October 2008 Archives


The media is now joining Obama is playing the race card. And here. Simply put, if you don't vote for Obama, you're racist. You have no legitimate reason not to.

1. That you're troubled by the elite media's attempt to force you to vote for Obama to prove you're not a racist, is no reason.

2. That you're troubled by Obama’s constant playing of the race card, first against Hillary Clinton, then against John McCain and now against anyone who raises a question or a criticism, is no reason.

3. That you're troubled by his fixation on black power and dislike of whites as revealed in his own books in which he approvingly refers to "white men's greed" as the cause of the world's problems, is no reason.

4. That you're troubled by his attraction to Marxist socialist principles that began in high school and continued through college where he “hung out” with black power advocates and Marxist socialists and distanced himself from whites, as he describes in his books, is no reason.

5. That you’re troubled that he put his Marxist socialist principles into practice by becoming a community organizer of blacks against the white establishment in Chicago working with communist/socialist ACORN and other community organizers, is no reason.

6. That you're troubled by his attraction to and absorption of the communist Alinsky method of community organizing (studied in Chicago and while at Harvard Law School) in which socialist purposes are carefully hidden by sticking to platitudes like "hope" and "change" to solve every human dissatisfaction, is no reason.

7. That you're troubled by his telling Joe the Plumber he was going to impose higher taxes on him to "spread the wealth," that is, to take money away from people who pay taxes to give to people who don't pay taxes, which is pure socialism, is no reason

8. That you're troubled by his long association (as trainer, lawyer, collaborator and employer) with the communist/socialist community organization ACORN that has been involved in vote registration fraud controversies, including convictions, across the country, including this year, is no reason.

9. That you're troubled that Obama hired ACORN this year to do voter registration, knowing as he did about its record of voter fraud registration accusations, investigations and convictions (investigations of ACORN fraud are under way right now in at least 12 states), paying $320,000 to ACORN and then covering up the payment, is no reason.

10, That you're troubled that every day there are new stories of fraud involving ACORN workers in states across the nation and all the Obama campaign can say is that such reports are "a distraction" from the real issues, is no reason.

11. That you're troubled that he was an early pioneer, working with ACORN, in showing how to intimidate banks and bankers into making uncreditworthy mortgage loans to minorities and low-income people who could not afford them, which pressure tactics spread and ultimately led to the housing bubble, its collapse and the present world financial crisis and loss of hundreds of billions for investors and tens of thousands of jobs, is no reason.

12. That you're troubled that Obama, having worked closely with the communist/socialist organization ACORN throughout his entire career, recently said his views are still pretty much the same as when he helped ACORN force banks to make risky mortgage loans they never should have made and ran a voter registration drive with ACORN, is no reason.

13. That you're troubled that Obama has vowed to the communist//socialist group ACORN and other such organizations will be called in to work with him, if he's elected president, even before inauguration to shape the agenda of his administration,, is no reason.

14. That you're troubled that in just a few months in the U.S. Senate Obama was able to become the second biggest recipient, some $126,000 -- over a 20-year period -- of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sources, is no reason.

15. That you’re troubled that when John McCain and others were proposing reforms in 2005 and 2006 to prevent a collapse of the out-of-control practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying up far too many risky subprime mortgage loans, Obama instead sided with Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd in opposing reform, thus bringing on the present world financial crisis, indeed being quoted saying subprime loans were a good thing, is no reason.

16. That you're troubled by his association with people who hate America such as white hater Jeremiah Wright, unrepentant admitted terrorist bomber and self-described communist William Ayers (who said in 2001 the mention of America "makes him want to puke"), Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan, former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi and nutcase Father Michael Pfleger, is no reason.

17. That you're troubled that he was attracted in the first place to black power, white-America hater, anti-Semitic pastor Jeremiah Wright and stayed with him for 20 years, knowing he was a follower of black liberation theology that preaches that any god that is not exclusively on the side of the blacks against whites must be killed, is no reason.

18. That you're troubled that he lied about never in 20 years hearing Jeremiah Wright make any of his anti-America and anti-white speeches, but then admitted he had when his campaign advisors realized the lie could be easily disproved, is no reason.

19. That you're troubled that he brought his young children to Jeremiah Wright's sermons Sunday after Sunday to listen to his bigoted tirades against whites and his hateful harangues against America, is no reason.

20. That you’re troubled that he helped Nation of Islam’s anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan organize the Million-Man March in Washington and that Farrakhan has called Obama the messiah for black Muslims, is no reason.

21. That you're troubled that, working for years jointly with unrepentant terrorist bomber William Ayers, who describes himself as a communist, Obama funneled $150 million to fund programs to turn Chicago teachers and students into socialist revolutionaries who hate America, is no reason.

22. That you're troubled that, working jointly with America hater William Ayers, Obama directed charitable funds to separatist Afrocentric, America-hating programs designed by allies of Jeremiah Wright, while denouncing “the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation,” is no reason.

23. That you're troubled that, working jointly with America hater William Ayers, Obama, "to change America," directed charitable funds to the communist/socialist ACORN that was intimidating banks to make unsafe mortgage loans and engaging in voter registration fraud, as he well knew, is no reason.

24. That you're troubled that Obama continued his collaboration with Ayers after Ayers allowed himself to be photographed for the cover of Chicago magazine in 2001 standing on the American flag and telling an interviewer the thought of America made him "want to puke," is no reason.

25. That you're troubled that, working jointly with admitted terrorist bomber William Ayers, he steered charitable funds to an Arab-related organization that handed money over to a Palestinian terrorist organization, is no reason.

26. That you're troubled by Obama’s decision to go inside the Chicago Daley Democratic patronage and payoff political machine (often called by Chicago newspapers the “corrupt” Daley Democratic political machine) and become a go-along, loyal member of the machine, which is now running his campaign, is no reason.

27. That you're troubled that as an Illinois state senator Obama refused to support reformers against the Daley patronage and payoff machine, but supported the Chicago Democratic political machine at all times, is no reason.

28. That you’re troubled that in his first run for public office he was able to force all three Democratic opponents off the primary ballot to run unopposed, which if not unprecedented is so highly unusual as to raise questions about the objectivity of Democratic election officials beholden to the Daley political machine which Obama supports, is no reason.

29. That you're troubled by the fact that he is the most extreme advocate of abortion in public life, having pledged to Planned Parenthood as president he would like his first act as president to be signing a bill removing all restrictions on abortion, including partial birth abortion which 75% of all Americans oppose, is no reason.

30. That you're troubled by the fact that he engineered the defeat of a bill in the Illinois senate to protect babies who survive a failed abortion (and then lied about it), a bill that was identical to one that passed Congress unanimously, is no reason.

31. That you're troubled by his callous statement that, if either of his girls made a mistake, he wouldn't want them "punished with a baby," is no reason.

32. That you're troubled by his wife's statements that only now, for the first time in her adult life, she's proud of her country, is no reason.

33. That you're troubled by his wife's view of America as “just downright mean,” is no reason.

34. That you're troubled by his view of America as having done harm to the world for which he must apologize (in Berlin, to Germans no less), is no reason.

35. That you’re troubled that he so often seems ashamed of America, speaking ill of it, as in Berlin, is no reason.

36. That you're troubled that Obama didn't put hand to heart during the national anthem until his advisors told him to, is no reason.

37. That you're troubled that Obama left injured servicemen and women waiting at a military hospital in Germany when he canceled a scheduled visit to work out at a gym, is no reason.

38. That you're troubled that he is so naive that he can say tear down the walls between Muslims and Jews (as in Israel?) and there will be peace, is no reason.

39. That you're troubled by his statements in support of the Palestinian cause and his support by a former member of the terrorist-listed PLO Rashid Khalidi, who is now the director of the most rabid anti-Israel Middle East Studies department in the U.S, is no reason.

40. That you're troubled by his lukewarm and equivocal statements about Israel (for an undivided Jerusalem one day, opposed the next), is no reason.

41. That you're troubled by his vocal support by leaders of Hamas and the lack of support by a leading Israel statesman and author such as Natan Sharansky, is no reason.

42. That you're troubled that Obama's running mate Biden is reported to have told Israelis they had just better get used to the idea of a Iran with nuclear warheads on missiles that can destroy Israel, is no reason.

43. That you're troubled that Obama declined to appear at an anti-Iran rally sponsored by Jewish organizations and made sure that Sarah Palin was disinvited, is no reason.

44. That you're troubled that all Obama wants to do is talk and talk with the leader of our deadly enemy Iran and do nothing of consequence to stop their development of nuclear weapons, is no reason.

45. That you're troubled by his position well over a year ago to withdraw troops from Iraq on a fixed timetable regardless of conditions and to oppose the surge that was not only dangerous for our troops but would have resulted in al-Qaeda taking over Iraq as its new world headquarters, with riches like oil and gas that Afghanistan cannot even dream of, is no reason.

46. That you're troubled by his opposition to doing what is necessary to make America independent of hostile and unstable overseas energy suppliers by drilling for gas and oil domestically and by supporting nuclear power and clean coal along with all other alternatives, is no reason.

47. That you're troubled that Obama naively wants to cut defense spending in an increasingly dangerous world, and that Obama refuses to acknowledge the existence of the Islamic supremacist war against the non-Muslim world, is no reason.

48. That you're troubled that Obama actively and openly spoke in favor of his Muslim cousin Raila Odinga in his recent campaign for president of Kenya, during which he reportedly pledged to decree Islamic law for all Kenyans and ban Christian missionaries throughout the country, is no reason.

49. That you're troubled by his protectionist statements supporting unilaterally repealing NAFTA and opposing the free trade agreement with our hemishere's closest ally Colombia, and his lying about the facts to justify his opposition, is no reason.

50. That you're troubled that he wants to end secret ballots in union elections so as to increase the power of union intimidation, is no reason.

51. That you're troubled that he is so obsessed with himself, appears to be such a narcissist, that he can tell a campaign gathering that light will come down from above and convince them to vote for The Obama, is no reason.

52. That you're troubled that when you look at his record of accomplishment you only see that he has written two books about himself (partially fictionalized, possibly ghost written), graduated from college and law school, spent four years in socialist community organizing, and years in the Illinois senate (voting present 130 times) toeing the Democratic machine line -- and gave a nice speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, is no reason.

53. That you're troubled that he had for years as a major fundraiser (at least $250,000) Syrian-born political fixer and slumlord Tony Rezko, who has been convicted on 16 counts of political corruption, is no reason.

54. That you're troubled that while Rezko was being investigated on corruption charges and reportedly in debt for more than $10 million, Rezko's wife (said to have no assets of her own and income of only $37,000 as a city worker) somehow made it possible for him to buy his dream house in the upscale Hyde Park section of Chicago by buying an adjacent empty lot for full price ($625,000) while Obama purchased his house and lot for a $300,000 discount ($1.65 million) from the same seller on the same day, is no reason.

54. That you're troubled that Rezko's wife shortly thereafter sold a strip of land from the adjacent empty lot that Obama wanted for one-sixth her purchase price, paid for a fence Obama wanted between the properties, then sold off the lot to one of Rezko’s attorneys for an undisclosed price, is no reason.

55. That you're troubled by his plan to give $50 billion of American taxpayer money to the corrupt United Nations for a new anti-poverty program, is no reason.

56. That you’re troubled by his socialist “tax cut” plan to take more money from those who earn it – including imposing higher taxes on hundreds of thousands of small businesses -- and make welfare payments to the 44% (63 million) of American’s who pay no income tax, is no reason.

57. That you're troubled that Obama is hiding so much of his record, that he has refused to allow access to information or has blocked research about his past, such as his joint socialist programs with William Ayers in Chicago, the official State of Hawaii birth records, his Columbia College and Harvard Law School records and years and his ideological affiliations before joining Jeremiah Wright's church, is no reason.

58. That you’re troubled that his campaign has apparently raised tens of millions of dollars from sources outside the country in deliberately small sums (under $200) to avoid federal reporting requirements and the campaign has no controls to identify such sources, some of which are clearly fraudulent, whereas the McCain campaign can track every dollar, is no reason.

59. That you're troubled by what Michael Barone calls the thug tactics of the Obama campaign to silence all criticism with cries of “lies,” “discrimination,” racism,” including even discussion of Obama's socialist and machine partisan activities in Chicago, and that Barone fears an Obama Administration "thugocracy" stifling First Amendment rights, is no reason.

60. That you’re troubled that Obama’s socialism smacks of totalitarianism, as his campaign’s efforts to shut down free speech shows, is no reason.

61. That you’re troubled that Obama is rated the most far left senator in the U.S. Senate, a radical with a socialist agenda "to change" an America he is not proud of to something we will not like, and who is blind to the defense needs of the United States, is no reason.

62. That you're troubled that Obama is so "flexible" and evasive when it comes to telling the truth and just plain lies, is no reason.

63. That you're troubled that he could coldly dismiss the legitimate fears of the white grandmother who raised him as those of a "typical white person," is no reason.

64. That you're troubled that the Chicago Democratic machine that is running his campaign may be intending to take its patronage and payoff operations onto the national stage, at staggering cost to American taxpayers, is no reason.

65. That you're troubled by his elitist attitude towards simple working people, sniffing at them for clinging to their God and their guns, is no reason.

66. That you're troubled by the many, many times that Obama misstated historical facts to suit his own agenda, including misdescribing his past positions, and that the mainstream media did not challenge Obama’s statements, is no reason.

67. That you're troubled by the hypocrisy and double standard of the elite media that can proudly report that 95% of blacks now say they're voting for Obama, but can express horror that some white Americans might vote for McCain, which they assert can only be for racist reasons, is no reason.

68. That you're troubled that the elite media, which has decided it wants a Democratic black president now, whoever it is, qualified or not,, has deliberately avoided its obligations to the American public by refusing to do any detailed investigation into who Obama really is, his alliances, involvement in sleazy machine politics and his history, so that all that exists is the fictionalized narrative contrived by the Chicago Daley Democratic machine that is running his campaign, which leaves too many questions unanswered and voters still wondering "Who is Barack Obama?", is no reason.

69. That you're still troubled about who Obama really is though you are deeply troubled about what you know already and wonder what else he may be hiding, is no reason.

70. That you're troubled that Obama appears to be cleverly hiding who he is, presenting a false image to the world as postpartisan, moderate and a healer, when he is none of those, as his record shows, is no reason.

71. That you're troubled that Obama, if elected, may have a Democratic House and Senate, to implement his extreme socialist agenda of higher taxes, trade protectionism, stifling free enterprise, stifling free speech, enacting extreme pro-abortion policies such as reviving partial-birth abortion, relaxing our defense vigilance, cutting defense spending and increasing taxpayer funding to subversive organizations such as ACORN, is no reason.

72. That you're troubled that foreigners see things so much more clearly than our media and view the president candidate Obama as having a "nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters," is no reason.

73. That you're troubled that, as Professor Thomas Sowell notes, John McCain and Sarah Palin have not spent "decades working with people who hate America" and Obama has, is no reason.

74. That you're troubled that, as Professor Thomas Sowell also notes, the values of John McCain and Sarah Palin "are the values of this nation, whose loyalty and dedication to this country’s fundamental institutions are beyond question" and this cannot be said about Obama, is no reason.

75. That you're troubled by reports that as much as $63 million in campaign contributions to the Obama campaign in amounts smaller than the $200 required to be reported federally are from foreign sources, may be illegal, are not tracked by the Obama campaign though McCain tracks ALL his contributions, and more than 80% of all Obama contributions are not identified and may not be identifiable, is no reason.

76. That you're troubled that the Obama campaign had deliberately collected tens if not hundres of millions of illegal contributions by disabling all security settings on online credit card systems so as to facilitate fake and foreign contributions and contributions over the limit and have no controls for contributions under $200 though the McCain campaign has all such controls, obviously seeking to steal the election and disenfranchise American voters, is no reason.

77. That you're troubled by the Gestapo tactics against Obama critics like the attacks on Joe the Plumber and throwing reporters off the campaign plane whose organizations endorse McCain, is no reason.

That you're troubled that if you don't vote for McCain/Palin you will be doing a dangerous disservice to your country and generations of Americans is no reason, either.

Tito the Builder has had enough of one-sided reporting on Obama. He knows the way Obama hammers critics like Joe the Plumber. He's afraid of what will happen in an Obama presidency, but speaks out anyway.

You don't want to be depressed, but it's instructive to watch this video. One can question the future of democracy. The folks at Power Line have made a very good point.

The top 10% of American earners pay a higher percentage of taxes than in any other developed country in the world, including the usual example of extreme socialist Sweden. And Obama is going to stick it to that 10% even more so he can spread the wealth to those he thinks "deserve it." And those who "deserve it," like the starstruck lady in this video, are delerious about not having anymore to pay for their mortgage or their gas.

Is Obama a socialist? Yes. How long has he been so? At least since 1995? Has he been hiding this? Yes.

Redistribution of your wealth to those Obama thinks "deserve it" has been on his mind since 1995. The resentment of white America that was fed weekly by Jeremiah Wright continues to this day even though Wright has been forced off stage for political reason, as even Reverend Wright said was happening. But the resentment, the message, the intent to transfer the wealth of the successful to those who have not earned it, the "oppressed," in the Reverend's words, is in Obama's plans.

Call it redistribution, socialism, it is not what the founders built into the Constitution. Obama seeks to change that and Stanley Kurtz has sounded the warning loud and clear.

Too few are listening.

Read the evidence that the invaluable Stanley Kurtz has accumulated. While the mainstream media has been failing in its job to vet a major candidate for president of the United States, Stanley Kurtz of Washington's Ethics and Public Policy Center has taken on the task and performed it admirably.

The tragedy is that the shocking story he had compiled about Obama's life, relationships and positions, which should disqualify him from the presidency, has not reached a large number of the American people because major news media have failed to pick it up and inform the public.

Americans are headed for a future that Obama has sought, mostly successfully, to hide from them. The public has been duped.

Alll will suffer th consequences if Obama is elected on November 4th. Obama wants to spread the pie and will ensure the pie does not grow bigger with his taxes and punitive regulation.

For all of Stanley Kurtz's work on Obama, click here.
Life of the New Party A redistributionist success story.

By Stanley Kurtz

A variety of evidence now indicates, with a high degree of likelihood, that Barack Obama was a member of the far-left New Party, which also endorsed him in his first run for the Illinois state senate in 1996. Obama’s New party ties graphically illustrate the connection between his troubling “associations” and the core economic issues of the presidential campaign. The New Party’s agenda was radically redistributionist. More important, the New Party’s specific strategy for achieving its economic goals precisely paralleled Obama’s now infamous 2001 radio remarks on “major redistributive change.” So let’s take a tour of New Party ideology, after which we can explore the ever-increasing evidence that Obama himself was in fact a New Party member.


Obama is a typical uncaring liberal at heart, save the millions, ignore treal people, even members of your family.

All Charisma, No Heart


October 31, 2008

Character: Barack Obama would "spread the wealth" as president, but until lately the Obamas were giving less than 1% of their own high incomes to the needy and neglecting even poverty-stricken blood relatives.

Sen. Barack Obama is apparently quite a cheapskate when it comes to giving to charity. From 2001 to 2004, the tax returns for Mr. and Mrs. Ebenezer Obama show less than $8,500 in donations out of the nearly $1 million they made.

In 2005 and 2006, with book royalties making them millionaires, their charitable contributions rose to about 5% of income. But how "charitable" are some of the causes Obama supports? In 2006, for instance, he gave more than $20,000 to the notorious Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Imagine that. Giving tens of thousands of dollars to someone who preaches "not God Bless America; God damn America!" from the pulpit. It remains incomprehensible that John McCain chose not to hammer home Obama's close association with Wright. The Wright issue has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with radical ideology.

Another supposed charitable donation was the more than $13,000 Obama gave to the Congressional Black Caucus. The CBC last year confirmed that it is a hard-core segregationist organization. When white liberal Democrat Steve Cohen ran in a majority-black House district in Memphis in 2006, he pledged to become the first white CBC member. But once he won, caucus members told him that whites need not apply.

Juxtapose that with the South Carolina state Republican Party chairman feeling compelled last month to resign his 12-year membership in an exclusive whites-only country club. Imagine the uproar if McCain, like Obama, had given a $13,000 "charitable donation" to a group that restricts membership based on race.

How can Obama spare thousands for Chicago's Muntu Theater of African dance, while allowing his 56-year-old Aunt Zeituni, about whom he reminisces fondly in his best-selling "Dreams From My Father," to live in a South Boston slum, as exposed by the Times of London this week? While Obama was swimming in well over $600 million in cash contributions, his underprivileged Kenyan-born auntie actually sent his campaign a modest donation.

A 2003 Associated Press story profiling poor people who buy lottery tickets at check-cashing stores apparently quotes Obama's Aunt Zeituni, describing her as unemployed and cash-strapped.

Obama's Uncle Omar, also described affectionately in his book, was apparently evicted from his Boston home in 2000 after losing his job. Then there is Obama's 26-year-old half brother, George Hussein Onyango Obama, discovered by the Italian edition of Vanity Fair to be living in a hovel near Nairobi, claiming to earn "less than a dollar a month."

It's funny how Obama can sell his memoir exploiting his relatives and humanize himself for voters, yet be too busy getting ready to change the world to be there for them when they need a hand.

As we get closer to the election, we might as well read in full what people of sanity are saying.

This report of the disgusting as if not illegal (dereliction of official duty) in Ohio is breathtaking. See if you agree. And how about Missouri? And trampling over Joe the Plumber?

Does anyone want the Peolosi-Obama-Reid troika telling you what to do and how much to pony up? It's spread the wealth with your money by upping your tax to those waiting with their hands out.

In a 2001 radio interview in which Obama again expressed belief in the "redistribution of wealth," the Illinois senator regretted that the Supreme Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution." Will Obama, through his appointments to the court, remove those constraints? Is "Joe" only the first on an Obama's enemies list?

Obama's Plumbers

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Election '08: Ohio Democrats refused to act on ACORN's massive vote fraud. Yet they have time to scour the private records of Joe the Plumber. No wonder Barack Obama finds the Constitution an inconvenience.

Joe Wurzelbacher (also known as Joe the Plumber) has learned there's a price to pay for being the one to get Obama to admit that he has a socialist dream to "spread the wealth." Not only are you thrust into the public eye, you get the privilege of having government officials who support Obama rifle through private files looking for dirt on you.

Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services and a maxed-out contributor to the Obama campaign, has confirmed that she approved the check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher after the Oct. 15 presidential debate.

Jones-Kelley explained her governmental prying by saying, "Our practice is when someone is thrust quickly into the public spotlight, we often take a look" at them. For example, she cited the case of a lottery winner who was found to owe back child support. But Wurzelbacher didn't win the lottery; he merely asked how much more of his hard-earned money was going to be taxed away under the Obama plan.

According to the Columbus-Dispatch, at least four state computer checks on Wurzelbacher were conducted shortly after Republican John McCain frequently brought up "Joe the Plumber" during the final presidential debate. In addition to the Department of Job and Family Services, driver's license and vehicle registration information on "Joe" was pulled from Bureau of Motor Vehicles computers. BMV information on Wurzelbacher also was obtained through accounts assigned to the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.

In a 2001 radio interview in which Obama again expressed belief in the "redistribution of wealth," the Illinois senator regretted that the Supreme Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution." Will Obama, through his appointments to the court, remove those constraints? Is "Joe" only the first on an Obama's enemies list?

Contrast this investigative frenzy with the refusal of Ohio's Democratic Secretary of State, Jennifer Bruner, to use government records to check the thousands of new voters registered by ACORN and others for registration fraud. She also refused notify local election officials when fraud was discovered.

This isn't the first time team Obama has sought to stifle dissent, threatening to use the powers of government to intimidate and punish its opponents. A recent report on KMOV-TV in St. Louis said:

"The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign."

The Obama campaign will target anyone who says this emperor has no clothes. It wasn't long ago that a team of 30 lawyers, investigators and Democratic party operatives trekked up to Alaska to find dirt on Sarah Palin. Now they're after Joe the Plumber.

Should Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gain unfettered control of the powers of government and the Supreme Court and reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine, they might come after you.


When you labor for the people you get hungry for the really good stuff.


Professor Sowell has written many columns on the grave danger Barack Obama presents to the nation. He, like many others, is despairing of the uncritical media coverage and the acceptance of Obama based on emotion, rather than reason, and how the words, the alliances, the mentors, the history of fraud and bullying tactics, the involvement in electoral corruption and Chicago machine politics, the inexperience, the callousness towards life, the communist/socialist philosphy are all ignored as the rhetoric of "hope" and "change" soars and fills the ears and minds. Sowell calls Obama a demagogue who appears to be on the verge of becoming a successful demagogue, instituting a totalitarian socialist regime entirely at odds with American history and the Constitution that can wreck the nation. Under the Obama regime those paying no income taxes will soon outnumber those who do, thus creating new frenzy of class warfare and higher taxation (which Obama is already promoting) against those who earn and produce. How can economic collapse not follow?



Thomas Sowell is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution. Over the past three decades, Sowell has taught economics at
various colleges and universities, including Cornell, Amherst, and the University of California at Los Angeles, as well as the history of ideas at Brandeis University. He has also been associated with three other research centers, in addition to the Hoover Institution. He was project director at the Urban Institute from 1972 to 1974, a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University in 1976–77, and was an adjunct scholar of the American Enterprise Institute in 1975-76.

Sowell was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2002. In 2003, Sowell received the Bradley Prize for intellectual achievement. Sowell received his bachelor’s degree in economics (magna cum laude) from Harvard in 1958, his master’s degree in economics from Columbia University in 1959, and his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968.


Another voice speaks up about the socialist Obama who wants to convert the United States into Sweden.

Is Obama a "normal" Democratic candidate? Not at all.

Too many Americans think this radical urban organizer is just another Clinton or Gore. But a vote for Obama is a vote for socialist "spreading of wealth," as Obama admitted to Joe the Plumber, and a vote for "major redistributive change," as he put it in 2001
The Real Obama


October 28, 2008

Election '08: Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" remark to Ohio's Joe the Plumber was a rare peek at the radical behind the guarded rhetoric. A newly-unearthed 2001 radio interview provides full view.

The real, unguarded Barack Obama has been exposed, and Americans should hear it for themselves before they make the most consequential electoral decision of their lifetime.

Speaking to Chicago public radio station WBEZ seven years ago, then-Illinois state Sen. Obama reflected on the history of the civil rights movement.

"Where the movement succeeded," he said, "was in court-imposed remedies regarding segregation and voting rights."

But where it failed was that "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."

The man now a week away from possibly being elected president then lamented that "the civil rights movement became so court-focused" that it veered away from action to "put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that."

"Redistributive change" — so that's the kind of "change we need" and "change we can believe in" that a President Obama would give America. Exactly as he told Joe the Plumber.

It's pretty hard to spin a term as obvious as "redistributive change," but the Obama campaign is doing its desperate best. He was actually defending conservative legal principles, an Obama legal adviser absurdly told the Politico Web site.

The 2001 interview also finds an unwary Obama saying the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren — which in Warren's 1953-to-1969 tenure was the most activist and power-grabbing in U.S. history — "wasn't that radical" because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted."

Asked by a caller about further "reparative economic work" from the federal courts, Sen. Obama replied that he was "not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts," but that "any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts."

As president, however, "economic change through the courts" would be only a Supreme Court appointment or two away, supported by dozens of Obama's lower-court appointments.

Congress too is eagerly getting ready to enact "redistributive change." Last week, top House Democrats discussed taxing Americans' pretax contributions to 401(k) plans, with the promise of tens of billions of dollars in new government revenues every year — plus forcing workers to invest in government debt, shifting trillions of dollars from private savings to government control.

Could that be part of what Obama meant in Colorado this weekend when he warned, "make no mistake . . . we will all need to sacrifice"? Was it part of what running mate Joe Biden meant last week when he said of corporate executives, "their pensions go first"? Do workers' pensions then "go" next?

Too many Americans think this radical urban organizer is just another Clinton or Gore. But a vote for Obama is a vote for socialist "spreading of wealth," as Obama admitted to Joe the Plumber, and a vote for "major redistributive change," as he put it in 2001.

The following is a copy of an ad placed by the Chatham Republican Town Committee, Walter Bilowz, Chairman, in this coming Thursday's Cape Cod Chronicle:


This campaign has brought up two major issues, the redistribution of income and the redistribution of wealth.

Joe the Plumber said to Obama "your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"
Obama replied "I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

With this, Obama declared his intention to redistribute the tax dollars which you paid on the income which you earned. Currently, if the Earned Income Tax Credit (E I TC) exceeds a taxpayer's tax liability, the IRS refunds the difference. That is, the government takes your tax money and gives some of it to someone who qualifies for the EITC. This is a redistribution of the tax money which you paid on the income which you earned. Obama would expand this with his tax plan to further distribute more of your tax money in order to "spread the wealth around". Obama calls this a tax cut for 95% of workers! He does not stress that approximately 40% of these workers pay no taxes and thus would be receiving a cash benefit (an entitlement).

However, Obama's intent to redistribute does not end with redistribution of your income. He is on record as favoring redistribution of your wealth, which includes your retirement funds. On a Chicago program, Odyssey, station WBEZ, in 2001, he stated that redistribution of wealth was a …”basic issue of political and economic justice in the society.” He indicated that redistribution of wealth could be accomplished by legislation.

The US News and World Report published a story on October 23, 2008, when they uncovered consideration of potential legislation to eliminate 401(k) plans (retirement plans) and take control of the retirement plan savings of Americans. This was in the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support which is chaired by Representative James McDermott, Democrat of Washington. Under the plan, your retirement money would be transferred into a government account invested in government bonds and paying around 3%. In addition there would be a loss of preferential tax treatment and a mandatory contribution imposed on workers. There is approximately $4.5 trillion invested in 401(k) plans in the US. This would be the largest loss of wealth and seizure of private assets in world history. It would far exceed the amounts recently seized by the government of Argentina in their nationalization of pension funds. The leftist government wanted to use the funds for their agenda.

If we elect Obama, a Democrat, as president, and a Democratic Congress, what is it that would stop a radical assault on the income that you earn, and on the retirement wealth which you accumulate? It happened in Argentina!


Suddenly it's dawning on people that Obama's community organizer days of learning, absorbing and practicing the lessons of the Marxist socialist (communist) Saul Alinksy are now being played out for real in this presidential race. Obama has honed the skills of agitation, making people angry and resentful and focusing their anger at the "rich," classic class warfare. And the soaring rhetoric learned in the pews of Jeremiah Wright's church against those who oppress accompanied by promises to those who rise up that there will be at last "hope" and "change" has memerized many.

It's the smooth version of the messages of hate that have emanated from Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Louis Farrakhan and William Ayers that America is bad and must be changed. To what?

Tony Blankley examines the hypnotic effect of the Alinsky method:

Obama's early mentor in the Alinsky method of social agitation was Mike Kruglik, whom Lizza paraphrased as saying: "(Obama) was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better."

As Kyle-Anne Shiver in the American Thinker explained after quoting those words: "The agitator's job, according to Alinsky, is first to bring folks to the 'realization' that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve, and to make such an almighty stink that the dastardly governments and corporations will see imminent 'self-interest' in granting whatever it is that will cause the harassment to cease.

"In these methods, euphemistically labeled 'community organizing,' Obama had a four-year education, which he often says was the best education he ever got anywhere."

And in the big picture, how does Obama see America under the U.S. Constitution?

And now we have Obama's genuinely shocking words from a 2001 National Public Radio interview: "But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical.

It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. . And one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was -- because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. . The Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day. . The Framers had that same blind spot . the fundamental flaw of this country."

Obama's sees the Constitution as fundamentally flawed. Its protection of individual liberty and property from the power of the government is a fundamental flaw in Obama's eyes. He wants "change." He wants judges who will deliver him that "change," even if it means throwing off the "essential constraints" on government power the Founding Fathers put in the Constitution. What will his government do with that power?

We live in dangerous days. The world economy teeters on the edge of the abyss. The exiting American president is a failed thing. An envious world smells a momentarily vulnerable America. The political beneficiary of Republican failure believes our Constitution is fatally flawed. He may be a committed Marxist. And if he held the presidency for four years, it would be the longest stretch that he ever held a full-time job. God Save the Republic. (emphasis added)


Kevin McCullough caught Obama in full lying mode promoting class warfare:

He's told many a whopper this campaign season, but today I saw coverage of portions of three different rallies. At each one he kept invoking the same thing.

"For the last eight years - we kept giving more and more to the wealthiest among us."

Now wait a second. Argue all you want about what percentage of graduated tax rates should or should not be (I personally believe ALL graduated tax rates to be immoral and made the clear case against them in my first book.)

But no one GAVE the wealthy earners anything...

They earned high salaries, because they held jobs that PAID them high salaries. In other words they put in a full days effort, and because they had the right experience, know how, intellectual capacity, and abilities - they convinced the companies they worked for to pay them "X" amount of dollars for those hours of service rendered. (Just like Michelle Obama did when the little scandal about her position at the public hospital had never paid more than $180,000 per year, but somehow she was able to get them to pay her $300,000 plus.)

Know how, experience, network, and capacity are all marketplace commodities and one SHOULD be able to make more money than someone else if they know the job better, have done it successfully, and achieve the objectives set before them.

Nonetheless - those people are still WORKING for what they get. And to think, as Barack Obama has been saying publicly for the last few days, that the American people were giving tax dollars to those earning in the top percentage is just a LIE!

Those people still pay MORE taxes than anyone else. And under the slightly reduced tax burden that they've enjoyed under the Bush economic plan - they still created more jobs, and more wealth for many additional citizens by re-investing their earnings into the workplace as well.

When THE ONE says "taking from the poor, and giving to the rich" he is flat out, 100% telling falsehoods, he knows it.

Further he doesn't care about truth and has not for months now...

Further his economic plan will bring about ruin to the poor people he has promised hope and change to - and he is either too dumb, or too dishonest to know it.(emphasis added)


Victor Davis Hanson notes some history of Obama's methods:

Individually, the extra-electoral efforts are irrelevant. But in the aggregate, they start to add up. In 1996 Obama goes to court, challenges the petition signatures of mostly African-American voters, and gets all his rivals eliminated from the ballot and so de facto runs unopposed.

In 2004 sealed divorce records were strangely released destroying the chances of his chief Democratic rival Blair Hull; then in the general, lightning again struck, and Republican front-runner Jack Ryan's sealed divorce records were likewise mysteriously released—and he too crashed, in effect, leaving Obama without a serious primary or general election rival.

In this campaign, Acorn galvanizes to register voters and almost immediately runs into serial charges of voter registration fraud. Now an Obama ad runs asking Americans simply to take the day off to help get out the Obama vote: apparently American businesses, universities, and the government all are supposed to sacrifice hundreds of millions of dollars in lost collective work days to subsidize the Obama campaign in order "to change history"?

When one marries all that with the swarming of radio stations when someone like Stanley Kurtz goes on, the threats to go to court to stop ads, or the blacklisting of TV stations who dared to conduct tough interviews, the same old pattern reappears of by any means necessary. And in turn the explanation for all that?

Add in the demonization of Joe the Plumber, who was minding his own business in his own driveway when Obama came up looking for a vote with cameras following.

And now add in the discovery of deliberate massive fundraising to bring in illegal campaign contributions.

For Obama, the end justifies the means. In his earlier efforts the Democratic Chicago machine took care of the opposition candidates. Obama himself helped train ACORN in voter registration and intimidation of bankers, so he knows their methods. And the Chicago Democratic machine is running Obama's campaign, so the intimidation of critics and the underworld methods of fundraising are being handled by experts.

Obama's morality is traceable to his Marxist traiining. The Saul Alinsky school of communist community organizing in which Obama immersed himself makes it clear: There is no such thing as right or wrong except as you see it. The end does justify the means. All means are okay. Truth is a commodity to be bent and twisted as you see fit to reach the goal. Use the smokescreen that best works with the masses. Tell them anything they'll believe to win. Alinsky's hero, to whom he dedicated his manual for social revolution, was Lucifer, who defied God and gained a kingdom.

Hanson concludes his observation this way:

The messianic style—the cosmic tug to "change history", or stop the seas from rising or the planet from heating, juxtaposed with the creepy faux-Greek columns, Michelle's "deign to enter" politics snippet, the fainting at rallies, the Victory Column mass address, the vero possumus presidential seal, and the 'we are the change we've been waiting for' mantra—reflects the omnipresent narcissism: the exalted ends of electing a prophet always justify the often crude and all too mortal means.

If this is considered 'right', I'd rather be wrong with McCain.

It has been discovered that the Obama campaign has disabled all normal credit card security checks online. As a consequence, illegal contributions can roll in from foreign and other prohibited sources using fake names. It has now been discovered that online donations may be made using pre-paid credit cards which can be purchansed at any variety store and are totally anonymous. In September alone the Obama campaign received over $100 million of its $150 million online. Such deliberate facilitation of illegal contributions by a presidential candidate is fraud at the highest imaginable level. As Mark Steyn correctly observed:

Two-thirds of the record-breaking haul Obama raised for the final stretch of the campaign comes from a racket set up to facilitate fake names, phony addresses and untraceable cards.

This is massive fraud to steal the election. How long has it been going on? How much of these huge sums the campaign has raised are illegal? The after-the-fact checking catches a mere fraction of the illegal when the automatic security measures are shut off and names like Adolphe Hitler go sailing through. And the media is looking the other way.

And to think the man presiding over this criminal enterprise might become president.

To read more, start here or here.

More focus is suddenly (at last) being put on Obama's Marxist socialism. Spreading the wealth or redistribution of wealth, whatever the term, is a hallmark of Marxist socialism.

Obama's mentor in Hawaii before college was a black member of the Communist Party of the U.S. In college he admits seeking out Marxists. In Chicago as a community organizer in the late 1980s and while moonlighting during his Harvard Law School days he studied the philosophy and methods of communist/Marxist Saul Alinsky. In his Illinois state senate days in 2001 he lamented that the supposedly liberal Warren Supreme Court hadn't facilitated the redistribution of wealth.

Some say Obama is using Alinsky tactics today, hiding his true redistribution of wealth plans by using vague language to stoke resentment and frustration while promising "hope" and "change." (Of course, Joe the Plumber caught Obama in an unguarded moment and Obama told Joe his higher taxes were nothing personal, that he just wanted to "spread the wealth.") Alinsky was a no-holds barred warrior, treating truth as an unnecessary impediment to moving forward. To him, the right words were whatever worked. This might explain why Obama so easily changes his positions and even misstates his past positions.

Obama Affinity to Marxists Dates Back to College Days
Barack Obama shrugs off charges of socialism, but noted in his own memoir that he carefully chose Marxist professors as friends in college.

By Bill Sammon

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

German philosopher Karl Marx, author of "The Communist Manifesto," advocated redistributing wealth in order to achieve a classless society.

Barack Obama laughs off charges of socialism. Joe Biden scoffs at references to Marxism. Both men shrug off accusations of liberalism.

But Obama himself acknowledges that he was drawn to socialists and even Marxists as a college student. He continued to associate with Marxists later in life, even choosing to launch his political career in the living room of a self-described Marxist, William Ayers, in 1995, when Obama was 34.

Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

Obama's interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."

After graduating from Columbia in 1983, Obama spent a year working for a consulting firm and then went to work for what he described as "a Ralph Nader offshoot" in Harlem.

"In search of some inspiration, I went to hear Kwame Toure, formerly Stokely Carmichael of Black Panther fame, speak at Columbia," Obama wrote in "Dreams," which he published in 1995. "At the entrance to the auditorium, two women, one black, one Asian, were selling Marxist literature."

Obama supporters point out that plenty of Americans flirt with radical ideologies in college, only to join the political mainstream later in life. But Obama, who made a point of noting how "carefully" he chose his friends in college, also chose to launch his political career in the Chicago living room of Ayers, a domestic terrorist who in 2002 proclaimed: "I am a Marxist."

Also present at that meeting was Ayers' wife, fellow terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, who once gave a speech extolling socialism, communism and "Marxism-Leninism."

Obama has been widely criticized for choosing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an anti-American firebrand, as his pastor. Wright is a purveyor of black liberation theology, which analysts say is based in part on Marxist ideas.

Few political observers go so far as to accuse Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, of being a Marxist. But Republican John McCain has been accusing Obama of espousing socialism ever since the Democrat told an Ohio plumber named Joe earlier this month that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."

Obama's running mate, Biden, recently contradicted his boss, saying: "He is not spreading the wealth around." The remark came as Biden was answering a question from a TV anchor who asked: "How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

"Are you joking? Is this a joke? Or is that a real question?" an incredulous Biden shot back. "It's a ridiculous comparison."

But the debate intensified Monday with the surfacing of a 2001 radio interview in which Obama lamented the Supreme Court's inability to enact "redistribution of wealth" -- a key tenet of socialism. On Tuesday, McCain said Obama aspires to become "Redistributionist-in-Chief."

Obama has managed to cultivate the image of a political moderate in spite of his consistently liberal voting record. In 2006, he published a second memoir, "The Audacity of Hope," that leaves little doubt about his adherence to the left.

"The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact," Obama wrote in "Audacity." "Much of what I absorbed from the sixties was filtered through my mother, who to the end of her life would proudly proclaim herself an unreconstructed liberal."

National Journal magazine ranked Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. The publication is far from conservative, employing such journalists as Linda Douglass, who resigned in May to become Obama's traveling press secretary.

Hillary Clinton supporters now claim that Obama committed massive fraud in their caucus contests in the race for the Democratic nomination for president. The evidence in this article sounds pretty convincing. The mystery is that the Clinton campaign did nothing about it, even thoug Obama's entire margin of victory was due to his excellent showing in the caucuses.

Obama has been involved in what looks like some variety of election fraud since his first election to office. In his first run for Illinois state senate he was able to knock all three of his Democratic opponents off the ballot by challenging their signatures. The incumbent was knocked out even though she had filed twice the number of required signatures. While challenges occur all time, for three to be knocked off has to be some sort of a record. This could only have happened with the collusion of the Chicago political machine, which apparently had decided this was a bright, young fellow they could do business with who had a promising future.

In the Iowa presidential nomination caucuses, there were reports of busloads of African-Americans pouring in from Chicago. Obama had close ties with ACORN's Chicago unit, which is reported to have worked for him in his first Illiinois race. (Since he had knocked out all Democratic opposition from the ballot and there was no Republican candidate, one wonders what they did.)

And it has now been admitted by the Obama campaign that ACORN was paid $832,000 for voter turnout work in the contest with Hillary (after they disguised the payment as being for something else.

A long account with the ring of truth.

Hillary Backers Decry Massive Obama Vote Fraud
Monday, October 27, 2008 10:45 AM

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

With accusations of voter registration fraud swirling as early voting begins in many states, some Hillary Clinton supporters are saying: “I told you so.”

Already in Iowa, the Obama campaign was breaking the rules, busing in supporters from neighboring states to vote illegally in the first contest in the primaries and physically intimidating Hillary supporters, they say.

Obama’s surprisingly strong win in Iowa, which defied all the polls, propelled his upstart candidacy to front-runner status. But Lynette Long, a Hillary supporter from Bethesda, Md., who has a long and respected academic career, believes Obama’s victory in Iowa and in 12 other caucus states was no miracle. “It was fraud,” she told Newsmax.

Long has spent several months studying the caucus and primary results.

“After studying the procedures and results from all 14 caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process,” she said.

In Hawaii, for example, the caucus organizers ran out of ballots, so Obama operatives created more from Post-its and scraps of paper and dumped them into ice cream buckets. “The caucuses ended up with more ballots than participants, a sure sign of voter fraud,” Long said.

In Nevada, Obama supporters upturned a wheelchair-bound woman who wanted to caucus for Hillary, flushed Clinton ballots down the toilets, and told union members they could vote only if their names were on the list of Obama supporters.

In Texas, more than 2,000 Clinton and Edwards supporters filed complaints with the state Democratic Party because of the massive fraud. The party acknowledged that the Obama campaign’s actions “amount to criminal violations” and ordered them to be reported to state and federal law enforcement, but nothing happened.

In caucus after caucus, Obama bused in supporters from out of state, intimidated elderly voters and women, and stole election packets so Hillary supporters couldn’t vote. Thanks to these and other strong-arm tactics, Obama won victories in all but one of the caucuses, even in states such as Maine where Hillary had been leading by double digits in the polls.

Obama’s win in the caucuses, which were smaller events than the primaries and were run by the party, not the states, gave him the margin of victory he needed to win a razor-thin majority in the delegate count going into the Democratic National Convention.

Without these caucus wins, which Long and others claim were based on fraud, Clinton would be the Democrats’ nominee running against John McCain.

Citing a detailed report on the voting results and delegate accounts by accountant Piniel Cronin, “there were only four pledged delegates between Hillary and Obama once you discount caucus fraud,” Long said.

Long has compiled many of these eyewitness reports from the 14 caucus states in a 98-page, single-spaced report and in an interactive Web site.

ACORN involvement

The Obama campaign recently admitted that it paid an affiliate of ACORN, the controversial community organizer that Obama represented in Chicago, more than $832,000 for “voter turnout” work during the primaries. The campaign initially claimed the money had been spent on “staging, sound and light” and “advance work.”

State and federal law enforcement in 11 states are investigating allegations of voter registration fraud against the Obama campaign. ACORN workers repeatedly registered voters in the name of “Mickey Mouse,” and registered the entire starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys twice: once in Nevada, and again in Minnesota.

A group that has worked with ACORN in the past registered a dead goldfish under the name “Princess Nudelman” in Illinois. When reporters informed Beth Nudelman, a Democrat, that her former pet was a registered voter, she said, “This person is a dead fish."

ACORN was known for its “intimidation tactics,” said independent scholar Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., who has researched Obama’s long-standing ties to the group.

Fully 30 percent of 1.3 million new voters ACORN claims to have registered this year are believed to be illegitimate.

Long shared with Newsmax some of the emails and sworn affidavits she received from Hillary supporters who witnessed first-hand the thuggish tactics employed by Obama campaign operatives in Iowa and elsewhere.

Jeff, a precinct captain for Clinton from Davenport, Iowa, thought his caucus was in the bag for his candidate, until just minutes before the voting actually began.

“From 6-6:30 p.m., it appeared as I had expected. Young, old males, females, Hispanics, whites, gay and lesbian friends arriving. Very heavily for Ms. Clinton, a fair amount for Edwards and some stragglers for Obama,” he said.

That makeup corresponded to what he had witnessed from many precinct walks he had made through local neighborhoods.

“My mind began to feel victory for my lady,’ he said. “THEN: at 6:50 p.m., over 75 people of African-American descent came walking in, passed the tables and sat in the Obama section. I knew one of them from my canvassing. I knew another one who did not live in this precinct. And aside from four or five families that live on Hillandale Road, there are no other black people in this unusually white precinct. And one of those black couples were in my Hillary section,” he said.

Thanks to the last-minute influx of unknown Obama supporters, Obama won twice the number of delegates from the precinct as Hillary Clinton.

After it was over, “a very large bus was seen in the parking lot afterwards carrying these folks back” to Illinois, Jeff said.

Obama’s flagrant busing of out-of-state caucus participants from Illinois was so obvious that even Joe Biden — today his running mate, then his rival — pointed it out at the time.

At a campaign stop before the Jan. 3 caucus at the JJ Diner in Des Moines, Biden “said what we were all thinking when he got on stage and said, ‘Hello Iowa!’ and then turned to Barack’s crowd and shouted, ‘and Hello Chicago!’” another precinct captain for Hillary told Long.

Thanks to Illinois campaign workers bused across the border into Iowa, all the precincts in eastern Iowa went for Obama, guaranteeing his win in the caucuses, Long said.

Obama supporters were also bused into northeast Iowa from Omaha, Nebraska, where Obama campaign workers were seen handing out “i-pods and free stuff: T-shirts, clothes, shoes, and free meals” to students and people in homeless shelters,” according to eyewitness reports Long collected.

In Iowa City, red and white chartered buses with Illinois license plates arrived from Illinois packed with boisterous African-American high school students, who came to caucus for Obama in Iowa after being recruited by Obama campaign workers.

2,000 complaints in Texas

In a change in the Democratic National Committee rules for this year’s election season, four states had caucuses and primaries: Washington, Nebraska, Idaho, and Texas. “But Texas is the only one that counted both the caucus result and the primary result,” Long told Newsmax. “The others didn’t count the primary at all, calling it a ‘beauty contest.’”

Because caucuses are more informal, and can last hours, they tend to favor candidates with a strong ground operation or whose supporters use strong-arm tactics to intimidate their rivals.

“There is inherent voter disenfranchisement in the caucuses,” Long said. “Women are less likely to go to caucuses than men, because they don’t like the public nature of the caucus. The elderly are less likely to go to a caucus. People who work shifts can’t go if they work the night shift. And parents with young children can’t go out for four hours on a week night. All these people are traditionally Clinton supporters,” she said.

But Obama’s victories in the caucuses weren’t the result of better organization, Long insists. “It was fraud.”

In state after state, Hillary was leading Obama in the polls right up until the last minute, when Obama won a landslide victory in the caucuses.

The discrepancies between the polls and the caucus results were stunning, Long told Newsmax. The most flagrant example was Minnesota. A Minnesota Public Radio/Humphrey Institute poll just one week before the Feb. 5 caucus gave Hillary a 7-point lead over Obama, 40-33.

But when the Minnesota caucus results were counted, Obama won by a landslide, with 66.39 percent to just 32.23 percent for Hillary, giving him 48 delegates, compared with 24 for Clinton.

“No poll is that far off,” Long told Newsmax.

Similar disparities occurred in 13 of 14 caucus states.

In Colorado and Idaho, Obama had a 2-point edge over Hillary Clinton in the polls, but won by more than 2-1 in the caucuses, sweeping most delegates.

In Kansas, Hillary had a slight edge over Obama in the polls, but Obama won 74 percent of the votes in the caucus and most of the delegates. In nearly every state, he bested the pre-caucus polls by anywhere from 12 percent to more than 30 percent.

This year’s primary rules for the Democrats favored the caucus states over the primary states.

“Caucus states made up only 1.1 million (3 percent) of all Democratic votes, but selected 626 (15 percent) of the delegates,” says Gigi Gaston, a filmmaker who has made a documentary on the caucus fraud.

In Texas alone, she says, there were more than 2,000 complaints from Hillary Clinton and John Edwards supporters of Obama’s strong-arm tactics.

One Hillary supporter, who appears in Gaston’s new film, “We Will Not Be Silenced,” says she received death threats from Obama supporters after they saw her address in an online video she made to document fraud during the Texas caucus. “People called me a whore and a skank,” she said.

John Siegel, El Paso Area Captain for Hillary, said, “Some people saw outright cheating. Other people just saw strong-arm tactics. I saw fraud.”

Another woman, who was not identified in the film, described the sign-in process. “You’re supposed to sign your names on these sheets. The sheets are supposed to be controlled, and passed out — this is kind of how you maintain order. None of that was done. The sheets were just flying all over the place. You could put in your own names. You could add your own sheets or anything. It was just filled with fraud.”

Other witnesses described how Obama supporters went through the crowds at the caucus telling Hillary supporters they could go home because their votes had been counted, when in fact no vote count had yet taken place.

“I couldn’t believe this was happening,” one woman said in the film. “I thought this only happened in Third World countries.”

On election day in Texas, Clinton campaign lawyer Lyn Utrecht issued a news release that the national media widely ignored.

The campaign legal hot line has been flooded with calls containing specific accusations of irregularities and voter intimidation against the Obama campaign,” she wrote. “This activity is undemocratic, probably illegal, and reflects a wanton disregard for the caucus process.”

She identified 18 separate precincts where Obama operatives had removed voting packets before the Clinton voters could arrive, despite a written warning from the state party not to remove them.

The hot line also received numerous calls during the day that “the Obama campaign has taken over caucus sites and locked the doors, excluding Clinton campaign supporters from participating in the caucus,” she wrote.

“There are numerous instances of Obama supporters filing out precinct convention sign-in sheets during the day and submitting them as completed vote totals at caucus. This is expressly against the rules,” she added.

But no one seemed to care.

Despite Clinton’s three-and-a-half point win in the Texas primary — 50.87 percent to 47.39 percent —Obama beat her in the caucus the same day by 56 to 43.7 percent, giving him a 38-to-29 advantage in delegates.

Linda Hayes investigated the results at the precinct level in three state Senate districts. Under the rules of the Texas Democratic Party, participants in the caucuses had to reside in the precinct where they were caucusing, and had to have voted in the Democratic primary that same day.

When she began to see the results coming in from the precincts that were wildly at variance with the primary results, “I could see that something was wrong,” Hayes said.

Hayes says she found numerous anomalies as she went through the precinct sign-in sheets.

“Many, many, many Obama people either came to the wrong precinct, they did not sign in properly, they did not show ID, or they did not vote that day.” And yet, their votes were counted.

In a letter to Rep. Lois Capps, a Clinton supporter calling himself “Pacific John,” described the fraud he had witnessed during the caucuses.

“On election night in El Paso, it became obvious that the Obama field campaign was designed to steal caucuses. Prior to that, it was impossible for me to imagine the level of attempted fraud and disruption we would see,” he wrote.

“We saw stolen precincts where Obama organizers fabricated counts, made false entries on sign-in sheets, suppressed delegate counts, and suppressed caucus voters. We saw patterns such as missing electronic access code sheets and precinct packets taken before the legal time, like elsewhere in the state. Obama volunteers illegally took convention materials state-wide, with attempts as early as 6:30 am.”

The story of how Obama stole the Democratic Party caucuses — and consequently, the Democratic Party nomination — is important not just because it prefigures potential voter fraud in the Nov. 4 presidential election, which is under way.

It’s important because it fits a pattern that Chicago journalists and a few national and international commentators have noticed in all of the elections Obama has won in his career.

NBC correspondent Martin Fletcher described Obama’s first election victory, for the Illinois state Senate, in a recent commentary that appeared in the London Telegraph.

“Mr. Obama won a seat in the state Senate in 1996 by the unorthodox means of having surrogates successfully challenge the hundreds of nomination signatures that candidates submit. His Democratic rivals, including Alice Palmer, the incumbent, were all disqualified,” Fletcher wrote.

Obama’s election to the U.S. Senate “was even more curious,” conservative columnist Tony Blankley wrote in The Washington Times.

Citing an account that appeared in The Times of London, Blankley described how Obama managed to squeeze out his main Democratic rival, Blair Hull, after divorce papers revealed allegations that Hull had allegedly made a death threat to his former wife.

Then in the general election, “lightning struck again,” Blankley wrote, when his Republican opponent, wealthy businessman Jack Ryan, was forced to withdraw in extremis after his divorce papers revealed details of his sexual life with his former wife.

Just weeks before the election, the Illinois Republican party called on Alan Keyes of Maryland to challenge Obama in the general election. Obama won a landslide victory.

“Mr. Obama’s elections are pregnant with the implications that he has so far gamed every office he has sought by underhanded and sordid means,” Blankley wrote, while “the American media has let these extraordinary events simply pass without significant comment.”

Hillary Clinton supporters, belatedly, now agree.

It's shocking that Obama has been able to hide his true aims until just a few days before the election. Joe the Plumber inadvertently exposed the truth with his question to Obama about higher taxes on small businesses: Obama blurted out that he wants to "spread the wealth."

Now a more shocking disclosure comes in the form of a 2001 radio interview in Chicago (found by an individual, not the media) in which Obama expresses his dismay with the U.S. Constitution's limits on governmental power and his desire for judges who will "interpret" away the "essential constraints" incorporated into the U.S. Constitution by the founders so the government can redistribute the income and savings of some people to others. The judges he wants are those with "the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old." How about respect for the facts, the law and the Constitution? Obama wants more than just socialism, he wants totalitarian socialism, an all-powerful government to take from those with means to give to those with needs. That kind of unrestrained power the Constitution is designed to prevent.

As is often the case the brilliant lawyer John Hinderaker of Power Line puts the cards on the table so they can be clearly read.

It is extraordinary that only now, a week before Election Day, have Barack Obama's beliefs and policies come into focus. After months of "hope," "change" and "I'm not George Bush," the truth has finally tumbled out: Barack Obama wants to redistribute America's wealth, raise taxes on those who create jobs, create vast new handout programs styled as "tax relief," and appoint judges who will radically redefine the relationship between American citizens and their government.

This last point is especially remarkable. The Founders feared arbitrary government power, and drafted a Constitution and amendments intended to protect your property from expropriation. Obama would stand this constitutional framework on its head by appointing judges who believe that the Founders were wrong, and their "error" can be corrected by court decisions to the effect that the federal government has a constitutional duty to carry out a radical redistribution of wealth.

Hinderaker quotes some points McCain made today that show the sharp contrasts between his policies and Obama's, such as this one:

Senator Obama is running to be Redistributionist in Chief. I'm running to be Commander in Chief. Senator Obama is running to spread the wealth. I'm running to create more wealth. Senator Obama is running to punish the successful. I'm running to make everyone successful.

Read all of John's post and more McCain quotes by clicking on the link above or here.

As for the disasters that would flow from Obama' judicial appointments, click here to read Professor Thomas Sowell's critique.

Obama's mentor Jeremiah Wright has been sent off to hide, but should we forget Obama absorbed Wright's messages of white hate, Jew-hate and America-hate for 20 years. Why would he stay with him until he proved an embarrassment? Did he agree with what he was saying? 20 years, 1000 Sundays. What did Obama say after "God Damn America"?

Professor Thomas Sowell sounds another urgent warning about the riskiness of an Obama presidency. He can "kill" the U.S. Constitution by appointing the judges he says he likes, those with "“the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old."

Like so many things that Obama says, it may sound nice if you don’t stop and think — and chilling if you do stop and think. Do we really want judges who decide cases based on who you are, rather than on the facts and the law?
We can vote a president out of office at the next election if we don’t like him. But we can never vote out the federal judges he appoints in courts across the country, including justices of the Supreme Court.

Judge This
Obama and the law

By Thomas Sowell

One of the biggest and most long-lasting “change” to expect if Barack Obama becomes president of the United States is in the kinds of federal judges he appoints. These include Supreme Court justices, as well as other federal justices all across the country, all of whom will have lifetime tenure.


Three Democrats stand out as responsible for costing Americans much of their life savings in the name of putting more people into affordable housing that turned out to be not affordable at all.

The three Democratic politicians who, not accidentally but deliberately, undermined the American financial system and caused this global catastrophe are Barack Obama, Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank and Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd.

What is driving the world collapse of the stock markets? What is causing the savings of Americans to shrivel up? Democratic policies.

Yes, it's the world financial credit freeze-up. But what triggered the freeze-up? Democratic policies.

It was the defaults of subprime mortgages packaged and sold by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac around the world. But what caused the defaults? Democratic policies.

Who made banks make unsafe mortgage loans? Well-intentioned Democrats who thought it would be "fair" for people who couldn't afford houses to get them.

Who made Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy up those bad loans and palm them off on the world? Democrats in Congress pressured by interest groups such as Obama's ally ACORN.

The cost to investors so far has been hundreds of billions of dollars. American workers who have invested in mutual funds and 401(k)s have suffered badly. People are losing their jobs because of this crisis.

The following account is the story the mainstream media will not tell the American people because they fear it would jeopardize an Obama victory. It will be a travesty and a tragedy for Americans if Democrats capture the White House and Congress after their policies brought on this worldwide catastrophe.

It will be too late after the election to document the involvement of Obama and his Democratic colleagues, whose zeal to change America into a socialist state brought disaster to the world. You know what will happen: Democrats will convene hearings with their favorite witnesses to blame anybody but themselves. Democrats don't like the free enterprise system they meddle with and in this case brought crashing down.

Democratic policies brought on the housing bubble and its collapse, the default of U.S. backed obligations all around the world and panic everywhere. Democrats are pointing the finger at Wall Street, but that doesn't wash. Wall Street was packaging and selling Fannie and Freddie mortgage loans for years. What happened was Fannie and Freddie started buying up so many subprime loans that the packages they were now sending around the world were junk, but still backed by the implicit guaranty of the U.S. government so people, banks and governments bought.

Fannie and Freddie abandoned their obligation to protect the taxpayers of the United States to please the Democratic congressman who were pressing them to expand the subprime mortgage loan market by buying risky loans and giving banks and mortgage companies more money to make more risky loans.

President Bush and Senate Republicans including Senator McCain pleaded with Congress in 2005 and 2006 to pass legislation to get Fannie and Freddie under control. Senate Republicans even got a bill to do just that out of the Senate Banking Committee (S. 190), but Senate Democrats led by Senator Harry Reid and Christopher Dodd, with the vocal backing of Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, said there was no crisis and blocked a vote on the Senate floor. As a Democratic U.S. Senator Obama supported their action.

How key was Obama's role? Obama helped train ACORN operatives in the early 1990s how to bully and intimidate banks and bankers into making risky mortgage loans to those who couldn't afford them, shouting cries of "discrimination" and "racism." Obama was one of the very first pushing for such unsafe loans to be made. Those cries kept building through the '90s and into this decade. As a result, riskier and riskier mortgage loans were made and Fannie and Freddie was pressured more and more by Democrats in Congress to buy the unsafe mortgage loans and send them off in packages to the world as if they were of the same quality they had been in the past. They weren't. Obama lived to see the colossal damage done by his policy of intimidation of banks and indeed to help give the final push to disaster by opposing reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a senator in 2005 and 2006. Despite the world chaos and massive losses to American investors, Obama as late as 2007 was still insisting subprime mortgages were a "good idea."

To read about the roles of the other two principal destroyers of savings, click here. Also, look for the heading Categories on the right side of this website and click on Democratic Financial Crisis.

The leading American expert on Islam Daniel Pipes said this a few days ago:

Obama's multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees. Islamic aggression represents America's strategic enemy; Obama's many insalubrious connections raise grave doubts about his fitness to serve as America's commander-in-chief.

For the many reasons why, see. Dr.Pipes' explantion published in the Philadelphia Bulletin.

As Dr. Pipes points out, Obama with the complicitness of the media, has been able to hide his extensive relationships with Islamist organizations and individuals whose goal is the subversion of the U.S. Constitution and the installation of Islamic law, Sharia, in the United States. Just recently we learned of Obama's disdain for the Constitution's "constraining" principles incorporated in the document by the founders.

It is disturbing how much of Obama's life and relationships he has still been able to hide. His birth records, his life at college, his life at law school, much of his Illinois senate activity, details of his community organizing are all closed off by the Obama campaign and the media has not demanded the facts be known. So Obama, a week before the presidential election, remains an unknown to millions, who know only what the campaign has packaged as his fictionalized and incomplete life story. What is he hiding? Will we learn the truth later to our sorrow and America's peril?

Remember, we don't know what we don't know. But we know we don't know.

The distinguished British political observer Melanie Phillips earlier wrote a column of disbelief that Obama was holding a lead in the presidential campaign. She reviewed all she had found out about the people who surrounded Obama and summed up her incredulity succinctly in this telling paragraph:

You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant* radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.

In this article she turns to foreign policy. She is an expert on Islamic supremacism, having written a highly detailed account ("Londonistan") of how Islam has infiltrated the UK and is threatening its existence as an outpost of Western civilization. She examines the positions of McCain and Obama on the threat of Islam. We know that McCain has called Islamic supremacism "the transcendent challenge of our times." Obama has not really expressed himself on the threat. Ms. Phillips does her own evaluation. She concludes that McCain is the only reasonable choice for a president who will defend America. She has many reasons for her decision, but this statement is telling:

McCain understands that an Islamic war of conquest is being waged on a number of diverse fronts which all have to be seen in relation to each other. For Obama, however, the real source of evil in the world is America.


Obama assumes that Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, poverty, inflammatory US policy and the American presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf. Thus he adopts the agenda of the Islamists themselves.

Obama has already stated he will emasculate America's military strength at a time of great danger from Islam and when both China and Russia are engaged in significant military build-ups.

It doesn't help that Obama has surrounded himself with enemies of Israel and appeasers of Iran and fails to see the importance of Israel to the U.S.

Obama dismisses the threat from Islamism, shows zero grasp of the strategic threat to the region and the world from the encirclement of Israel by Iran, displays a similar failure to grasp the strategic importance of Iraq, thinks Israel is instead the source of Arab and Muslim aggression against the west, believes that a Palestinian state would promote world peace and considers that Israel – particularly through the ‘settlements’ – is the principal obstacle to that happy outcome. Accordingly, Obama has said he wants Israel to return to its 1967 borders – actually the strategically indefensible 1948 cease-fire line, known accordingly as the ‘Auschwitz borders’.

Her analysis is worth reading in its entirety.

Is America really going to do this?

Melanie Phillips in the UK’s Spectator

The impact of the financial crisis on the American presidential election has somewhat obscured the most important reason why the prospect of an Obama presidency is giving so many people nightmares. This is the fear that, if he wins, US defences will be emasculated at a time of unprecedented international peril and the enemies of America and the free world will seize their opportunity to destroy the west.

Personally, I don’t give any credence to the ‘support’ for one candidate over the other that has been expressed by the enemies of civilisation (Iran and Hamas ‘support’ Obama, while an al Qaeda blogger ‘supports’ McCain). Their agenda is simply to sow confusion and promote American recriminations and disarray. Nor do I set much store by many of the remarks made by either candidate during the latter stages of this election campaign, since under this kind of pressure both will now say pretty much anything to win it. The New York Times has run a useful analysis of the candidates’ foreign policy campaign statements which shows how Obama has carefully tacked to the ‘hard power’ agenda while McCain has in turn nodded towards ‘soft power’.

No, the only way to assess their position is to look at each man in the round, at what his general attitude is towards war and self-defence, aggression and appeasement, the values of the west and those of its enemies and – perhaps most crucially of all – the nature of the advisers and associates to whom he is listening. As I have said before, I do not trust McCain; I think his judgment is erratic and impetuous, and sometimes wrong. But on the big picture, he gets it. He will defend America and the free world whereas Obama will undermine them and aid their enemies.

Here’s why. McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America’s original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor.

Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west’s fault, and so it must right the injustices it has inflicted. That’s why he believes in ‘soft power’ — diplomacy, aid, rectifying ‘grievances’ (thus legitimising them, encouraging terror and promoting injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a result, he will take an axe to America’s defences at the very time when they need to be built up. He has said he will ‘cut investments in unproven missile defense systems’; he will ‘not weaponize space’; he will ‘slow our development of future combat systems’; and he will also ‘not develop nuclear weapons,’ pledging to seek ‘deep cuts’ in America’s arsenal, thus unilaterally disabling its nuclear deterrent as Russia and China engage in massive military buildups.

McCain understands that an Islamic war of conquest is being waged on a number of diverse fronts which all have to be seen in relation to each other. For Obama, however, the real source of evil in the world is America. The evil represented by Iran and the Islamic jihadists is apparently all America’s fault. ‘A lot of evil’s been perpetuated based on the claim that we were fighting evil,’ he said. Last May, he dismissed Iran as a tiny place which posed no threat to the US -- before reversing himself the very next day when he said Iran was a great threat which had to be defeated. He has also said that Hezbollah and Hamas have ‘legitimate grievances’. Really? And what might they be? Their grievances are a) the existence of Israel b) its support by America c) the absence of salafist Islam in the world. Does Obama think these ‘grievances’ are legitimate?

To solve world conflict, Obama places his faith in the UN club of terror and tyranny, which is currently fuelling the murderous global demonisation of Israel for having the temerity to defend itself and is even now preparing for a rerun of its own anti-Jew hate-fest of Durban 2, which preceded 9/11 by a matter of days.

McCain understands that Israel is the victim rather than the victimiser in the Middle East, that it is surrounded by genocidal enemies whose undiminished intention is to destroy it as a Jewish state, and that is both the first line of defence against the Islamist attack on the free world and its most immediate and important target.

Obama dismisses the threat from Islamism, shows zero grasp of the strategic threat to the region and the world from the encirclement of Israel by Iran, displays a similar failure to grasp the strategic importance of Iraq, thinks Israel is instead the source of Arab and Muslim aggression against the west, believes that a Palestinian state would promote world peace and considers that Israel – particularly through the ‘settlements’ – is the principal obstacle to that happy outcome. Accordingly, Obama has said he wants Israel to return to its 1967 borders – actually the strategically indefensible 1948 cease-fire line, known accordingly as the ‘Auschwitz borders’.

Obama would thus speak to Iran’s genocidal mullahs without preconditions on his side (the same mullahs have now laid down their own preconditions for America: pull all US troops out of the Middle East, and abandon support for ‘Zionist’ Israel) but has said he would have problems dealing with an Israeli government headed by a member of Israel’s Likud Party. In similar vein, it is notable that Obama opposed the congressional resolution labelling the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization, which passed the Senate by a wide margin with support from both parties. And had he had his way, there would have been no ‘surge’ in Iraq and America would instead have run up the white flag, with the incalculable bloodbath and strengthening of the jihad that would have followed.

Obama assumes that Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, poverty, inflammatory US policy and the American presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf. Thus he adopts the agenda of the Islamists themselves. This is not surprising since many of his connections suggest that that the man who may be elected President of a country upon which the Islamists have declared war is himself firmly in the Islamists’ camp. Daniel Pipes lists Obama’s extensive connections to Islamists in general and the Nation of Islam in particular, and concludes with this astounding observation:

Obama's multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees. Islamic aggression represents America’s strategic enemy; Obama’s many insalubrious connections raise grave doubts about his fitness to serve as America's commander-in-chief.

The hatred that these Islamist connections entertain towards Israel is reflected amongst Obama’s own advisers. With one notable exception in Dennis Ross, whose late arrival in Camp Obama suggests a cosmetic exercise designed to allay alarm among Israel supporters, his advisers are overwhelmingly not only hostile to Israel but perpetrate the loathesome canard that Jews have too much power over American policy.

The former Carter adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example, not only denounced Israel’s war against Hezbollah thus:

I think what the Israelis are doing today [2006] for example in Lebanon is in effect– maybe not in intent – the killing of hostages

but also supports Mearsheimer and Walt’s notorious smear that the Jews have subverted America’s foreign policy in the interests of Israel. Merrill McPeak, vice chairman of Obama’s campaign and his chief military adviser, has similarly blamed problems in the Middle East on the influence of people who live in New York City and Miami (guess who) whom no ‘politician wants to run against’ and who he says exercise undue influence on America’s foreign affairs. Most revolting of all is Samantha Power, a very close adviser whom Obama fired for calling Hillary a ‘monster’ but who says she still expects to be in Obama’s administration. Not only has Power has advocated the ending of all aid to Israel and redirecting it to the Palestinians, but she has spoken about the need to land a ‘mammoth force’ of US troops in Israel to protect the Palestinians from Israeli attempts at genocide (sic) -- and has complained that criticism of Barack Obama all too often came down to what was ‘good for the Jews’.

There are, alas, many in the west for whom all this is music to their ears. Whether through wickedness, ideology, stupidity or derangement, they firmly believe that the ultimate source of conflict in the world derives at root from America and Israel, whose societies, culture and values they want to see emasculated or destroyed altogether. They are drooling at the prospect that an Obama presidency will bring that about. The rest of us can’t sleep at night.

To be sure, in Obama's circle of America-haters, Jeremiah Wright and Willam (Bill) Ayers rank high. Wright's rantings of "God Damn America" still ring in our ears. And how can one forget Ayers' bombings of the Capitol and the Pentagon and his (fortunately) failed plans to explode a nail bomb at a Fort Dix dance?

But are there other Obama America-haters as despicable? Some say yes.

Rashid Khalidi was a spokesman for Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Liberation Organization at a time when the U.S. had designated it a terrorist organization. PLO members killed the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. Khalidi left Lebanon and wound up in Chicago sharing many dinners with Obama and his wife. Obama toasted him as he left Chicago to head up the most anti-Israeli Middle East Studies program in America at Columbia. Obama steered money from a foundation he chaired to an organization headed by Khalidi that in turn sent money off to the terrorist PLO.

It's no wonder that a recent poll in Israel had McCain favored overwhelmingly 46% to 34%. The Middle East expert and Israeli author Caroline Glick has called Obama's rise "frightening."

Check this Power Lilne report out.

Update: Guess what? Andy McCarthy does some digging and finds out that Ayers and Khalidi were best friends. Khalidi and Obama were buddies. And Ayers and Obama together handed out tens of millions of foundation money to radical groups, including $75,000 to Khalidi's rabidly anti-Israel foundation, which in turn funneled money to the PLO. All these fine folks gathered together for a farewell party for Khalidi who was off to head Columbia's anti-Israeli Middle East Studies department. Obama was reported to have offered a toast, as did many others. Imagine what the remarks about Israel were! Actually, one doesn't have to imagine: The Obama-backing Los Angeles Times has a tape of the reception. But the Times refuses to release it. Journalism's highest standards at work. Where's the outrage?


Andrew McCarthy, the federal prosecutor who sent the Islamic terrorist, the blind sheikh who masterminded the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, to prison for life, finds yet another despicable character in Obama's Augean stables: Communist Michael Klonsky.

As McCarthy says:

To be clear, as it seems always necessary to repeat when Obamaniacs, in their best Saul Alinsky tradition, shout down the opposition: This is not about guilt by association. The issue is not that Obama knows Klonsky … or Ayers … or Dohrn … or Wright … or Rashid Khalidi …

The issue is that Obama promoted and collaborated with these anti-American radicals. The issue is that he shared their ideology.

Here’s what you need to know. Klonsky is an unabashed communist whose current mission is to spread Marxist ideology in the American classroom. Obama funded him to the tune of nearly $2 million. Obama, moreover, gave Klonsky a broad platform to broadcast his ideas: a “social justice” blog on the official Obama campaign website.

From foundations he headed Obama doled out about $2 million for Klonsky's causes.

Read it.

October 22, 2008, 1:50 a.m.

Another Communist in Obama’s Orb
Meet Michael Klonsky, Obama's "social justice" education expert.

How does Obama see himself as president working with a Democratic Congress to "spread the wealth"? How do you take money away from those who have earned it to give to those who want it -- or who Obama says "deserve it."? Obama has been plotting to do that for years. What bothered him was the "constraining" provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Think of that: Obama complained that the Warren Court (which some say was the least conservative Supreme Court ever) "didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" to take on the question of redistribution of wealth. The U.S. Constitution is concerned with limiting powers of government so that it cannot ride roughshod over people. Their rights are to be protected. This Obama doesn't like.

How can Obama take an oath of office -- as he did for his U.S. Senate seat --pledging to uphold the Constitution when he clearly doesn't like it and wants to find activist judges to help him get around it.


A judge who often writes at the Hugh Hewitt blog has analyzed a number of Obama statements and has reached this conclusion:

[Obama] understands precisely how to advance a hard-line liberal agenda in each brach of government. Redistribution of wealth is something best suited to a hard-left president and Congress to accomplish, working hand-in-glove. And for the giant leaps — the things which not even a left-of-center executive and legislature can accomplish — the president gets to appoint activist judges.
Even back in 2001, Barack Obama was already focused on building a "coalition of power" in the executive and legislative branches that could indeed bring about a national redistribution of wealth which even the most activist courts couldn't achieve on their own.
The reason for conservatives and moderates to be concerned about Barack Obama is not simply that he's a hard-left liberal — it's that he's an ambitious and talented hard-left liberal. He's seen where the Warren Court fell short. Barack Obama is now literally only days away from, in his words from this [2002] radio program, possibly "put[ting] together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change." Of that, we ought to all be duly terrified.

John McCain's statement: What Obama calls "fairness," Europeans call "socialism" and Americans call "welfare."

And read Bill Whittle's expressions of disgust at Obama lying about his long-held position in favor of taking a man's property away and giving it to other people and the media for not doing its job in investigating and airing the facts about the Marxist socialist Obama.

Listen to the audio.

Polls are slanted and hyped by the media hoping to discourage the turnout of those who believe McCain/Pain is the only rational choice for America.

The most reliable poll by past results has Obama up by only 4% and more than 10% undecided. Because of the relentless intimidation by the media shouting racism at anyone who doesn't support Obama, it's a fair inference that some in the Obama column will not vote for him and a large percentage of the "undecideds" will vote for McCain/Palin but just aren't saying so.

This is to say that victory for sanity and America's futre is very possible, indeed, likely.

The recent news that tens of millions of the dollars the Obama campaign is now spending to flood the airwaves are illegal contributions from foreign sources and others with a stake in an Obama election exposes the corruption at the heart of the campaign. The Chicago Democratic machine men running the campaign know how to collect money illegally from unidentiable sources -- foreigners ncluded -- by shutting down credit card ID systems.

His alliances with people who hate America and actively work to undermine it -- Wright, Ayers, ACORN, Pfleger, Khalidi, Klonsky -- cannot be ignored.

Enought people in the end will see through the Obama pretense.

Professor Thomas Sowell sums up the situation well.

Some people who see the fraud in what Obama is saying are amazed that others do not.

The vote for president on November 4th is momentous. A victory for Obama would represent, as one writer put it, the biggest lurch to the left in the history of the country. Or, as Mark Steyn, posited the alternatives: Would it be Independence Day or "Dependence Day"? It also would be a danger to the safety and security of the United States.

Professor Sowell, as a black man, has made it clear that he, like most Americans, would welcome the election of a qualified black man as president of the United States. He has examined Obama's past, his positions and what he has done and is doing and has no doubt in his mind that Obama does not have the record, the character or the integrity to be president.

Representative government exists, in the first place, because we the voters cannot possibly have all the information necessary to make rational decisions on all the things that the government does. We cannot rule through polls or referendums. We must trust someone to represent us, especially as President of the United States.

Once we recognize this basic fact of representative government, then the question of how trustworthy a candidate is becomes a more urgent question than any of the so-called “real issues.”

A candidate who spends two decades promoting polarization and then runs as a healer and uniter, rather than a divider, forfeits all trust by that fact alone.

It's worth reading all of Professor Sowell's analysis of The Great Pretender.

Can Obama Be Trusted?


By Thomas Sowell
Creators Syndicate
October 27, 2008

Although Senator Barack Obama has been allied with a succession of far-Left individuals over the years, that is only half the story. There are, after all, some honest and decent people on the Left. But these have not been the ones that Obama has been allied with — allied, not merely “associated” with.

ACORN is not just an organization on the left. In addition to the voter frauds that ACORN has been involved in over the years, it is an organization with a history of thuggery, including going to bankers’ homes to harass them and their families, in order to force banks to lend to people with low credit ratings.

Nor was Barack Obama’s relationship with ACORN just a matter of once being their attorney long ago. More recently, he has directed hundreds of thousands of dollars their way. Money talks — and what it says is more important than a politician’s rhetoric in an election year.

Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger are not just people with left-wing opinions. They are reckless demagogues preaching hatred of the lowest sort — and both are recipients of money from Obama.

Bill Ayers is not just “an education professor” who has some left-wing views. He is a confessed and unrepentant terrorist, who more recently has put his message of resentment into the schools — an effort using money from a foundation that Obama headed.

Nor has the help all been one way. During the last debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, Senator McCain mentioned that Sen. Obama’s political campaign began in Bill Ayers’s home. Obama immediately denied it and McCain had no real follow-up.

It was not this year’s political campaign that Obama began in Bill Ayers’s home but an earlier campaign for the Illinois state legislature. Barack Obama can match Bill Clinton in slickness at parsing words to evade accusations.

That is one way to get to the White House. But slickness with words is not going to help a president deal with either domestic economic crises or the looming dangers of a nuclear Iran.

People who think that talking points on this or that problem constitute “the real issues” that we should be talking about, instead of Obama’s track record, ignore a very fundamental fact about representative government.

Representative government exists, in the first place, because we the voters cannot possibly have all the information necessary to make rational decisions on all the things that the government does. We cannot rule through polls or referendums. We must trust someone to represent us, especially as President of the United States.

Once we recognize this basic fact of representative government, then the question of how trustworthy a candidate is becomes a more urgent question than any of the so-called “real issues.”

A candidate who spends two decades promoting polarization and then runs as a healer and uniter, rather than a divider, forfeits all trust by that fact alone.

If Ronald Reagan had attempted to run for president of the United States as a liberal, the media would have been all over him. His support for Barry Goldwater would have been in the headlines and in editorial denunciations across the country.

No way would he have been able to get away with using soothing words to suggest that he and Barry Goldwater were like ships that passed in the night.

If Barack Obama had run as what he has always been, rather than as what he has never been, then we could simply cast our votes based on whether or not we agree with what he has always stood for.

Some people take solace from the fact that Senator Obama has verbally shifted position on some issues, like drilling for oil or gun control, since this is supposed to show that he is “pragmatic” rather than ideological.

But political zig-zags show no such moderation as some seem to assume. Lenin zig-zagged and so did Hitler. Zig-zags may show no more than that someone is playing the public for fools.

Some people who see the fraud in what Obama is saying are amazed that others do not. But Obama knows what con men have long known, that their job is not to convince skeptics but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe. He does that very well

--Professor Thomas Sowell is the Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at Stanford's Hoover Institution, the author of many books and a recipient of the Natonal Humanities Medal. He has taught at Cornell, Amherst and Brandeis as well as Stanford. He was awarded the Bradley Prize for intellectual achievement in 2003.

Mark Steyn looks at the choice for president and sees this:

An Obama Administration will pitch America toward EU domestic policy and UN foreign policy. Thomas Sowell is right: It would be a “point of no return”, the most explicit repudiation of the animating principles of America. For a vigilant republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens, it would be a Declaration of Dependence.

Would it really be that bad? Professor Thomas Sowell warns that an Obama election would represent a "point of no return," would be "transformative, in Mark Steyn's view. Mark Steyn elaborates on our historical context:

The new president would front the fourth great wave of liberal annexation — the first being FDR’s New Deal, the second LBJ’s Great Society, and the third the incremental but remorseless cultural advance when Reagan conservatives began winning victories at the ballot box and liberals turned their attention to the other levers of the society, from grade school up. The terrorist educator William Ayers, Obama’s patron in Chicago, is an exemplar of the last model: forty years ago, he was in favor of blowing up public buildings; then he figured out it was easier to get inside and undermine them from within. (Note: Exactly the point made by us earlier: "Having abandoned bombing as counterproductive, Ayers concentrated on early childhood education as the way to subvert the American system from within.")

All three liberal waves have transformed American expectations of the state. The spirit of the age is: Ask not what your country can do for you, demand it. Why can’t the government sort out my health care? Why can’t they pick up my mortgage?

Steyn concludes:

If a majority of Americans want that, we holdouts must respect their choice. But, if you don’t want it, vote accordingly.

October 25, 2008, 7:00 a.m.

Point of No Return
Will we vote for the same soothing siren song as our enervated allies?

By Mark Steyn, syndicated columnist, in the National Review

Across the electric wires, the hum is ceaseless: Give it up, loser. Don’t go down with the ship when it’s swept away by the Obama tsunami. According to newspaper reports, polls show that most people believe newspaper reports claiming that most people believe polls showing that most people have read newspaper reports agreeing that polls show he’s going to win.

In the words of Publishers’ Clearing House, he may already have won! The battleground states have all turned blue, the reddest of red states are rapidly purpling. Don’t you know, little fool? You never can win. Use your mentality, wake up to reality. Why be the last right-wing pundit to sign up with Small-Government Conservatives For The Liberal Supermajority? We still need pages for the coronation, and there’s a pair of velvet knickerbockers with your name on it.

Read the rest...

The Obama campaign appears to be engaged in a massive criminal enterprise that has collected tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of dollars in illegal campaign contributions online. The campaign has deliberately disabled all of the credit card security measures used to identify the true user of a credit card. Fake contributions have poured in. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been contributed online in amounts less than $200, the minimum required to be federally reported. A sampling has revealed hundreds of fake names. The Obama campaign cannot verify the identify of any such contributor and has no mechanism for doing so. One guesstimate is that something in excess of $60 million has come to the campaign from foreign sources; only Americans living or traveling abroad can contribute legally to a presidential campaign.

By contrast, the McCain/Palin campaign has all the usual credit card security checks in place, rejects automatically all would-be contributions that don't measure up to the same standards used by Amazon and Costco plus screening out foreign donations. The McCain/Palin campaign vets all contributions under $200 as rigorously as larger amounts to ensure contributions are legal and they can identify all donors.

Is it deliberate? Yes, it has to be, according to this information. The author Mark Steyn, who has his own website to sell his books, explains via the Power Line blog:

Steyn and many readers (thanks to all) wrote to explain that the Obama campaign has chosen to reject, and the McCain campaign has chosen to adopt, the Address Verification System, or AVS. It is a simple tool that prevents credit card fraud.

As Steyn observed, "the AVS security checks most merchant processors use to screen out fraudulent transactions (and, incidentally, overseas customers) were intentionally disabled by the Obama campaign -- and thus their web donation page enables fraudulent (and/or foreign) donations."

Steyn also reported the contribution of NRO reader "Della Ware" of "12345 No Way." Steyn later reported that "Ms. Ware's" contribution was actually withdrawn from her account yesterday.

Campaign contributions under false names are illegal, as are contributions by noncitizens. Federal campaign law also limits the amount any one citizen can contribute to the presidential campaign to $2,300. The acceptance of campaign contributions via credit card without AVS protection facilitates illegal contributions. This is what the Obama campaign has chosen to do, and what the McCain campaign has chosen to avoid.

Steyn elaborated on this point at the end of the day:

[I]n order to accept donations from "Della Ware" and "Saddam Hussein" et al, the Obama website had, intentionally, to disable all the default security settings on their credit-card processing. I took a look at the inner sanctum of my (alas, far more modest) online retail operation this afternoon and, in order to permit fraud as easy as that which the Obama campaign is facilitating, you have to uncheck every single box on the AVS system, each one of which makes it very explicit just what you're doing - ie, accepting transactions with no "billing address", no "street address" match, no "zip code" match, with a bank "of non-US origin" (I've got nothing against those, but a US campaign fundraiser surely should be wary), etc. When you've disabled the whole lot one step at a time, then you've got a system tailor-made for fake names and bogus addresses.

This finding was brought to the attention of the New York Times which dismissed it as inconsequential. The Washington Post also took a look and didn't seem to appreciate the immensity of what is apparently going on. At least some observers, such as Beldar on the Hugh Hewitt blog sees the seriousness of it:

For a start, every honest Democrat should demand that everyone associated with the decision to disable the most basic anti-fraud mechanisms from the Obama-Biden campaign's credit-card donations systems be publicly identified and immediately fired. Every honest Democrat should demand the immediate and full cooperation from the campaign — pointedly beginning with Barack Obama — in seeing them prosecuted and convicted.

Power Line appears totally defeatist about the media doing anything now:

Maybe after the campaign is safely over someone will be interested enough to find out how much of Obama's record campaign fundraising was criminal. Ten percent? Twenty? Fifty?

The only newspaper to address this outrage is Investor's Business Daily

While the media has expressed great admiration for Obama's ability to raise huge amounts of money, why does it not think what appears to be the facilitation of fake and foreign contributions is not a news story? The media's dereliction of duty in reporting the true Obama story to the American public throughout the campaign is now crowned by its ignoring of this massive subversion of law.

Obama came up in politics through the corrupt Chicago Democratic political machine (as so often described in the Chicgo press), which helped pave his way by eliminating would-be opponents and steering political fixers like Tony Rezko (at least $240,000 to Obama, now waiting prison sentence for political corruption) his way.

That same Democratic machine is running Obama's campaign today and has used its underworld skills to amass hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal donations for Obama's campaign.

If ever pressed on this massive fraudulent crime, one can be sure Obama will express his usual ignorance, just as he "never heard" in 20 years any of Jeremiah Wright's anti-white anti-Jewish, anti-American tirades.

After Rezko's conviction, Obama got away with "That's not the Tony Rezko I knew."

As for the terrorist bomber and communist William (Bill) Ayers who collaborated with Obama for seven years funding projects to radicalize school children and destabilize the social system, Obama first said he never had heard of the bombings and then said he was only eight when they happened. No one asked why Obama was facilitating Ayers' communist agenda. The media gave him a pass.

Can the media let Obama get away with another big lie this time, when crime on such a massive scale appears to have been committed for his benefit and which has corrupted the presidential election? Where are the federal investigators and prosecutors?

Obama has worked closely with the Chicago machne men throughout the entire campaign in falsifying his life story and hiding details that would turn away voters. No original birth certificate has been released, college and law school records are sealed, files from Obama's Illinois senate years can't be found, his health record is a one page letter. With hundreds of millions of dollars involved, how can Obama not be involved? There is no "deniablity" here.

If the election isn't stolen by ACORN's fradulent voter registration campaign on behalf of their decades-long friend and champion Obama, it may be stolen by these hundreds of millions in illegal donations smothering all opposition voices.

The American people have been disenfranchised by hiding information about Obama, by media looking the other way and, now, by what appears to be massive illegal contributions. The American people would not knowingly vote for a fraud like Obama if they knew the truth. The real Obama has been successfully kept hidden. There is much to fear from this man who will do anything to become president, such as presiding over this fundraising enterprise. One worries more every day about what Obama is hiding as well as what he is doing.

Who is he?

The American people are being duped.


It's hard to say this better than this: The Obama craze represents "a recklessness and abandonment of rationality,"

Yes, the media are liberal. Even so, it is obvious that this election is different. The media are open and brazen in their attempts to influence the outcome of this election. I've never seen anything like it. Virtually all evidence of Obama's past influences and radicalism — from Jeremiah Wright to William Ayers — have been raised by non-traditional news sources. The media's role has been to ignore it as long as possible, then mention it if they must, and finally dismiss it and those who raise it in the first place. It's as if the media use the Obama campaign's talking points — its preposterous assertions that Obama didn't hear Wright from the pulpit railing about black liberation, whites, Jews, etc., that Obama had no idea Ayers was a domestic terrorist despite their close political, social, and working relationship, etc. — to protect Obama from legitimate and routine scrutiny. And because journalists have also become commentators, it is hard to miss their almost uniform admiration for Obama and excitement about an Obama presidency. So in the tank are the media for Obama that for months we've read news stories and opinion pieces insisting that if Obama is not elected president it will be due to white racism.

Read it all right here.

The Obama Temptation

[Mark R. Levin] at The Corner, National Review Online

I've been thinking this for a while so I might as well air it here. I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places. I can't help but observe that even some conservatives are caught in the moment as their attempts at explaining their support for Barack Obama are unpersuasive and even illogical. And the pull appears to be rather strong. Ken Adelman, Doug Kmiec, and others, reach for the usual platitudes in explaining themselves but are utterly incoherent. Even non-conservatives with significant public policy and real world experiences, such as Colin Powell and Charles Fried, find Obama alluring but can't explain themselves in an intelligent way.

There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.

Even the media are drawn to the allure that is Obama. Yes, the media are liberal. Even so, it is obvious that this election is different. The media are open and brazen in their attempts to influence the outcome of this election. I've never seen anything like it. Virtually all evidence of Obama's past influences and radicalism — from Jeremiah Wright to William Ayers — have been raised by non-traditional news sources. The media's role has been to ignore it as long as possible, then mention it if they must, and finally dismiss it and those who raise it in the first place. It's as if the media use the Obama campaign's talking points — its preposterous assertions that Obama didn't hear Wright from the pulpit railing about black liberation, whites, Jews, etc., that Obama had no idea Ayers was a domestic terrorist despite their close political, social, and working relationship, etc. — to protect Obama from legitimate and routine scrutiny. And because journalists have also become commentators, it is hard to miss their almost uniform admiration for Obama and excitement about an Obama presidency. So in the tank are the media for Obama that for months we've read news stories and opinion pieces insisting that if Obama is not elected president it will be due to white racism. And, of course, while experience is crucial in assessing Sarah Palin's qualifications for vice president, no such standard is applied to Obama's qualifications for president. (No longer is it acceptable to minimize the work of a community organizer.) Charles Gibson and Katie Couric sought to humiliate Palin. They would never and have never tried such an approach with Obama.

But beyond the elites and the media, my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue. This may seem a harsh term to some, and no doubt will to Obama supporters, but it is a perfectly appropriate characterization. Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama's appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the "the proletariat," as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us — today it's $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he's now officially "rich." The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved — for its own good and the greater good. The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual.

Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He's not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks "fundamental change," i.e., to remake society. And if the Democrats control Congress with super-majorities led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he will get much of what he demands.

The question is whether enough Americans understand what's at stake in this election and, if they do, whether they care. Is the allure of a charismatic demagogue so strong that the usually sober American people are willing to risk an Obama presidency? After all, it ensnared Adelman, Kmiec, Powell, Fried, and numerous others. And while America will certainly survive, it will do so, in many respects, as a different place.

The Middle East's most perceptive observer Caroline Glick looks at an Obama presidency from the point of view of an American and an Israeli and shudders.

Some main points:

In speaking as he did, Biden essentially acknowledged three things. First, he recognized that Obama projects an image of weakness and naiveté internationally that invites America's adversaries to challenge him.

Second, by stating that if Obama is tested a crisis will ensue, Biden made clear that Obama will fail the tests he is handed as a newly inaugurated president. After all, when an able leader is tested, he acts wisely and secures his nation's interests while averting a crisis.

Finally, Biden made clear that Obama's failure will be widely noted, and hence, "it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

IN LIGHT of Biden's dire warning about his running-mate, the central question that Americans ought to be asking themselves is whether or not Biden is correct. Is it true that Obama projects a posture of weakness and incompetence internationally and is it likely that this posture reflects reality?

Unfortunately, it appears that Biden knows exactly what he is talking about.

Obama has called for slashing the US military budget, cutting back the US's anti-missile programs and scaling back drastically the US nuclear arsenal. That is, although Obama has claimed that he will never take the option of the use of force off the table, by refusing to strengthen the US military which he perceives as weak, he is making certain that the US military option is ineffectual.
Iran will likely be the first US adversary to test Obama. And Obama will have no idea what to do. While Obama has stated repeatedly that a nuclear-armed Iran is a "game-changer," Obama's own rule book for international relations has no relevance for dealing with Iran's game.
Obama views international relations as a creature of American will. If America is nice to others, they will be nice to America. But the fact of the matter is that regimes like Iran hate the US regardless of how it behaves. The only question with strategic relevance for Washington is whether the Iranians also fear the US. And Obama has given them no reason to fear him. To the contrary, he has given them reason to believe that under his leadership, the mullahs can defeat America.

AMERICA STANDS to elect its new president in times of nearly unprecedented dangers. Iran is on the threshold of nuclear weapons. Thanks to the Bush administration, North Korea now feels free to vastly expand its nuclear proliferation activities. Oil rich states like Venezuela, Russia and Iran recognize that with global oil prices decreasing, now is the time to strike before they are impoverished. And the international economic turmoil will cause Western nations to recoil from international confrontations and so embolden rogue states to attack their interests.

Is Obama the man for this job? Clearly not.

Read the entire article, which includes comparisons to Israel's situation and the hugely increased existential risk and danger to Israel from an Obama presidency.

Testing Obama's mettle

Oct. 24, 2008

In a week and a half, American voters will elect the next US president. Their decision will impact the entire world.

Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama now enjoys a significant lead in the polls against Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain. For McCain to win, a lot of Obama supporters will need to reassess their choice for president. This week, Obama's running-mate Senator Joseph Biden gave Obama supporters a good reason to change their minds.

Joe Biden was picked by Obama as his vice presidential running mate because he knew foreign affairs. So what's Biden's view of the dangerous world we live in today? He told us.

Obama's qualification to be president of the United States is being questioned. Is he a natural born citizen of the U.S. as the U.S. Constitution requires? To prove that, all he has to do is produce an original or certified birth certificate. Obama has not done that.

A suit has been brought to disqualify Obama. This video presents an interview of the attorney who brought the suit. A lifelong Democrat, he calls Obama a fraud, which is why Obama is refusing to release all official records, such as college and law school records, which might indicate a nationality other than American.

It's an 11-minute video very much worth your time.

Are the attorney's allegations true? Does he have his facts and law right? We can't say, but the matter is, to say the least, puzzling.


Lloyd Marcus is a black conservative touring the country with a pro-McCain/Paln organization called Our Country Deserves Better. His words are worth reading.

Thumbnail image for Lloyd Marcus.jpg

I’m Lloyd Marcus, a black conservative who is determined to fight for a bright future for America. I’m urging you to stand with me in rejecting the candidacy of Barack Obama. It saddens me to listen to Obama speak about America – he seems to always be speaking about all that he sees wrong with America.

Barack Obama doesn’t appreciate the value of hard work and self-determination. He shamefully urges Americans to view themselves as “victims” instead of celebrating the fact that in our great nation you can achieve great things – if you have the passion to dream, and the commitment and determination to strive for excellence.

Obama doesn’t understand the selfless service and sacrifice that our military men and women make on a daily basis to keep our nation safe and free. When our troops achieved great success with “The Surge” in Iraq, Obama refused to acknowledge the success, and then begrudgingly conceded things might have improved, but gave the credit to Sunni clerics.

Why would Barack Obama stand there at a campaign event and look down with his hands at his side while the national anthem was played and his Democratic challengers had their hands on their heart? Why would Obama make a point of not wearing an American flag lapel pin after 9/11? Why would his wife say she spent most of her adult life not proud of her country? Friends, how can we put America’s future in the hands of a man who doesn’t seem to understand the greatness of America? We don’t need a “citizen of the world” to lead us at a time of economic challenges and threats from foreign foes - we need a great leader who will champion the goodness of America, the greatest nation in the history of all mankind.

Lloyd is a singer/songwriter and he redid the lyrics of Sarah Smiles.


How secretative has Obama been? And why?

This article details a number of the areas where Obama has refused to provide information.

Obama: Most Secretive Democratic Presidential Candidate Ever
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 7:58 PM

By: David A. Patten

Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign says his campaign will bring a new level of honesty and transparency to the White House. Obama proudly touts that he and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, passed a law requiring more transparency via a public database of all federal spending.

But when it comes to offering the public documents about his own public and private activities, Obama’s record for openness gets an "F" grade.

During the heated Democratic primary, Obama complained of the Bush White House being “one of the most secretive administrations in our history” and chided Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.

Ironically, Obama, just days away from possibly being elected president, continues to stonewall a growing chorus of information requests for documents about his legislative, personal health, education, financing, and background -- leaving many voters to cast ballots based on incomplete information.

And serious questions about his past continue to swirl as Election Day looms, fueled in part by his own campaign’s refusal to make relevant documents available.

And the press, usually banging at the door for candidates to make “full disclosure” is strangely quiet about Obama’s stonewalling.

A Newsmax survey of key Obama aspects of Obama’s public and private life continued to be shielded from the public.

Among the examples:

Obama has released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hands, released what he said was his complete medical file totaling more than 1500 pages. After criticism on the matter, last week the Obama campaign also released some routine lab-test results and electrocardiograms for Obama. All test results appeared normal, but many details about his health remain a mystery.

Obama has refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois, and has been unable to produce correspondence, such as letters from lobbyists and other correspondence from his days in the Illinois state senate. There are also no appointment calendars available of his official activities. “It could have been thrown out,” Obama said while on the campaign trail during the Democratic primary. “I haven’t been in the state Senate now for quite some time.”

Obama has not released his client list as an attorney or his billing records. Obama has maintained that he only performed a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June. But he has not released billing records that would prove this assertion.

Obama won’t release his college records from Occidental College where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia.

Obama’s campaign refuses to give Columbia University, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Such transcripts would list the courses Obama took, and his grades. President George W. Bush, and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry, all released their college transcripts. (McCain has refused to release his Naval Academy transcript.)

Obama’s college dissertation has simply disappeared from Columbia Universities archives. In July, in response to a flurry of requests to review Obama’s senior thesis at the Ivy League school, reportedly titled “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament,” Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told NBC News “We do not have a copy of the course paper you requested and neither does Columbia University.”

The senator has not agreed to the release of his application to the Illinois state bar, which would clear up intermittent allegations that his application to the bar may have been inaccurate.

Jim Geraghty of the National Review has written extensively about Obama’s unwillingness to release records related to clients he represented while he was an attorney with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill, and Gallard. Obama was required to list his clients during his years in the Illinois senate. “Obama listed every client of the firm,” Geraghty reported, making it impossible to discern which clients he represented.

Obama has never released records from his time at Harvard Law School.

Obama also has not disclosed the names of small donors giving $200 or less to his campaign. An exception to the finance-reporting laws exempts the campaign from reporting those who donate less than $200, but that law never envisioned the more than $300 million that has been raised by Obama in small amounts. The Republican National Committee has released its small donors, as well as McCain’s, on a public database.

On several occasions, the Obama campaign has offered to provide additional information to reporters if they have specific questions or issues. And in some cases, it has done so.

When Internet rumors began to fly that perhaps Obama was born outside the United States, for example, the campaign released images of a birth certificate that verified his birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii. When that led to suggestions the birth certificate had been altered, the campaign again responded, allowing reporters to examine the actual birth certificate, complete with raised seal. (In late July, according to FactCheck.org, a researcher uncovered an announcement of Obama’s birth in the August 13, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser).

Such instances of cooperation pale, however, compared to the many unanswered questions surrounding Obama, such as the financing of his education, and requests for the complete release of all donors to his campaign.

Of course, candidates are often reticent to disclose any information that opposition researchers could use against them.

But Politico.com notes that the Obama’s failure to share documents is “part of his campaign’s broader pattern of rarely volunteering information or documents about the candidate, even when relatively innocuous.”

The hue and cry from the media for disclosure usually forces candidates to release sought after documents. But the press has largely acquiesced to Obama’s stonewalling.

This website has noted several times the many unaswered questions about Barack Obama and his campaign's refusal to release records covering a great deal of his life.

One of the most basic questions asked that remains unanswered concerns where Obama was born. It's a simple question that can be answered with providing access to the State of Hawaii birth records or producing a certified copy of the birth certificate. That hasn't bee done. The campaign produced what it said was a copy of the birth certificate for the far left website Daily Kos. Forensic specialists who examined it online said it was a fake.

This question has suddenly hit center stage because in a suit in federal court in Philadelphia filed by attorney Philip J. Berg challenging Obama's eligibility to serve as president Obama failed to answer papers in the proper time frame and is deemed by court rules to have admitted in effect that he was born in Kenya.


This week, on October 21, 2008, Mr. Berg released the result of his investigation. In a startling press release, he has announced that "Obama & DNC admit all allegations in Berg v. Obama."
In his release, Berg explained that "by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions...the DNC `ADMITTED' that Obama is "NOT QUALIFIED" to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate."

Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed "ADMITTED." Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.

According to Berg, Obama - by default - admitted to every charge the lawyer made, among them:
1. I was born in Kenya.
2. I am a Kenya "natural born" citizen.
3. My foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.
4. My father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. admitted Paternity of me.
5. My mother gave birth to me in Mombosa, Kenya

It's also amazing that suddenly Obama announced he was suspending campaigning to visit his sick grandmother in Hawaii, the grandmother he threw under the bus a few months ago, dismissing her as a "typical white person" for expressing fear of a hostile black who had approached her. Hawaii has a reputation for political corruption (as does Obama's State of Illinois), so some are wondering why this sudden visit by Obama.

If Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, why has the Obama campaign let this controversy explode to this level two weeks before the election?

Here's the story as of today.

Where is Obama’s Birth Certificate and Why Doesn’t He Produce It?
Joan Swirsky
October 23, 2008

Update: The suit was dismissed on technical grounds, in effect, that an American citizen does not have "standing" to bring such a suit. That's hard to swallow as a legal proposition: If an American citizen is being defrauded in the election process by an ineligible candidate, he would be suffering real harm. (Whether there was merit to the suit was not discussed or decided.) There will be an appeal on the question of standing.

There is no question that ACORN, Obama's partner since 1991, is doing its best to steal the presidential election for Obama. It is being investigated for fraudulent voter registration activity in more than a dozen states. ACORN recently announced it had registered 1.3 million new voters; how many of those new voters are really ineligible or "repeats" or "dead"? So far, false registrations in the tens of thousands have been thrown out, but it's a safe bet that many, many more will slip through the screening process.

Obama in his early years as a lawyer actually trained ACORN workers in voter registration and ran a registration drive with ACORN himself. He also taught them how to browbeat banks and bankers into making mortgage loans they never should have -- the very beginning of the subprime loan disaster that has brought down the world's financial system and cost investors hundreds of billions of dollars.

What Obama thought was a great idea, beating up banks to make mortgage loans to uncreditworthy borrowers, mushroomed over the years with ACORN very much involved in pressuring banks, Congress and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The subprime loan boom created the housing bubble that ended in its inevitable collapse and the worst stock market fall since 1929 and a world credit freeze-up. Obama, in 2006, opposing legislation putting an end to Fannie and Freddie buying up these dangerously risky subprime loans, insisted the house of cards he helped create was "a good idea."

And guess who's been helping fund ACORN? The taxpayers. Taxpayers helped fund the disaster that has befallen them. Belatedly, there are now demands for investigations and an end to taxpayer assistance to this criminal enterprise.

Obama did not cause this catastrophe all by himself. In Congress, Democratic Senators Dodd and Reid worked to block legislation in 2005 and 2006 from getting a vote in the Senate after Senate Republicans voted S. 190 out of committee. Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts was prominent at hearings insisting that Fannie and Freddie were sound and in no trouble and didn't need a new regulator and didn't need to stop buying the subprime loans banks and mortgage lenders were more than happy to get rid of.

These Democratic economic policies have cost the nation, taxpayers and investors dearly.

Barack Obama's efforts in the 1990s to force banks to make unsafe mortgage loans was his early attempt to "spread the wealth." It ended in catastrophe.

Obama's new plan to "spread the wealth" which he inadvertently disclosed to Joe the Plumber will likewise lead to catastrophe for the American and world economies.

The sane vote is for a Republican Congress and McCain/Palin. But will Obama's ACORN deliver enough fraudulent votes to bring more grief to America?

October 23, 2008
Obama's Red Shirts
Voter Fraud: Republican leaders want to defund and criminally investigate ACORN. Why should taxpayer dollars fund a "nonpartisan" organization that proclaims "Obama needs ACORN, and we need Obama."

ACORN calls itself a "nonpartisan" group seeking to register minorities and the poor. But its political arm has endorsed Barack Obama, who both trained the group's staff and sued the state of Illinois on their behalf. And Obama's campaign has given ACORN affiliates $800,000 for a get-out-the-vote drive.

In fact, it's a get-out-the-vote for Obama drive as evidenced by a video recently aired by Fox News that showed just how "nonpartisan" the group is. It was taken at ACORN's national convention where Rep. Maxine Waters spoke to a sea of ACORN organizers wearing their uniform of red baseball caps and shirts.

Waters, to great applause and cheers, said: "This has been the worst presidency that this country has ever known. But that's all right. We're getting rid of his (President Bush's) ass. He's got to go."

The next speaker, an ACORN representative defined who "we" meant. She said: "We're getting Obama for president! Obama needs us, ACORN, but we need Obama. Don't we? Yeah!"

A list of government funding of ACORN released by Boehner reveals that some $31 million in taxpayer dollars have been given to the group since 1998. Using Federal Register records, Boehner found ACORN got the money through 54 individual grants in 11 different states.

They would have gotten much more if the original Democratic version of the federal rescue bill had passed. It gave to groups such as ACORN 20% of any profits from the future resale of acquired mortgages, a massive potential rip-off of taxpayers.

"House Republicans worked together to stop the majority from using taxpayer dollars to fill a slush fund created just for ACORN, but now we must go further to turn off the spigot of federal grants on which ACORN depends," Boehner said last week.

Cornyn notes that, due to the efforts of ACORN's red shirts in "Harris County, Texas, which includes the City of Houston, election officials either rejected or discovered serious deficiencies with nearly 40% of the 27,000 registration cards filed by ACORN from January through July of this year."

ACORN will say its voting activities are separate and not funded by the taxpayer. But money is fungible. Cornyn recently wrote to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, arguing "that because the violations of federal voting laws by ACORN employees appear to be so widespread, ACORN and its affiliates should be investigated as a criminal enterprise."

We agree. Those orchestrating this attempt to steal the 2008 election should go to jail.

The Comprehensive Argument Against Barack Obama is an excellent work of two young conservatives. It is only online and consists of texts and several videos.

Click here to view.

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for SowellNRO.gif

Professor Thomas Sowell makes another plea to Obama supporters to return to sanity and look at the facts before voting for Obama. Think of the future of this country.

Some of what the professor points out:

When one thinks of all the men who have put their lives on the line in battle to defend and preserve this country, it is especially painful to think that there are people living in the safety and comfort of civilian life who cannot be bothered to find out the facts about candidates before voting to put the fate of this nation, and of generations yet to come, in the hands of someone chosen because they like his words or style.
Of the four people running for president and vice president on the Republican and Democratic tickets, the one we know the least about is the one leading in the polls — Barack Obama.
What specifics do we know about Barack Obama’s track record that might give us some clue as to what kinds of “changes” to expect if he is elected?

We know that he opposed the practice of putting violent young felons on trial as adults. We know that he was against a law forbidding physicians to kill a baby that was born alive despite an attempt to abort it.

We know that Obama opposed attempts to put stricter regulations on Fannie Mae — and that he was the second-largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. We know that, this very year, his campaign sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines.

Fannie Mae and Raines were at the heart of “the mess in Washington” that Barack Obama claims he is going to clean up under the banner of “change.”

The public has been told very little about what this man with the wonderful rhetoric has actually done. What we know is enough to make us wonder about what we don’t know. Or it ought to. For the true believers — which includes many in the media — it is just a question of whether you like him or not.

Believers in Barack
Apparently, Obama-love is blind.
Creators Syndicate
By Thomas Sowell

Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a friend.

It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don’t want to be confused by the facts, they resent being told the facts.

Read it all.

Newsweek publishes an article taking issue with self-identified pro-life Catholics who argue that it's okay to vote for Obama, indeed that he's even pro-life since he will do more for the poor, despite his extremist pro-abortion position, even supporting legalizing partial-birth abortion.

Pope John Paul II's official biographer George Weigel makes it very clear: Obama is a "pro-life nightmare." His "views and the public record on the life issues are reprehensible."

Weigel regrets that he was forced to leave the Democratic Party in which he grew up because it embraced policy positions "on the life issues that offend the Catholic faith and reason."

Catholics of conscience must heed the plea of Pope John Paul II to protect the unborn.

[A]s the Most Rev. Charles Chaput, archbishop of Denver recently put it (speaking, he emphasized, as a private citizen), "To suggest—as some Catholics do—that Senator [Barack] Obama is this year's 'real' pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred 'pro-life' option is to subvert what the word 'pro-life' means."

Weigel's refutation of the flawed thinking of Catholics who think they can ignore that message and vote for Obama follows.

Flawed Thinking
George Weigel
I want to offer a response to Nicholas Cafardi, M. Cathleen Kaveny, and Douglas Kmiec's "A Catholic Brief for Obama"—which was itself a response to my essay on the subject.

I take it as an iron law of controversy that when three tenured law professors like Nick Cafardi, Cathy Kaveny, and Doug Kmiec fret in print about "intellectual siren calls" and "elegant theorizing," something other than real argument—moral argument or policy argument—is afoot. A serious, bipartisan, national debate about the ways in which people of goodwill in both political parties can work together to build a culture of life in 21st-century America would be welcome. Professors Cafardi, Kaveny, and Kmiec are not making the contributions to that argument of which they were once capable. Indeed, as the Most Rev. Charles Chaput, archbishop of Denver recently put it (speaking, he emphasized, as a private citizen), "To suggest—as some Catholics do—that Senator [Barack] Obama is this year's 'real' pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred 'pro-life' option is to subvert what the word 'pro-life' means."

Why? Because the public record amply demonstrates that Senator Obama is not the abortion moderate of our professors' imagination, but a genuine abortion radical.



Andrew McCarthy is the former federal prosecutor who sent the blind shiekh who masterminded the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 to prison. He knows his stuff.

McCarthy has exposed in detail the close relationship Obama has had with ACORN for decades -- which Obama is now piously trying to deny -- and expresses amazement at the cynical propaganda ploy of the Obama campaign which is calling for a federal investigation of the McCain campaign for suggesting that ACORN is knowingly invovolved in voter registration fraud. Chutzpah, he says.

As detailed by Steve Gilbert at Sweetness & Light, Project Vote has long been ACORN’s “voter mobilization” arm. In 1992, it was directed in Chicago by a young “community organizer” named Barack Obama. The resulting registration of 150,000 new voters became the springboard for his political career. As observed about Obama’s efforts by top ACORN agitator Madeline Talbott (a staunch proponent of the lawlessness ACORN euphemistically calls “direct action”): “Barack has proven himself among our members. He is committed to organizing, to building a democracy. Above all else, he is a good listener, and we accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer.”

ACORN is not just carrying out voter fraud in the here and now. Over the years, as Hoft recounts, several its operatives have been convicted for these activities. And how could it be otherwise? What voters need to understand is that ACORN is a revolutionary Leftist organization. It was founded in 1970 by Wade Rathke, a former member of the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) — the Communist organization from which Bill Ayers’ Weatherman terrorist group split off in the late Sixties. It is adherent to the radical principles of Saul Alinsky, of whom Obama is a disciple — in fact, he authored a chapter in an anthology called After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.

Under the aforementioned heading of “direct action,” ACORN has made fraud, extortion, harassment, and menacing core parts of its modus operandi. As a matter of principle, ACORN believes that the established bourgeois American order is racist, materialist, imperialist and illegitimate. ACORN no more cares about election laws than about other laws it decides must be circumvented in the service of the higher purpose it reveres: “Change.”

For nearly 20 years, Obama and ACORN have been attached at the hip.

They still are.

Read the McCarthy piece in its entirety. Click through the links he provides to get the full picture of the Obama/ACORN corruption of the electoral system.

ACORN’s White Horse


Facts don't seem to matter with those who intend to vote for Obama, but we continue to add to the library of information that clearly demonstrates his unsuitabilty for any public office, let alone the presidency of the United States.

Obama has successfully hidden vast swaths of his life from the public throughout this campaign and the mainstream media has not bothered to investigate him as they have Joe the Plumber or Sarah Palin. The free ride he has been given on his life extends also to his campaign financing. The Obama campaign reporting system is set up in such a way as to allow, some might say "facilitate," obtaining illegal contributions. Unlike the McCain campaign, which can and does track every contribution, no matter how small, the Obama campaign does not.

This particular article concerns those contributions and Obama's making a pledge to save the public finance system for president and inviting Republican contenders to join him in pledging to take public financing. McCain agreed and pledged along with Obama. A few weeks later Obama broke his pledge; McCain did not.

In addition, Obama has collected hundreds of millions in contributions smaller than $200, the mimimum required to be federally reported. Obama has neither disclosed the source of any of that money or, apparently, even kept track of it. Some who have analyzed what's been reported have discovered that more than $60 million have come from foreign countries. Only Americans living in foreign countries can make campaign contributions legally. The Obama campaign says it has no way to determine the legality of such contributions, though the McCain campaign can and does vet such contributions. Of Obama's contributors only about 20% are identifiable. No one, not even the Obama campaign, knows who the 80% are, since its system isn't set up to learn who they are. Since a great many contributions to Obama on their face have been seen to be fradulent, one can at least speculate that many more are, particularly those in the uner $200 category, where fraud is much more easily hidden. The Chicago Democratic machine (often referred to in Chicago as the "corrupt machine") that nurtured and gave rise to Obama and is now running his campaign has once again here demonstrated its political savvy.

October 22, 2008, 8:00 a.m.

Fake Donors, Phony Pledge
On campaign finance, Obama declared independence from his promises.

By David Freddoso in National Review

Starting in June, Barack Obama’s website stopped asking for donations. Instead, it began asking for citizens who would “declare their independence from a broken system by supporting the first presidential election truly funded by the people.”

Perhaps the campaign did not expect that among those “declaring their independence would be donors named “Doodad Pro,” “Derty Poiiuy,” and “Jgtj Jfggjjfgj.” (And you thought Barack Obama had a funny name.) They may not have known that at least four Missourians and one Virginian would declare their independence involuntarily and later find fraudulent donations to Obama’s campaign on their credit card statements. The Obama campaign cannot claim ignorance of “Good Will,” whose address is the Goodwill headquarters in Austin, and whose occupation is “Loving You.” The Goodwill office received a letter from Obama last month indicating that Mr. Will had exceeded the legal limit with his $7,000 in contributions, and asking whether part of the money could be directed to Obama’s general election campaign.

American servicemen and women prefer McCain to Obama in a landslide, 68% to 23%.

Doesn't that tell you something?

Read it all.


Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for SowellNRO.gif

Professor Thomas Sowell:

Whatever the shortcomings of John McCain and Sarah Palin, they are people whose values are the values of this nation, whose loyalty and dedication to this country’s fundamental institutions are beyond question because they have not spent decades working with people who hate America.

One person who has spent decades working with people who hate America is Barack Obama.


Joe Biden incredibly -- except the Senate's number one dunce keeps doing this, so how can it be incredible? -- predicts with 100% certainty that President Barack Obama will be tested within his first six months in a "manufactured crisis" to see how he responds and seems to suggest that Obama will flunk that test. If that what VP nominee Biden thinks, that's a firm recommendation of why McCain should be president.

Sarah Palin felt she should discuss this strange statement.

The text:

Two weeks from today, Americans will be asked to cast their vote for the next president of the United States. There’s no time to wait. Let’s get right to it.

Did you hear what Senator Biden said at a fundraiser on Sunday? He guaranteed that if Barack Obama is elected, we’ll face an international crisis within the first six months of their administration. He told Democrat donors to mark his words – that there were “at least four or five scenarios” that would place our country at risk in an Obama administration. Thanks for the warning, Joe!

He didn’t specify what all those four or five scenarios will be, but for clues, let’s review the Obama foreign policy agenda.

Our opponent wants to sit down with the world’s worst dictators. With no preconditions, he proposes to meet with a regime in Teheran that vows to “wipe Israel off the map.” Let’s call that crisis scenario number one.

Senator Obama has also advocated sending our U.S. military into Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistani government. Invading the sovereign territory of a troubled partner in the war against terrorism. We’ll call that scenario number two.

He opposed the surge strategy that has finally brought victory in Iraq within sight. He’s voted to cut off funding for our troops, leaving our young men and women at grave risk. He wants to pull out, leaving some 25 million Iraqis at the mercy of Iranian-supported Shiite extremists and al Qaeda in Iraq. By his own admission, this could mean our troops would have to go back to Iraq. Crisis scenario number three.

After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence – the kind of response that would only encourage Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine next. That would be crisis scenario number four.

But I guess the looming crisis that most worries the Obama campaign right now is Joe Biden’s next speaking engagement. Let’s call that crisis scenario number five.

The real problem is that these warnings from Joe Biden are similar to his earlier assessment of Barack Obama. It wasn’t so long ago that he said Barack Obama wasn’t up to the job, and that, quote, “the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.”

The same Joe Biden said he would be honored to run on the ticket with John McCain because, quote, “the country would be better off.” And here we have some common ground. I want a president who spent 22 years in uniform defending our country. I want a president who isn’t afraid to use the word “victory” when he talks about the wars we are fighting. I want a president who’s ready on Day One. I want a president with the experience and the judgment and the wisdom to meet the next international crisis – or better yet to avoid it. I want John McCain as our commander-in-chief.


Some of those non-campaign organizations feel the same sense of frustration that the ordinary people do about the trashing and mischaracterization of Sarah Palin, so this organizaion has rolled out this Palin ad.

People are justifiably angry at the way the mainstream media is seeking to whitewash and downplay Obama's decades-long relationship with unrepentant terrorist bomber William (Bill) Ayers are putting together their own videos.

Obama of course dismisses Ayers as somebody who did something bad when he was eight years old.

The real story is that Obama joined with Ayers to further his -- make that "their" -- agenda to subvert the United States from within by creating social and racial division. Together they fundied programs to teach school children to hate America, using the funds of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Foundation. Their goal was to train future leaders who would "change" the America they grew up hating.

But was Bill Ayers really such a bad guy?

We knew Obama was all for driver's licenses for illegal aliens, but he wants them to get Social Security, too? And health care that taxpayers will also pay for? No way.

More chicanery in the Obama campaign.

NewsMax's Ken Timmerman reports that as much as $63 million of Obama's $150 million September haul may originate from illegal foreign donations. (Conveniently, the campaign refuses to release the names of more than 80% of its 2.5 million contributors.) Obama's tax returns also indicate that in 2000 and 2002, he violated Illinois state law by accepting speaking fees while serving as a state senator.

The National Post of Canada carried the observations of Catholic priest Raymond Sousa on the American presidential election, who noted the obvious: Obama's extreme pro-abortion position places an "insuperable obstacle between himself and pro-life voters." These are mostly Catholics and Evangelicals, but are likely to include many others, since 75% of Americans oppose partial-birth abortion which Obama wants to legalize.

[O]n abortion, Mr. Obama is the most extreme nominee to date -- far more than even Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Joe Biden. He is against the ban on partial-birth abortion.

He is against parental-notification for minors seeking abortion. He is against "conscience-clauses" for pro-life doctors who refuse to do abortions. He favours federal funding of abortions. He has said that his first act as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate by federal statute any abortion regulations in all of the 50 states.

And then there is the controversy over the "born-alive" act -- a federal law that mandates full legal protection for any child that survives a late-term abortion. It passed the U. S. Senate unanimously. Mr. Obama was not in the United States Senate at the time, but he voted against a nearly-identical law in the Illinois Senate in 2003. While he often says that he wants to reduce the number of abortions -- who doesn't? -- in adopting the most extreme pro-abortion policy in presidential history, Mr. Obama puts an insuperable obstacle between himself and pro-life voters.

One of Obama's Hyde Park (Chicago) academic neighbors confesses he doesn't know who Obama is, either. He has observed that Obama is very careful not to reveal himself to anyone, so that no one can be sure what he's really thinking. This tactic or habit was also noted by the Asia Times essayist Spengler, who said Obama was a consummate manipulator and observer of people, much like an anthropologist detached from his subjects, in this case manipulating the American electorate. "Sociopath" was one descriptive he applied to Obama.

But here a neighbor who is a law professor and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution does his best to interpret the signs he has seen from Obama and puts them in the electoral context of a probable Democratic House and Senate and sees disaster for the economy ahead.

At heart, he is an unreconstructed New Dealer who can see, and articulate, both sides on every question--but only as a prelude to championing the old corporatist agenda with a vengeance.

That program has three key components, which, taken together, can convert a shaky financial situation into a global depression.

The Libertarian
The Obama I (Don't) Know
Richard A. Epstein 10.21.08, 12:01 AM ET
Forbes Magazine


Chicago -
My Obama number is one. I know him through our association at the University of Chicago Law School and through mutual friends in the neighborhood. We have had one or two serious substantive discussions, and when I sent him e-mails from time to time in the early days of his Senate term, he always answered in a sensible and thoughtful fashion. And yet, for assessing the course of his likely presidency, I don't know him at all.

It should come as no surprise that the traditionally liberal Hyde Park community is a veritable hotbed of support for Obama. So my manifest reluctance on his candidacy raises more than a single eyebrow: Loyalty for the home team counts.

The odd point is how his many learned and thoughtful supporters couch their endorsement. Almost without exception, they praise the man, not the program. Their claim is that Obama has proved himself to be a consummate politician who understands that the first principle of holding high office is to get reelected. His natural moderation in tone and demeanor, therefore, translate into getting advisers who know their substantive areas, and listening to them before making any rash moves. The dominant trope is that he will be a pragmatic president who will move in small increments toward the center, not in bold steps toward the left.

But is it all true? The short answer is that nobody knows. Virtually everyone who knows him recognizes that he plays his cards close to the vest, so that you can make your case to him without knowing whether it has registered. At this point, my fear is that the change in office will not lead to a change in his liberal voting record, as reinforced by a hyperactive Democratic platform. My great fear is that a landslide victory will give him solid majorities in both Houses of Congress, so that no stalling tactics by Republicans can slow down his legislative victory procession. At that point his innate pragmatism will line up with his strong left-of-center beliefs on issues that have thus far been muted during the campaign.

Put otherwise, Obama's vague calls for change that "you can believe in" are, to my thinking, wholly retrograde in their implications. At heart, he is an unreconstructed New Dealer who can see, and articulate, both sides on every question--but only as a prelude to championing the old corporatist agenda with a vengeance.

That program has three key components, which, taken together, can convert a shaky financial situation into a global depression. The first of these is his anti-free trade attitude that loomed so large in the primaries. But even Obama cannot repeal the principle of comparative advantage. Any efforts to scuttle NAFTA, deny fast-track approval to other agreements, or limit outsourcing will not be as dramatic as the Smoot-Hawley tariff. But combined, they would act as a depressant on general economic growth. Everyone would suffer.

Second, Obama is committed to strengthening unions by his endorsement of the Employer Free Choice Act, a misnamed statute that forces union recognition without elections and employment contracts through mandatory arbitration thereafter. That one-two punch could tie up the very small businesses that Obama seems determined to help. Tax relief won't work for firms that won't get formed because a labor fight is not in their initial budget.

And third, he is in favor of progressive individual taxes and high corporate taxes. It is as though the U.S. does not have to compete for labor and capital in global markets. My fear is that with his strong egalitarian bent, he has not internalized the lesson that high rates do not offset declining revenues.

Thus, even before we get to the added bells and whistles of the modern welfare state--windfall profits taxes, ethanol subsidies, health care--an Obama administration could lock us into a downward spiral by ignoring the simple fundamentals of sound governance. Boy, does this stalwart libertarian ever hope that his friends are right and his gloomy prediction is wrong!

Richard Epstein writes a weekly column for Forbes.com. He is a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution and a professor of law at the University of Chicago, visiting this fall at the New York University School of Law.

Obama isn't even president, but Canada and Colombia aren't taking any chances, they've started free trade discussions with Europe. After all, Pelosi blocked a vote on the Colombia free trade agreement (and Obama supports her) and Obama proclaimed he's going to unilaterally change NAFTA, which affects Canada and Mexico.

Michael Barone has called Pelosi's twisting of House rules to prevent a vote on the Colombia free trade agreement the most despicable act of this Congress. And Obama supports her action.

Along with all of Obama's plans that will sink the American economy, add protectionism.


Sarah Palin campaigning in Colorado says Joe the Plumber got it right.

And, you know, I’ve really got to hand it to Joe over there in Toledo. Somehow, he got our opponent to finally state his intentions in plain language. And if you ask me, that makes Joe the winner of last week’s debate. Senator Obama said he wants to “spread the wealth.” He wants the government to take your money and dole it out however politicians see fit.

Barack Obama calls it “spreading the wealth.” Joe Biden calls it “patriotic.” But Joe the Plumber said it sounded to him like “socialism” … and now is no time to experiment with that!

Thumbnail image for SowellNRO.gifThomas Sowell takes on those who sneer at Sarah Palin.

Whatever the shortcomings of John McCain and Sarah Palin, they are people whose values are the values of this nation, whose loyalty and dedication to this country’s fundamental institutions are beyond question because they have not spent decades working with people who hate America. Nor are they people whose judgments have been proved wrong consistently during decades of Beltway “experience.”

The person who has spent decades working with people who hate America is Barack Obama.

The person whose judgment has been proved wrong consistently during decades of Beltway "experience" is Biden.

Read all of Professor Sowell's analysis.

October 20, 2008.

Record Vs. Rhetoric
Obama vs. Palin.

By Thomas Sowell
National Review Online

Apparently there is something about Sarah Palin that causes some people to think of her as either the best of candidates or the worst of candidates. She draws enthusiastic crowds and provokes visceral hostility in the media.

The issue that is raised most often is her relative lack of experience and the fact that she would be “a heartbeat away from the presidency” if Sen. John McCain were elected. But Barack Obama has even less experience — none in an executive capacity — and his would itself be the heartbeat of the presidency if he were elected.

Sarah Palin’s record is on the record, while whole years of Barack Obama’s life are engulfed in fog, and he has had to explain away one after another of the astounding and vile people he has not merely “associated” with but has had political alliances with, and to whom he has directed the taxpayers’ money and other money.

Well, Obama may have missed a few of Jeremiah Wright's hate-America, hate-whites sermons over the 20 years he sat in the pews, but it turns out Obama was more into the hate-America black culture than his Sundays with Jeremiah.

Stanley Kurtz from Washington's Ethics and Public Policy Center has been examining the papers of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to see how Obama and his colleague unrepentant terrorist bomber, America hater and self-described communist William (Bill) Ayers doled out the $150 million they had to spend. As chairman, Obama was the key person in steering grants where he wanted them to go.

Key finding: "Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright."

So where did Obama send grant monies?


It looks like Jeremiah Wright was just the tip of the iceberg. Not only did Barack Obama savor Wright’s sermons, Obama gave legitimacy — and a whole lot of money — to education programs built around the same extremist anti-American ideology preached by Reverend Wright. And guess what? Bill Ayers is still palling around with the same bitterly anti-American Afrocentric ideologues that he and Obama were promoting a decade ago.
Obama’s tie to Wright is no longer a purely personal question (if it ever was one) about one man’s choice of his pastor. The fact that Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Wright’s anti-Americanism means that this is now a matter of public policy, and therefore an entirely legitimate issue in this campaign.
The rites of passage movement is a way to teach young Africans in the United States how to reject America and recover their authentic African heritage.

In other words these programs which Barack Obama and William Ayers funded taught young blacks to hate America and lead separate lives. Obama himself made that clear by publicly rejecting “the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation.”

When Jeremiah Wright turned toward African-centered thinking in the late 1980s and early 1990s (the period when, attracted by Wright’s African themes, Barack Obama first became a church member), many prominent thinkers from Carruthers’s Association for the Study of Classical African Civilizations were invited to speak at Trinity United Church of Christ, Carruthers himself included. We hear echoes of Carruthers’s work in Wright’s distinction between “right brained” Africans and “left brained” Europeans, in Wright’s fears of U.S. government-sponsored genocide against American blacks, and in Wright’s embittered attacks on America’s indelibly white-supremacist history. In Wright’s Trumpet Newsmagazine, as in Carruthers’s own writings, blacks are often referred to as “Africans living in the diaspora” rather than as Americans.
As Wright himself made plain, it seems virtually impossible to find respectable scholars of any political stripe who approve of the extremist anti-American version of Afrocentrism promoted by Hilliard and Carruthers....
An important exception to the rule is Bill Ayers himself, who not only worked with Obama to fund groups like this at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, but who is still “palling around” with the same folks. Discreetly waiting until after the election, Bill Ayers and his wife, and fellow former terrorist, Bernardine Dohrn plan to release a book in 2009 entitled Race Course Against White Supremacy.

Can Obama deny this as he has other connections ("not the Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, {insert name here] I knew"?

Given the precedent of his earlier responses on Ayers and Wright, Obama might be inclined to deny personal knowledge of the educational philosophy he was so generously funding. Such a denial would not be convincing. For one thing, we have evidence that in 1995, the same year Obama assumed control of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he publicly rejected “the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation,” a stance that clearly resonates with both Wright and Carruthers.
However he may seek to deny it, all evidence points to the fact that, from his position as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright. The Wright affair was no fluke.

Is this the "change" America wants?

Something to ponder for those who wonder why it was that Obama was attracted to America haters Jeremiah Wright, Willllam Ayers, Michael Pfleger, Louis Farrakhan and to assorted comunists and Marxist socialists such as the disciples of Saul Alinsky and ACORN.

The brilliant essayist who writes for the Asia Times under the pen name Spengler analyzed Barack Obama a few months ago. Spengler said the two greatest influences on Obama were his mother and his wife. His mother was an anti-American communist and his wife is an angry black resentful of her slavery heritage. So Obama inherited anti-Americanism in "his mother's milk" and instinctively sought it out in his marriage partner. "Spouses do not necessarily share their likes, but they must have their hatreds in common."

Barack Obama is a clever fellow who imbibed hatred of America with his mother's milk, but worked his way up the elite ladder of education and career. He shares the resentment of Muslims against the encroachment of American culture, although not their religion. He has the empathetic skill set of an anthropologist who lives with his subjects, learns their language, and elicits their hopes and fears while remaining at emotional distance. That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath. The difference is that he is practicing not on a primitive tribe but on the population of the United States.

There is nothing mysterious about Obama's methods. "A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is," wrote Karl Krauss. Americans are the world's biggest suckers, and laugh at this weakness in their popular culture. Listening to Obama speak, Sinclair Lewis' cynical tent-revivalist Elmer Gantry comes to mind, or, even better, Tyrone Power's portrayal of a carnival mentalist in the 1947 film noire Nightmare Alley. The latter is available for instant viewing at Netflix, and highly recommended as an antidote to having felt uplifted by an Obama speech.

America has the great misfortune to have encountered Obama at the peak of his powers at its worst moment of vulnerability in a generation. With malice aforethought, he has sought out their sore point.

Since the Ronald Reagan boom began in 1984, the year the American stock market doubled, Americans have enjoyed a quarter-century of rising wealth. Even the collapse of the Internet bubble in 2000 did not interrupt the upward trajectory of household assets, as the housing price boom eclipsed the effect of equity market weakness. America's success made it a magnet for the world's savings, and Americans came to believe that they were riding a boom that would last forever, as I wrote recently....

Americans regard upward mobility as a God-given right. America had a double founding, as David Hackett Fischer showed in his 1989 study, Albion's Seed . Two kinds of immigrants founded America: religious dissidents seeking a new Promised Land, and economic opportunists looking to get rich quick. Both elements still are present, but the course of the past quarter-century has made wealth-creation the sine qua non of American life. Now for the first time in a generation Americans have become poorer, and many of them have become much poorer due to the collapse of home prices. Unlike the Reagan years, when cutting the top tax rate from a punitive 70% to a more tolerable 40% was sufficient to start an economic boom, no lever of economic policy is available to fix the problem. Americans have no choice but to work harder, retire later, save more and retrench.

This reversal has provoked a national mood of existential crisis. In Europe, economic downturns do not inspire this kind of soul-searching, for richer or poorer, remain what they always have been. But Americans are what they make of themselves, and the slim makings of 2008 shake their sense of identity. Americans have no institutionalized culture to fall back on. Their national religion has consisted of waves of enthusiasm - "Great Awakenings" – every second generation or so, followed by an interim of apathy. In times of stress they have a baleful susceptibility to hucksters and conmen.

Be afraid - be very afraid. America is at a low point in its fortunes, and feeling sorry for itself. When Barack utters the word "hope", they instead hear, "handout". A cynic might translate the national motto, E pluribus unum, as "something for nothing". Now that the stock market and the housing market have failed to give Americans something for nothing, they want something for nothing from the government. The trouble is that he who gets something for nothing will earn every penny of it, twice over. . . .

Americans question the premise of America's standing as a global superpower, and of the promise of upward mobility and wealth-creation. If elected, Barack Obama will do his utmost to destroy the dual premises of America's standing. It might take the country another generation to recover. . . .

It is conceivable that Barack Obama, if elected, will destroy himself before he destroys the country. Hatred is a toxic diet even for someone with as strong a stomach as Obama. . . .

Both Obama and the American public should be very careful of what they wish for. As the horrible example of Obama's father shows, there is nothing worse for an embittered outsider manipulating the system from within than to achieve his goals - and nothing can be more terrible for the system. Even those who despise America for its blunders of the past few years should ask themselves whether the world will be a safer place if America retreats into a self-pitying shell.

One of the most articulate and influential American prelates spoke out this past Friday on the candidacy of Barack Obama, calling him the most committed abortion-rights candidate from a major party since Roe v. Wade.

"To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse," Chaput said according to his prepared remarks, titled "Little Murders."

Archbishop criticizes Obama, Catholic allies

Oct 19, 6:34 AM (ET)


DENVER (AP) - Denver Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput labeled Barack Obama the "most committed" abortion-rights candidate from a major party in 35 years while accusing a Catholic Obama ally and other Democratic-friendly Catholic groups of doing a "disservice to the church."

Chaput, one of the nation's most politically outspoken Catholic prelates, delivered the remarks Friday night at a dinner of a Catholic women's group.

His comments were among the sharpest in a debate over abortion and Catholic political responsibility in a campaign in which Catholics represent a key swing vote.

While Chaput has won praise from traditionalist Catholics for stressing opposition to abortion as a foundational voting issue, voices on the Catholic left have sought to apply church teachings to war, poverty, the environment and other issues.

Although the Catholic left is not new, several advocacy groups have either formed or ramped up activities since 2004. Partly, their efforts are a response to attention given to the pro-abortion rights stance of Democrat John Kerry, a Catholic who was criticized by a few bishops who suggested he should be denied or refrain from Communion.

Chaput, without getting into much detail, called Obama the "most committed" abortion-rights major-party presidential candidate since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion in 1973.

"To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse," Chaput said according to his prepared remarks, titled "Little Murders."



Obama has had a 17-year relationship with ACORN, the "small "c" communist community organizer, which has a multi-year history of corrupting our electoral system with voter registration fraud. He trained its workers in how to intimidate bankers into making loans they shouldn't make and how to register voters. This past winter he pledged to have community organizers like ACORN working with him even before his inauguration as president to shape the agenda of the administration.

Obama shares the same radical views of William Ayers, that America is bad, an oppressive society and needs to be changed. Indeed, they both have the same views as Obama's 20-year pastor Jeremiah Wright -- God Damn America for white oppression of blacks. Having abandoned bombing as counterproductive, Ayers concentrated on early childhood education as the way to subvert the American system. Investigator Stanley Kurtz of Washington's Ethics and Public Policy Center analyzed the records of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in which Obama and Ayers worked together. They made grants grants to extremist groups with the purpose of to radicalizing young children in the Chicago schools. What Kurtz found was this: Ayers' accomplice "Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright." The programs were to incite hatred among young blacks for white America and to resist assimilation and the "middleclassness" that Wright preached blacks should avoid.


Sarah is inspiring a lot of Americans who are excited that they now have a voice in Sarah Palin.

This first video done by an amatuer volunteer takes off from the revised lyrics of Sarah Smile sung by black conservative Lloyd Marcus (the original is the second video below).

An independent group Our Country Deserves Better is producing video ads and touring the country in support of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Lloyd Marcus sings "Sarah Smile" with his own lyrics at a rally stop somewhere in America.

See their ads (we've posted some and will run them all) and make a contribution, however small, go to their website by clicking here.

To see our collection of videos, please go to right column on this website for the listing of Categories and click on Videos.


This from National Review's The Bench (wich deals with legal matters):

Obama's Trouble With the Truth--and With Life [Matthew J. Franck]

In the final presidential debate two nights ago, John McCain brought up Barack Obama's shocking opposition, in the Illinois state senate, to a bill essentially identical to the federal Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. Obama's response began, "If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true. The—here are the facts."

Where Obama is concerned, the incredible is often the exact truth. For the real facts, turn to Robert George and Yuval Levin at The Public Discourse. A supporter of infanticide and a liar. (But who could be the first and not the second?) And this man bids fair to be our next president . . .

For the full analysis of this particular Obama lie about his oppositon to a bill to protect babies born alive after a failed abortion, click here.

Yes, most if not all politicians shade the truth now and then, but Obama is in a league by himself. He constantly misstates his past statements whenever he wishes to do so. His bald-faced lies go unremarked upon by his supportive media, so they join him in making his lies "the truth."

In both Obama's early upbringing in Muslim society (in Indonesia) and in his immersion in Marxist and communist teachings which began right after his arrival in Hawaii from Indonesia and has continued to this day (high school, college, community organizing, readings in Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, courses at Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation while at Harvard Law School and back into involvement with community organizations in the Alinksy style such as ACORN that do and say whatever works), truth is not a cultural value. See, for example, this and this.


We've presented a great deal of documentation on the illegal activties of the voter registration fraud experts ACORN and how Obama in his community organizing days trained their workers not only in voter registration but in how to intimidate bankers into making loans to minority and low income borrowers with inadequate credit. (Click in the right hand column on ACORN in the listing of Categories for some of them.) Of particular interest are three articles by Stanley Kurtz, here and here, which should not be missed.

Now the McCain campaign has produced an effective ad on Obama's long involvement in ACORN's unsavory business of forcing banks to make loans they should never have made and voter registration fraud. Subprime loans are at the root of our world financial crisis and registration fraud corrupts our electoral system.


Mark Steyn is back in the swing of things (that is, writing weekly columns) and Joe the Plumber is his subject this week.


The many statements by Obama and his campaign suggesting his relationship with terrorist bombers and unrepentant active communist revolutionaries Ayers and Dohrn was just that of two families in the same neighborhood are simply lies. Obama has worked very hard to disguise his long and close relationship with Ayers, which may well have stretched back into the 1980s when both were in New York, attending Columbia University and spending time with fellow Marxist radicals.


William Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground, a radical leftist group that from 1969 to the mid-'70s conducted several bombings of government institutions. Ayers served on the group's Central Committee. The Weather Underground bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, military installations, and police stations. In all, seven people were killed. In 1981, two police officers and one security guard were killed by members of the Weather Underground in the robbery of a Brinks truck in New York state. After Ayers married Bernardine Dohrn, also a member of the Weather Underground (who was described by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover as "the most dangerous woman in America"), they settled in Chicago.

Fact: Bernardine Dohrn had this to say in response to the Charles Manson murders, which she romanticized as a revolutionary coup at a Flint, Mich., Weatherman War Council in December 1969: "Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach! Wild!" Dohrn later stated this was meant as a "joke."

Fact: In 1969, Bernardine Dohrn and other members of the Weather Underground traveled to Cuba and met with representatives of the North Vietnam and Cuban governments.

Fact: In 1970, Ayers explained what the Weather Underground was all about: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home; kill your parents; that's where it's really at."

Fact: Both Ayers and Dohrn lived on the run from authorities from approximately 1970 to 1980. The case against Ayers and Dohrn was dropped due to illegal wiretaps and prosecutor misconduct. The FBI was conducting "black bag jobs," or illegal break-ins, in their pursuit of the Weather Underground. Some of these black bag jobs were authorized by Mark Felt, later to be known as "Deep Throat" of Watergate fame.

Fact: Shortly after turning themselves in, Dohrn and Ayers became legal guardians of the son of former members of the Weather Underground, Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, after they were convicted of murder for their roles in a 1981 armored car robbery. Two police officers and one Brinks guard were killed in the robbery.

Fact: Starting in the mid-'90s, Ayers and Obama served on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Project. They served together on the board for approximately seven years. Ayers and Obama were tasked with the oversight of a $100 million budget. The board, under Obama's chairmanship the Annenberg project gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Ayers' projects promoting alternative schools.

["Anderson Cooper 360," CNN, Oct. 6, 2008]

Fact: From 1984 to 1988, Bernardine Dohrn was employed by the prestigious Chicago law firm Sidley Austin. She was hired by Howard Trienens, the head of the firm at that time and someone who knew Thomas G. Ayers, Bill's father. However, Dohrn's criminal record has prevented her from being admitted to either the New York or Illinois bar. "Dohrn didn't get a [law] license because she's stubborn . . . She wouldn't say she's sorry."

[Chicago Tribune, May 18, 2008]

Footnote: Michelle Robinson (now Obama) went to work at Sidley Austin in 1988; did she meet and get to know Bernadine Dohrn? Barack Obama showed up at Sidley Austin as a summer associate in the summer of 1989. Why did Barack Obama apply for and get a summer job at Sidley Austin after his first year of law school? Was this an Ayers connection as well, but with the son William, not the father Thomas? There is some speculation that Obama and William Ayers met in New York City where both attended Columbia University. Ayers is a self-confessed radical, a "small "c" communist he calls himself and Obama made it clear in his book Dreams from My Father that he sought out Marxist socialists and black power advocates while in college. So the odds that the two Marxist socialists crossed paths at Columbia were high. Did their meeting propel Obama to Chicago after his one-year stint in the financial world to carry out with Ayers their socialist revolution by radicalizing school children?

Fact: In 1991, Dohrn was hired by Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, as an adjunct professor of law, with the title "clinical associate professor of law." Thomas Ayers was a long-time member of the Northwestern Board of Trustees, and was named life trustee in 1987.

[Source: Feb. 7, 2008 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC]

Fact: In 1994, Dohrn was quoted on her political beliefs: "I still see myself as a radical."

[Chepesiuk, Ron, "Sixties Radicals, Then and Now: Candid Conversations
With Those Who Shaped the Era," McFarland & Company, Inc]

Fact: In 1995, Obama's first autobiography is released. In it he writes of his years in college, associating with radicals. "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets . . . When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated."

[Obama, Barack, "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,
Random House, Pages 100-101]

Footnote: While at Columbia he got to know Edward Said, the notorious anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian head of Columbia's anti-Israel Middle East Studies program (now headed by Obama friend and supporter former PLO spokeman Rashid Khalidi). He apparently maintained a reasonably close relationship with Said (from 1983) because in 1998 at a dinner honoring Said in Chicago Obama, then an obscure Illinois state senator, and his wife were seated next to the great man and his wife.

barackobamaEdwardSaidMay 1998 483.jpg

Fact: In 1995, Ayers and Dorn opened their Chicago Hyde Park home to host a political coming-out party for Barack Obama, when he ran for the state Senate. Someone who was at this party for Obama wrote that Ayers and Dohrn were launching him, "introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread."

[Politico.com, Feb. 22, 2008]

Footnote: It is nonsense for anyone to assert that that fundraiser in the Ayers home was the first meeting of Obama and Ayers. Clearly, for the "sliced bread" comparison to be made, a prior relationship had to be have been established. See Andrew McCarthy's report.

Fact: From 1999-2002, Ayers and Obama served together on a second charitable foundation, The Woods Fund. While at the Woods Fund, they gave money to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church, which Obama attended, and a children and family center, where Dohrn worked.

["Anderson Cooper 360," CNN, Oct. 6, 2008]

Fact: In a 1996 interview, one year after hosting Barack Obama's coming-out party in their home, Ayers and Dohrn were profiled by "The NewsHour" on PBS. Ayers was asked, "Looking back, would you do it differently now?" He stated, "I doubt it . . . probably not."

Fact: Question to Obama in 2000, during his run for the U.S. Congress: "What is your argument, based on the one term that you served in the [Illinois] Senate so far, that makes you prepared for the Congress?"
Answer: "I would argue . . . my experience previous to elected office equips me for the job . . . I've chaired major philanthropic efforts in the city, like the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that gave $50 million to prompt school reform efforts throughout the city."


Fact: In 2001, Ayers made a $200 campaign contribution to Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama.

Fact: In promoting his book "Fugitive Days" Ayers told The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." When asked if he would "do it all again," he said, "I don't want to discount the possibility."

Fact: Just days after 9/11, Ayers was quoted in The New York Times Magazine: "This society is not a just and decent place . . . We're living in a country where the election was stolen, and we didn't have a mass uprising. It's incredible. We're all asleep. The pundits all pat themselves on the back: 'God, what a great country'. . . It makes me want to puke."

Fact: In 2001, Ayers posed for a photograph in Chicago magazine, accompanying a profile of his book, which shows him stepping on an American flag.


Thumbnail image for ayersflag.jpg

Fact: In a 2001 profile, a writer quotes Ayers as saying, "I think there will be another mass political movement, because I believe that the kind of injustice that is built into our world will not go quietly into the night."

[Chicago magazine, August 2001 online edition]

Fact: In his 2001 memoir, "Fugitive Days," Ayers writes of the time he took part in bombing the Pentagon. "Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The sky was blue; the birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them."

Footnote: In 2001, Obama was working together together with Ayers in two charitable organizations which were handing out money to radicalize school children and fund the voter registration fraud specialist ACORN. Do you really think Chicago politician and Ayers colleague Obama didn't see these press reports?

Fact: In 2008, Ayers again denies he was ever a terrorist, writing on his blog: "The September 11 attacks were acts of terrorism, and the U.S. bombings in Viet Nam for a decade were acts of terrorism. Terrorism is never justifiable, even in a just cause . . . I've never advocated terrorism, never participated in it, never defended it. The U.S. government, by contrast, does it routinely and defends the use of it in its own cause consistently."


Fact: In the 2008 presidential race, Obama downplays his association with Ayers, saying that he is just a "guy who lives in my neighborhood."

[The Washington Post, Oct. 7, 2008]

Fact: David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, attempted to downplay the Obama/Ayers relationship: "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."

[Politico.com, Ben Smith, Feb. 26, 2008]

Fact: Obama's children never attended school with the Ayers children. Obama's children are ages 9 and 6. Ayers and Dohrn have two adult children, and they adopted a son from their fellow Weather Underground terrorist Kathy Boudin. That son was born in 1981.

Fact: Chicago's Hyde Park residents speak of Obama and Ayers' relationship. "Neighbors said it's only natural that Obama would know Ayers and Dohrn, who often open their homes for gatherings filled with lively discussions about politics, arts, and social issues. Obama and his wife 'are part of our neighborhood and part of our social circle,' said Elizabeth Chandler, a neighbor of Ayers'."

[ChicagoTribune.com, April 17, 2008]

The National Republican Trust has created an ad pointing out the danger of Barack Obama's plan to issue driver's licenses to all illegal aliens.

British political observer Melanie Phillips writing in the UK's Spectator cannot believe what's going on in the United States:

You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant* radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.

As she sees it:

Pinch yourself

Tuesday, 14th October 2008

The contrast between, on the one hand, the huge amount of material about Obama’s radical associations that has been published in on-line journals and in a few brave newspapers, and on the other the refusal by big media to address it and to vilify those who do, becomes more astounding by the day. The Obamaniacs are spinning the relationship between Obama and William Ayers, former of Weather Undergound Terrorism Inc, as of no consequence because this was supposedly a chance acquaintance and because the educational project they worked on, the Annenberg Challenge, was a worthy one.

Stanley Kurtz now nails that canard by showing how, through the Annenberg Challenge, Obama and Ayers channelled funds to extremist anti-American Afrocentric ‘educational’ programmes which were a carbon-copy of the world view of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s black racist mentor who, under pressure, Obama was forced to repudiate. These programmes promoted, amongst other radical ideas, the ‘rites of passage’ philosophy which attempted to create a ‘virtually separate and intensely anti-American black social world’ in order to ‘counter the potentially detrimental effects of a Eurocentrically oriented society.’ One such teacher taught that

‘The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy.’

Kurtz concludes:

However he may seek to deny it, all evidence points to the fact that, from his position as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright.

No surprise there, since back in June Kurtz pointed to evidence that Obama shared the black racism of the Trinity United Church of Christ. In this article Obama was reported as rejecting ‘integrationist assimilation’ and wanting to channel black rage more effectively into political organisation. Kurtz dug out a chapter in a 1990 book called After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois in which Obama sketched out how radical black churches could be harnessed to help radicalise the black population. As Kurtz wrote:

So it would appear that Obama’s own writings solve the mystery of why he stayed at Trinity for 20 years. Obama’s long-held and decidedly audacious hope has been to spread Wright’s radical spirit by linking it to a viable, left-leaning political program, with Obama himself at the center. The revolutionizing power of a politically awakened black church is not some side issue, or merely a personal matter, but has been the signature theme of Obama’s grand political strategy.

Those few brave souls who do try to enlighten the public about all this come up against the kind of intimidation by Camp Obama charted here by Michael Barone:

Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Mr. Kurtz had been researching Mr. Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago - papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters. Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest e-mails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Mr. Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.

Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Mr. Obama that were ‘false.’ I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-'02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Mr. Obama's ties to Mr. Ayers.

No such threats, of course, will be made against this new book whose publication is tactfully timed for next year so as not to frighten the horses -- Race Course Against White Supremacy, by none other than William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

Meanwhile, it turns out that not only did Obama do favours for convicted Chicago fraudster Tony Rezko, but as this story reports Alexi Giannoulias, who reputedly bankrolled Michael ‘Jaws’ Giorango, a Chicagoan twice convicted of bookmaking and promoting prostitution, became Illinois state treasurer last year after Obama vouched for him, and has now has pledged to raise $100,000 for Obama’s campaign.

You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant* radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.

* The Marxist belief that the society we inhabit is the bad bourgeois [middle class] society, but that, fortunately, this society is in a state of crisis, so that the good society which lies just around the corner can be easily attained if only we work systematically to destroy the language, the values, the culture, the ideology of bourgeois society. [This what Jeremiah Wright -- and MIchelle Obama -- urged their listeners, not to aspire to the middle class. And, of course, William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were the ultimate fighters against middle class America, seeking to destroy it through violence before they realized re-educating the young to be socialist revolutionaries was more effective.]


Obama lies, again.

Colombia under President Uribe is our most reliable ally in Latin America. It is fighting the drug war with us with increasing success. Uribe has fought the drug dealers and other criminal elements and reduced their power. His coutrymen support his aggressive policies; Colombia cities are safer as a result.

Yet Democrat Speaker of the House Pelosi has chosen to ignore the rules of the House and deferred a vote on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement to a later time -- perhaps never.

Colombia had done much to support America. Michael Barone has justly called Peolosi's sidestepping of the required vote by legislative chicanary the most despicable act of this Congress. Obama defends that position.



Obama Makes It Up

Repeating union distortions.

In Wednesday night's debate with John McCain, Barack Obama defended his opposition to the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement this way: "The history in Colombia right now is that labor leaders have been targeted for assassination, on a fairly consistent basis, and there have not been any prosecutions." Among the many falsehoods in this Presidential campaign, this is one of the worst.

It is true that Colombia has a history of violence. But since President Álvaro Uribe took office in 2002, that violence has been substantially reduced. The homicide rate through the end of 2007 was down by 40.4% and the rate among union members was down almost 87%. There is nothing "consistent" about a drop to 26 union member murders in 2007 from 155 in 2000.

As for prosecutions: In union-member killings, there were zero convictions from 1991-2000 and one in 2001. But from 2002-2007, there were 80. According to the Colombian attorney general's office, 29% of those murders were "found to have been results of theft, petty crime and random violence unrelated to union activity." Mr. Uribe has nonetheless created a special investigative unit for crimes against union members, and he expanded a special government protection program for unions.

More broadly, in 2004 Mr. Uribe pushed through congress a judicial reform that has reduced the average time needed to issue an indictment for a homicide to 50 days from 493. He also increased the budget for the attorney general's office to $598 million in 2008, from $346 million in 2002 -- a 73% increase.

If Colombia hopes to keep spending on judicial improvements and better law enforcement, it needs an expanding economy. In addition to misrepresenting the country's progress on reducing violence, Mr. Obama has never explained how denying Colombians the FTA will help the country reduce violence. Maybe this is because he knows he's merely repeating union distortions.


The New York Post reported today:

October 17, 2008 --

THOUGH he's battling GOP accusations that he's an Ivy League elitist, Barack Obama has a lifestyle of the rich and famous, like TV show host Robin Leach, who always signed off, "Champagne wishes and caviar dreams!" While he was at a meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria at 4 p.m. Wednesday, Michelle Obama called room service and ordered lobster hors d'oeuvres, two whole steamed lobsters, Iranian caviar and champagne, a tipster told Page Six.

Any scraps for Joe the Plumber?

We talk about the hidden Obama, the unknown Obama.

McCain is a known whose national public life has been an open book for many years. His record and posItions are available for all to see. He is a war hero, one who survived more than five years in prison in Vietnam. His record in the Senate is that of an honorable public servant trying to do his job to the best of his ability and forging bipartisan alliances where desirable to get legislation enacted. Before presIdential politics intervened McCain received glowing praise often from Democrats in the Senate. He has the reputation of being a maverick, because he sometimes sees things differently from his Republican colleagues. But he has universal respect.

McCain understands the overarching threat this nation faces from Islamic supremacism of which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran are important components. For the safety of the country, it is of concern that Obama does not recognize that threat, perhaps because most of his relatives are Muslims.

McCain understands that national security is the first priority of a president and is determined to defend and protect this country. He believes in the free enterprise system and providing equal opportunity for all Americans without distinction. It is not clear that Obama shares these priorities.

Obama is an unknown who came to national notice for the first time for his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. His campaign has issued his authorized biography and Obama has written two books about himself. The campaign has steadfastly refused to release any information about Obama's life and beliefs that aren't covered by the "official" version.

The national media, led by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe and the Los Angeles Times, are so enamored of the prospect of a black president they have abdicated their duty to the public to do the kind of scrutiny demanded of a person with a serious chance to become president of the United States. Just look what they can find out when they try: Joe the Plumber has been drawn and quartered by the national media in a mere handful of hours. But they haven't done that kind of in-depth examination of Obama. When bloggers or some independent researcher comes up with new information, the immediate response is to whitewash the story and dismiss it (as the New York Times just did about the William Ayers/Obama relations.)

So people with access to the internet are currently the only ones digging for and then distributing information that isn't available elsewhere. One thing about the blogosphere: If something untrue appears, it can be readily discredited. But news that isn't being developed by the mainstream media it does get around and fast.

At this site we ask questions and seek out what we deem to be relevant information about the unknown, that is, Barack Obama, and pass it on.

In the face of the obstacles erected by the Obama campaign to block access to information and the Obama's campaign of harassment against critics (flooding radio shows with emails demanding critics be shut off) or those raising questions (look at Joe the Plumber), it is difficult to develop the Obama story. So information comes out piecemeal and it's hard to put the whole picture together since all pieces of the puzzle haven't been found yet. What's concerning is that when someone is clearly hiding something one can conclude there is something to hide. And Obama is hiding. Why?

Some examples: The Obama campaign has refused access to Obama's birth records in the State of Hawaii. Some have wondered if Obama was in fact born in Kenya and later had his birth registered in Hawaii. Any question could be easily answered by opening access to the records.

The Obama campaign refuses to provide any information about Obama's time at Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School. Some information has been developed, but not much. No transcripts have been released, no questions are allowed. The absence of information gives rise to speculation,

Why did he switch to Columbia? What courses did he take? Since his book indicated he associated with black power and Marxist socialists, did he take courses on Marxist socialism and the Middle East or Islam? Who did he associate with while in college (beyond what's in Dreams from My Father)? Did he attend classes of the notorious Palestinian supporter and Israel critic Columbia's Edward Said? (In 1998 Obama and his wife were seated at a table for four with Said and his wife at a dinner honoring Said in Chicago when Obama was an obscure new Illinois state senator, suggesting a prior relationship.)

Who are the Marxist socialists he associated with? Did they include William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were not only in New York City at the time Obama was, but Ayers also attended Obama's Columbia. Did they meet then? If they did, did they discuss continuing the revolution against American values together in Chicago? Obama spent one post-grad year in New York City while Ayers was still at Columbia and then moved to Chicago, a place he had never been, to become a community organizer. Chicago is the city where Ayers' roots are and his powerful family still lived. (Ayers' father got Michelle Robninson (now Obama) a job at Sidley Austin, his company's main law firm. A year later Barack Obama got a summer job there in 1989 after his first year at Harvard Law. Did Willam Ayers get his father to push Obama on Sidley? How come?)

UPDATE: It turns out that Andrew McCarthy, the brilliant lawyer who successfully prosecuted the blind shiekh who masterminded the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, has been wondering about the same things and has arrived at the same conclusion: Ayers and Obama had met long before 1995 when Obama kicked off his campaign for Illinois State Senate in Ayers' living room and when Ayers picked Obama to chair the new foundation he had established to pour $50 million plus (it turned out to be $160 million) into radicalization programs for the Chicago schools. As McCarthy notes, it is impossible to believe that Ayers would hand over his prime project to a third year associate in a small law firm he had just met.

When and how did Obama meet Khalid al-Mansour, the Muslim Black Panther alumnus and enemy of Israel, who helped Obama get an important recommendation for Harvard Law School and is reported to have assisted him financially?

No answers.

And so it goes.

The list of unanswered questions is long and grows. Without the cooperation of the Obama campaign it is extremely difficult to find the answers. What has been learned about the hidden Obama thus far is uniformly disturbing. What else is he hiding that the American people should know before the election?

For an excellent compilation of Obama information that has been independently gathered and put into book form, David Freddoso's book "The Case Against Barack Obama" is important reading.

Stanley Kurtz of Washington's Ethics and Public Policy Center is producing explosive article after explosive article based on his investigations, most of which the mainstream media is ignoring. When they do acknowledge it, it's to whitewash it, as the New York Times has been doing. References to his work, which is appearing in various publications, can be found by linkiing to the Center.

As the hidden Obama is revealed, we will carry the story.

Has William (Bill) Ayers changed in the years since he bombed the Capitol, the Pentagon and various police facilities and homes? One who knows says absolutely not.

"His hatred of America is as virulent as when he planted a bomb at the Pentagon. And this hatred informs his educational "reform" efforts."

Over many years Obama worked with Ayers to fund radicalization of the Chicago schools and to teach young blacks to hate white-dominated America. As an "education specialist" Ayers was acting out the same hatred of America he had as a bomber but in a different way. As the estimable Stanley Kurtz has found, based on a study of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge archives, Ayers' accomplice "Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright." Hatred of America drove Ayers. What drove Obama?

Joe the plumber exposes Obama's plan to take tax money from you and give it to those 30-40% who don't pay any tax at all. "Spread the wealth" is how he describes using you as his piggy bank for his new federal welfare plan.

The racism injected into the presidential campaign by Barack Obama and his supporters in the mainstream media -- beginning with the New York Tiimes and the Washington Post -- is a disgrace to this country. It has unjustly dishonored John McCain, who has been scrupulous -- overscrupulous -- in even avoiding the risk of appearing racist. Why, McCain won't even ask why Obama spent 20 years with the anit-semitic, white-hating, America-hating Jeremiah Wright.

As Charles Krauthammer points out, Obama in the primary campaign even used the race card against Bill Clinton.

Clinton has many sins, but from his student days to his post-presidency, his commitment and sincerity in advancing the cause of African-Americans have been undeniable. If the man Toni Morrison called the first black president can be turned into a closet racist, then anyone can.

Krauthammer concludes:

What makes this all the more dismaying is that it comes from Barack Obama, who has consistently presented himself as a healer, a man of a new generation above and beyond race, the man who would turn the page on the guilt-tripping grievance politics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

I once believed him.

This unknown man who may become president is being revealed piece by piece and the picture is ugly. HIs callous and vicious use of the race card springs from his history of hatred of the white man for his presumed oppression of blacks. If Clinton or McCain gets in his way, they are to be swept aside by whatever means work. If it's playing the race card or lying, well, that's what Obama does. And the media lets him get away with it.

Melanie Phillips, a highly regarded UK political commentator, can barely contain her shock and disbelief as to what is happening in America. As she sees it:

You have to pinch yourself – a M[arxist] radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.

Is there anything false in what Phillips has said? Obama has spent years consorting with Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Louis Farrakhan, Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko and the communists who run the voter registration fraud organization ACORN and doing the bidding of the corrupt Chicago political machine.

Despite the efforts of Obama and his supporters to keep his true story hidden, facts are leaking out on the internet, in blogs and by word of mouth and polls are tightening. The American people will save the republic on election day from this glib, hate-filled unknown and elect an honorable man John McCain who will defend and protect this country and expand opportunities for all Americans.

As for Krauthammer, it's hard to say whether he is angry or disgusted, or both.

Obama's Betrayed Message
Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post
Friday, October 17, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Let me get this straight. A couple of agitated yahoos in a rally of thousands yell something offensive and incendiary, and John McCain and Sarah Palin are not just guilty by association -- with total strangers, mind you -- but worse: guilty according to The New York Times of "race-baiting and xenophobia."

But should you bring up Barack Obama's real associations -- 20 years with Jeremiah Wright, working on two foundations and distributing money with William Ayers, citing the raving Michael Pfleger as one who helps him keep his moral compass (Chicago Sun-Times, April 2004) and the long-standing relationship with the left-wing vote-fraud specialist ACORN -- you have crossed the line into illegitimate guilt by association. Moreover, it is tinged with racism.

The fact that, when John McCain actually heard one of those nasty things said about Obama, he incurred the boos of his own crowd by insisting that Obama is "a decent person that you do not have to be scared (of) as president" makes no difference. It surely did not stop John Lewis from comparing McCain to George Wallace.

The search for McCain's racial offenses is untiring and often unhinged. Remember McCain's Berlin/celebrity ad that showed a shot of Paris Hilton? An appalling attempt to exploit white hostility at the idea of black men "becoming sexually involved with white women," fulminated New York Times columnist Bob Herbert. He took to TV to denounce McCain's exhumation of that most vile prejudice, pointing out McCain's gratuitous insertion in the ad of "two phallic symbols," the Washington Monument and the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

Except that Herbert was entirely delusional. There was no Washington Monument. There was no Leaning Tower. Just photographs seen in every newspaper in the world of Barack Obama's Berlin rally in the setting he himself had chosen, Berlin's Victory Column.

Herbert is not the only fevered one. On Tuesday night, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC and Jonathan Alter of Newsweek fell over themselves agreeing that the "political salience" of the Republican attack on ACORN is, yes, its unstated appeal to racial prejudice.

This about an organization that is being accused of voter registration fraud in about a dozen states. In Nevada, the investigating secretary of state is a Democrat. Is he playing the race card too?

What makes the charges against McCain especially revolting is that he has been scrupulous in eschewing the race card. He has gone far beyond what is right and necessary, refusing even to make an issue of Obama's deep, self-declared connection with the race-baiting Jeremiah Wright.

In the name of racial rectitude, McCain has denied himself the use of that perfectly legitimate issue. It is simply Orwellian for him to be now so widely vilified as a stoker of racism. What makes it doubly Orwellian is that these charges are being made on behalf of the one presidential candidate who has repeatedly, and indeed quite brilliantly, deployed the race card.

How brilliantly? The reason Bill Clinton is sulking in his tent is because he feels that Obama surrogates succeeded in painting him as a racist. Clinton has many sins, but from his student days to his post-presidency, his commitment and sincerity in advancing the cause of African-Americans have been undeniable. If the man Toni Morrison called the first black president can be turned into a closet racist, then anyone can.

And Obama has shown no hesitation in doing so to McCain. Just weeks ago, in Springfield, Mo., and elsewhere, he warned darkly that George Bush and John McCain were going to try to frighten you by saying that, among other scary things, Obama has "a funny name" and "doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills."

McCain has never said that, nor anything like that. When asked at the time to produce one instance of McCain deploying race, the Obama campaign could not. Yet here was Obama firing a pre-emptive charge of racism against a man who had not indulged in it. An extraordinary rhetorical feat, and a dishonorable one.

What makes this all the more dismaying is that it comes from Barack Obama, who has consistently presented himself as a healer, a man of a new generation above and beyond race, the man who would turn the page on the guilt-tripping grievance politics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

I once believed him.

Who are the fathers of today's world financial meltdown?

Who has cost investors hundreds of billions and workers hundreds of thousands of American jobs? Who has put the world on the edge of a Depression?

Three Democratic politicians who, not accidentally but deliberately, undermined the American financial system: Barack Obama, Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank and Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd.

The following account is the story the mainstream media will not tell the American people because they fear it would jeopardize an Obama victory. Maybe after the election they will document the involvement of Obama and his Democratic colleagues, whose zeal to change America into a socialist state brought disaster to the world.

Free trade came up in the McCain/Obama debate Wednesday night. Stephen Spruiell argues this important matter does not get the attention it deserves. It is incredible that Obama and the Democratic Congress have refused to approve the free trade agreement with Colombia, our closest ally in Latin America. McCain said it was an unconscionable position. Obama claimed Colombia was killing union officials. Not true. Obama follows the line of the unions that all free trade agreements are bad in defiance of all evidence and the near universal statements of economists.

Obama opposes the Colombia deal because organized labor opposes it, and his fealty to the AFL-CIO on that and every other issue should be causing more concern than it is. Whether workers will retain the right to a secret ballot in union elections is a question that the next president will almost certainly decide, and Obama has already come out in favor of taking that right away.

Americans are on the verge of electing the most anti-trade, pro-union candidate of the last three decades, but these issues have received scant attention compared to Obama’s tax plan. Obama’s redistributionist approach to taxes is important to highlight, but his protectionism is also a form of redistribution: It would force consumers to pay higher prices for certain goods in order to benefit favored domestic industries. Joe the Plumber was the star of Wednesday night’s debate, but tax policy is not the only way Barack Obama seeks to “spread the wealth.”

We reported in July on Democratic Speaker of the House Pelosi twisting House rules to prevent a required up-or-down vote on the Colombia free trade agreement from taking place. Michael Barone termed her action the most shameful act of the current Congress. It remains so, for Pelosi, the Democratic Congress and Obama.

HIstory has shown that protectionism is a recipe for disaster. Even the Democrat economist Paul Krugman in his sane days said, "A country serves its own interests by pursuing free trade regardless of what other countries may do.”


Joe the Plumber has emerged as the star of the presidentiial campaign. His complaint about Obama's "tax cut" plan that would raise taxes on him that evoked Obama's response that he just wants to "spread the wealth around" did more to expose Obama's socialist plans than anything else to date. Joe's exchange with Obama certainly was a major factor in the final debate between John McCain and Obama, since it highlighted the kind of handout America Obama would create if elected president:

We first covered Joe's exchange with Obama here in which he let slip he just wanted to "spread the wealth" around. Clearly, Obama plans to roll back the welfare reform worked out by a Republican Congress and the Clinton Administration.. Obama apparently is counting on having a Democratic Congress to go along with his "spread the wealth" plans.

Well, that remark will live on. The plan will not if John McCain is elected president.

Two videos:

The first is the original airing of Joe's exchange with Obama.

The second is a phone interview Joe had with Neil Cavuto yesterday. As Joe points out, he's just a simple, hard-working guy trying to make a living and he doesn't want the government telling him who he should give his money to.


Well, if McCain doesn't have the gumption to let people know who the real Obama is, there are some folks who will. This ad, run by an independent group, has just started airing in some key states. The message is that Obama just doesn't have the values that most Americans do. Jeremiah Wright is the emblem of that. A study released just yesterday found that Obama did more than rub shoulders with and take inspiration from Jeremiah Wright.

As Stanley Kurtz reports, as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama poured funds into programs that taught young blacks to hate America and to keep themselves separate: "Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright."

Why does someone who says he loves America (Obama MUST have said he does at some point) fund hate-America programs?

UPDATE: McCain in the debate did get into Obama's America hating pals that seemed to get The One a bit flustered. As he was in his weak response (a lie, by the way) on why he opposed an anti-infanticide bill.

Power Line picked up this report of ACORN fraud in Philadelphia. Obama's ACORN deliberately hires those to get new voters who are desperate for money, such as drug addicts who get paid only if they get signatures.

Here's what John Hinderaker had to say:

ACORN continues to perpetrate voter registration fraud around the country; here is CNN's report on what is happening in Philadelphia:

Some excerpts:

CNN: According to city officials, close to 8,000 applications turned in by ACORN are problematic, including the 1,500 already sent to the U.S. Attorney, and officials expect the number to climb. Greg Voigt says so far his office is catching them, making sure no bad registrations lead to bad votes, but admits he has limited staff.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FRED VOIGT: Are there going to be bad votes? Sure, there are going to be bad votes. There are always bad votes. Am I concerned this is a close election? Of course, I'm concerned it's a close election. But, you have to weigh everything in terms of your capacity to find things out.

CNN: Voigt says the problem is ACORN hires people desperate for money, including drug addicts, homeless, recovering alcoholics, even recent parolees who only get paid if they get signatures. ...

If next month's election is one-sided, the potentially explosive issue of voter fraud may recede once again--until the next election, anyway. But even if the Presidential race isn't close, some races will be. And given the massive voter registration fraud that has been carried out on behalf of the Democratic Party, it will likely be impossible to tell whether that fraud influenced the composition of the House, the Senate, or the governorships in one or more states.

If the Presidential election does turn out to be a cliffhanger, the potential consequences are even worse. In that event, and if Obama wins, there is a real possibility that many millions of Americans will view him as an illegitimate President who was installed in the White House through fraud. That's a risk, though, that the Obama campaign is evidently willing to take.


| 1 Comment


Michael Ramirez, IBD

Reports of voter registration fraud are pouring in from all over the country, but the media and the Obama campaign couldn't care less. Investor's Business Daily calls for action.

With widening evidence of massive voter fraud nationwide, we can't leave it to a biased media to investigate. ACORN's alleged voter fraud crosses all jurisdictions, and is now federal in scope.

So why hasn't the Justice Department launched a full-scale investigation? Or the Federal Election Commission?

And why isn't Congress up in arms over this attempt to steal our republic?

The editorial.

ACORN's Bad Seed
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY |Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Election '08: As a major voting fraud scandal explodes, the mainstream media seem intent on ignoring it. Given the seriousness of the charges, maybe a formal federal investigation is in order.

The charges involve ACORN — the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now — for which Barack Obama once served as a lawyer and as a trainer.

In recent months, a picture has emerged of ACORN as a group run amok — with ACORN accused of registering thousands of bogus voters using such names as Mickey Mouse, Veronica Mars and Pat Tillman, plus names from the Dallas Cowboys.

Why care? As documented by Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at Washington's Ethics and Public Policy Center, Obama has ties to ACORN that are numerous, irrefutable and go back years. Initial denials by the Obama campaign of links to ACORN have been shown to be false.

Obama at various times during his 1990s career as a "community organizer" served ACORN in several roles, including as a major conduit of funds. And the ties continue. This year, Obama's campaign has delivered $800,000 to an ACORN affiliate. Obama has also vowed to give ACORN a big role in his administration.

ACORN's links to the Democratic Party are deep, extending back to its 1970 founding. By its own reckoning, ACORN this year has registered 1.32 million voters in 18 states — many in swing states that could have an outsized impact on the outcome of the election.

Nothing wrong with registering voters, except that ACORN has been accused of voter fraud activities across the country. At least 12 states have started investigations against ACORN.

ACORN also has been implicated in the subprime mortgage meltdown. But it still gets millions in taxpayers' dollars. Something is seriously wrong here.

Yet the media seem curiously incurious about it — just as they refuse to look deeply into Obama's longstanding ties to terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, or ACORN's own radical ties.

ACORN, as it turns out, was co-founded by Wade Rathke, a former member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The SDS spawned the terrorist Weathermen — of which Ayers and Dohrn were members.

The media show no interest. They're in the bag for Obama, big time. A study of the Big Three networks' election coverage released Tuesday by George Mason University's Center for Media & Public Affairs found that, from Aug. 23 to Sept. 30, 61% of their stories about the Democratic Party were positive; just 39% of the stories about Republicans were positive.

With widening evidence of massive voter fraud nationwide, we can't leave it to a biased media to investigate. ACORN's alleged voter fraud crosses all jurisdictions, and is now federal in scope.

So why hasn't the Justice Department launched a full-scale investigation? Or the Federal Election Commission?

And why isn't Congress up in arms over this attempt to steal our republic?



At last, somebody is demanding that the truth be told about about Barack Obama.

At this stage of the campaign, with the media refusing to do its job, it's John McCain's duty to tell the American people who Barack Obama really is. The nation deserves to know. As Tony Blankley so accurately says, "the only thing standing in the way of the American public making the most uninformed presidential decision since the invention of the telegraph" is John McCain.

Obama is a product of the corrupt Democratic Chicago political machine that cleared the field of candidates for all of his prior elections and is now running his campaign. His record is clearly that of a Marxist socialist who views this election as a way to change America from a free enterprise economy into one in which those in control of government -- Obama and the Chicago machine -- can dispense patronage and payoffs to their friends and distribute handouts and welfare to supporters at the expense of hard working Americans, thus buying their continuing political support to remain in power.

From his own statements, it is clear Obama will jeopardize the nation's defenses to free up taxpayers' money "to spread around" in a vastly expanded welfare system. He will allow our dependence on Middle East oil to continue to please his friends in the Muslim world. His Chicago political machine patrons don't mind his socialist agenda, indeed, it suits their ends, too.

Obama's close working alliances for decades with America haters Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers to stoke resentment and hate towards America in congregations and schools is clear evidence that the face he is now presenting to the American public is false. He is the opposite of a healer. He and the Chicago political machine will do anything to acquire power, as evidenced by their false cries of racism at every turn and the huge number of cases of fraudulent voter registration now being reported from all around the country, mostly attributable to Obama's long time ally ACORN. (Since ACORN registers Democrats, that suits the Chicago Democratic machine just fine.)

Obama spins his mantra of "hope' and "change," showing he has absorbed the central lesson of his communist "organizer" mentor Saul Alinsky very well, that in the pursuit of power truth is inconsequential.

In reality, Obama is full of anger anger at "white oppression" and is aching for power to strike back at, in his wife's words, the "just downright mean" country that has treated them so well. The only one left to unmask Obama is John McCain, since the media has refused to perform its duty to inform the public. But will the facts be listened to and make the difference?

John McCain's task:

John McCain has an unambiguous duty to the nation to force the public to at least be informed as to the nature and character of Sen. Obama. He needs to lay out all the accurate available information of Obama's prior alliances, affiliations and conduct both for the purpose of revealing Obama's character and Obama's radical policy disposition.

The Obama campaign has raised to a high art the technique of politically intimidating people from commenting honestly about Obama. They play the race card dishonestly, and almost the entire deck from which they deal is filled with race cards and threats of litigation. Real racism is appalling, but the act of falsely charging racism undercuts the very causes of equality and tolerance.

As courageous as John McCain's life has been to date, the next three weeks may be his most heroic. He must do his duty and alert the public despite the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" that will be shot into his back as he does so. Once he has discharged that duty -- and arranged for sufficient lawyers to protect the ballot boxes from what is likely to be an unprecedented campaign of attempted voter fraud -- Sen. McCain may be confident that his honor will be intact. And he will be ready to serve as our 44th president.

Read it all -- and weep that this nation has reached this dangerous position because of the deliberate decisions of elites, themselves corrupt, to hide the truth from the American people.

October 15, 2008
McCain's Next Duty Call
By Tony Blankley
Creators Syndicate

The essence of this election season couldn't be simpler. The American public is so appalled at the condition of the country (which it unfairly, but not implausibly blames on the despised President Bush) that with fate casting John McCain in the role of Bush's surrogate, a majority actually is considering voting for Sen. Obama. And when an electorate is intent on doing something, the last thing it wants to hear about are the facts. Moreover, the public's lack of interest in the facts is facilitated by the major American media's refusal to report them.

For example, as Obama has portrayed his political career as one extended beau geste to the ideal of American democracy, a slightly curious media would have thought to report on how he ran his previous elections. And those prior elections, far from being models of honest elections honestly fought, are redolent of Chicago politics at their most suspect.

Obama's first election was described recently by Martin Fletcher, a foreign correspondent for NBC News, in the British newspaper The Times (not on NBC): "Mr Obama won a seat in the state senate in 1996 by the unorthodox means of having surrogates successfully challenge the hundreds of nomination signatures that candidates submit. His Democratic rivals, including Alice Palmer, the incumbent, were all disqualified." Hmm.

Obama's election to the U.S. Senate was even more curious, as described by Gerard Baker in the Irish Independent: "Two exquisitely timed divorces smoothed the way.

"In the Democratic primary, he was a long shot. But a month before the election, his main opponent, Blair Hull, a wealthy Chicago futures trader, was forced to publish divorce papers that revealed, among other charming details, his wife's claim that he had once threatened to kill her.

"In the general election, lightning struck again. His opponent, the engaging Jack Ryan, had run a campaign as a different sort of Republican. But a few months before the election, his divorce papers revealed that, while he might have been a different sort of Republican, he was from precisely the same stable of Obama political opponents. He had, it turned out, once tried to force his former wife to go with him to sex clubs in Paris."

Was Obama really the innocent beneficiary of these rare events? Anything is possible. But when a fellow deals himself two royal flushes in a row, the other players are entitled to be suspicious. Moreover, when a politician is suspected of hypocrisy, the Washington press corps usually is supercharged in its efforts to prove their suspicions. But despite the fact that these bare outlines of Obama's elections are pregnant with the implications that he has gained every office he has sought so far by underhanded and sordid means -- while posing as a Gary Cooper-like idealist in a corrupt political world -- the American media have let these extraordinary events simply pass without significant comment.

During the past few weeks, as I have been traveling extensively across the country, I have yet to find anyone (including a few reporters and producers at local news stations in Florida, California and New York) who has heard of these facts. The response when I recite the facts is always about the same. More or less: "Really? Wow!"

A few days ago, a senior McCain campaign aide was reported to have said that McCain would rather lose with dignity than win by questionable means. I hope that isn't Sen. McCain's view because the aide has it exactly backward. If the polls are reasonably accurate, three weeks of John McCain's campaigning is the only thing standing in the way of the American public making the most uninformed presidential decision since the invention of the telegraph.

John McCain has an unambiguous duty to the nation to force the public to at least be informed as to the nature and character of Sen. Obama. He needs to lay out all the accurate available information of Obama's prior alliances, affiliations and conduct both for the purpose of revealing Obama's character and Obama's radical policy disposition.

The Obama campaign has raised to a high art the technique of politically intimidating people from commenting honestly about Obama. They play the race card dishonestly, and almost the entire deck from which they deal is filled with race cards and threats of litigation. Real racism is appalling, but the act of falsely charging racism undercuts the very causes of equality and tolerance.

As courageous as John McCain's life has been to date, the next three weeks may be his most heroic. He must do his duty and alert the public despite the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" that will be shot into his back as he does so. Once he has discharged that duty -- and arranged for sufficient lawyers to protect the ballot boxes from what is likely to be an unprecedented campaign of attempted voter fraud -- Sen. McCain may be confident that his honor will be intact. And he will be ready to serve as our 44th president.


Catholics and Evangelicals are being wooed to support Obama on the grounds his economic policies would result in fewer abortions, even though he is pro-abortion.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and previously served on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He sits on the editorial board of Public Discourse.

Professor George examines the arguments put forth by Obama supporters and finds them to be "delusional."

In the end, the efforts of Obama's apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn't even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.

For those who are carefully considering this vital moral issue as election day draws near, Professor George's analysis should be read.


Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for 070405sowellthomas.jpgDr. Thomas Sowell calls Obama a total fraud.

Does anyone in real life put more faith in what people say than in what they do? A few gullible people do — and they often get deceived and defrauded big time.

Barack Obama has carried election-year makeovers to a new high, presenting himself as a uniter of people, someone reaching across the partisan divide and the racial divide — after decades of promoting polarization in each of his successive roles and each of his choices of political allies.

Yet the media treat exposing a fraudulent election-year image as far worse than letting someone acquire the powers of the highest office in the land through sheer deception.

Read Dr. Sowell's words carefully.

Going Negative!

That's what the media cry when you accurately present the track record of liberal candidates.

By Thomas Sowell
October 14, 2008
Creators Syndicate

One of the oldest phenomena of American elections — criticism of one’s opponent — has in recent times been stigmatized by much of the media as “negative advertising.”

Is this because the criticism has gotten more vicious or more personal? You might think so, if you were totally ignorant of history, as so many of the graduates of even our elite universities are.

Although Grover Cleveland was elected president twice, he had to overcome a major scandal that he had fathered a child out of wedlock, which was considered more of a disgrace then than today. Even giants like Lincoln and Jefferson were called names that neither McCain nor Obama has been called.

Why then is “negative advertising” such a big deal these days? The dirty little secret is this: Liberal candidates have needed to escape their past and pretend that they are not liberals, because so many voters have had it with liberals.

In 1988, Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts called himself a “technocrat,” a pragmatic solver of problems, despite a classic liberal track record of big spending, big taxes, and policies that were anti-business and pro-criminal.

When the truth about what he actually did as governor was brought out during the presidential election campaign, the media were duly shocked — not by Dukakis’s record, but by the Republicans’ exposing his record.

John Kerry, with a very similar ultra-liberal record, topped off by inflammatory and unsubstantiated attacks on American military men in Vietnam, disdained the whole process of labeling as something unworthy. And the mainstream media closed ranks around him as well, deploring those who labeled Kerry a liberal.

Barack Obama is much smoother. Instead of issuing explicit denials, he gives speeches that sound so moderate, so nuanced, and so lofty that even some conservative Republicans go for them. How could anyone believe that such a man is the very opposite of what he claims to be — unless they check out the record of what he has actually done?

In words, Obama is a uniter instead of a divider. In deeds, he has spent years promoting polarization. That is what a “community organizer” does — creating a sense of grievance, envy, and resentment — in order to mobilize political action to get more of the taxpayers’ money or to force banks to lend to people they don’t consider good risks, as the community organizing group ACORN did.

After Barack Obama moved beyond the role of a community organizer, he promoted the same polarization in his other roles.

That is what he did when he spent the money of the Woods Fund bankrolling programs to spread the politics of grievance and resentment into the schools. That is what he did when he spent the taxpayers’ money bankrolling the grievance and resentment ideology of Michael Pfleger.

When Barack Obama donated $20,000 to Jeremiah Wright, does anyone imagine that he was unaware that Wright was the epitome of grievance, envy, and resentment hype? Or were Wright’s sermons too subtle for Obama to pick up that message?

How subtle is “Goddamn America!”?

Yet those in the media who deplore “negative advertising” regard it as unseemly to dig up ugly facts instead of sticking to the beautiful rhetoric of an election year. The oft-repeated mantra is that we should trick to the “real issues.”

What are called “the real issues” are election-year talking points, while the actual track record of the candidates is treated as a distraction — and somehow an unworthy distraction.

Does anyone in real life put more faith in what people say than in what they do? A few gullible people do — and they often get deceived and defrauded big time.

Barack Obama has carried election-year makeovers to a new high, presenting himself as a uniter of people, someone reaching across the partisan divide and the racial divide — after decades of promoting polarization in each of his successive roles and each of his choices of political allies.

Yet the media treat exposing a fraudulent election-year image as far worse than letting someone acquire the powers of the highest office in the land through sheer deception.

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.

Obama's tax plan, he says, will give 95% of Americans an income tax cut. That's odd; 44% of Americans don't pay any income tax at all. What will happen is that the 44% will get a check from the government paid for by those who do pay taxes -- you. In other words, Obama is using his tax plan for welfare. He just wants to, in his words, "spread the wealth around." At the heart of Obama's "change for America" is socialism and increased reliance on the government for more handouts.

Since Obama believes, along with anti-white America Jeremiah Wright and self-described communist Willam Ayers, that America oppresses its non-white low income minorities, it is only just and fair that those who have earned enough to pay taxes hand some of their money over to those who haven't.

Power Line has the video of Obama's retort to a plumber who has figured out he's going to pay more under Obama's "tax cut" plan. Power Line also excerpts the Wall Street Journal's explanation of how Obama is undoing welfare reform as a first step to his new socialist society to replace the free enterprise system that has created the world's most successful economy.

Obama's "tax" plan would in effect undo the greatest accomplishment of the Republican Congress, welfare reform. It would reinstate the federal welfare system that we thought was gone for good with the repeal of AFDC. Not only a welfare system: a welfare system that would rapidly grow from more than a half trillion to over a trillion dollars a year.

ACORN is a communist/socialist organization whose mission is to "change America.,"

Barack Obama has been allied with ACORN since at least 1992 in its efforts to "change America." He has trained ACORN workers in how to intimidate banks and bankers into making mortgage loans they should not make and how to register voters. Obama ran a voter registration drive himself with ACORN in the early 1990s. Obama has represented ACORN in suing to "change America."

The kind of unsound loans that ACORN forced banks to make in its mission to "change America" are at the heart of the housing bubble, its collapse and the financial wreckage now destroying the savings of Americans and costing American jobs.

ACORN also has been working to "change America" by massive voter registration fraud to register Democratic voters. This year it claims it has registered 1.7 million new voters; one can guess the percentage of Democrats. Voter registration fraud investigations involving ACORN are ongoing in 12 states right now. Obama paid ACORN over $800,000 this year for voter registration despite its long and notorious involvement in voter registration fraud complaints, investigations and convictions. One recent report is of a young man bribed by ACORN with "cash and cigs" to sign up 72 times.

ACORN did not stop with intimidation of mortgage lenders to force them to make bad loans. Stanley Kurtz details how ACORN moved on to Congress to get Democratic support for throwing sane lending standards out the window and authorizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy up these unsound loans from mortgage lenders. The present world financial crisis is the result. As Kurtz notes, "the bad seed that started it all was ACORN."

HOW does Barack Obama fit into all of this? Obama has been a key ally of Chicago ACORN going back to his days as a community organizer.

Later, as a young lawyer, he offered leadership training to the activists who were forcing Chicago banks into high-risk subprime loans. And when he made it on to the boards of Chicago's Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he channeled money ACORN's way.

Obama was perfectly aware of ACORN's intimidation tactics - indeed, he oversaw a Woods Fund report that boasted of managing to fund the radical group despite its shocking behavior.

And as a lawmaker, in Illinois and in Washington, he has continued to back ACORN's legislative agenda.

And allied with ACORN in Congress in pushing to loosen mortgage lending standards was none other than Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank. And later, in 2005 and 2006, it was Barney Frank, Senators Christopher Dodd and Barack Obama who blocked efforts of the President and John McCain and other Republicans to stop Fannie's and Freddie's dangerous subprime mortgage purchase programs that brought on this world financial crisis.

The kind of change Obama's bad judgment has already brought to America has cost the nation dearly in dollars, lost jobs and the integrity of the voting system. Will voter fraud nonetheless win him the election?

Read the appalling story in its entirety.


Obama's friends are a cause for concern, concludes the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer.

What is more important, decades of close alliance with Reverend Wright, a bigoted, anti-American racist, William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist bomber, America-hater par excellence and a self-described communist and Tony Rezko, convicted of 16 counts of political corruption and Obama fund raiser to the tune of $250,000 or Obama's campaign statements separating himself from these people?

Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright's pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse.

Do you? Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not.

Obama & Friends: Judge Not?

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 10, 2008; Washington Post

Convicted felon Tony Rezko. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters. Yet let the McCain campaign raise the issue, and the mainstream media begin fulminating about dirty campaigning tinged with racism and McCarthyite guilt by association.

But associations are important. They provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque and self-contained as Obama. With the economy overshadowing everything, it may be too late politically to be raising this issue. But that does not make it, as conventional wisdom holds, in any way illegitimate.



ACORN's voter registration activities have provoked so much concern and so many investigations that the FBI has now stepped in. This IBD editorial recounts what's going on and what's at stake.

Is ACORN Stealing The Election?

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Election Fraud: A radical group Barack Obama used to work for is committing voter-registration fraud in several states, ahead of the election. What does Obama know about this scam?

It's a legitimate question to raise now that the FBI has raided the offices of the nonprofit Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in Nevada and North Carolina, two states where Obama and John McCain are running neck-and-neck. ACORN has registered bogus voters in both states.

The group's voter-registration fraud is rampant, and authorities plan a nationwide sweep of ACORN offices to collect records.

In Nevada, state officials say the fraudulent registrations included forms for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team, including quarterback Tony Romo.

"Romo is not registered to vote in the state of Nevada," Secretary of State Ross Miller said, "and anybody trying to pose as Terrell Owens won't be able to cast a ballot on Nov. 4."

While those names will be flagged on Election Day, felonious voters may have better luck using other cutouts. Nevada, along with several other key battleground states, requires no ID to vote.

In North Carolina, where Obama has been running nonstop ads, ACORN has registered a record number of new voters, many of them suspicious. Statewide, Democrats are doing better than the GOP in new converts — even in traditionally Republican counties.

There have been 218,749 newly registered Democrats in North Carolina since January — more than five times the 38,337 new Republicans, state records show.

The numbers show a startlingly close political battle even in Republican-dominated Union County, with 4,233 new voters registering as Democrats and 4,362 as Republicans. In previous election years, new Republicans have outnumbered Democrats 2-to-1 in the fast-growing Charlotte-area county.

In Missouri, one ACORN registrant named Monica Rays showed up on no less than eight forms, all bearing the same signature.

Suspicious election officials sent letters to some 5,000 ACORN registrants in St. Louis, asking the letter recipients to contact them.

Fewer than 40 reponded.

In Kansas City, 15,000 registrations have been questioned, and last year four ACORN employees were indicted for fraud.

In addition, ACORN officials have also been indicted in Wisconsin and Colorado. Investigations against others are active in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

ACORN has also been registering convicted felons — including inmates — in Florida and other battleground states. ACORN boasts registering a record 1.5 million new voters so far this election.

What does all this have to do with Obama, besides the fact that he'd be the beneficiary of most, if not all, of these new votes?

For starters, Obama paid ACORN, which has endorsed him for president, $800,000 to register new voters, payments his campaign failed to accurately report. (They were disguised in his FEC disclosure as payments to a front group called Citizen Services Inc. for "advance work.")

What's more, Obama worked as executive director of ACORN's voter-registration arm, Project Vote, in 1992. Joined by two other community organizers on Chicago's South Side, Obama conducted the voter-registration drive that helped elect Carol Moseley-Braun to the Senate that year.

The next year, 1993, Obama joined the civil-rights law firm Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, where he sued the state of Illinois on behalf of ACORN to implement the federal "Motor Voter" law, which the GOP governor at the time refused to do. Then-Gov. Jim Edgar argued, presciently, that the Clinton law would invite voter fraud.

Obama downplays his ties to ACORN, and his campaign denies coordinating with ACORN to register voters.

Meantime, New Orleans-based ACORN maintains that it has no control over volunteers who are falsifying application forms, that they're like employees who steal from the store.

But the fraud is widespread and not isolated. It also turns out that some ACORN execs allegedly are involved in a $1 million embezzlement cover-up at their headquarters. Representing them in the case is none other than Michelle Obama's old law firm in Chicago.

ACORN's corruption is not just out in the field, as they claim. There's a pattern of corruption from the top down.

McCain would be wise to start preparing a challenge to voter registration rolls should he lose the race in a close contest. He'd be crazy not to contest the results in light of these events.

First it was Obama saying that Reverend Wright of the "God Damn America" videos was not the Jeremiah Wright he knew over 20 years. That statement was quickly exposed as utter nonsense.

Then it was unrepentant terrorist bomber and self-described communist William Ayers Obama tried to pass off as just somebody from the neighborhood when in fact they worked together for several years dispensing over $150 million in an attempt to make socialists out of Chicago's teachers and students.

Now Obama is trying to disassociate himself from ACORN, the radical socialist organization in the forefront of intimidating banks and bankers to make subprime mortgage loans to low-income and minorities whose credit did not warrant the loans. ACORN also has a long history of voter registration fraud, not only in Chicago, but across the nation. ACORN, like most socialists, want to replace the free enterprise system with an authoritarian socialist state and all means to accomplish this end are allowable, including violent intimidation and, shall we say, careless and negligent voter registration efforts. Despite -- or because of -- this history the Obama campaign paid over $800,000 to an ACORN unit for voter registration work this year.

Obama first ran a voter registration project with ACORN in the early 1990s, so he has to be familiar with its long history of accusations, investigations and convictions involving fraudulent voter registration. Obama trained ACORN workers in the art of pressuring banks to make unsound loans. As a lawyer he even represented ACORN in a law suit to force the Clinton Administration to loosen mortgage loan standards even farther. In the last couple of years Obama said his views were still pretty much what they were during his ACORN days and this past November he was quoted as saying he had been fighting alongside ACORN" his entire career. ACORN's political arm has endorsed him for president and proudly announced it has registered 1.7 million this year; ACORN is being investigated by public officials in at least 12 states for registration fraud in this election cycle. (For voter fraud in 2006 ACORN workers went to jail in Washington State.) Again, Obama' denials are total nonsense, but the mainstream media is not calling him on them, but is giving him a pass as it has done for Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers.

Stanley Kurtz, an independent researcher from Washington's Ethics and Public Policy Center, sets the record straight on yet another of Obama's prevarications (ok, lies). Read "Inside Obama's ACORN" in National Review of May 29, 2008 and Kurtz's follow-up October 8th in the same publication. Also, see this IBD editorial.

We have covered ACORN's close relationship with Obama over several months. For example, click here and here.

Just as Obama learned from his first foray into community organizing it would be easier and more effective to get inside the system to effect socialist change, so too did ACORN. In his book Obama admits he went to Harvard Law School to learn how to game the system at the highest levels. ACORN followed the same route: It switched from holding city council protests to working the system. Rather than fight from outside, infiltrate the system with voter registration drives to elect your people and use the law courts to change such things as mortgage loan regulations to force more loans to be made to those with subpar credit. All along the way, Obama supported ACORN, using his position on charitable boards to pour money into ACORN's radical agenda.

McCain is now running ads detailing the Obama-ACORN connections and his preposterous denials as well as the long alliance with unrepentant terrorist and communist William Ayers in promoting socialist goals, which included, guess what, funding ACORN.


Despite all the mainstream media fawning over Obama and his massive outspending of McCain on television and voter registration, a strange thing is occurring. The polls are tightening.

The story about the real Obama is leaking out on the internet and in small circulation magazines. Is he a socialist? Yes. Did he really work with an admitted "small "c" communist (former but unrepentant terrorist bomber William Ayers)" to radicalize the Chicago schools? Yes. Did he stay in Jeremiah Wright's racist hate-America church for 20 years because he agreed with its message? Why else? And why has he been allied with ACORN, repeatedly accused, investigated and condemned for voter fraud, for more than 20 years? And was he really one of those who taught ACORN workers how to intimidate banks into making subprime loans they never should have made?

Things the mainstream media should have looked into many months ago but didn't are just now surfacing. Who knows? If the media had done it's job earlier, Hillary Clinton may well have been the Democratic nominee for president?

Karl Rove, former Bush strategist, believes the situation is still fluid, that with all the distractions and fear because of the economic crisis voters are just now looking for information about the candidates. They know who McCain is, but they are still asking, "Who is Barack Obama?"

Voters Haven't Decided Yet
Now it's up to the candidates to drive home their message.

October 9, 2008
Wall Street Journal

Tuesday night's presidential debate was good entertainment. Both candidates were animated and loose throughout a wide-ranging discussion. Sen. Barack Obama did well in Sen. John McCain's favorite format. Mr. McCain was more focused and sharp than in the first debate, though the cameras above him made his balding pate more prominent.

APTom Brokaw was often a distraction: Did he really need over a hundred words -- including the name "Sherard Cowper-Coles" -- to ask about Afghanistan?
Mr. McCain's advocates were cheered by him advancing the theme that Mr. Obama lacks a record of accomplishment or bipartisanship in the Senate. Mr. McCain also described how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac constituted "the match that started this forest fire" that's engulfed our economy, and nailed Mr. Obama and Democrats for being AWOL on GSE reform.
Mr. McCain was most effective on taxes and spending. He argued now is not the time to raise taxes and hit Mr. Obama's proposal to hike small business taxes: three out of four filers in the top 5% report small-business income. Mr. McCain called for a spending freeze and attacked earmarks, including Mr. Obama's $3 million for a Chicago planetarium's "overhead projector." Mr. Obama weakly replied earmarks were only $18 billion.
Advocates of Mr. Obama, on the other hand, saw him scoring points on style and connecting with questioners. He patiently explained to one how the Wall Street rescue package would help him and his neighbors on Main Street. He had the night's emotional high point when he talked about his dying mother fighting her insurer over whether her cancer was a pre-existing condition. He called for dramatic change and tied Mr. McCain to the Bush administration, though not too often to be obnoxious.
Mr. Obama also offered his villain responsible for the current crisis: "the deregulation of the financial system." Many voters will accept Mr. Obama's designation, despite it being both wrong and a slap at President Bill Clinton, who signed the 1999 deregulation legislation that Mr. Obama seems to object to, and Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin and Undersecretary Larry Summers, who helped fashion it. What do these Obama advisers think of being blamed for the credit-market meltdown?
What about swing voters? There are probably more undecided and persuadable voters open to switching their choice than in any election since 1968.
About Karl Rove
Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.
Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.
Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Email the author at Karl@Rove.com or visit him on the web at Rove.com.
For those open to Mr. McCain, it is unclear how they will respond to his plan to order the Treasury secretary "to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes." It came across as both impulsive and badly explained. No experts were ready to defend it. No explanatory paper was flung at journalists. Nor were surrogates like Mitt Romney briefed. But the campaign did admit it borrowed the idea from Hillary Clinton.
While it was good Mr. McCain engaged on health-care reform, his explanations were not crisp or powerful. And he failed to defend his proposed corporate tax cut. Why not say America has the world's second-highest corporate tax rate, putting the U.S. at a disadvantage in creating jobs?
For those leaning to Mr. Obama, there was no evidence of bipartisanship. There was no talk of accomplishments. Did he really think it was smart to answer Mr. McCain on Fannie by dismissing the GSE reform bill and pointing to a letter he wrote? In the Senate, is the pen mightier than legislation? And Mr. Obama's say-one-thing, do-another approach was apparent. Blast Mr. McCain for talking up the economy, then say, "I am confident about the American economy." Blame Mr. McCain for the credit meltdown, and end the assault with "you're not interested in hearing politicians pointing fingers." Say "only a few percent of small businesses" will get taxed when 663,000 small enterprises are in the top 5%.
There were no knockouts. What matters now is how well the candidates prosecute the themes they have laid out in the election's remaining 26 days. Interest is high. People are paying more attention than usual.
Each faces a big challenge. Mr. McCain's is that events have tilted the field towards Mr. Obama. To win, Mr. McCain must demonstrate he stands for responsible conservative change, while portraying Mr. Obama as an out-of-the-mainstream liberal not ready to be president.
Mr. Obama's test is that voters haven't shaken deep concerns about his lack of qualifications. Having accomplished virtually nothing in his three years in the Senate except to win the Democratic nomination, Mr. Obama must show he is up to the job. Voters like him, conditions favor him, yet he has not closed the sale. He may be approaching the finish line with that mixture of lassitude and insouciance he displayed in the spring against Mrs. Clinton.
But here's a warning sign for Mr. Obama. Of recent candidates, only Michael Dukakis in 1988 has had a larger percentage of voters tell pollsters they believe he lacks the necessary qualifications to be president.
Mr. Rove is a former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

The mainstream media led by the Obama-supporting New York Times, CBS, MSNBC, NBC and ABC continues to ignore its duty to the American people in exposing the real Obama. There has been no digging into his history and no reporting of what independent researchers are finding.

Power Line blog reports on two major items:

When Barack Obama ran for state senate in Illinois he was listed as a member of the New Party, a political party dedicated to socialist principles. This had never been disclosed in the "official" Obama narrative, which had been carefully compiled by the Democratic Chicago machine (often called the "corrupt Chicago machine" by Chicago newspapers) that is running his campaign.

ACORN is now being investigated for voter registration fraud all across the United States. ACORN has just announced it has registered 1.7 million new voters. The radical socialist organization ACORN has a history with Obama going back to the 1990s when he taught ACORN workers how to register voters and intimidate banks and bankers into making risky mortgage loans to the low-income and minorities. The Obama campaign earlier this year paid more than $800,000 to ACORN for voter registration work. ACORN's political arm has endorsed Obama for president. Obama has said that his political views really haven't changed much from his ACORN days.

It isn't often that one can identify with precision the principal culprits who cause a disaster, but that is not the case with this financial crisis. We know who. It's Frank, Obama and Dodd.


At its heart is the housing bubble and its collapse largely due to the explosion of subprime loans to those who reality has proven couldn't afford them.

Democrats and community agitators like Barack Obama pushed -- intimidated and terrorized -- banks to make mortgage loans they would never make in their sound business judgment. Subprime loans rose from 2% of total loans to 30% in just four years -- 2002 to 2006. And Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought most of them, to the relief of the banks who made the loans under pressure from Clinton-era Community Reinvestment Act rules, urged on by Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank and Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd.

Barack Obama, fresh out of college, learned the practices of intimidation as a community organizer. He soon realized he could accomplish more working for his socialist goals inside the system rather than from the outside. So he went to law school to learn how to wield power on higher levels. During his time at law school, he learned even more about the Alinsky community organizing tactics of intimidation by moonlighting at the Industrial Areas Foundation. On his return to Chicago, Obama, working for ACORN, was a pioneer in forcing unsound loans to be made, training those who terrorized banks, bankers and public officials into making loans they shouldn't have. (He also ran a voter registration drive for ACORN, which has been implicated in voter registration fraud time and time again.)

Meanwhile, Frank and Dodd in the U.S. Congress were pushing Fannie and Freddie to buy up those shaky loans, stamp them with the U.S. guaranty and sell them to buyers around the world. As a consequence, subprime loans mushroomed.

Frank and Dodd blocked Bush and McCain efforts to restore sanity to Fannie and Freddie. When the Bush Administration together with Senate Republicans, including John McCain, tried to rein Fannie/Freddie in in 2003, 2005 and 2006, Democrats led by Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd blocked all those efforts, scoffing that there was no Fannie/Freddie crisis. Obama, who in earlier years had worked to force banks into subprime lending, of course did nothing and remained silent, while collecting over $100,000 in campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie. In fact, as a senator he was quoted as saying that a subprime loan was a good thing.

The inevitable collapse occurred. Fannie and Freddie had spread so much subprime debt around the world, panic resulted.

As Obama's Reverend Jeremiah Wright said in another context, the Democratic chickens have come home to roost, but these three haven't suffered, It's average Americans who have lost hundreds of billions in their savings because of the reckless policies of Frank, Obama and Dodd.

Socialist agitators such as Saul Alinsky, whose methods Obama studied and applied in his community organizing and lawyer days in Chicago, believed the best way to get to a Marxist socialist society is to create chaos and bring the free enterprise system down, while blaming it for all the problems his followers helped to create. Was financial chaos in the Obama vision as a prelude to a socialist society? If so, Marxist revolutionary change is at hand. That hundreds of millions have suffered in the process is just an unfortunate side effect of creating a more humane, more just socialist society. Obama made it clear that higher taxes will be the start of Obama's socialist program of wealth redistribution, taking what's yours to those who claim it should be theirs.

Those who could not afford their mortgages and now face foreclosure, the government will not only give them interest relief, it will reduce the mortgage principal (that is, the money borrowed in the first place) and stretch out payments for up to 50 years. If the house wasn't affordable before, it certainly will be now. (Section 110 of the bailout bill.) If you are struggling but making your payments to protect your home, you get no relief from section 110. Only the deadbeats benefit.

It may seem complicated, but it's really simple.

Subprime loans created the housing bubble. When the housing bubble broke, the crisis spread throughout the world since Fannie/Freddie obligations were held by central banks and commercial banks in all countries. They bought because the obligations were sold by government-sponsored agencies, so of course the U.S. government stood behind them. Rating agencies agreed and rated the paper AAA, triple-A, the highest and safest rating there is.

But those at Fannie/Freddie were working to please their Democratic sponsors in Congress and ignored the lack of creditworthiness that was increasing in the portfolios they were selling. The much maligned Wall Street firms relied on Fannie and Freddie to assemble creditworthy packages that protected the credit of the U.S,, which was their prime responsibility. Fannie and Feddie officials such as Raines and Johnson, both advisors to the Obama campaign, are the ones at Fannie who failed to protect the American people.

Now Barney Frank is trying to deflect criticism of his socialist profligacy by claiming that any criticism of the subprime loan explosion is a Republican slam at black borrowers. In other words, criticism of the disaster they created is racist.

How pathetic.

Investor's Business Daily does an excellent job of summarizing the sorry saga.

Barney Frank's Bankrupt Ideas

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY |Tuesday October 07, 2008

Financial Rescue: Democrats created the mortgage crisis by forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them. Now Obama and Biden want bankruptcy judges to bail out the same deadbeat homeowners.

Barney Frank.jpg
And once again, Barney Frank is helping.

It's been said that history is a lie agreed upon. Democrats are trying to rewrite history by blaming the Bush administration for the current crisis and claiming that the rescue bill is necessary to save the economy from Republican mismanagement.

More blarney from Barney.

Last Thursday on Fox News, when Bill O'Reilly tried to suggest that both parties might share the blame, House Finance Committee Chairman Frank, in a not atypical meltdown, disowned any responsibility for his lack of oversight over the last two years and his complicity before that.

Frank also claimed: "The fact is, it was 1994 that we passed a bill to tell the Fed to stop the subprime lending. We tried to get them to do it." In other words, those rascally Republicans did it all when they took control of Congress that November.


Dr. Sowell despairs that Americans are swept up in empty rhetoric and are ignoring decades of actions and behavior that are alien to the average American.

There is a "huge gulf" between the values of Americans and those of Barack Obama.

Obama is presenting a false face to fool the American people. In fact, what is Obama? Sowell, himself a black man who has said that he, too, along with millions of Americans, hopes that one day a qualified black American will be elected president, says this:

The old phrase, “a man of high ideals but no principles,” is one that applies all too painfully to Barack Obama today. His words expressing lofty ideals may appeal to the gullible but his long history of having no principles makes him a danger of the first magnitude in the White House.

Why does he hold that view? Read the article.

October 08, 2008, 3:00 a.m.

High Ideals and No Principles
A huge gulf exists between Barack Obama’s values and those of most other Americans.

By Thomas Sowell

A recent Republican campaign ad sarcastically described as Barack Obama’s “one accomplishment” his supporting a bill to promote sex education in kindergarten.

During an interview of a Republican spokesman, Tom Brokaw of NBC News replayed that ad and asked if that was something serious to be discussed in a presidential election campaign.

It was a variation on an old theme about getting back to “the real issues,” just as Brokaw’s question was a variation on an increasingly widespread tendency among journalists to become a squad of Obama avengers, instead of reporters.

Does it matter if Barack Obama is for sex education in kindergarten? It matters more than most things that are called “the real issues.”

Seemingly unrelated things can give important insights into someone’s outlook and character. For example, after the Cold War was over, it came out that one of the things that caught the attention of Soviet leaders early on was President Ronald Reagan’s breaking of the air traffic controllers’ strike.

Why were the Soviets concerned about a purely domestic American issue like an air traffic controllers’ strike? Why was their attention not confined to “the real issues” between the United States and the Soviet Union?

Because one of the biggest and realest of all issues is the outlook and character of the President of the United States.

It would be hard to imagine any of Ronald Reagan’s predecessors over the previous several decades — whether Republicans or Democrats — who would have broken a nationwide strike instead of caving in to the union’s demands.

This told the Soviet leaders what Reagan was made of, even before he got up and walked out of the room during negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev. That too let the Soviet leaders know that they were not dealing with Jimmy Carter any more.

There is no more real issue today than “Who is the real Barack Obama behind the image?” What does being in favor of sex education in kindergarten tell us about the outlook and character of this largely unknown man who has suddenly appeared on the national scene to claim the highest office in the land?

It gives us an insight into the huge gulf between Senator Obama’s election-year image and what he has actually been for and against over the preceding decades. It also shows the huge gulf between his values and those of most other Americans.

Many Americans would consider sex education for kindergartners to be absurd but there is more to it than that.

What is called “sex education,” whether for kindergartners or older children, is not education about biology but indoctrination in values that go against the traditional values that children learn in their families and in their communities.

Obviously, the earlier this indoctrination begins, the better its chances of overriding traditional values. The question is not how urgently children in kindergarten need to be taught about sex but how important it is for indoctrinators to get an early start.

The arrogance of third parties, who take it upon themselves to treat other people’s children as a captive audience to brainwash with politically correct notions, while taking no responsibility for the consequences to those children or society, is part of the general vision of the Left that pervades our education system.

Sex education for kindergartners is just one of many issues on which Barack Obama has lined up consistently on the side of arrogant elitists of the Far Left. Senator Obama’s words often sound very reasonable and moderate, as well as lofty and inspiring. But everything that he has actually done over the years places him unmistakably with the extreme left elitists.

Sadly, many of those who are enchanted by his rhetoric are unlikely to check out the facts. But nothing is a more real or more important issue than whether what a candidate says is the direct opposite of what he has actually been doing for years.

The old phrase, “a man of high ideals but no principles,” is one that applies all too painfully to Barack Obama today. His words expressing lofty ideals may appeal to the gullible but his long history of having no principles makes him a danger of the first magnitude in the White House.

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Unrepentant terrorist bomber (Pentagon, Capitol) William Ayers and Obama were friends and colleagues from at least 1995. Ayers to this day expresses his hatred of America (the thought of which makes him "want to puke") and has worked continually since his terrorist bombing days to destroy the American system. Ayers calls himself "a small "c" communist."

In 1995 Ayers conned a charity into giving $50 million to a new organization he formed to make socialist revolutionaries out of Chicago school teachers and children. Who did he pick to chair the board of the new organization to dispense the money to the left-wing, socialist groups that would do the indoctrination? Barack Obama, fresh out of Harvard Law School.

What better indication of the soul mates they were than for Ayers to trust that Obama would send the money to fellow socialist revolutionaries? And over the next several years at that new organization and another one that Obama chaired (with Ayers on the board), that's just what Obama did to the tune of more than $160 million -- and bragged about it in written reports. (ACORN, the violent intimidator of banks and bankers and voter registration fraud expert, was one of Obama gift recipients. As was Jeremiah Wright's and Obama's racist church).

For Obama to say he really didn't know Ayers is not a joke but a lie.


Think of this:

}Obama] is the leading exponent of the idea that our lost nation requires rehabilitation in the eyes of the world -- and it is the most telling difference between him and Mr. McCain. When asked, in one of the earliest debates of the primary, his first priority should he become president, his answer was clear. He would go abroad immediately to make amends, and assure allies and others in the world America had alienated, that we were prepared to do all necessary to gain back their respect.

It is impossible to imagine those words coming from Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama has uttered them repeatedly one way or another and no wonder. They are in his bones, this impossible-to-conceal belief that we've lost face among the nations of the world -- presumably our moral superiors. He is here to reform the fallen America and make us worthy again of respect. It is not in him, this thoughtful, civilized academic, to grasp the identification with country that Mr. McCain has in his bones -- his knowledge that we are far from perfect, but not ready, never ready, to take up the vision of us advanced by our enemies. That identification, the understanding of its importance and of the dangers in its absence -- is the magnet that has above all else drawn voters to Mr. McCain.

Sen. Obama is not responsible for the political culture, but he is in good part its product. Which is perhaps how it happened that in his 20 years in the church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- passionate proponent of the view of America as the world's leading agent of evil and injustice -- he found nothing strange or alienating....
These sharp differences between the candidates as to who we are as a nation may not seem, now, as potent an issue for voters as the economy, but they should not be underestimated. This clash -- not the ones on abortion or gay marriage -- are the root of the real culture war to play out in November.

Are we proud or ashamed to be Americans? That's the question.

The WSJ article.

Dr.Thomas Sowell says the true story about Barack Obama is "not a pretty story." He is the opposite of what he appears. He is a product of the corrupt Democratic machine in Chicago, where he sided with the machine time and again against reform.

Some excerpts:

Obama could have allied himself with all sorts of other people. But, time and again, he allied himself with people who openly expressed their hatred of America. No amount of flags on his campaign platforms this election year can change that....
Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, William Ayers and Antoin Rezko are not just people who happened to be at the same place at the same time as Barack Obama. They are people with whom he chose to ally himself for years, and with some of whom some serious money changed hands.
Senator Obama is running on an image that is directly the opposite of what he has been doing for two decades. His escapes from his past have been as remarkable as the great escapes of Houdini.

For those who want the cold, hard, real facts Dr. Sowell urges reading David Freddoso's highly documented book "The Case Against Barack Obama."

Read it all.


The usual election pits two pro-choice politicians against each other. If one of them is a Catholic, he or she usually repeats the mantra that he or she is personally opposed to abortion but feels he or she shouldn't impose his or her views on the electorate.

Of course, what is happening as a result is that the pro-choice view is uniformly being forced on the electorate.

This presidential election is different. The Republican ticket is solidly pro-life and the Democratic presidential candidate makes no excuses, he is aggressively pro-abortion. Obama is the most pro-abortion public official in the United States. He has pledged to Planned Parenthood that he will work to eliminate all restrictions on abortion, even partial-birth abortions which Congress has banned and 75% of the American public oppose. Obama as an Illinois state senator even went so far as to oppose an anti-infanticide bill to protect babies who survive a failed abortion because he feared it might interfere with abortion rights. His running mate Joseph Biden may utter the usual "I'm personally opposed but" line, but he's on Obama's side, despite the teaching of his Catholic Church.

This raises the question: Can a believing Catholic in good conscience vote for someone who has pledged to work actively to expand abortion rights when there is a different choice to be had? Reading the words of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, the answer is clearly "No."

Two years ago, Pope Benedict XVI reiterated the church's "non-negotiable" issues: "Protection of life at all stages, from the moment of conception until natural death; recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage; the protection of the rights of parents to educate their children."

Pope Benedict and his predecessors have made it clear that protecting life and opposing abortion is a moral issue on a plane above that where reasonable Catholics may argue, such as on issues such as capital punishment, aid to the poor and the death penalty.

Non-Catholic columnist Cal Thomas sees hypocrisy in some Catholic politicians and voters.

Some Catholic politicians have tried to have it both ways. They have even tried to gain favor among their fellow Catholics by noting their strong opposition to capital punishment, which puts them in an oddly inconsistent position. Such Catholic politicians favor preserving the lives of convicted murderers, but choose to do nothing when they have the power to stop, or at least curtail, the killing of the innocent unborn.

While I am not a Catholic, it seems more than inconsistent to take such a position.

On this most vital moral issue, Cal Thomas wonders, will Catholic voters choose life or death?

October 07, 2008
Catholics & Abortion (Again)
By Cal Thomas, Syndicated Columnist in the Sacramento Bee

In recent elections when a high-profile Roman Catholic Democrat seeks high, or higher office, the issue of abortion surfaces. As the pro-choice, non-Catholic Barack Obama makes a play for evangelical voters, conservative Catholics are asking their fellow believers to take seriously the church's teaching on abortion and not cast their vote for Obama and Catholic Joe Biden.

The split in Democratic ranks is along political as well as theological lines. Liberal Catholics claim that government programs advocated by Democrats more accurately reflect the teachings of Jesus about the poor and the weak. More "observant" Catholics, some of whom support anti-poverty government programs, point out that no program can help someone who is not given the right to live. Liberals want Catholics to look beyond abortion. Would they have been comfortable 50 years ago with appeals for Catholics to look beyond the racism of Southern Democratic senators? Probably not.

A group calling itself Faithful Catholic Citizens" (FCC) has produced two powerful television commercials, which are running in Iowa and soon, it hopes, in heavily Catholic Pennsylvania. Both spots begin with a confrontational question: "Are you truly Catholic" and follow with a sound bite from "Meet the Press" in which Speaker Nancy Pelosi asserts that Catholic teaching on abortion has been inconsistent. "Utterly incredible," Cardinal Edward Egan is then quoted as saying about Pelosi's statement, which is followed by one from the late Pope John Paul II, who called abortion "(the) deliberate killing of an innocent human being." And then comes a reference to Sen. Barack Obama on the abortion issue from Rick Warren's forum in August at which Obama said that knowing when life begins is "above my pay grade."

"Don't be misled," continue the ads, "Know the church. Know the truth." (View both ads at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww7Rv_KjGDM.)

Is abortion "intrinsically evil" and "a non-negotiable issue for Catholics," as FCC President Heidi Stirrup asserts? If one is a Catholic and subscribes to the belief that the interpretation of Scripture and moral truth is the responsibility of the pope and the apostolic bishops, then one would have to say, "yes;" and when faith and politics conflict, a politician should be required to choose one or the other.


Dr. Thomas Sowell is a distinguished senior felllow in economics and public policy at Stanford's Hoover Institution, an author and a widely-syndicated columnist. He is one of America's most respected economists.

Thumbnail image for 070405sowellthomas.jpgDr. Sowell cannot understand how the American people can be so fooled by the propaganda of the Democratic Party as echoed by the mainstream media.

Can the media, the Obama campaign and Congressional Democrats make people believe what are demonstrably flat-out lies? "Don't facts matter?" he asks.

The McCain campaign and the Bush Administration have been silent in the face of the relentless propaganda spin of the Democrats and their supporters. They have to speak out now to let the people know the truth about how Democrats, including Barack Obama, brought on this financial crisis and what Obama's real plans are for the America he and his friends want to see.

Democratic policies have brought on this crisis, but the Obama Marxis socialist agenda make things worse.

Speak out, John McCain. Enough of Mr. Nice Guy. You have a responsibility to the American people. As Sarah Palin has pleaded, "Take the gloves off!"

Dr. Sowell says it correctly:

The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose.

But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.

As we said, hoped, several weeks ago, not all of the people can be fooled all the time, as Abraham Lincoln confidently proclaimed.

Or can they?

Do Facts Matter?
Thomas Sowell
Friday, October 03, 2008

Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.

Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.

The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.

It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?


Half of Obama's staggering fundraising total comes from donations of less than $200 -- which, guess what, don't have to be reported. Also, guess what? It turns out that many of them, in the many millions, are fraudulent. Donors like "Good Will" and "Doodad Pro" have given millions in contributions of less than $200 from overseas. The Republican National Committee has filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission, but you can be sure nothing will come of it till long after the presidential election on November 4th. The FEC has never had to deal with fraud of this magnitude.

RNC: Obama Accepted Illegal, Foreign Campaign Cash
Amanda Carpenter at 1:01 PM
The Republican National Committee is filing a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission over what they believe are illegal donations made to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign from foreign sources.

"We believe they have been accepting donations from foreign nationals and excessive contributions," said RNC Communications Director Danny Diaz. He said there were "questions with regards to the legitimacy" of the hundreds of millions low-dollar contributions Obama has received.

Federal campaign finance law forbids campaigns from accepting donations from foreign nationals. The complaint will be formally filed with the FEC Monday. The RNC is requesting that the FEC begin auditing Obama's campaign contributions.

If the RNC's allegations are true, it won't be the first time the FEC has found Obama guilty of taking money from foreign sources. Earlier this year, the FEC ordered the Obama campaign to return an illegal donation worth $31,100 made from two brothers in the Gaza Strip.

The RNC's complaint was spurred by a story written by Newsweek's Michael Isikoff on October 4. It said the Obama campaign had accepted online donations from people named "Doodad Pro" and "Good Will." The "Good Will" donor said his employer was "Loving" and his occupations was "You." The address he submitted was for a GoodWill Industries store.

Before Isikoff wrote his piece, several conservative blogs had discussed some of these odd-sounding donations as well.

RNC General Counsel Sean Carincross said various press reports have called into question at least 11,500 donors names. Those names donated approximately $33.8 million to Obama's campaign.

Carincross said, "There were no quality control devices," such as a method to verify a U.S. passport if a citizen was donating to Obama's campaign from overseas. He said he believed Obama had knowingly accepted foreign donations and taken no reasonable action to investigate the illegal donations.

"This is a widescale problem," he said.

It's rather curious, to say the least, how many mentors, allies and friends Obama has who hate America.

Yet most of America doesn't know about most of them because the Obama campaign has created a fictionalized narrative about Obama and the mainstream media hasn't done its job of investigating since it's so eager to get Obama elected.

So to many if not most Americans Obama remains a mystery.

This week at her campaign appearances Sarah Palin got the biggest reaction -- ovations, really -- to a quietly stated demand she directed to the media: Tell people about the real Barack Obama.

The real Obama story is disturbing. Let's start with some friends.

When Obama as a young man returned from Indonesia to Hawaii, he linked up with a member of the Communist Party of the U.S. Frank Marshall Davis. By definition, Communists hate America and its free enterprise system; it is fundamentally flawed and they want a totalitarian socialist system for America. Davis is reported to have warned Obama never to trust the white man.

In college, as he reports in his first book, Obama "hung out" with black power advocates and Marxist socialists, enemies of America the way it is.

While he has been hidden away of late, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright was shouting about black power and his hatred of America and of white oppression for 20 years with Obama in the congregation. Obama often referred to him as a mentor and friend. Indeed, the title of his second book "Audacity of Hope" was taken from a Wright sermon on "white man's greed" being responsible for oppressing the world.

Also in Chicago there is the nutcake priest Father Michael Pfleger, who mimicked his friend Jeremiah Wright on America's oppression of blacks and advocated building black power. He has finally been silenced by the Archbishop of Chicago. Obama has referred to him as a friend and mentor as well.

Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan is a life long hater of America. The Reverend Wright has saluted Farrakhan as an American hero. Obama helped Farrakhan organize the Million Man March in Washington and Farrakhan has strongly endorsed Obama.

Unrepentant terrorist bomber William Ayers and his terrorist bomber wife Bernadine Dohrn have been Obama friends since 1995 (despite the New York Times attempted whitewash apologia yesterday). On, of all days, September 11, 2001 Ayers gave an interview in which he expressed his regret he hadn't done more bombing during his terrorist days. Obama and Ayers worked together for years in two different "charitable" endeavors to subvert the American system, seeking to implement a socialist ethos by radicalizing teachers and students in the Chicago school system.

Ayers also posed for the cover of a Chicago magazine in 2001, while working closely with Obama on their radical programs, that speaks volumes.
Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for ayersflag.jpg

Ayers as recently as 2006 described himself as a "small 'c" communist." Ayers' published remarks include a statement that the thought of America makes him "want to puke."

The most recent disclosure about an Obama friend who had a hatred of America was a Muslim advisor to a Saudi billionaire who worked to obtain a positive recommendation for Obama to enter Harvard Law School. Khalid Al-Mansour was a Black Muslim and Black Nationalist who was a “mentor” to the founders of the Black Panther party at the time the party was founded in the early 1960s. It is not known how or why a Texas Muslim came to befriend Obama and, according to speculation, contribute financially to his Harvard Law School education.

And, of course, Obama has been for decades deeply involved with organizations such as ACORN, which is a Marxist socialist organization dedicated to overturning the American economic system. It was one of the early leaders in intimidating and terrorizing banks and bank officials into making mortgage loans they never in sound business judgment would have made. Obama pursued his Marxist socialist interests after college as a community organizer using the Alinsky method of dissembling and terrorizing in Chicago with ACORN and, while in Boston at Harvard Law School, took advanced training in socialist indoctrination with Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation.

Obama trained ACORN people in intimidation strategy and tactics to force banks to make subprime loans. The nation is suffering from the fruits of that terrorizing that begat the subprime loans that have produced today's financial crisis.

ACORN is also a national leader in voter registration fraud, seeking to "change America" by any means, including corrupting the electoral system by filing false and forged registrations. ACORN is the subject in this election cycle in vote fraud investigations in at least 12 different states. Several ACORN workers went to jail for massive voter fraud in Washington state in the last election cycle.

Obama still calls himself a friend of ACORN, whose political arm has endorsed Obama. He also said recently his views today are pretty much what they were during his ACORN days. Speculation has it that ACORN in this election could be responsible for hundreds of thousands of voter registrations, many of which, if history is a guide, will be fraudulent and never found out. The Obama campaign paid more than $800,000 to ACORN's Project Vote arm this year, after first hiding the payment for voter registration as work for "polling."

And one should not forget Michelle Obama, who wrote ill of America in her senior thesis at Princeton, on the campaign stump called America "just downright mean," and during the campaign said more than once, for the first time in her adult life, she was "proud of her country."

Is there a dislike of America lurking inside Obama? Why did he feel it necessary to go to Berlin and apologize to 200,000 Germans for the sins of America when America rescued the Germans from Nazi rule? Does that lack of enthusiasm for America explain his failure to place his hand on his heart durng the playing of the national anthem until told to do so by his staff after reporters commented on it?


Whatever the present patriotic campaign rhetoric now is, one has to wonder about the associations Obama sought out over more than 20 years of his adult life.

What unites these friends in their hatred of America is a desire to bring down the present system, to replace equality of opportunity with equality of benefits.

Higher taxes, increased welfare spending and taking from the successful to give to the rest are on the agenda of Obama and all of these friends. It's called state socialism.

Has the media performed its duty to the American people to tell them the real Obama story?

To ask the question is to answer it.


Bill Kristol as the token conservative on the New York Times op-ed page today reported on his interview with Sarah Palin. She was candid when asked about her comment about the terrorist bomber William Ayers being a buddy of Obama's and whether she thought Reverend Wright was a campaign issue:

“To tell you the truth, Bill, I don’t know why that association isn’t discussed more, because those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country, and to have sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to that — with, I don’t know, a sense of condoning it, I guess, because he didn’t get up and leave — to me, that does say something about character. But, you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring that up.”

Kristol asked if she had any advice for John McCain after her weekend campaigning during which she had wild reaction to her demand that the media tell the people who the real Obama is.

She did: "Take the gloves off."

As Democrats aided by the media have been doing all they could to blame eight years of the Bush Administration for the financial panic now circling the globe, it was Congressional Democrats who allowed the housing bubble to get out of control, leading to the inevitable collapse that was so big it has shaken the entire financial system.

It started with local agitators across the country demanding banks make loans they never should have to people who couldn't afford them. In the forefront was ACORN, the national socialist organization, terrorizing and intimidating banks, bank and public officials into loosening lending standards. The ACORN chapter in Chicago was one of the national leaders in blackmailing banks; their people were trained in their intimidation tactics by none other than Barack Obama.

Then Democrats in Congress urged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy up all these risky loans that banks were more than happy to get rid of; they didn't want to make them in the first place. Then Fannie and Freddie had Wall Street package the loans and sell them around the world. With the assumed guaranty of the U.S. government behind the securities of these public sponsored agencies everyone bought relying on the credit of the U.S.

Efforts to slow down and stop the incredible expansion of subprime loans made possible by Fannie and Freddie (from 2% of total loans in 2002 to 30% in 2006) were blocked by Democrats in Congress led by Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. John McCan was urging reform; Obama was not. Instead, Obama in just his very short time in the Senate became the second biggest recipient over 20 years of Fannie/Freddie campaign contributions (second only to Senator Dodd).

As a result of the Democrats' "do good' socialism, taxpayers will wind up paying hundreds of billions of dollars. Investors have already lost hundreds of billions of dollars and it could get worse if the bailout doesn't succeed. Warren Buffet thinks the $700 billion bailout may not be enough to stave off recession or worse.

Before the bailout bill to rescue the financial system from Democratic excess passed, Fox News presented an excellent short summary of how it all came about.

So put the blame where it belongs -- on Obama-type Marxist socialism pushed along by Democrats in Congress.

ACORN finally is getting the attention it deserves. It is a symbol of corruption that is taking place in our banking system that has led to today's financial crisis and the corruption of the voting process. But it's more than a symbol, it is one of the major players in such corruption. And Democrats in Congress want to give it taxpayer money.

As Mona Charen points out, Democrats and Congress added a slush fund to the bailout bill to give tens of millions to ACORN to continue its "community organizing" work. Republicans reacted in disbelief and stripped the provision out.

Stanley Kurtz has reported in detail how ACORN proudly touted "affirmative action" lending and pressured banks to make subprime loans. Madeline Talbott, a Chicago ACORN leader, boasted of "dragging banks kicking and screaming" into dubious loans. And who trained those ACORN recruits who stormed banks and directors' meetings, intimidating bankers and public officials to make unsound mortgage loans? Barack Obama.

ACORN's pioneering work in forcing mortgage loans to be made that never should have been made led to the housing bubble, its collapse, the loss of homes and investments by milliions of innocent Americans and world financial chaos.

Voter registration is also one of ACORN's specialties. And despite rules about nonpartisanship being required for those receiving tax money for registration drives, ACORN somehow seems to only register Democrats.

Because they are on the side of righteousness and justice, they aren't especially fastidious about their methods. In 2006, for example, ACORN registered 1,800 new voters in Washington. The only trouble was, with the exception of six, all of the names submitted were fake. The secretary of state called it the "worst case of election fraud in our state's history." As Fox News reported:

"The ACORN workers told state investigators that they went to the Seattle public library, sat at a table and filled out the voter registration forms. They made up names, addresses, and Social Security numbers and in some cases plucked names from the phone book. One worker said it was a lot of hard work making up all those names and another said he would sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out the forms."

Several ACORN workers went to jail. But reports like these on vote fraud involving ACORN are coming in from all over the country in this election, including from so-called swing states such as Ohio and New Mexico. Obama's campaign paid ACORN some $800,000 for work during the primary campaign to defeat Hillary Clinton (and tried to hide the payment).

[ACORN's] philosophy seems to be that everyone deserves the right to vote, whether legal or illegal, living or dead.

Barack Obama has supported ACORN since the 1980s, not only training staff in Marxist socialist tactics, but representing them as a lawyer in their campaigns of intimidation and steering charitable (and tax?) money to them to fund their radical activities. And they are going all out to elect him.

Obama was not just sympathetic -- he was an ACORN fellow traveler.
Now you could make the case that before 2008, well-intentioned people were simply unaware of what their agitation on behalf of non-credit-worthy borrowers could lead to. But now? With the whole financial world and possibly the world economy trembling and cracking like a cement building in an earthquake, Democrats continue to try to fund their friends at ACORN? And, unashamed, they then trot out to the TV cameras to declare "the party is over" for Wall Street (Nancy Pelosi)? The party should be over for the Democrats who brought us to this pass. If Obama wins, it means hiring an arsonist to fight a fire.

Obama in Iraq violated the golden rule that the opposition party does not question or interfere with negotiations being conducted with a foreign government, especially while in that country. Ted Kennedy observes the rule, so did Ronald Reagan and so does Hillary Clinton. No wonder the Iraqis were astonished when Obama suggested that negotiations between the Iraqis and the U.S. ought to wait until after the presidential elections. While at home Obama was talking about withdrawal of forces from Iraq just as soon as possible, he was doing the oppositte in private in Iraq, in effect urging Iraqis to delay any agreements with respect to withdrawals from Iraq or the status of forces in Iraq until after the new president was sworn in.

September 19, 2008,

Obama 101
My firsthand lesson
National Review Online
By Amir Taheri

On Monday, in an opinion piece published in the New York Post, I suggested that Senator Barack Obama had urged Iraqi leaders to postpone making an agreement with the United States until there was a new administration in Washington.

I said this because Obama himself had said it.

In an interview broadcast by NBC on June 16, 2008, Obama said that he had told Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari that “the Congress should be involved in any negotiations regarding the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq” and “suggested it may be better to wait until the next administration to negotiate such an agreement.”

I said it because Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari said it.

In an interview published by the pan-Arab daily Asharq Alawast on September 11, 2008, Zebari raised the issue at length. This is part of what he said: “Obama asked me why, in view of a change of administration, we were hurrying the signing of this special agreement, and why we did not wait until the coming of a new administration next year to agree on some issues and matters.”

I said it because my Iraqi sources, who asked not to be identified because they do not wish to pick a quarrel with someone who could be the President of the United States next year, said it.

A day after my op-ed was published, Obama’s campaign issued a statement, in effect confirming what I had said.

It said, in part, “Senator Obama has consistently said that any security arrangements that outlast this administration should have the backing of the US Congress — especially given the fact that the Iraqi parliament will have the opportunity to vote on it.”

On Wednesday, the senator issued another statement — also in response to my op-ed — denying that he had ever opposed “a redeployment and responsible drawdown” of U.S. forces in Iraq. But I never said he did. I also never said that he opposed motherhood and apple pie; In any case, no one would oppose “redeployment and responsible drawdown,” something that is happening all the time. Redeployment means moving some units from one location to another. Drawdown means reducing the size of the expeditionary force in accordance with the task at hand. Right now troops are being redeployed from Anbar province to Salahuddin. There is also drawdown: The number of U.S. troops has been drawn down to 136,000, the lowest since a peak of 170,000 in 2003.

What Obama hopes his more radical followers will not notice is that he is no longer speaking of “withdrawal.”

He also hopes to hide the fact that by telling the Iraqi leaders that a putative Obama administration might scrap agreements reached with the Bush team, he might have delayed the start of a process that should lead to a withdrawal of U.S. forces within a mutually agreed timeframe. The later you start the negotiating process, the later you get an agreement. And the later you have an agreement, the later you can withdraw your troops based on the agreed necessary security arrangements to ensure their safe departure.

By trying to second-guess the present administration in its negotiations with Iraq, Obama ignored a golden rule of American politics. I first learned about that rule from Senator Edward Kennedy more than 30 years ago. During a visit to Tehran, Kennedy received a few Iranian reporters for a poolside chat. The big question at the time was negotiations between Washington and Tehran about massive arms contracts. When we asked Kennedy what he thought of those negotiations, his answer was simple: He would not comment on negotiations between his government and a foreign power, especially when abroad. That, he said, was one of the golden rules of American politics.

A few years later, I spent a day with Ronald Reagan during his visit to Iran. I asked what he thought of the strategic arms limitation talks between the U.S. and the USSR. He echoed Kennedy’s golden rule: He would not comment on his government’s negotiations with a foreign power, especially when abroad.

A couple of years ago, I ran into that golden rule again. At a meeting with Senator Hillary Clinton in Washington, I asked what she thought of the Bush administration’s negotiations with the Iraqis concerning security cooperation. She said she would not second-guess the president and would wait for the outcome of the negotiations. In a statesmanlike manner, Senator Clinton reminded me of the golden rule—one that is common to all mature democracies where the opposition is loyal and constitutional.

Today, Senator Obama is the leader of a loyal opposition in the United States, not the chief of an insurrection or a revolutionary uprising. What we are witnessing in the U.S. is an election, not an insurrection or a coronation, even less a regime change.

Obama should not have discussed the government-to-government negotiations with the Iraqis. That he did, surprised the Iraqis no end. Raising the issue with them, especially the way he did, meant that he was telling them that he did not trust his own government. The Iraqis could not be blamed for wondering why they should trust a government that is not trusted by the leader of its own loyal opposition. (There was also no point in raising the matter, because Obama did not know the content of the negotiations.)

An opposition leader’s foreign trips are useful as fact-finding missions. This means that the opposition leader listens to the locals, asks questions, and tries to get the political feel of the place. He is not there to lecture the natives or bad-mouth his own government back home.

Obama might have attended a session of the new Iraqi parliament and congratulated the people of Iraq for defying death to go through one referendum and two general elections to build a new democracy.

He might have visited some of the good work done by over 1.2 million Americans, both military and civilian, who have heroically served in Iraq since its liberation.

He might have visited some of the wounded victims of terrorism, both U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians, to comfort them, and assure them of continued U.S. determination to fight the forces of evil.

He did none of those things during his eight-hour photo-op visit.

In the American system, the administration can conclude agreements with foreign powers on a range of issues backed by an executive order from the president. I am no expert, but the U.S. has signed scores, maybe hundreds of such agreements with many countries across the globe. To be sure, the U.S. legislature always has the power to seek the abrogation of any of these agreements. When it comes to treaties, however, they cannot come into effect without full Senate approval.

However, Iraq and the U.S. are not negotiating a treaty, and, if they were, Obama could have waited until the draft text was submitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by his vice-presidential running mate Joseph Biden.

In any case, every agreement and every treaty contains mechanisms for its suspension or abrogation. Therefore, even supposing Bush was negotiating an absolutely terrible agreement with the Iraqis in which he would be selling the family silver, Obama should have waited until he saw the text, and then demanded the cancellation of the accord through the constitutional channels.

One key feature of all mature powers, at least since the Congress of Vienna, is the reliability of their international commitments. Even putschists who seize power in a military coup make sure that their first pronunciamento includes this key sentence: We shall honor all of our country’s international obligations and commitments. Even regime change does not absolve states from their international obligations. The new Iraqi government, for example, has not rejected the estimated $100 billion in foreign debt left by Saddam Hussein.

Instances of a state reneging on all its obligations as a result of change are rare in history. One instance came in 1918 when Trotsky, appointed Commissar for Foreign Affairs by Lenin, announced that he had abrogated all of Tsarist Russia’s treaties with foreign nations and ordered the texts burned to heat the rooms of an empty foreign ministry.

What Obama was attempting, however, was more original. It amounted to preemptive diplomacy used against one’s own government: opposing an agreement not yet negotiated and of the content of which he knew nothing. A neophyte in matters of politics and diplomacy, the young senator is certainly not wanting for originality.

Since I do not wish to become involved in an Alphonse-and-Gaston number with Obama, I suggest that we focus our attention on the fact that the nominee is left without anything resembling a policy on Iraq. So, rather than coming out with another denial of something I never said that he had done, the esteemed senator should ponder these questions:

Does he still believe that toppling Saddam Hussein was illegal and “the biggest strategic blunder in U.S. history”? If yes, we might wonder why he is prepared to deal with the new Iraqi leaders who, by definition, have usurped Hussein’s power in Baghdad with American support.

Does he still want to withdraw from Iraq or does he want to stay, doing a bit of “drawdown” and “redeployment” every now and then? And, if he wants to stay, on what basis, for what purpose, and for how long?

Is Senator Biden’s plan to carve Iraq into three separate states still a live option or has it been thrown into the dustbin where it should have been from the start?

Would Obama now support the conclusion of a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and a Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) through negotiations between the Bush administration and the Iraqi administration of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, also a “lame duck,” as it faces elections early next year?

— Amir Taheri’s new book, The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution, is due for publication in November.

When Barack Obama was seeking to get into Harvard Law School (he entered in the fall of 1988) he had the assistance of Khalid Al-Mansour, a Black Muslim and Black Nationalist who was a “mentor” to the founders of the Black Panther party at the time the party was founded in the early 1960s.

There is some suggestion that Mansour had provided financial assistance to Obama for Harvard Law School, though the Obama campaign denies this.

Obama has refused all requests that Harvard and Columbia open up his records for examination, as he has refused requests to have the official birth records of the State of Hawaii opened to resolve questions that have been raised about his place of birth. [Nonetheless Columbia confrmed Obama graduated in 1983 with a degree in political science, but without honors.]

At that time Obama was applying to Harvard Law School he was a community organizer in Chicago working with, among others, ACORN, the national housing advocacy group that has been involved many times in cases of fraudulent voter registration. Mr. Mansour lives in Texas. Since Mansour is described as a black Nationalist, it is possible that the Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan might be the person who put Obama and Mansour together. Farrakhan was a close friend of Jeremiah Wright, a former Muslim, whose church Obama was attending.

Mansour refused to comment one way or the other about his Obama connection.

Here's the gist of the story:

[Former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton told a New York cable channel that a former business partner who was “raising money” for Obama had approached him in 1988 to help Obama get into Harvard Law School.

In the interview, Sutton says he first heard of Obama about twenty years ago from Khalid Al-Mansour, a Black Muslim and Black Nationalist who was a “mentor” to the founders of the Black Panther party at the time the party was founded in the early 1960s.

Sutton described al-Mansour as advisor to “one of the world’s richest men,” Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

Prince Alwaleed catapulted to fame in the United States after the September 11 attacks, when New York mayor Rudy Guiliani refused his $10 million check to help rebuild Manhattan, because the Saudi prince hinted publicly that America’s pro-Israel policies were to blame for the attacks.

Sutton knew Al-Mansour well, since the two men had been business partners and served on several corporate boards together.

As Sutton remembered, Al-Mansour was raising money for Obama’s education and seeking recommendations for him to attend Harvard Law School.

“I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him,” Sutton told NY1 city hall reporter Dominic Carter. “The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas.”

That Obama had substantial ties to rich, influential Muslim radicals in 1988 at age 26 or 27, long after he had left Indonesia and about the time he joined Jeremiah Wright's church is surprising, if true.

UPDATE: Later a press release from a "spokesman for the Sutton family" said that Percy Sutton's memory was faulty (he was 88) and his account should be disregarded. Timmerman, the author of the initial report, contacted the Sutton family who said they knew nothing of the press release or the person said to be their spokesman and that Percy's mind was sharp. The Obama campaign denied the report and referred Timmerman to the "spokesman," but Timmerman went to the family instead.

Joan Swirsky is a nurse who became an author. She has her point of view and she expresses it forcefully. Her website tells you something about her. However, her recent article explaining why, as a Jew, she would never vote for Obama has created somewhat of a stir.

Russian emigré to Israel Natan Sharanksy (author of the best-selling "The Case for Democracy" also recently said he could not support Obama; he was a "risk" to Israel. As for McCain, Sharanksy said he was "a person of principle" who has "absolutely a great record of supporting Israel."

Swirsky lists many reasons why she, as a Jewish American, cannot and will not vote for Barack Obama. Her stinging conclusion:

I ask: Does Obama have any friends, associates, mentors or advisors who don’t hate America and Israel? If so, e-mail me. I haven’t found one yet!

Any voter – whether Democrat, Republican or Independent – should find Obama’s far-left voting record and silly-putty changes-o- mind on crucial policy issues reason enough not to vote for him in November.

Certainly, every American Jew should consider his ascension to the presidency a virtual death knell for Israel.

If the corrupt ACORN group he so heartily supported in the Chicago machine – where he “made his bones” – doesn’t rig the election with the votes of millions of dead people and convicts, as they have so many times in the past. I trust the electorate will do the right thing.

The right thing, of course, would be vote against Obama, a candidate who has been infested with far more odious things than fleas, specifically the treacherous anti-American, anti-Israel advice that has clearly shaped his worldview.

Obama would make America less safe, and an unsafe America – which is the last, best hope for the survival of the Jews and Israel – would destroy the twin pillars of steadfast Judeo-Christian values. Destroying both nations is the goal of the Jihadists that Obama would sooner chat with than confront.

Read the whole thing here. We don't think she would mind.

Ealier we posted a projection about the "Islamic Future of Europe" and what it portends for the United States.

One of the few courageous office holders in Europe who is trying to mobilize a resistance to save the Judeo-Christian history and character of Europe is Dutch parliamentarian and chairman of the Freedom Party Geert Wilders. Just a few days ago he gave an important warning to a gathering in New York City.

He led off with a blunt statement: "The problem is Islam itself." Yes, there are moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as moderate Islam.

The Koran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Koran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world - by the sword.
It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam.
[T]he entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam. This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites.
[T]here is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

(How difficult it is for the resistance to form was dramatically illustrated in Cologne two weekends ago when a gathering of 1500 to discuss ways to combat Islam was broken up by left wing street thugs while the police looked on. To turn truth on its head, Cologne's mayor said democracy had triumphed. What is happening in the U.S. has already occurred in Europe: The far left from elites to thugs has united with Islam because they share the goal of destroying Judeo-Christian civilizaition.)

Before his talk, he showed a short video he had prepared called Fitna that no Dutch television channel dared to carry. It was posted on the internet instead. (Because of Muslim death threats it was taken down and later moved to another website.) Wilders lives under threats of death and is surrounded by bodyguards at all times. In the Netherlands he is seldom seen outside of parliament and he changes his sleeping location regularly to thwart attacks.

Fitna contains scenes of Muslim violence with verses of the Koran superimposed. There is no fictionalizing; it is all true. It takes about 15 minutes to view. Below the video clip is Wilders' warning. After seeing the film and reading Wilders' words, one can understand why John McCain calls Islam the "transcendent challenge" of our time, a threat his presidential opponent believes (or at least says) doesn't exist.

The full text of the Wilders' warning.

September 30, 2008

A Wise Warning from Europe about America's Future

Geert Wilders

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario from becoming a reality.

My short lecture consists of four parts.

First, I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close, I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome's ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.

But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see - and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer,walk threesteps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark serve only halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam, gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear "whore, whore." Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England, Sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25% of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they "understand" the 9/11 attacks.

Muslims demand what they call "respect." And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept Sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators "settlers." Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.

Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.

Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Koran. The Koran is Allah's personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Koran is Allah's word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.

The Koran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Koran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world - by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.

Quran as Allah's own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam "the most retrograde force in the world," and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Koran.

Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.

I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Koran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.

Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.

A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna.

Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to lose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: "Islam has bloody borders." Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is Jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It IS Israel.

It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.

This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe's history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in what President Reagan so aptly called: "the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom."

If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can come only from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.

Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60% of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don't think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.

Patriotic parties that oppose Jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with 5% of the vote. Now it stands at 10% in the polls. The same is true of all similarly-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.

Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe's last chance.

This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will admit only parties that are solidly democratic.

This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.

This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks to its location, it is safe from jihad and Sharia. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe, American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.

These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:

"Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."
Geert Wilders is chairman of the Party for Freedom, the Netherlands.


By now many people have learned that Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion public official in the nation. He even supports the relegalization of partial-birth abortion, which Congress banned, which ban the Supreme Court upheld (criticized by Obama) and which 75% of the American public oppose. Indeed, at a gathering of Planned Parenthood in 2007 he said he wanted his first act as president to be signing a bill to remove all restrictions on all abortions, including partial-birth abortions.

Fewer are aware of Obama's support of infanticide while he was a senator in Illinois and then lied about what he had done and why he did it. But his lies were disclosed when transcripts of proceedings in the Illinois Senate became available.

The legal affairs editor of National Review Andrew McCarthy examined the circumstances when Illinois State Senator Barack Obama singlehandedly blocked the Illinois Born Alive Act from being adopted. The identical federal version had already been approved by unanimous vote in both Houses of Congress and signed into law by the President. The need for such a bill arose when it was disclosed that babies who survived abortions were tossed aside and left to die. McCarthy reports:

My friend Hadley Arkes ingeniously argued that legislatures, including Congress, should take up “Born Alive” legislation: laws making explicit what decency already made undeniable: that from the moment of birth — from the moment one is expelled or extracted alive from the birth canal — a human being is entitled to all the protections the law accords to living persons.

Such laws were enacted by overwhelming margins. In the United States Congress, even such pro-abortion activists as Sen. Barbara Boxer went along.

But not Barack Obama. In the Illinois senate, he opposed Born-Alive tooth and nail.

The shocking extremism of that position — giving infanticide the nod over compassion and life — is profoundly embarrassing to him now. So he has lied about what he did. He has offered various conflicting explanations, ranging from the assertion that he didn’t oppose the anti-infanticide legislation (he did), to the assertion that he opposed it because it didn’t contain a superfluous clause reaffirming abortion rights (it did), to the assertion that it was unnecessary because Illinois law already protected the children of botched abortions (it didn’t — and even if it arguably did, why oppose a clarification?)....

As an Illinois state senator, he voted to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, he banks on media adulation to insulate him from his past.

The record, however, doesn’t lie.

Infanticide is a bracing word. But in this context, it’s the only word that fits....

When it got down to brass tacks, Barack Obama argued that protecting abortion doctors from legal liability was more important than protecting living infants from death. (emphasis added)

On the floor of the Senate arguing to defeat the bill Obama lied about the condition of infants who survive abortions. Obama said this:

I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.

McCarthy's incredulous reaction to this bald-faced lie:

This is staggering. As Obama spoke these words, he well knew that children were being born alive but precisely not looked after by the abortion doctors whose water the senator was carrying. As Stanek [the nurse who testified in committee in the Illinois Senate before Obama] put it, as many as one in five — twenty percent — were left to die. That was what prompted the legislation in the first place....
Obama wasn’t worried about “the least of my brothers,” the child. He agitated, instead, over “what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation.” And what kind of doctor? A charlatan who would somehow “continue to think that it’s nonviable” notwithstanding that “there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

Given the choice between the charlatan and “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it [quoting Obama],” Barack Obama went with the charlatan.

Read it all.

And see our prior report on Obama's problem with Catholic voters. Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessors have made it crystal clear that abortion (and certainly infanticide) stands on a moral plane of its own. It is not one of a number of things as to which reasonable Catholics might differ, such as on just war, global warming and the death penalty. The Democrat candidate for president is a pro-abortion extremist and has promised pro-abortion action if elected. His running mate is pro-abortion. As is well known, the Republican candidates for president and vice president are solidly pro-life. Since the Democrats became the abortion party, many Catholics have left it in despair. Acting with an informed conscience, more will almost certainly do so this year as well.

A blogger decided to some homework on Governor Palin's accomplishments. He was impressed by how she routed an incumbent governor of her own party in the gubernatorial primary, charging him (correctly) with corruption, and then went on to handily defeat a popular former Democratic governor in the final.

But governors, unlike legislators, can compile a record of what they've done, not just sponsor a piece of legislation or get a chairmanship based on seniority. So in her two years as governor, here's what he found:

If you only know three things that Sarah Palin has accomplished as Governor of Alaska, it should be these three:

Gov. Palin is a proven fiscal conservative who used her line-item veto to slash hundreds of millions of dollars in spending from the state budget. In considering this accomplishment, keep in mind that the Alaska Legislature is controlled by the GOP, meaning that the funding she cut had already been approved by legislators of her own party. Nevertheless, she made her vetoes stick. Consider, too, that because of the current high price of crude oil, Alaska is enjoying record budget surpluses. It's harder to practice restraint in times of plenty. And look at her entire record over time (more than as revealed by her position on a single bridge): Although Alaska has traditionally been more dependent than other states on federal funding (since the federal government owns such a large portion of the state's property and resources), even the often-critical Anchorage Daily News admits that Gov. Palin has "increasingly distanced herself from earmarking" since 2000, and that her having done so over the past year has been "the leading source of tension between Palin and the state's three-member congressional delegation." Actually exercising fiscal discipline in a time of plenty, at both state and federal levels and against the will of the members of her own party, is a better predictor for how she would actually govern on a national level than ten thousand campaign promises.

Gov. Palin kept her campaign promise to revamp the state's pre-existing severance tax on oil & gas production, replacing a structure negotiated behind closed doors by ethically challenged predecessors and the big energy companies with one negotiated in full public view — and then rebated part of the resulting surplus directly to tax-payers. Severance taxes are a kind of property tax charged on a one-time basis, at the time of production, on subsurface assets (like oil, gas & minerals) which can't be quantified and taxed through regular property taxes. There was widespread resentment and distrust over the version negotiated by Gov. Palin's predecessor with the three big energy companies who've traditionally ruled the roost in Alaska (ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and BP). The new version negotiated and passed with Gov. Palin's support was thoroughly disinfected by the sunshine of public scrutiny. Although it's not a "windfall profits tax" — indeed, the base rate only went from 22.5% to 25% — it did permit the Alaskan people to share in a larger portion of the current high prices for oil by raising the additional, progressive portion of the tax from 0.25% to 0.40% on revenues between $32.50 and $90/bbl. Above that, however, the new law actually cut taxes by dropping the rate on revenues above $90/bbl to 0.1%. With the resulting budget surplus, after contributing to the state's fund for that future day when its oil & gas wealth is exhausted, she pressed for and got legislation to rebate a healthy chunk directly to tax-payers on a per capita basis, trusting them to spend the proceeds from this sale of the state's commonly-owned resources rather than trusting government to spend it for them.

Gov. Palin broke a multi-year stalemate over the financing and construction of a $40 billion cross-state gas pipeline that will deliver cleaner, cheaper natural gas to Alaska's own population centers (Alaskans themselves pay some of the nation's highest energy prices), while also delivering gas to the energy-hungry Lower 48. To do this, she had to break the monopoly power of the big energy companies by opening the project to competitive international bidding. Not only has a development contract with a Canadian company now been signed on better terms than had previously been discussed, but the former monopolists — finally spurred by competition — are cranking up their own plan that would not require any taxpayer investment. How precisely this will shake out remains to be seen, but Gov. Palin's vigorous action — calling special sessions of the state legislature and injecting herself directly and vigorously into the process — has ended the deadlock in ways that seem certain to benefit consumers. By this accomplishment, Gov. Palin has done more to advance the cause of American energy independence than any other politician — of any party, and at any level of state or federal government — in this century. But the national media have generally ignored this accomplishment.

It's understandable with that strong performance that Governor Palin's popularity rating in Alaska is in the 80s. (The Democratic Congress approval rating is 9%.)

Will Sarah Palin be provided the opportunity to talk about what she's done as governor by the moderator (who has just sent off to her publisher the final proof of her book about the Age of Obama, to be released on Inauguration Day in January) or will it be more of the "gotcha" journalism that we've seen in the Couric and Gibson interviews with some Obama bias thrown in?

In his 36 years in the Senate Joe Biden can't point to a record of accomplishment like Governor Palin's. Talk and do are different things.

Sarah Palin did real things besides being a mayor and a governor. She and her husband ran a small business for years.

Are you aware of how Obama and his campaign supporters are encouraging violations of the First Amendment and using threats and intimidation -- even by public prosecutors --to silence all criticism -- indeed, all discussion -- of his associations with haters of America, his Marxist socialist involvement in the creation of the housing bubble and collapse and the world financial crisis, his use of the race card, his extremist postions on abortion and infanticide and his constant misuse of the truth (which some call "lying")?

Andrew McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor who sent the blind shiekh who mastreminded the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 to prison, details how Obama and his supporters are doing exactly that right now.

Sen. Obama and his supporters despise free expression, the bedrock of American self-determinism and hence American democracy. What’s more, like garden-variety despots, they see law not as a means of ensuring liberty but as a tool to intimidate and quell dissent....
The Prophet of Change is only to be admired, not questioned. In the stretch run of an American election, there is to be no examination of a candidate for the world’s most powerful office — whether about his radical record, the fringe Leftism that lies beneath his thin, centrist veneer, his enabling of infanticide, his history of race-conscious politics, his proposals for unprecedented confiscation and distribution of private property (including a massive transfer of American wealth to third-world dictators through international bureaucrats), his ruinous economic policies that have helped leave Illinois a financial wreck, his place at the vortex of the credit market implosion that has put the U.S. economy on the brink of meltdown, his aggressive push for American withdrawal and defeat in Iraq, his easy gravitation to America-hating activists, be they preachers like Jeremiah Wright, terrorists like Bill Ayers, or Communists like Frank Marshall Davis. Comment on any of this and risk indictment or, at the very least, government harassment and exorbitant legal fees.

In his narcissism and his inability to abide any perceived criticism, the Prophet of Change resembles an earlier prophet, Muhammad. Anyone criticizing Muhammad, even in poetry, was to be killed. That certainly put a chill on criticism.

For example, in St. Louis,

local law-enforcement authorities, dominated by Democrat-party activists, were threatening libel prosecutions against Obama’s political opposition. County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, abetted by a local sheriff and encouraged by the Obama campaign, warned that members of the public who dared speak out against Obama during the campaign’s crucial final weeks would face criminal libel charges — if, in the judgment of these conflicted officials, such criticism of their champion was “false.”

McCarthy cites several other disturbing incidents in which Obama supporters have sought to squelch discussion about Obama and then analyzes how those using their offices to threaten free speech can be prosecuted. Federal fraud laws are one way:

[F]ederal law (Section 1346 of the penal code) prohibits schemes to deprive citizens of their “intangible right of honest services” from their public officials. Prosecutors and police who abuse their enormous powers in order to promote the election of their preferred candidates violate their public trust.

But the main problem, McCarthy points out, with what Obama and his supporters are doing is their assault on our American way of life.

Regardless of the legal landscape, however, it is the political consequences that matter. Day after day, Obama demonstrates that the “change” he represents is a severing of our body politic from the moorings that make us America. If we idly stand by while he and his thugs kill free political debate, we die too.

McCarthy has it right: "Stifling political debate with threats of prosecution is not the “rule of law” — it’s tyranny."

Investor's Business Daily has caught up with Stanley Kurtz's devastating in-depth investigative piece on Obama's role in helping to corrupt bank mortgage lending practices in Chicago. He advised and as a lawyer representated ACORN in its confrontational tactics to intimidate banks into making loans to credit unworthy borrowers. Working with his comrade socialIst the unrepentant terrorist bomber William Ayers, he also steered charitable funds to ACORN for its radical activities.

See our earlier report.

The IDB editorial notes the various ways that Obama helped ACORN; for example:

In the early 1990s, reports Stanley Kurtz, senior fellow at the Ethics and Policy Center, Obama was personally recruited by Chicago's ACORN to run training sessions in "direct action." That's the euphemism for the techniques used under the cover of the federal Community Reinvestment Act to intimidate financial institutions into giving what have been called "Ninja" loans — no income, no job, no assets — to people who couldn't afford them.

ACORN has also been knee-deep in voter registration and has been investigated for and accused of vote fraud on many occasions. Several of its workers were sent to jail in Washington State for their involvement in a massive voter fraud.

Did Obama train ACORN workers in voter registration as well? With his long relationship with ACORN he must be aware of their chronic problem with voter fraud charges.

Nonetheless, Obama's campaign is reported to have hired ACORN's voter registration arm in the primary campaign against Hillary Clinton and paid some $800,000 for their services, despite their less than stellar record of obeying the law on voter registration.

ACORN has launched a massive voter registration effort for Obama throughout the country. Reports of vote fraud investigations of ACORN are coming from key electoral battlegrounds such as Ohio, MIssouri, Wisconsin and New Mexico.

Some may well wonder if ACORN will try to steal the election for their friend and mentor Barack Obama.

See our three earlier reports on ACORN and vote fraud.

We do know that Obama has said his current views aren't so different from when he was learning the techniques of Alinsky socialism and putting them into practice with ACORN in Chicago.

Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from October 2008 listed from newest to oldest.

September 2008 is the previous archive.

November 2008 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.