go to charter schools. That would mean doubling the amount to $400 million a year or six one-thousandths of the federal education department's budget. The Sun editors do the math for us and it works out to 6 cents going to charter schools of every $10 the government spends on education! Six cents!

So much for Obama's promise of a world-class education. McCain's acceptance speech at the GOP convention called education the "civil rights issue of our day" and he promised to open up the options for families if elected. This would mean that families would get to pick where their education dollars go by choosing the best school for their children. With an increase in options, public schools would have to get better in order to stay afloat. Now that's change I can believe in!

When you consider that numerous studies give charter schools credit for bridging the achievement gap between black and white students and improving scores for black students, then why isn't the Change Candidate jumping all over this bandwagon instead of chucking pennies at it? My educated guess is that though he would love everyone to be able to send their kids to the school of their choice just as he sends his daughters to a nice private school, that would mean losing the support of the entrenched unions that run the public education system in this country and he can't afford that.

You can put lipstick on a pig but... Well, you get it.

Obama to Recycle Failed "War on Poverty" Programs

2008-09-08T20:50:00.000-07:00

A glance at Obama's website reveals that he is committed to launching another "War on Poverty." Aren't you excited? In particular, here are a few of the programs Obama is proposing:

Increase the Supply of Affordable Housing

Supports Affordable Housing Trust Fund: Obama has supported efforts to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund to develop affordable housing in mixed-income neighborhoods.
Fully Fund the Community Development Block Grant: Obama will fully fund the Community Development Block Grant program and engage with urban leaders across the country to increase resources to the highest-need Americans.

And other articles on the Obama website promise more of the same:

Then he outlined the details of how an Obama administration would fight its own war on poverty. If elected president, Obama said, he would sign legislation raising the minimum wage; fund programs that support poor families with children; fund not only job-training programs but programs that help workers get promotions; give incentives to bring businesses back to the inner cities; and make affordable housing more accessible in "mixed-income neighborhoods."

Hmmm.... so this is the "change" Obama has been promising? If "change" means pumping trillions of dollars into inner-city ghettos to reinstitute the very programs that have undermined values, discouraged work, subsidized illegitimacy, and resulted in a seemingly permanent underclass, I think that is "change" we can do without.

Memo to Dems: Women ALREADY Have Equal Pay

2008-09-08T12:31:00.000-07:00

Throughout this campaign, I have repeatedly heard the Democrats say that the Republicans are against "equal pay for equal work." Could that be right? Just yesterday, Hillary Clinton was quoted in the NY Post commenting on the GOP's convention speeches, "I heard nothing that suggests the Republicans . . . will guarantee equal pay for equal work for women."

But the Democrats are full of hot air. After all, female lawyers entering their first year of practice at a law firm get the same salary as their male counterparts. The same is true of the other "white collar" professions. And if Jane Doe walks into McDonald's and lands a job, she'll be paid the same as John Doe in the same circumstances. So what are the Democrats chirping about?

Last week, economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth set the record straight in a New York Sun article. In it, Ms. Furchtgott-Roth reminded us that women have had a legal guarantee of equal pay for equal work since the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and have the right under that Act to sue employers.

Now if someone could just break the news to Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton. It's disheartening, to say the least, that politicians with legal trainings are attempting to pull the wool over our eyes with this deliberate falsehood.

NARAL's Seeing Things

2008-09-06T12:15:00.000-07:00

There's something about the notion of "choice" that gives me that nice feeling. Maybe "change" does the same for others... but I digress. NARAL, the abortion rights group, which talks a lot about choice and how conservative politicians are anti-choice, is taking a stand against the hypocrisy and irony of Sarah Palin's actions as governor. Gov. Palin, who is an advocate for protecting life from the moment of conception and thus pro-life (but anti-choice for those keeping track) is apparently an example of hypocrisy because she used her line-item veto power to slash funding intended for an organization that supports teenage moms. If you still don't see the hypocrisy, don't bother re-reading this paragraph. I read the NY chapter of NARAL's statement a few times until I realized the only hypocrisy I saw was the one NARAL used to issue such a statement.

NARAL takes Gov. Palin to task for being hypocritical because she cut the expenditure of public funds going to a program meant for young mothers. That means she refused to let some of Alaskans' tax dollars go towards a program that is doing what families should be doing--and that is helping and supporting each other out. But the only hypocrisy I see is that Gov. Palin let any public monies go to such a program. After all, Gov. Palin is a Republican and that means she's a fiscal conservative who believes government and tax dollars should not do what families and communities can--for themselves. That means that we take care of our loved ones and help those in our community the best we can, while government tends to those things for which it is best positioned, such as building roads and protecting us from crime.

In sum, NARAL has it all wrong. Gov. Palin acted in accordance with her conservative beliefs that public dollars are not the panacea for everything, especially matters relating to home and family. She was not acting with the pretense of having a virtuous character and moral principles, while not really possessing them, which is the definition of hypocrisy. She was acting with a servant's heart, as she likes to say, for the taxpayers of Alaska who do not need millions of their tax dollars going to teenage mothers. Just becasue Gov. Palin's daughter may have been eligible for such a program does not mean that Gov. Palin has to now endow such a program with millions of Alaskan tax dollars. On the contrary, Gov. Palin and her family are showing us what Republican and conservative beliefs look like in practice. Tending to and taking care of one's family first.

Mothers of Young Children Need Not Apply

2008-09-06T07:12:00.000-07:00

I'm starting to see a pattern. This past week, I couldn't help but think of Hillary Clinton every time the "mainstream moron media" took another jab at Sarah Palin for daring to run for VP while being a mother of 5 at the same time! Now if you doubt my disbelief at the obvious sexism and double standard expressed by the media, continue reading.

A large contingent of the media continues to dwell on how Sarah Palin is a poor choice for VP because she can't possibly support John McCain in the White House while continuing her breastfeeding and child carpooling duties. Did anyone consult a mother of a young child as part of their research? If they had and there is no dearth of them, at least not here where I live in Manhattan, they would find that working moms today have assembled a whole team of people to support them as they try to juggle a very important job (raising a child) with another one (their job outside the home). There are husbands, nannies, grandparents, extended family, close friends, and daycares. And considering Sarah Palin is the current governor of a state and the nominee for vice-president, I don't think she will be without resources at her disposal. So unless the folk writing about the inadequacy of "Sarah Palin, VP nominee" know about a breastpump (at the very least) or about how millions of working moms juggle family and work commitments every day, then I'll have to read their reporting while having to hold my nose from the stench of double standard.

After all, has Mr. Obama been questioned as to how he can stand at the helm of the free world while raising two young daughters? Of course not! And neither was Bill Clinton. No one blinked at these omissions since men with political careers aren't responsible for raising their children. Is that really where we are in America today? So here we have it, today's media, long on supporting the ideas of a woman's right to try to have it all, is actually only comfortable with that feminist idea in theory and definitely not with regard to female politicians. Apparently, the media's ranks, with abundant women among them, continue to support the pre-suffragette creed that women better stick to baking cookies and minding their young while letting their men take care of all that policy business.

Young women all across the country are getting the message that it's fine to aspire to become a public servant as long as they don't do it while having and raising babies. This is ludicrous and the hypocrisy of it all should not be overlooked. Gov. Palin was blamed for daring to have a high-powered political career while "allowing" her 17-year-old daughter to get pregnant. Now seriously, very few parents would actually allow their teenage daughters to get pregnant and I doubt Gov. Palin is an exception. Gov. Palin has also been criticized for not putting the needs of her newborn son Trig first. Again, I ask media folk of both genders to consult any of the working moms out there who pump and run to work, leaving their children in the hands of loving caretakers. It is certainly not easy, but for some women, it is a necessity and a privilege.

Now I can't say that the liberal media is guilty of this double standard alone. Both parties have been guilty of it. I remember being shocked at the conservative media's attacks of Hillary Clinton for being career-minded. Remember the howls they made at her for daring to bake cookies? Now, I've known many a working mom who has not only baked cookies, but cooked dinner, helped with homework, and so on. That attack on Mrs. Clinton, like the one on Gov. Palin now, is a covert one made at women everywhere who are trying to make the most out of their choices in modern life. That the liberal media is attacking a modern and accomplished female politician like Gov. Palin cries hypocrisy. Isn't this the same media that has championed the ideas of feminism and encouraged women to seek accomplished careers?

I guess I'll take a cup of hypocrisy to wash down those cookies.

Obama-Smitten Media

2008-09-03T17:39:00.000-07:00

Bearing in mind the ridiculously vicious media coverage of Palin, it is important to consider that Obama has far worse issues that the media simply refuses to cover:

1. Obama's personal mentor and role model Reverend Wright is an open racist, anti-Semite and America hater who gave Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award and visited Khaddafi in Libya in a show of support. Reverend Wright has been Obama's father figure for 20 years, married Obama, and baptized his children. Obama said he could no more distance himself from Reverend Wright than his own grandmother, but then proceeded to throw him under the bus 2 weeks later.

2. Obama has been long-time close friends with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the two founders of the domestic terrorist group the Weathermen. In addition to having sat on numerous boards together with Ayers (Woods Foundation, Annenberg Challenge), Obama launched his political career in a fundraiser in the home of Ayers and Dohrn. In September 2001 in an interview with the NY Times, Ayers admitted to bombing the Pentagon and said his only regret was that he didn't set more bombs. Ayers remains committed to bringing about a global communist revolution and gave a speech to Chavez in Venezuela saying exactly that in 2006.

3. Obama's political mentor is Tony Rezko, a convicted felon who helped Obama buy his house for half the price. Rezko is a Syrian national who rose to power in Chicago by working with the Nation of Islam. His connection with the NoI is based on a joint commitment to destroy Israel.

4. Obama is also close personal friends with Rashid Khalidi, a former spokesman for the PLO. Obama has said he routinely has Khalidi and his wife over for dinner and they discuss Middle East politics.

All this stuff about Palin's daughter's pregnancy and Palin's husband's DUI for 20 years ago is ridiculous. Obama himself was born to an unwed teenage mother (his mother was 18 and purportedly "married" to Barack Obama Sr., but since Obama Sr. was already married, the marriage was void) and Obama himself was a coke user 20 years ago. The media is so ridiculously in the bag for Obama that I want to puke.

Palin's Scarlet Letter

2008-09-03T07:37:00.000-07:00

The Scarlet Letter was set in the late 1800's in Puritan America. And though I haven't refreshed myself with Hawthorne's novel since high school, I couldn't help but think of it this morning while listening to the mainstream moron media's* coverage of Gov. Sarah Palin. The coverage has been bugging me very much. And why?

Is it because the media would rather focus on Palin being the mother of a daughter who got pregnant at the age of 17 and intends to keep the baby and marry the father? Maybe scandalous in 1850 Puritan America. But now? Many families the modern world over have dealt with this issue and it's how they handle it that will determine whether it turns into a personal triumph or a family disaster.

So instead of covering the facts that underlie the real issues of this campaign, I have to continue to listen to the "scandal" of Bristol Palin. Listen up, media people: Please cover the facts and stories of the important issues of today, i.e., becoming independent of foreign oil, having executive experience, and having the judgment and integrity to act in America's interests. As a proven reformer in her own party, Gov. Palin seems to offer Americans many positive attributes, regardless of political stripe. And as a female candidate in a very important political race, she shouldn't have to wear a scarlett letter around her neck.

So why is the media running over itself trying to choke her with a scarlet letter? Is the media's message that Gov. Palin does not set a good example because she is busy running the state of Alaska instead of supervising her almost-adult age daughter every waking minute? Really?!? Is the message that she's shown poor judgment in raising at least one of her children? Since when is that a political issue when the race involves supporting the leader of the free world? I really don't get it. As many families who have had to face teenage pregnancy know, you teach your children the best that you can. But in the end, children sometimes make decisions that will impact their lives irrevocably and following them around every minute of the day is not only ridiculous but probably a futile way to prevent it.

So my question remains, why is a teen pregnancy trumping media coverage that could be put to better use??? I give up. Maybe I should revisit Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter to familiarize myself with the proper manners and mores of 1850's Puritan America.

*Thanks to Tony Blankley for the term.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13777