Who Are The Real "Racists"?

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?

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

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"

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

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!"

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

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?