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?

Yet Another Ahmadinejad Protest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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