November 2008 Archives


Geert Wilders, the outspoken Dutch parliamentarian, sat down with the Wall Street Journal to discuss the invasion of Europe by Muslims and the danger presented by European multiculturists who claim all cultures are equal and denigrate their own civilization. We posted Wilders' plea to the Dutch parliament to act and his must-see short film Fitna earlier.

As he sees it, the West suffers from an excess of toleration for those who do not share its tradition of tolerance. "We believe that -- 'we' means the political elite -- that all cultures are equal," he says. "I believe this is the biggest disease today facing Europe. . . . We should wake up and tell ourselves: You're not a xenophobe, you're not a racist, you're not a crazy guy if you say, 'My culture is better than yours.' A culture based on Christianity, Judaism, humanism is better. Look at how we treat women, look at how we treat apostates, look at how we go with the separation of church and state. I can give you 500 examples why our culture is better."

Already Muslims in the Netherlands are 6% of the population and a tipping point is close,he believes.

He acknowledges that "the majority of Muslims in Europe and America are not terrorists or violent people." But he says "it really doesn't matter that much, because if you don't define your own culture as the best, dominant one, and you allow through immigration people from those countries to come in, at the end of the day you will lose your own identity and your own culture, and your society will change. And our freedom will change -- all the freedoms we have will change

We have just seen what ten determined Islamic terrorists can do to a city of 15 million in India.

Wilders says all the circumlocution about the Global War on Terror is missing the point.

Since 9/11, American political leaders have struggled with the question of how to describe the ideology of the enemy without making enemies of the world's billion or so Muslims. The various terms they have tried -- "Islamic extremism," "Islamism," "Islamofascism" -- have fallen short of both clarity and melioration. Melioration is not Mr. Wilders's highest priority, and to him the truth couldn't be clearer: The problem is Islam itself. "I see Islam more as an ideology than as a religion," he explains.(emphasis added)

What would he do?

He says he would end Muslim immigration to the Netherlands but work to assimilate those already there.

A key requirement of Wilders' would be to give up the Koran, from which the problem that is Islam springs. Islam, he believes, is an ideology, much as HItler's National Socialism was..Since the Koran is the ideology's handbook inciting hatred and violence it should be outlawed.

A proposal to halt Muslim immigration into the United States and to work to assimilate those already here has been made as well by an American scholar of Islam Hugh Fitzgerald.

Read all of the Wilders interview.


From NRO's The Corner yesterday, November 28th:

Both of the above [Mark Steyn]

Andy [McCarty] wrote yesterday about our confused thinking re events in Bombay:

The obsession over whether al Qaeda or its endless jumble of affiliates pulled off the operation is a misguided attempt to mimimize the challenge. The bin Laden network is not unimportant, but it is tapping into something that is much bigger than itself.

We're reluctant to address that "bigger than itself" elephant. All jihad is local: If rockets are fired at Israel, it's a failure to settle the Palestinian question. If an NHS doctor drives a flaming Cherokee into the check-in desk at Glasgow Airport, it must be Tony Blair's foreign policy. The Jerusalem Post's headline writer poses the question:

Homegrown Terror Or International Jihad?

False choice. The answer is: Homegrown terror in the service of international jihad. Clearly, India has had a Muslim problem to one degree or another in the 60 years since partition, but increasingly those locally driven grievances have been absorbed within the global pan-Islamic ideology. What strikes you, as the dust clears in Bombay, is that one assault provided an umbrella for manifestations of almost every strain of Muslim grievance.

There's the local element - the fatal shooting of the city's anti-terror squad, and other prominent officials. There's the crusader element - the targeting of British and American passport holders. There's the Jew-hating element - the Munich massacre nesting within the more general carnage.

And there are the more ironic nuances of jihad: British subjects were to be found not just among the victims but among the perpetrators.

To pose the question as that Jerusalem Post headline is to miss the point. Moreover, the global ideologues correctly see our determination to attribute every attack to purely local phenomena unconnected to any bigger picture as a sign of weakness.

This can't be said often enough:

In so many of the reports about Islamic terrorist attacks the media wonders what the connection to Osama Bin Laden might be. The answer is simple: In all cases the connection is the Koran. All Islamic true believers are doing what the Koran says and Mohammad commanded: Wage unrelenting war against the infidels untiil Islam rules supreme over the world.

Islamic supremacism is mandated by the Koran and Mohammad, the "perfect man" as Muslims call him, whose example provides all the latitude for violence one can imagine. As Muslims learn more about their core ideology, more true believers who become a danger to the world are born. At heart, Islam is a political ideology carrying a religious banner to justify its expansionism by whatever means work, including murder. Conquering the world today requires such things as instilling fear to force submission, damaging if not destroying economies, assassinating leaders and undermining the values of targeted civilizations, be it Europe's or that of the United States.

Among the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world are many good people who simply believe in one god and live good lives. They probably have never read the Koran or the Hadith (the sayings and doings of Mohammad). It's when they do that problems can arise. Saudi Arabia has spent and is spending tens of billions around the world to "educate" those who are in ignorance.

Among those killed by the Islamic terrorists were a young Jewish rabbi (29) and his wife (28). Both were Americans.

Wealthy foreigners in luxury hotels were among the principal targets in the Mumbai Islamic attacks. But so were Jews, rich or poor.

The bodies of Rabbi Gavriel Noach Holtzberg and his wife, Rivka were found after Indian commandos seized Nariman House from the militants today.

Their deaths were confirmed by Rabbi Zalman Schmotkin, a spokesman for Chabad Lubavitch, the ultra-Orthodox Jewish group that ran the centre.

The couple's two-year-old son, Moshe Holtzberg, managed to escape with the centre's cook, Sandra Samuel, yesterday morning. The toddler is now with his grandparents.

In so many of the reports about Islamic terrorist attacks the media wonders what the connection to Osama Bin Laden might be. The answer is simple: In all cases the connection is the Koran. All Islamic true believers are doing what the Koran says and Mohammad commanded: Wage unrelenting war against the infidels untiil Islam rules supreme over the world.


This map shows India at the center, Pakistan and Afghanistan to the west and Bangladesh (dark green) to the east. Mumbai is on the west coast of India about halfway down. Click on the map to get a bigger picture.

Pakistan and Bangladesh are almost 100% Muslim; their non-Muslim populations have shrunk ever sent the Great Partition when the British left in 1948. Those who weren't killed have fled; only a handful remain and they are persecuted.

India has the third largest number of Muslims (130-150m)in the world after Indonesia (200m) and Pakistan (173M). Bangladesh has the fourth largest Muslim population (124m).


Amir Taheri is an exiled Iranian who writes frequently about Iran, Islam and Islamic supremacism. He is immensely well-informed and his insights on the situation in India are very much worth reading.

Mumbai attacks: the terrorists' tactics

As India burns, Amir Taheri examines how radical Islamists may be changing their tactics to inspire home-grown jihadists

Amir Taheri
28 Nov 2008
Telegraph, London

The Army of Muhammad is back. This was the message buzzing in radical Islamist circles yesterday as the world tried to absorb the shock of the terrorist attacks in Bombay, India's economic capital.

While it is not yet clear which group was behind the attacks, it looks as if the perpetrators were trying to imitate the tactic of ghazwa, used by the Prophet against Meccan caravans in his decade-long campaign to seize control of the city.

The tactic consists of surprise no-holds-barred attacks simultaneously launched against a caravan or settlement with the aim of demoralising the enemy and hastening his capitulation.

The Bombay attacks differed from previous terror operations in India in a number of ways. In the past, one approach had been to place explosive-packed devices in crowded places with the aim of killing large numbers at random. Another was suicide attacks on specific targets by lone "volunteers for martyrdom".

This time, however, the approach was "symphonic", in the sense that it involved different types of operations blended together.

Involved in the operations were men who had placed explosives at selected points. But there were also gunmen operating in classic military style by seizing control of territory at symbolically significant locations along with hostages. Then there were militants prepared to kill, and be killed, in grenade attacks against security forces.

Whoever designed the operations had another important Islamic tactic in mind: tabarra or exoneration.

This consists of separating the "outsider", in this case the British and American "infidel", from the community with the intent of blaming them for the ills of the world before sacrificing them. It was no accident that one of the places attacked was a Jewish centre, where gunmen seized a rabbi and several members of the congregation as hostages.

The loud message was that a small group of individuals could turn a megalopolis of almost 15 million inhabitants into a battlefield for at least a day.

Terrorism is a beast with an extraordinary ability to mutate. As soon as its victims have learnt to cope with its methods, it develops new ones. Groups of anarchists throwing bombs follow the lone assassin who would target a king or a political leader. The hijacking of passenger jets is replaced by the transformation of aircraft into missiles against fixed targets.

All the time, the intention is to terrorise the largest number of people, eroding the ordinary man's confidence in the ability of the authorities to protect him, and, in the long run, persuading a majority of the people, who just want to live their lives, to trade their freedom for the security that the terrorist promises in his utopia.

Although new to India, the tactic of "symphonic" attacks has been tried in a number of other countries in the past decade, notably Algeria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, at times with devastating effects.

Most recently, it was tried, on a smaller scale, by the Taliban in the Afghan city of Qala-Mussa. Theoretically, the tactic could be used in any city, from Bombay to New York, passing through London and Paris.

On Wednesday, it was obvious that India's various anti-terror units were surprised, unable to cope with methods of operations not mentioned in their manuals.

So far the only claim of responsibility has came from a hitherto unknown group using the name the "Deccan Mujahedin".

This may be a cover for other groups, perhaps the Lashkar Tayyiba (the Army of the Pure) and the Jaish Muhammad (the Army of Muhammad), two terrorist organisations created by the Pakistani military intelligence services.

Earlier this year, in one of his last acts as president, Pervez Musharraf announced the dissolution of both, but it is possible that the two groups and their backers in the Pakistani military and intelligence elite have returned to the market under a new brand, with new tactics.

The attacks came 48 hours after Pakistan's new president, Asif Ali Zardari, practically threw away 50 years of Pakistani policy by announcing his readiness to end the dispute with India over Kashmir.

Zardari is an ethnic Baluch who, unlike previous Pakistani leaders who had Indian backgrounds, has no direct family history in pre-partition India. As a result, he is not as sensitive on Kashmir as his predecessors.

The Bombay attacks could be a message to Zardari that, though he may be uninterested in Kashmir, the issue is still central to many in Pakistan.

The new label used may also be significant. Deccan, a region in south-central India, was the intellectual and cultural capital of Indian Islam for centuries.

By using the term "Deccan Mujahedin", the terrorists may be trying to pass two messages. First, that the Islamist movement is no longer interested only in Kashmir but intends to strive for the reconquest of the whole of India for Islam.

This runs in line with the new pan-Islamist thinking that propagates the will to recover all lands once ruled by Muslims – from India to Spain and southern France, passing by Siberia, parts of Russia and the Balkans. "Deccan" designates a movement that has universal aspirations precisely because it claims local roots.

The designation is also intended to show that India now has a home-grown Islamist terror movement.

This started to form more than a decade ago after Hindu nationalists won power in New Delhi through the BJP and its radical anti-Muslim allies. The Islamist terror movement has adopted what is known as the Matryoshka method, after the Russian dolls nested one into another. The outer and bigger doll in this case is the Students' Islamic Movement of India (Simi), which claims millions of members.

Indian authorities call Simi an antechamber of terrorism. Within it are nested other dolls in the form of cultural associations, charities and political lobby groups. The smallest and deadliest doll represents the kind of groups that may have been behind these attacks.

The need for a home-grown terror movement in India may have been further emphasised by the success of the US-led coalition in destroying virtually all Islamist training bases and safe havens in Afghanistan.

With Pakistan also becoming inhospitable, partly thanks to Zardari's apparent determination to move his country close to both India and the United States, Indian Islamists are forced to look for training centres and safe havens at home.

While many have mentioned al-Qaeda as the perpetrator of the latest attacks, the connection is not easy to establish.

Many experts believe al-Qaeda has ceased to exist as an organisation, although it survives as a model and inspiration. Al-Qaeda's number two, the Egyptian-born Ayman al-Zawahiri, has been calling on militants to refocus their efforts on winning power in Muslim countries such as India, which is home to 150 million Muslims, and thus the [third] largest "Muslim" country in the world, [after Indonesia and Pakistan].

This is in contrast with Osama bin Laden's theory that the US and its Western allies must be prime targets because, if they fall, the world system they dominate will disintegrate, opening the way for Islam's final triumph.

It is possible that al-Zawahiri's writings influenced the Bombay attackers. But it is unlikely that he and al-Qaeda had any direct role in planning or executing them.

There are other reasons why India is targeted. Over the past five years, it has emerged as the largest aid donor to Afghanistan and the second most important backer of President Hamid Karzai's regime after the US.

The buzz in jihadist circles is that once the US and its allies have left, India will emerge as the principal foreign power behind the new democracy in Afghanistan. India is already playing a leading role in training and equipping the new Afghan army and police.

India has also moved from its traditional anti-Americanism to a new policy of close friendship with the US. Earlier this year, India signed a landmark nuclear co-operation agreement, paving the way for massive purchases of American military hardware in the future.

In jihadist circles, the new Indian economic boom is often described as the "House of the Spider", a reference to a sura of the same name in the Koran, Islam's holy book. On Wednesday, the attackers may have wished to show the flimsy nature of the "House of the Spider" by attacking Bombay, the engine of India's economic transformation.

However, if that was the intention, the terrorists are likely to be disappointed. Bombay and India in general have been victims of terror before, although not in so spectacular a fashion. And yet they have managed to absorb the shock and move ahead.

As always, the terrorists may end up like the man who, having won a great many tokens at the roulette table, is surprised when the casino tells him his winnings cannot be cashed.

Amir Taheri is author of 'Holy Terror: Inside the World of Islamic Terrorism'. His new book, 'The Persian Night', will be published next month.

A great many comments were posted by readers in response to this article. What follows is a representative sampling. Most were from Britain, though a few were from the U.S. The sentiments were similar.

The attack as it unfolds tells us it is multipurpose. It attacks Indian financial center, takes foreigners as hostages and also Jewish center is taken. so it is not easy to pinpoint, what exactly is its purpose. It may be just that by this attack, it tells us that Islamists want to tell the world, that be forewarned and Islamists is on the rise again everyone else.
Posted by Satish K Batta on November 27, 2008 12:27 PM
“Add to this chaotic background the fact that sections of India's disgruntled 130m-strong Muslim minority have proved highly receptive to the extremists message and you are left with near perfect-storm conditions for an outbreak of terrorist activity."

India has already had three wars with Muslim Pakistan, (the 1947–48 War, 1965 War and 1971 War) and regular border skirmishes with Islamic Kashmir. I would imagine that many are already uneasy about such a large Muslim minority of around 13.5 %. Conversely Hindus only make up 2.5 % of Pakistans population and are a victimised minority with forced conversions and intimidation being a regular occurrence.
link Pakistan.htm.

This is not lost on Indian Hindus and lacking the excruciating finessing of political correctness and human rights we exersise in the West will eventually tire of this ridiculous situation and react. Meanwhile the US is nipping at Pakistan's lawless north-west borders leaving Pakistan in a situation of painting themselves into a very dangerous corner. What then?

This is not going away, it is all part of the global jihad which is patently manifesting itself in a multitude of guises. From the UN's OIC inspired censorship of so called defamation of Islam which, quite frighteningly will place Islam in a position of unassailability from any critisism to the violence we see on a daily basis committed by Islamists it is clear that Islam is once again on the march to global power. We must join the dots and remove our masks. The days of 'teaching the world to sing' are well and truly over. The use of Kumbaya against Kalashnikovs is simply not working as Churchill foretold. Here
is his view in 1899 and how true it still is?

'How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident
habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of
commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the
followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and
refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that
in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man
as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a
concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the
faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the
influence of the religion paralyses the social development of
those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from
being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and
proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central
Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not
that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science,
the science against which it had vainly struggled, the
civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization
of ancient Rome.'

He talks of our defence in the 'arms of science' but Pakistan
already has that nuclear science, stolen by AQ Khan fom his
Netherlands workplace and Iran is gearing up to join the club
so, quoting another 20th cetury titan, what is to be done?
Listening to the BBC news on five this morning. No mention of who was responsible for this attack. All we were told that it was "gunmen". No mention that it was Islamic-inspired gunmen! Now,did the BBC not genuinely know who might have been responsible, or did this reticence stem from a desire not to rock any boats, upset any applecarts etc!
Posted by ray douglas on November 27, 2008 4:12 PM
Dar al Islam = House of Islam (submission)

Dar al Harb = House of War

These are the only 2 realities according to their 'prophet'. Go read it in his 'holy' book.

With a leading UK barrister calling for the incorporation of Sharia Law - appeasement & capitulation no less- I wonder how long before Britain becomes Balkanised or submits totally to Dar al Islam.

Socialism = Failure

Reject Christ at your own peril.
Return to Him for He is the only True Hope.
Posted by Ming Ye on November 27, 2008 4:32 PM

Between January 2004 and March 2007 the death toll from terrorist attacks in India was 3,674, second only to Iraq during the same period, according to the National Counterterrorism Center in Washington. At last the world has woken and taken notice as few westerners have died. Every year hundreds are killed by the islamic militants and india has been trying to bring it to the international attention. We had our 9/11 ten years before america in bombay. If you look at the history of the mugal invasion of india, 60-80 million hindus were slaughtered as they refused to convert to islam. Persecution is a lame excuse, but main aim of the jihadists is to convert the world to Dar ul Islam.
Posted by pranit on November 27, 2008 5:25 PM
There appear to be few places in this world, that followers of that peace loving religion of Islam are not butchering their fellow human beings.
Posted by Agnostic. on November 27, 2008 6:03 PM
What are 120M of them doing in India? When they insisted upon Partition, to the great distress of Ghandi, they got it after a few fracas where 1M people died.

They've got their Muslim country now, it's called Pakistan; why don't they go there if they are so 'oppressed'?

Wherever there is Islam, there is trouble and bloodshed. When are the rest of us going to stop pussy-footing around these manic butchers.
Posted by Graham King on November 27, 2008 12:02 PM

A clever Brit whipped up the following visual right after the attacks attributing the violence to the spirit of Bin Laden. Bin Laden almost certainly had nothing to do with the attacks.

The Middle East's leading political analyst Caroline Glick, who writes weekly for the Jerusalem Post, analyzes the shocking "indifference" of American Jews to the existential threat to Israel posed by not only Iran but by President-Elect Obama. Some 78% of American Jews voted for Obama despite his amply documented history of sympathy for the Palestinians and long time friendships with haters of Jews and Israel.

Ironically, there is more support for Israel among the Christian Evangelical community than among American Jews. The same can be said for national security conservaties, the overwhelming percentage of whom are Republicans, who understand that Israel and the United States are engaged in the same war being waged aganinst them by global Islamic supremacism. Israel is an easier target because of its small size and location, surrounded as it is by 300 million Arabs and within striking distance of Persian Iran's missiles. It will need help, help that is in America's interest to give.

American Jews, like most Democrats, like to believe supremacist Islam is not a threat to the U.S. and refuse to see any connection between Israel's circumstances and those of the United States. (Will the Islamic attacks in India cause a rethink?)

As Ms. Glick noted in an earlier column American Jews are more concerned about the preservation of easy abortion access than they are about the survival of Israel. So they vote for the pro-abortion party and the abortion extremist Obama.

Shortly after Obama becomes president Israel will hold a crucial election (February 10th), in which, hopefully, a strong, realistic leader committed to preserving Israel whole and free will be elected.

As Glick sees it:

Israel's next government will be called on to defend Israel against Iran and its Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese proxies, And it will be called to act at a time when the U.S. is led by an Obama administration pledged to appease these forces. Israel will have to rally all of its supporters in the U.S. to its side in order to stand up for its survival.

She asks: Will American Jews be missing?

American Jewish Indifference

By: Caroline B. Glick
Wednesday, November 26 2008

Apparently Israel is no longer a voting issue for most American Jews.

Seventy-eight percent of American Jewish voters cast their ballots for Senator Barack Obama on November 4. Obama, who boasted the most liberal voting record in the Senate, has never distinguished himself as a firm supporter of Israel. For instance, he opposed the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that called on the State Department to place Iran's Revolutionary Guards on its list of international terrorist organizations.

Obama counts no deeply committed Zionists among his close associates. Men and women like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Samantha Power, Zbigniew Brzezinski, William Ayers, Robert Malley and Rashid Khalidi were all people Obama turned to for advice, guidance and support in his early years in politics and as a U.S. senator considering a run for the White House.

His "pro-Israel" advisers -- mainly late pick-ups as the presidential race progressed -- included no ardent Zionists to oppose the voices of his anti-Israel advisors. Instead, Obama turned to Dennis Ross and Daniel Kurtzer to advise him on the Middle East. These men, like his designated White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, have views of Israel that are indistinguishable from the positions of Israel's post-Zionist Meretz party.

During the course of the campaign, Obama gained notoriety for his hard left promises to appease U.S. foes like Iran, largely at the expense of U.S. allies like Israel. It could have been presumed that his expressed willingness to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have raised red flags throughout the American Jewish community.

After all, given the failure of the now five-year-old European-U.S. attempt to appease Iran into ending its nuclear weapons program, it is apparent that a direct U.S. presidential dialogue with Ahmadinejad will be perceived by Iran as a green light to complete its nuclear weapons program.

But American Jewish voters were only too happy to believe Obama's unconvincing attenuations of his pledge to hold talks with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. American Jews were also eager to accept his unconvincing disavowals of his association with the likes of Wright, Power, Khalidi, Malley and Brzezinski.

Obama is now signaling his support for the so-called Saudi Peace Plan, first released in 2002, which calls for Israel to destroy itself in exchange for its Arab neighbors establishing "normal" relations with it. The Saudi plan calls for Israel to remove itself completely to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and accept millions of foreign-born, hostile Arabs as full citizens as part of the so-called right of return of the descendants of Arabs who left Israel in 1948.

The fact that the Saudi initiative limits the relations the Arabs would have with the rump bi-national state to "normal" rather than "peaceful" shows clearly that far from being a peace plan, it is a blueprint for Israel's destruction.

In light of all of this, it is apparent that by voting for Obama, four-fifths of American Jews voted for a candidate more openly hostile to the U.S.-Israel alliance than any other major-party presidential candidate in the past generation.

One might argue that American Jews were simply unaware of Obama's actual views on Israel. It is true, after all, that the U.S. media worked overtime throughout the campaign defending and hiding Obama's longstanding connections to haters of the U.S.

But despite the media effort to conceal or explain away difficult truths about Obama's character, concerned American Jewish voters had access to the facts. Any number of alternative media outlets provided a steady stream of information about Obama's associations with Israel bashers.

More than anything else, the willingness of American Jews to believe Obama is pro-Israel shows they simply didn't care that much. If they had cared, they would have scrutinized Obama's alarming connections at least as carefully as they attacked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for her anti-abortion views. They would have wondered what it means that Obama spent twenty years of his life in the pews of a deeply anti-Semitic church at least as much as they wondered about a Jews for Jesus preacher who once spoke at Palin's church.

There are several possible and complementary explanations for American Jewry's apparent indifference to Israel's fate.

High assimilation rates cause many American Jews to feel more attachment to non-Jewish causes than to Jewish causes. At the same time, the watering-down of Jewish teachings in various Jewish communities and the replacement of Jewish law and traditions with amorphous and trendy concepts of "social justice" and multiculturalism have engendered a basic ignorance of the exceptional significance and beauty of Judaism among a large portion of American Jews.

Then there is the leadership crisis affecting world Jewry. Weak and uninspiring Israeli leaders and weak and uninspiring American Jewish leaders have failed to assert and explain the connection between Israel's security and the wellbeing of the American Jewish community. Whereas until the 1980s it went without saying for most American Jews that their fortunes were directly tied to Israel's security, today the unity of Jewish fate has been lost on ever widening circles of American Jews.

To all of this must be added the unique self-perception of American Jewry. The American Jewish community is the only community in Jewish history that refused to view itself as an exile community. Even before the American Revolution, Jewish settlers in the New World viewed America as a permanent home.

As a consequence, on a philosophical level American Jews have always held Israel and Zionism at arm's length. They could support Israel as a refuge for persecuted Jews from other countries, but they couldn't support Israel as the permanent and irreplaceable homeland for all Jews without revoking the foundational belief of their American Jewish identity.

Today Israel is threatened with annihilation and the U.S. Jewish community is suffering from more blatant and organized anti-Semitic attacks than it has seen in the past fifty years. But during this year's presidential campaign, the basic truth that the security of all Jews is dependent on the security of Israel was no match for the full consequences of failed leadership, assimilation and the basic American Jewish desire to reject the singularity of Jewish destiny.

Israel's next government will be called on to defend Israel against Iran and its Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese proxies, And it will be called to act at a time when the U.S. is led by an Obama administration pledged to appease these forces. Israel will have to rally all of its supporters in the U.S. to its side in order to stand up for its survival.

In light of the American Jewish vote, it is an open question whether Israel will receive the help of its American Jewish brethren in its hour of need.

Caroline Glick is deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Her Jewish Press-exclusive column appears the last week of each month. Her new book, "The Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad," is available at

For some reason the Minneapolis-St.Paul area has become the number one gathering point for legal and illegal Somalis to settle in the United States. Virtually all are Muslims. Somali taxi drivers have been in the news recently for refusing to pick up passengers at the international airport who were carrying alcoholic beverages. They also wanted to refuse passengers with dogs (even seeing-eye dogs). Such actions are part of the Stealth Jihad underway in this country to gradually change our culture to an Islamic one. Such a transformation is quite far advanced in Europe. Other examples in the U.S. are Wal-Mart cashiers not being required to ring up sales of pork products and Harvard having women-only gym hours for Muslim students. There are many more.

Now there is a report of a Minneapolis Somali, a naturalized American, who returned to Somali to join with the Islamist forces at war to install Islamic law throughout the country, who has killed himself in a suicide attack. Where did he become infused with Islamic supremacist zeal? At a mosque in Minneapolis? Here's the report:

11/25/2008 10:25:29 PM
KSTP Channel 5
By: Sam Zeff, Assistant News Director; Bob McNaney, Investigative Reporter; Nicole Muehlhausen, Web Producer

FEDS: Twin Cities man behind Somalia bombing

5 EYEWITNESS NEWS has learned that federal law enforcement sources believe that a Twin Cities man blew himself up in a suicide bombing in Northern Somalia last month.
The FBI and Homeland Security are investigating whether Shirwa Ahmed had developed a terrorist recruiting network in the area.

5 EYEWITNESS NEWS learned that Ahmed came to the Twin Cities in 1996 and graduated from Roosevelt High School in Minneapolis. He was a naturalized U.S. citizen.

More than a dozen young men of Somali descent, mostly in their 20s, from the Minneapolis area have recently disappeared, U.S. law enforcement officials tell 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS. All are thought to be associates of Ahmed. U.S. officials suspect most of the young men have departed for Somalia to fight in ongoing violence there or to train in terrorist camps. Family members of the young men are said to be distraught, trying to figure to out what happened to them, sources say.

So far, the investigation has not uncovered credible evidence of a plot targeting the U.S. but American officials want to track down all these young men before they can say for certain what this is or is not, according to ABC News. Sources say the situation is being closely monitored by senior law enforcement and intelligence officials in Washington.

CIA Director Michael Hayden recently voiced his concern about increased fighting in Somalia and the Horn of Africa and the desire of Al Qaeda to strengthen it's ties in Somalia.

"In East Africa, Al Qaeda's engaging Somali extremists to revitalize operations," said Hayden. "And while there clearly has not yet been an official merger, the leader of the al-Shabaab terrorist group is closely tied to al-Qa’ida. And the recent bombings in Somalia may have meant, at least in part, to strengthen the bona fides of this group with al-Qaeda's senior leaders. A merger between al-Shabaab and al-Qa’ida could give Somali extremists much needed funding while al-Qaeda could then claim to be re-establishing its operations based in East Africa. That's a base that was severely disrupted about two years ago when Ethiopia moved into Somalia."

Hugh Fitzgerald, the Vice President of the website Jihad Watch, had this to say:

What does it cost the FBI, the local police, the judicial system, to monitor sometimes around the clock, to hold enless meetings about, to investigate an actual plot or a completed crime, to prepare a criminal case, to hold a trial, to prosecute, to hold another trial if, given the ignorance and idiocy of so many juries, the first one goes awry, to defend an appeal, to lock someone up and support him for ten or twenty or fifty years, or life, to do all of these things, and many more, including fighting off every kind of lawsuit based on demands by Muslims for every kind of yielding and accommodation by non-Muslims whose political and legal institutions, whose way of life, those Muslims have nothing but contempt, and who do not share, who cannot possibly share, any sense of loyalty for the history of this nation, created as it was entirely by non-Muslims, and until the last few decades peopled entirely by non-Muslims, and based on principles and an idea of individual autonomy that are not merely foreign to Islam, but flatly contradicted by the principles of the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam which, Muslims are taught, should ultimately be imposed everywhere, for all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam -- which means the Shari'a -- must be removed, everywhere.

Why do we ask for more and more trouble? Can't we in the United States see what Muslims have done in Great Britain, in Germany, in the Netherlands, in Belgium, all over Western Europe? Is there a sane person in Western Europe who would not wish to turn the clock back, wish that the Pakistanis had never been allowed into Great Britain, the Moroccans and Turks into the Netherlands, the Algerians (and Moroccans and Tunisians) into France, the Somalis and Egyptians and Libyans into Italy, the Turks (and Moroccans) into Germany, and so on? Is there an honest Infidel who would dare to disagree with the statement that "the large-scale presence of Muslims in the countries of Western Europe has led to a situation, for both the indigenous non-Muslims, and for other, but non-Muslim, immigrants, that is much more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous for them, than would be the case without that large-scale Muslim presence."

Will the Qu'ran change? Will the Hadith change? Will the facts of Muhammad's life, as recounted in the Muslim biographies, the Sira, change? If they cannot, because the Qur'an is the immutable word of God, and the Hadith were winnowed and assigned ranks of "authenticity" more than a thousand years ago by the most respected muhaddithin, then why should one entertain the wan hope that somehow, in some way, simply because it has just got to be, doesn't it, that Islam will change, or as Tariq Ramadan, that snake, likes to put it, without ever explaining what he means, a "European Islam" can be created, without of course telling us what texts, what tenets, what attitudes, what atmospherics in this "European Islam" would differ from the Islam of North Africa, or the Middle East, or of Muslims in Pakistan or Bangladesh or Indonesia.

Are we not entitled to ask that those in the government take notice of reality, and cease to allow Muslims into our country, where they can only increase that unpleasantness, that skyrocketing expense, that ominous threat of physical insecurity? What does it take to get the government to respond to our most essential needs and desires? What?

The infiltration of an alien ideology incompatible with the U.S. Constituion is a serious and growing problem almost universally ignored by the federal government and the media. In some countries of Europe, such as the Netherlands and perhaps France, it may already too late. Popular resistance is growing in Europe, but it has not been joined by officialdom in any country as yet and certainly not by the bureaucrats in Brussels who run the European Union. In the U.S., the debate must begin. It is a matter of national security.


Victor Davis Hanson is on a roll. He had a few things he wanted to get off his chest and he did. Good food for thought.

Ten Random, Politically Incorrect Thoughts

By Victor Davis Hanson
November 24, 2008

1. Four years of high-school Latin would dramatically arrest the decline in American education. In particular, such instruction would do more for minority youths than all the 'role model' diversity sermons on Harriet Tubman, Malcolm X, Montezuma, and Caesar Chavez put together. Nothing so enriches the vocabulary, so instructs about English grammar and syntax, so creates a discipline of the mind, an elegance of expression, and serves as a gateway to the thinking and values of Western civilization as mastery of a page of Virgil or Livy (except perhaps Sophocles's Antigone in Greek or Thucydides' dialogue at Melos). After some 20 years of teaching mostly minority youth Greek, Latin, and ancient history and literature in translation (1984-2004), I came to the unfortunate conclusion that ethnic studies, women studies--indeed, anything "studies"-- were perhaps the fruits of some evil plot dreamed up by illiberal white separatists to ensure that poor minority students in the public schools and universities were offered only a third-rate education.

2. Hollywood is going the way of Detroit. The actors are programmed and pretty rather than interesting looking and unique. They, of course, are overpaid (they do to films what Lehman Brothers' execs did to stocks), mediocre, and politicized. The producers and directors are rarely talented, mostly unoriginal--and likewise politicized. A pack-mentality rules. Do one movie on a comic superhero--and suddenly we get ten, all worse than the first. One noble lion cartoon movie earns us eagle, penguin and most of Noah's Arc sequels. Now see poorer remakes of movies that were never good to begin with. I doubt we will ever see again a Western like Shane, the Searchers, High Noon, or the Wild Bunch. If one wishes to see a fine film, they are now usually foreign, such as Das Boot or Breaker Morant. Watching any recent war movie (e.g., Iraq as the Rape of Nanking) is as if someone put uniforms on student protestors and told them to consult their professors for the impromptu script.


The Pilgrims had their firm beliefs in how they wanted to live and worship. With great courage and faith they sailed to an unknown land to establish a new life, relying on themselves and their ingenuity. With some help from new friends, their self-reliance created abundance and they celebrated their success with their friends in thanksgiving.

That self-reliant spirit is still alive, though it is in danger as the hand-out line in Washington lengthens. Michelle Malkin tells about a courageous woman and her courageous family who aren't "victims" looking for the government to help them. They do for themselves and feel blessed they live in a nation in which they have the opportunity to re-invent their lives following tragedy.


Ronald Reagan famously said one of the most dangerous statements ever uttered is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

The government of late -- and seemingly even more so in the immediate future -- is dictating more and more things for you to do and the bureaucrats will make sure they create as much make-work for themselves in the process as possible.

For how to make your old TV work when you MUST switch to digital this February, a helpful video has been provided by government, ah, workers.


On this Thanksgiving Day In the midst of a financial crisis and watching on television the horrors of Islamic supremacism playing out in Mumbai, there is still much to be thankful for.

Simple acts of kindness, such as the one featured on our website, are characteristic of Americans, where more charity springs from the acts of individuals and private organizations than from the government. That’s the way it should be. Government has essential functions, such as national security. What citizens can do for themselves and others the government shouldn’t do. The more reliant people become on government rather than themselves, history shows bad things happen. The Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, well-intentioned though it was, resulted in the breakdown of black family culture and individual responsibility.

Deepak Chopra, the Indian-born guru, has the answer to the Islamic threat, speaking to Larry King Thanksgiving Eve:

You know, there's 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. That's 25 percent of the population of the world. It's the fastest-growing religion in the world. We cannot, if we do not appease and actually recruit the help of this Muslim world, we're going to have a problem on our hands.

Appeasement always works, of course. Chopra overstates the size of the Muslim population somewhat (1.3 billion is the best guess). More important to understand is that Islam is principally a political ideology bent on world domination and those who have signed on to that cause are growing in number each year due to the spread of Koranic education financed worldwide by Saudi Arabia. Muslims as never before are learning exactly what the Koran says and Mohammad commanded – unrelenting war against non-Muslims till Islam rules the world. Islam needs a reformation, but there is no institution or device to make this happen, since Islam officially has no clerics, no hierarchy. Also, since the Koran is held by Muslim scholars to be the immutable word of God, there is no good way to “interpret” the Koran differently from the way it has been interpreted over the last 1400 years. Rather than adapting Islam to modern times, Islam is returning to the literal reading of the Koran and Mohammad’s words.

Our Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, one of the key architects of the subprime housing bubble and its collapse that brought on the worldwide credit crisis, is wrong again, calling for a 25% cut in defense spending at a time of unprecedented danger. Muslim pirates are threatening the world’s supply of oil, India’s largest city is paralyzed by Islamic terrorism, Iran is developing nuclear weapons, Russia is making threatening noises and China is rapidly building its military might. New rumors swirl about a possible Islamic terrorist attack in New York City over the holidays. Cut defense?

The president-elect is now getting the same briefings as the President on Russia, Iran and Islamic piratical and terrorist attacks and threats, so it can be hoped reality will temper such dangerous Democratic rhetoric.

Here's to many Happy Thanksgivings ahead.

As we have reported again and again, the Islamic war of conquest is global and aimed at all non-Muslims. India has suffered from Islamic warfare for centuries; it is estimated that some 80 million Hindus were killed by Muslim invaders and occupiers before they were driven out.

Today's attacks in Mumbai (Bombay) are intended to bring down the government, deliver a body body to tourism and the economy, sow fear, discord, anger and chaos.

Muslims constitute 10 to 15% of India's population, which translates into some 110 to 160 million. How many of those are active terrorists or supportive of such terrorists is unknown.

n addition, suspicions about recent murderous Islamic attacks inside India have centered on Muslims from Pakistan. Pakistan itself has become a target of homegrown Islamic supremacists as well as of terrorists leaving Iraq. To this point, the Indian government has, incredibly from an American point of view, treated these attacks as business as usual, sort of a nuisance, a large nuisance to be sure, but a nuisance nonetheless.

The decades-long insurrection by Muslims in Indian-controlled Kashmir has resulted in thousands of deaths. Kashmiri terrorists have been arrested staging terrorist attacks outside Kashmir elsewhere in India.

What's difference about today's attacks is the level of sophistication and its magnitude. Will this shake the Indian government out of its torpor?

Will it also have the effect of making the U.S. government finally acknowledge that the terrorism and other attacks being fought worldwide are Islamic in nature, flowing from the core documents of Islam?

Rumors are surfacing that similar attacks are in preparation for New York City's subway system during the holidays. Hugh Hewitt reminds us:

When highly coordinated attacks like those in India unfold, the families of victims have to wonder whether the attacks might have been prevented but for the blows to surveillance of terrorism suspects brought about by leaks such as those involving the Swift program that tracked terrorist financing. The New York Times defended its actions and those of the Los Angeles Times at the time, but it is in the aftermath of deadly attacks that we should all revisit the recklessness of MSM in dealing with such matters.

No one will ever be able to prove whether an uncompromised Swift program might have penetrated such a big ring of terrorists, but at the time of the controversy, I did interview the Los Angeles Times' Doyle McManus, who admitted that the story might have helped terrorists elude capture. When hell breaks loose, we ought to remind ourselves that the media has in the past decided for itself when security could be breached.

The villains are the terrorists, of course, but their lives are made easier by every leak of a national security secret.


Power Line carries a Thanksgiving message sent by an extraordinary soldier Tom Cotton serving in Afghanistan, reminding us all of the blessing it is to live in such a great country and to honor those who have given so much to make Americal what it is.


Thanksgiving provides a good opportunity to do something to honor those who have sacrificed to keep this country safe and free. Of the many organizations supporting our men and women in the service of our nation, these three are highly recommended:

Soldiers' Angels

Injured Marines

Wounded Warriors

Links to their sites are to the right.

At this time of giving thanks, it is good to dwell on one aspect of American civilization that is quite different from, say, European civilization. In Europe, it is the government which provides for the welfare of people. Since the government does, ordinary citizens do not. Dependency on government grows and inertia spreads to those receiving welfare and those who let the government do the work

In America much of the charity flows from private sector individuals and organizations. And recipients know that other people voluntarily gave money or did work to help them have a better life. Community works.

What evokes this observation is a true story that hit the email box today.

It's always amazing to hear what one person can do.

A University of Notre Dame graduate living in the Lower Cape (and a member of the Notre Dame Club of Cape Cod) learned that the University was urging alumni groups and students to gather clothing to send to Haiti, which had suffered devastating blows from recent hurricanes. She thought she would see what she could do. Over the past several weeks she made calls, sent emails and contacted hundreds of people with her appeal for clothing for Haitians. The effects of her her astonishing commitment and success will soon be felt in Haiti. Her email today (name withheld for privacy purposes):

Other than offering our prayers for the U.S. Air Force pilots' safe trip to and from Haiti, we have completed our part in the “Hands & Hope for Haiti” project. The last few weeks were incredibly hectic with respect to the clothing drive. Consequently, I didn’t have a chance to inform everyone of the generous gift we received from Siracusa Moving & Storage Co. I had planned on driving our clothing donations to Youngstown on 11/22. I estimated our anticipated expenses for the truck rental, gas, and one-night accommodations at approximately $1,100. Just 1½ weeks prior to departure date, we received word from Ted Horan ’81, of Hartford, that his friend Dan Siracusa offered to have his moving company transport our boxes from Hartford to Youngstown free of charge. What a gift! I only had to get our boxes from the Cape to Hartford and, for that, Penske Truck provided us with a truck. We had to pay Penske only the insurance & environmental fees which came to approximately $95. With gas, our transportation costs were about $160. Those individuals who contributed gifts to help cover transportation expenses all asked that I keep their contributions and put them toward some other area of the clothing drive. I received all donors’ approval to purchase underwear for the people of Haiti.

On Nov. 19, I drove over 250 banana boxes of clothing, (including almost $900 worth of new underwear!), to Hartford. The Siracusa Moving & Storage truck met me at Jim Smith’s house and, within 45 minutes, the movers loaded our more than 6,500 lbs. of clothing onto their truck. The clothing arrived safely in Youngstown on Friday morning, Nov. 22., and will be transported to the Dominican Republic on Dec. 5. The Dominican Republic’s 64 Rotary Clubs will transport the clothing to designated locations throughout Haiti.

In closing, I have to tell you I was more amazed every day by the generosity of so many. When I thought I was done folding and sorting, more clothes appeared on my doorstep. The beauty of your compassion and selfless giving quickly extinguished any feeling of being overwhelmed I may have had when my kitchen and family room floors were piled knee-high with clothes. Truly, this project snowballed more than I imagined it ever would. Every day was different and as new ideas unfolded, each one seemed to multiply our efforts exponentially.

On behalf of our brothers and sisters in Haiti, I thank you for your generous outpouring of love and compassion. “When I was naked, you gave me your coat.”

Happy Thanksgiving and, again, a very heart-filled thanks to all of you!


N.B. Since our club has helped Pope John Paul II High School, I thought you should know how the students have “given back”. The Student Council organized a mini-drive and asked all students to donate clothing for Haiti. They did a super job collecting, sorting and folding clothing for us. The kids were great and actually seemed to have fun doing this. While speaking with Chris Keavy [the principal], he expressed his appreciation for all our club has done for the school. As he said, we’ve got a win-win relationship.

On this Thanksgiving, we can all give thanks for the wonderful work of this woman who thought that just maybe she could do something for others. As the magnitude and demands of the project grew, she rose to the challenge.

What an example for all of us. One person can make a difference.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Ronald Reagan used the image of the three-legged stool to describe American conservatism: national security conservatives, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. Lose one and the stool collapse.

Looking at the election picture nationally, McCain/Palin, despite all the financial mess, media bias and inept McCain campaigning (and position on issues such as global warming and illegal immigration), received a majority of the white vote, though 54% of (hopefully, just ignorant) Catholics and 78% of the (delusionally unconcerned about Israel) American Jews voted for Obama. Blacks full of pride voted upwards of 95% for Obama as did a majority of non-white Hispanics. (Statistics for other groupings, such as Asians, will be forthcoming in due course.)

Altogether, 56 million voted for the Republican ticket, which is a big number. Obama's vote was around 63 million, a bit above what President Bush received in the last election (62 million). All things considered, that wasn’t bad. Conservatism is far from dead, though it took a bad body blow due to the economic situation and Congressional excesses and departure from principles over the last four years as well as the weakness of the Republican ticket.

Of the various things written and said after the election, Victor Davis Hanson probably comes closest to correctly analyzing the results. As is usually the case, he writes with brilliant clarity and good sense.

His very important observations about Hispanics being far from a lost cause for conservatism are made from deep experience. Hanson and his forebears for several generations were farmers in California’s Central Valley just south of Fresno, where grapes are grown to produce most of America's raisens. He has witnessed -- and suffered from -- the massive, mostly illegal, immigration of Mexicans into the area to work in the fields.

He has written a compelling indictment of the government’s failure to enforce immigration laws ("Mexifornia"). Hanson does not oppose immigration, but believes, as many conservatives do, that the nation has the right to select its immigrants, not have them descend on us through open borders. Legal Mexican immigrants and their descendants tend to be family oriented, religious and conservative by nature and want to become good Americans. Many of them, like many if not most non-Hispanics, oppose the flood of illegal immigration, which is bringing a great deal of crime with it, and, who knows how many would-be terrorists.

But his analysis is about a lot more than this large and growing bloc of voters. He believes that young minorities as well as whites, when they grow older and have families, naturally become more conservative. Some Republicans in Congress and elsewhere in high place did not distinguish themselveds as men of moral character. They did not live up to conservative principles or standards and that hurt. In addition, the conservative message is one of optimism and equal opportunity and for a strong America and, with some reworking in novel ways, should resonate with today's younger adults.

The key is not to abandon conservative positions, but to explain them in novel ways to the majority who might find them more in tune with human nature — and consequently more humanitarian than their usual caricatures of being too selfish, tough, or insensitive. . . .

Conservatism also applies to bearing and comportment. There was something repugnant about greedy CEO and speculators on Wall Street wildly raking in hundreds of millions under the guise of “free-market conservatism” — as if Ace hardware store owners, truck drivers, and farmers would find them kindred spirits. Conservatism’s social message used to be something like “Don’t do all the things that you are otherwise free to do” or “Just because we don’t make all your appetites illegal, does not mean that some are not immoral.” Conservative populism is not anti-intellectualism at all, but rather a disdain for excess and arm-chair elitism.

In short, explain why conservatism appeals to the innate values of most ordinary Americans and the squabbling about the proper message disappears.

November 21, 2008, 1:00 a.m.

What Went Wrong?
Well, it wasn’t conservatism.
By Victor Davis Hanson

British writer Peter Hitchens is the brother of Christopher Hitchens, a wild-eyed atheist liberal except for his all-out support of the Iraq war. Peter is conservative and on most things is on the opposite pole from his brother Christopher, who supported Obama.

The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.

Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique.

These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America ’s conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.

They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US , like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World . How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?

Peter got it right.

The Daily Mail ( London ) Peter Hitchens Monday, Nov 10 2008

The night we waved goodbye to America ... our last best hope on Earth

Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernise Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead.

John Kerry apparently is about to become chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In a show of romantic, misty-eyed nostalgia, the Boston Globe reminisced on its front page today about how John Kerry testified before that very committee during the Vietnam War, in 1971, wearing his uniform, resplendent in his medals, calling for an end to the American battle against Communism in Southeast Asia.

The Globe neglected to mention how Kerry shockingly slandered the men fighting and dying for America. Or how he was a key factor in undermining support for America's effort to preserve democracy for the South Vietnamese, which resulted in the slaughter of millions and an ignominous retreat by the United States.

During the same period Obama's long time collaborator in Chicago William (Bill) Ayers was also acting to undermine the American war effort. He was bombing the Capitol and the Pentagon and plotting to kill hundreds of American soldiers and their dates with a nail bomb at a dance at Fort Dix. He is rightly condemned for what he did and for his refusal to express any regret. He is an unrepentant terrorist, someone who deserves to be shunned.

Has Kerry every apologized for his slanders? Is he unrepentant as well? When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 presidential campaign called Kerry to be rejected as unfit to be commander-in-chief, Kerry didn't admit he was wrong, didn't apologize for his slanders. Kerry and the mainstream media led by the New York Times just screamed about "lies." There were no lies.

As Kerry takes over the chairmanship of this important committee it would be appropriate for Kerry at last to confess his sins against his former comrades and to apologize for the slanderous accusations he leveled at the servicemen defendng our country.

How bad was Kerry's demonization of American troops before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? See for yourself.

It's disturbing that Obama has so many aides who are anti-Israel. It's disturbing that Obama aides met with leaders of terrorist, Iran-supported Hamas during the campaign and told the Hamas leaders to keep quiet about the meeting so as not to cause upset before the election. It's disturbing that one of Obama's most virulently anti-Israel advisors went to Damascus to meet with Syrian leader Assad.

But there's even more.

This week, Middle East Newsline reported that President-elect Obama recently sent "senior foreign policy adviser" Malley to Egypt and Syria where he "relayed a pledge from Obama that the United States would seek to enhance relations with Cairo as well as reconcile with Damascus." According to an unnamed aide, "The tenor of the messages was that the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests."

Are we entering a new era of accommodation of jihad terrorists bent on Israel's — and the West's — destruction?

Diana West says, "I'm very afraid."

Gulling Americans into making terror legit?

By Diana West, Syndicated Columnist
November 17, 2008

How dumb does President-elect Barack Obama think we are?

Let me rephrase the question: Are we as dumb as Obama thinks?

When America came into being its chief enemy of course was England. But another enemy arose that caused grief to Americans for years, indeed, decades.

Muslim pirates operating from the North African coast were intercepting British and American ships and seizing passengers and crew members for slavery and ransom. For several years the American government actually budgeted blackmail money to pay the Muslim pashas to lay off, but each year the demands get getting bigger, making up about 20% of the young nation's budgeet

Debates raged in Congress and a famous cry was uttered in 1798 by a fed-up Congressman Representative Robert Goodloe Harper , "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute! John Adams wanted to keep paying, saying if we starting fighting them it would never end. (He, of course, was right; the 1400 year battle to conquer the non-Muslim world continues.)

However, Thomas Jefferson had had enough and commissioned the building of the first ships of the U.S. Navy, one of which is the U.S.S. Constitution, which is still listed as an active ship of the Navy while at dockside in the Charlestown shipyard in Boston. Naval battles were fought (which included the Constitution), Marines (established 1775) landed (on the shores of Tripoli) and the Muslim piracy and tribute ended finally about 1815.

Now Muslim pirates are at it again. They have been operating for a few years off the coast of Somalia. As they have taken ships and hostages and been rewarded with ransom money, they have grown bolder with faster boats, "mother" ships and more deadly weapons and have ventured farther out to sea. A few days ago they seized a Saudi supertanker with 2 milliion barrels of oil and a crew of 25 and are demanding $2 million to release the ship and crew. A Internatiional Maritime Bureau official says the situation is out of control. Here's a report of one of the Indian patrol ships taking on a mother ship and sinking it.


Ship traffic from the Mediterranean goes through the Suez Canal, across the Red Sea and out the Gulf of Aden to the north of Somalia. Tankers come down through the Arabian Sea to the east of Somalia, some going to the Mediterranean, some to Asia and others to the U.S. and European Atlantic ports. The Somali pirates are well-postioned to intercept them all.

Do notice nobody ever identifies who the pirates are; They are all Muslims performing their historic role. Robbing caravans is akin to seizing ship cargo and passengers. Since the Prophet Mohammad robbed caravans and took slaves to make a living, it's okay under Islam for today's Muslims to do the same.

Indian navy sinks suspected pirate "mother" ship

By SAM DOLNICK, Associated Press Writer
November 19, 2008

NEW DELHI – The ship, operating off the coast of Oman in the lawless waters of the Gulf of Aden, was crewed by heavily armed men, some carrying rocket-propelled grenade launchers. Behind it were a pair of speedboats — the sort pirates often use when they launch attacks on merchant ships in these violent seas.

What followed, officials said Wednesday, was a rare victory in a sea war against Somalia-based piracy that has become increasingly more violent, and where the pirates are ever more bold.

A patrolling Indian navy frigate quickly identified the vessel as a "mother ship" — a mobile attack base used to take gangs of pirates and smaller speedboats into deep water — and ordered it to stop and be searched.

"They responded on the offensive and said that they would blow up the Indian naval ship," Commander Nirad Sinha, a navy press officer, told reporters in New Delhi. Then the pirates opened fire.

Navy officials wouldn't say how long the battle Tuesday lasted, but the frigate, the INS Tabar, is a 400-foot war machine, carrying cruise missiles, surface-to-air missiles and six-barreled 30 mm machine guns for close combat, according to the Web site

By the time the battle was over, the mother ship had sunk — the Indian gunfire sparked fires and a series of onboard blasts, possibly due to exploding ammunition — and the speedboats were racing into the darkness.

One was later found abandoned. The other escaped. An unknown number of people died on the mother ship, a navy statement said.

It's not the first success. Last week, Indian navy commandos operating from a warship foiled a pirate attempt to hijack a ship in the Gulf of Aden. The navy said an armed helicopter with marine commandos prevented the pirates from boarding and hijacking the Indian merchant vessel.

Across the Gulf of Aden, though, news was far more grim for shippers.

Separate bands of pirates seized a Thai ship with 16 crew members and an Iranian cargo vessel with a crew of 25.

These days, pirates appear to be attacking ships at will in the region, said Noel Choong of the International Maritime Bureau's piracy reporting center in Malaysia.

"It's getting out of control," Choong said.

A multicoalition naval force, which includes the Indian presence, has increased patrols in the region, but the seizures Tuesday raised to eight the number of ships hijacked this week alone, Choong said. Since the beginning of the year, 39 ships have been hijacked in the Gulf of Aden, out of 95 attacked.

"There is no firm deterrent, that's why the pirate attacks are continuing," Choong said. "The criminal activities are flourishing because the risks are low and the rewards are extremely high."

The pirates used to mainly roam the waters off the coast of Somalia, where there has not been a stable, functioning government in nearly 20 years. But now they are targeting ships far further out at sea.

Choong said 17 vessels remain in the hands of pirates along with more than 300 crew members, including a Ukrainian ship loaded with weapons and a Saudi supertanker carrying $100 million in crude.

The supertanker, the MV Sirius Star, was anchored Tuesday close to Harardhere, the main pirates' den on the Somali coast, with a load of 2 million barrels of oil and 25 crew members.

Asked about reports that a ransom had been demanded, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said Wednesday in Rome that the owners of the tanker "are negotiating on the issue."

"We do not like to negotiate with pirates, terrorists or hijackers," but the owners of the tanker are "the final arbiter" on the issue, he said.

Pirates have generally released ships after ransoms were paid.

The vessels patrolling the dangerous seas include three NATO warships in the Gulf of Aden. The U.S. Navy's Bahrain-based 5th Fleet also has ships in the region.

But U.S. Navy Commander Jane Campbell of the 5th Fleet said naval patrols simply cannot prevent attacks given the vastness of the sea and the 21,000 vessels passing through the Gulf of Aden every year.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday that President George W. Bush has been briefed on the issue of piracy and that the United States was working with other members of the U.N. Security Council to see if there are actions that can be taken to fight and prevent piracy more effectively.

"The safety and well-being of the crew is of paramount importance in preventing or dealing with issues of piracy," Perino said. "One of the things that's clear is that piracy is something that is affecting ... many more waters than any of us would have known about."

The Gulf of Aden connects to the Red Sea, which in turn is linked to the Mediterranean by the Suez Canal. The route is thousands of miles and many days shorter than going around the Cape of Good Hope off the southern tip of Africa.

The Thai boat, which was flying a flag from the tiny Pacific nation of Kiribati but operated out of Thailand, made a distress call as it was being chased by pirates in two speedboats but the phone connection was cut.

Wicharn Sirichaiekawat, manager of Sirichai Fisheries Co. Ltd. told The Associated Press the ship, the Ekawat Nava 5, was headed from Oman to Yemen to deliver fishing equipment.

"We have not heard from them since, so we don't know what the demands are," Wicharn said. "We have informed the families of the crew but right now, we don't have much more information to give them either."

Of the 16 crew members, Wicharn said 15 are Thai and one is Cambodian.

Later in the day, Thai Foreign Ministry deputy spokesman Voradet Veeravekin said Thai officials in Kenya were trying to make contact with the vessel.

"Based on previous cases, we believe they were held for ransom. We are optimistic that we will be able to negotiate for their release once we can contact the ship," he told the AP.

The Iranian carrier, the Delight, was flying a Hong Kong flag but was operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines.

On Tuesday, a major Norwegian shipping group, Odfjell SE, ordered its more than 90 tankers to sail around Africa rather than use the Suez Canal after the seizure of the Saudi tanker.

"We will no longer expose our crew to the risk of being hijacked and held for ransom by pirates in the Gulf of Aden," said Terje Storeng, Odfjell's president and chief executive.

This video of a pollster asking questions of 12 Obama supporters on Election Day is instructive. It shows what average voters learn by reading, hearing and listening to the mainstream media.(HT: Power Line)

It's worth the ten minutes.

Update: Power Line provided more information about the poll behind the video with comments from John Hinderaker:

Here are some highlights of Zogby's poll of Obama voters:

* 57 percent thought the Republicans still control Congress. Note that this is worse than a random result, since there are only two possible answers.

* Only 12 percent could identify Obama as the candidate who said that his energy policies would cause the cost of electricity to skyrocket.

The only issues on which the Obama voters were well-informed (or thought they were, anyway) had to do with Sarah Palin. Thus:

* 94 percent knew that Palin was the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter, the highest correct score recorded by the Obama voters.

* Likewise, 86 percent knew that Palin was the candidate whose party bought her a $150,000 wardrobe.

Those answers suggest that the mainstream media's emphasis in this election was not exactly on the nuances of public policy. To be fair, though, they probably also reflect where the interests of Democratic voters tend to lie. This one is interesting:

* 87 percent said that Sarah Palin was the candidate who said she could see Russia from her house. Actually, it was Tina Fey who said that. Once again, though, it shows that Palin seemed to be the candidate who made the biggest impression, for better or worse.

It's worth noting that the Obama voters in Zogby's sample were 97 percent high school graduates and--rather shockingly--55 percent college graduates. It's almost enough to make you wonder about the future of democracy.


Evidence is mounting that Barack Obama was elected president BECAUSE he was black.

Pride of blacks resulted in at least a 95% vote for Obama.

But white guilt fanned by Obama himself, his campaign and the media probably played an even bigger part.

So far, much of the evidence is random and anecdotal, but the accusations by Obama supporters and the media that those not planning to vote for Obama were “racists” certainly had a powerful effect. Voters were anxious to prove they weren't, that they had "moved on" from that.

Obama himself played the race card againt Hillary Clinton in the primaries and against John McCain in the final, playing the victim and inviting a guilty white reaction.

Media glorification of Obama and their trashing of Palin (a threat since she added an exciting and appealing dimension to the McCain candidacy) made it still easier to assuage white guilt with an Obama vote.

Financier and former governor Mitt Romney spent much of his early life in Michigan's auto industry while his father was rescuing American Motors from collapse. He has put his definite ideas on the New York Times' op-ed page. Throw the bums out, bring costs down so American cars can compete and show some vision. A taxpayer bailout would be a waste and just delay the inevitable.

November 19, 2008 Wall Street Journal

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.

President Bush signed and sent to Congress two years ago the Colombia Free Trade Act, which the law requires Congress to have an up-or-down vote on within a short period of time. Speaker of the House Pelosi, to please her union supporters, twisted House rules, to take it out of the required process. Michael Barone called Pelosi's action the most despicable act of this Congress.

Colombia is our closest ally in the hemisphere and a valiant partner in the fight against drug trafficking. President Uribe has done a superb job weakening the drug cartels and making Colombia safer. One couldn't ask for better cooperation.

Democrats, including President-Elect Obama, have supported Pelosi in her determination to let the trade agreement die, despite the fact it is beneficial to American exporters.

Suddenly, out of nowhere, after many months of silence, the New York Times editorialists tell Congressional Democrats they should approve the Colombia agreement now. They cite all the positive reasons and also accurately describe the progress that has been made on some of the troubling history in Colombia. Bottom line: The Times said approving the agreement is in the nation's interest.

Let's see if this is sufficient cover for Obama and Pelosi to put the nation's interest before the wishes of their union supporters.

New York Times
November 18, 2008
Pass the Colombian Trade Pact
We don’t say it all that often, but President Bush is right: Congress should pass the Colombian free-trade agreement now.

Mr. Bush signed the deal two years ago. The Democratic majority in Congress has refused to approve it out of a legitimate concern over the state of human rights in Colombia and less legitimate desires to pander to organized labor or deny Mr. Bush a foreign policy win.

We believe that the trade pact would be good for America’s economy and workers. Rejecting it would send a dismal message to allies the world over that the United States is an unreliable partner and, despite all that it preaches, does not really believe in opening markets to trade. There is no more time to waste. If the lame-duck Congress does not approve the trade pact this year, prospects would dim considerably since it would lose the cover of the rule (formerly known as fast track) that provides for an up-or-down, no-amendment vote.

Because of trade preferences granted as part of the war on drugs, most Colombian exports already are exempt from United States tariffs. The new agreement would benefit American companies that now have to pay high tariffs on exports to Colombia.

It also would strengthen bonds with an important ally in a volatile corner of South America — that also is the main source of cocaine shipped into this country and where the United States has very few friends these days.

In neighboring Venezuela, President Hugo Chávez spouts fierce anti-American rhetoric to distract attention from his autocratic policies. Last month, Bolivia expelled the United States ambassador and accused Drug Enforcement Administration agents of conspiring against his government. Ecuador has refused to renew a lease on an airbase used by American counternarcotics flights in the coastal city of Manta.

We, too, have strong concerns about human-rights violations committed by the government of President Álvaro Uribe. But Democrats opposing the trade pact on these grounds are ignoring undeniable improvements. Violence has abated considerably during the Uribe administration as it has taken on the left-wing guerrillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, and right-wing paramilitaries. The number of trade unionists killed, a major Democratic concern, is still too high but has dropped sharply.

Washington must keep pressing Bogotá to reduce abuses by Colombia’s Army, ensure the prosecution of paramilitary thugs and further rein in violence against union members. It has a powerful tool to do that: $600 million a year in mostly military and anti-narcotics aid.

Failing to approve this trade agreement would do nothing to improve Colombia’s human-rights record. Walking away from it now would alienate many people in Colombia and undermine Washington’s credibility.

Iraq has dropped off the front pages because it's a success, a success that many thought not possible. American deaths in Iraq last month were half the violent deaths in Chicago. With an agreement in place, Iraq can now assume more responsibility for its future, but knows it needs the U.S. Armed Forces helping until at least 2011.

William McGurn was President Bush's speechwriter until early this year, so he had an intimate view of what went on at the highest White House levels. Without question, he says, it was Stephen Hadley who inside the government singlehandedly made success possible by proposing and advocating for what became known as the "surge." McGurn believes that Hadley has earned the gratitude of the nation and should be awarded the Medal of Freedom. Perhaps, he surmises, President Bush will do that before he leaves office, but how fitting and symbolic it would be if this award were bestowed by the new president. Why does he think that?

McGurn explains.

Wall Street Journal
NOVEMBER 18, 2008

Mr. Obama, Give That Man a Medal

Stephen Hadley offered the option of victory in Iraq.


Stephen Hadley

I suppose it's possible that George W. Bush would award Stephen J. Hadley the Medal of Freedom. Certainly the president's national security adviser has earned it, for work that made possible the success we are now seeing in Iraq. And it would be within the president's prerogative to see that work acknowledged with this honor before they both leave the White House come Jan. 20.

But how much better it would be all around -- for the country, for the recipient, and even for Barack Obama -- if Mr. Hadley were to receive this honor from the hands of the 44th president of the United States.

Since July 13th we have been reporting on the vast potential of oil deposits in Rocky Mountains shale. It is estimated that the oil there -- 2 trillion barrels -- is twice as much as all the oil used in the world since the first oil discovery way back in 1859.

President Bush has just now issued an executive order opening up 2 million acres of public lands in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado to oil shale exploration. Rocky Mountains shale could make the U.S. independent of hostile and unstable oil producers for decades.

As Hugh Hewitt wonders, will this opportunity be seized upon by the Obama Administration or killed for ideological reasons at the expense of energy national security?

The same Democratic anti-drilling ideology may also block the development of the huge natural gas field in Alaska that the pipeline the Palin Administration has authorized could link to the lower 48. This gas could heat 100 million American homes for a decade.

The United States and the rest of the world will need oil and natural gas for decades to come. It will take many years to develop alternatives to fossil fuels to the point where they are a complete substitute for fossil fuels. The only rational course for the U.S. is to utilize all of its energy options. National energy security demands no less.


The U.S. has been negotiating with Eastern European nations to install missile defense systems against the Iranian threat. Leaders in Poland and the Czech Republic have fought hard to gain the necessary approvals from their people. Russia doesn't like the defense installations (despite the fact they are indeed defensive and to be aimed at Iran) and has been bullying its near neighbors and issuing hostile statements about the U.S.

Now Russia is bullying the president-elect and to the dismay of our alies in Warsaw and Prague the Obama people issued an equivocal statement in response to the Russian president's hostile rhetoric. This show of weakness is disturbing and will only encourage our enemies in Russia, Iran and, indeed North Korea, too.

Here's the story.


November 18, 2008 --
Barack Obama campaigned on the promise of "change," but one change the president-elect may be planning on - not deploying a US missile defense in Eastern Europe - would be a big mistake.

Indeed, it's exactly the type of about-face that nations like Russia, Iran and North Korea hope for from the incoming administration.

Worse, it will likely be seen abroad as knuckling to Russian bullying.

It has just been announced that some 85 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lies buried in Alaska's North Slope. That's almost three times our proven reserves of natural gas.

Governor Palin led Alaska into approving a $40 billion pipeline last summer, which is the ready vehicle to move that gas to the lower 48.

Obama is all for energy solutions that avoid use of carbon-based fuels, but natural gas is the cleanest of them all and alternative energy sources won't be up and running n sufficient quantities for at least a decade.

Investor's Business Daily calls on Obama to seize this opportunity to help America's drive to energy independence and to show some bipartisanship in the process.

One conservative writer who feared Obama as a danger to America long before the election now delivers his post-election views. As he says, I thought I was right then and I feel the same way now. He has 20 points to make. He prays he will be wrong, as we all do. But we must be alert to the signs he will do the damage we feared.

November 13, 2008, 5:00 a.m.

Bitterfest ’08
By Jay Nordlinger
National Review

My reaction to last week’s election is one of the least important things in the world. But some readers have asked for it, so I thought I’d scribble a lil’ column. I’m hesitant, though, for two reasons.

First, I wrote about the election for months and even years. I particularly wrote about the consequences — bad — of an Obama victory. What am I supposed to do now? Say, “Just kidding”? “It won’t be as bad as all that”? “Never mind”? I’m afraid I can’t be as blasé, or chipper, as some other conservatives. I have an anxious feeling, and long have.

Which leads me to Reason No. 2 for being hesitant — for hesitating to talk: One comes off as Sore-Loserman. And now’s the time for graciousness, optimism, and all that jazz.

Well, enough prefatory typing — I will offer 20 quick points. I am bad to indulge in a bitterfest. But here I go:

1) Have the oceans shrunk to puddles? Have people stopped being sick? Or does that come after Inauguration Day?

2) Seriously, I’m afraid that the Middle East will rock — that Obama will withdraw from Iraq before the country is secured, creating havoc. He promised as much, didn’t he? (I mean the withdrawal, not the havoc.) In April ’75, the United States cut off South Vietnam, resulting in a Communist victory and what we would call today a “humanitarian disaster.” If we abandon the Iraqis to the wolves, will anyone care? (Outside of Iraq, that is.) And what about the Middle East at large?

I quote our ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, who told a group of us last month,

Iraq is really, really important. How things go here will transform the region and America’s role in the region, one way or the other. If Iraq is successful in establishing itself as a democracy, where the rule of law is paramount, that will be something remarkable . . . People are tired of Iraq. They say, “Let’s get it over and done with. We don’t want to watch the Iraq movie anymore.” But the Iraq movie will go on for many more reels, with or without us. And it will have a big effect on us, whether we like it or not.


And then there’s the matter of whether Iran will acquire nuclear weapons . . .

3) President-elect Obama and his supporters want America to be liked: by Le Monde, the Quai d’Orsay, Der Spiegel — you get the idea. But America can’t necessarily be liked by those elements and stand up for its interests. When the going gets tough, which will Obama choose — Le Monde or American interests? Won’t they ever collide? Don’t they usually?

4) I worry that the Obama years, like the Carter years, will be a field day of adventurism for the worst regimes. Some presidents are willing to stand up to bullies; some presidents are not. And we should all know what weakness invites: aggression.

5) How does Obama regard the War on Terror? Does he think we’re in something worthy of that name — another cold war, a “twilight struggle,” in the words of JFK? Or does he think that dealing with jihadists is just a matter of a little law enforcement, and intelligence-gathering, and police work? Recall the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. We took ’em to court. (One of the perpetrators skedaddled off to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, but suggest that there was a connection between Iraq and terror, and you’re dismissed as a boob.)

6) At home, do Americans want to be something like a European social democracy — or is the old American republic still viable? What about abroad? Sarah Palin put the question in terms of “American exceptionalism”: Do we want it or not? And I like to borrow the words of the first Bush, spoken in 1988, when American “decline” was in fashion, and happily anticipated: Are we to be a “unique nation with a special role in the world”? Or are we to be “another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe”?

7) As a rule, I say that people in a democracy get what they deserve. Sometimes minorities don’t deserve what ensues, but such is life. I’m not so sure about the 2008 election. Why? Because the Barack Obama of the general election was so very, very different from the Barack Obama of the Democratic primaries and before. All candidates shift — that’s politics. But Obama, it seems to me, abused the privilege. And he was very good at it.

He campaigned — certainly debated — as a moderate. Not just a moderate Democrat, but practically a moderate Republican. Even citing Richard Lugar! (“Nixon’s favorite mayor,” long ago.) In one of the debates, Obama said he was for missile defense! And he said that America was the greatest nation in the history of man.

Why did Obama’s friends at Columbia and Harvard and so on stand for it? Why did Bill Ayers stand for it? Well, they were holding their noses, of course, knowing that these words were just campaign grist — something for the yokels to ingest.

In brief, I’m not sure that Americans knew what they were voting for.

8) Those interested in stopping or curbing abortion have to be disappointed. The courts will be Obama-oriented for how many years?

9) Amazing — just amazing — that the Republican party took the rap for the financial meltdown. Consider Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Consider Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd. They came out of this smelling like a rose. And GOP-ers — who never wanted the social-financial shakedown that Fannie and Freddie represented — come out the bums. As I said, amazing.

10) John McCain ran a poor campaign. I’m not sure he was capable of better. I do think Obama was beatable — he has been lucky in his opposition. He has been lucky both in Illinois and on the national level. The conventional argument is that McCain was the best possible Republican nominee, even the only possible Republican nominee with a chance of winning. I don’t believe that, for a second. There was a case to be made against Obama, and for McCain: and McCain was poor at both.

11) They say that he conducted an exceptionally mean campaign — I don’t see it. Take the case (the easy case, granted) of Jeremiah Wright. This was Obama’s pastor and “spiritual mentor”: a man who preaches that the AIDS virus was concocted in a government laboratory for the purpose of harming dark-skinned people. And this cost Obama not a thing.

Imagine if Sarah Palin’s preacher disseminated a similar doctrine — a similar lie. She would not be able to participate in public life, would she?

12) I’m sorry, but the treatment of Bush — the demonization of Bush — is appalling. Absolutely appalling. And it says something rotten about our political culture. Think for a second about Katrina — the hurricane. I have no doubt that the federal government made mistakes, and no doubt that Bush fumbled the PR aspect. But this was a huge natural disaster — and people acted as though Bush had caused it.

Crazy, crazy. Even some of my fellow conservatives have bought into the Katrina myth. I wish Bush would do more to defend himself, but he apparently thinks it’s not worth the bother. And don’t get me started on the treatment of Governor Palin after she debuted in Dayton . . .

13) In a way, it’s amazing that conservatives ever win. Conservatives will tell you the following: The Left controls education, K through graduate school. (Maybe pre-K through graduate school — I don’t know.) They control the movies, popular television, the mainstream media, etc., etc. And then conservatives get surprised, often, when liberals triumph at the polls. Well, when all the shaping institutions shape one way . . .

14) I learned something in this election — maybe you learned the same thing about yourself. I learned that I’m a knuckle-dragging moron, because I admire Governor Palin. Used to be, people considered me rather sophisticated — what with the languages, the larnin’, the music, and all. Vincent Persichetti wrote me about a piece of mine when I was eleven, I think! But come to find out, in the fall of 2008, I’m just a drooling hayseed. Funny old world.

15) There may be some positive outcomes to Obama’s election victory. It could be, now, that the Left will help us in the War on Terror. Some people said, for years, that they would never be onboard until they were in charge. Until now, they have done everything possible to thwart Bush. The New York Times delights in exposing clandestine programs, designed to keep the innocent safe. Will all that end now?

Also, maybe the Left will feel better about the country itself. Some of my neighbors (Manhattan) have gloated with me about November 4. And I’ve said, “Yes, America is a good country, isn’t it? Good constitution, good system, don’t you agree?” That leaves them a little nonplussed or annoyed.

And then there is race — about which I have written as much as I have any subject in my journalism career. (For a biggish piece on race and the ’08 election, go here.) I don’t believe that a presidential election was necessary to validate racial progress. But other people do. And it will be an even better day when skin is not an issue: when what matters is what a person thinks, and what a person is.

Besides which, if Obama fails, making bad or even disastrous decisions, will that reflect badly on black Americans as a whole? Of course not: It will reflect badly on Obama, and possibly Joe Biden, and others. (Incidentally, Biden was wrong on everything having to do with the Cold War. He fought everything that worked, tooth and nail. Will lights finally go off in his brain now?)

16) Let’s talk about Obama’s press coverage: During the campaign, he was practically immune from criticism. His coverage was almost 100 percent positive. Will President Obama be immune from criticism — or will he be treated normally? I have a feeling that the “MSM” will be so eager for him to succeed, they will treat politics as though the campaign were still on: with D’s in white hats and R’s in black hats.

17) I had a bitter thought (surprise!) after Obama’s little shot at Nancy Reagan — the one he took the day after the election, or whenever it was. You know, in the fall campaign, everyone kept telling us about Obama’s “first-class temperament.” If nothing else, the tall, collected senator had a “first-class temperament.”

Oh, really? Say what you will about Palin’s familiarity with Frantz Fanon, at least she’s not a jerk.

18) It seems to me that, after the election — after their electoral loss — Republicans and conservatives were gracious, dignified, and public-minded. Classy, even. Of course, we could have expected nothing less had Republicans won and Democrats lost . . .

19) Just possibly, the assumption of the office will concentrate Obama’s mind — will sober him up, where foreign policy and the world are concerned. He will get the same threat assessments that President Bush does, every morning. He will have to figure out how to keep the country safe. There’s a famous, somewhat annoying old saying: You may not like war, but war likes you — it has a way of finding you.

Another cliché says that we have to fight them there or fight them here. I hope that President Obama chooses, as President Bush has, to fight them there.

Furthermore, there has not been an attack like 9/11 in seven years — something most people thought was impossible. I have a suspicion that Bush and his people are doing something right. Will Obama and his people continue that something right?

20) Finally, I said, for many months, that an Obama presidency would be harmful — harmful to the country, but perhaps even more to the world, which counts so heavily on American leadership. I hope very much that I’m wrong. I have been before, believe it or not!

All right, end of bitterfest. (Twenty points wasn’t all that many, was it?)


Madeleline Albright is reported to be providing her best advice to Obama about how to deal with foreign interests hostile to the United States.


The Middle East's preeminent political analyst Caroline Glick, who writes for the Jerusalem Post, says her fears of Obama's true intent with respect to the Middle East are being realized. To win Jewish votes he seemed to shun his anti-Israeli advisers as the election neared, but it now appears that the two most virulent opponents of Israel's right to exist are deeply involved in Obama's foreign policy. The signals emanating from the Obama campaign suggest that the first target of Obama's new foreign policy will be Israel, forcing it to give way to Palestinian demands. Closely related is what appears to be Obama's desire to "reconcile" with Iran's ayatollahs.

As Glick logically asks, what wil Obama offer up to Iran for renewed relations and a supposed end to its nuclear weapons program?

As for direct talks with Iran itself, the question immediately arises, what could Obama offer Teheran in exchange for an end to its nuclear program that Bush hasn't already offered?

What it can offer is Israel.

We predicted exactly that before the election, but enough of the electorate was so giddy with the idea of electing what some call the first affirmative action president to not care much about who he was or what he stood for.

Therefore, Israel finds itself in a deadly race for survival: Iran is feverishly pushing ahead with its nuclear weapons program, which is an existential threat to Israel. Israel has two dates of urgent consequence ahead -- January 20th when the new Obama policy can begin to be implemented and February 10th, when Israel elects a new government. If Israel elects a Netanyahu govenment it can save itself. If not, Israel will be at the mercy of Iran and Obama.

Prominent American Jewish supporters of Israel now rightly fear Obama will "throw Israel under the bus." That possibility was quite obvious before November 4th, yet 78% of American Jews voted for Obama.

Some hope that Obama's Jewish chief of staff Rahm Emaneul will prevent that from happening. But Emanuel was a chief aide to President Clinton when he forced Israel to offer virtually all of Judea and Sumaria and East Jerusalem to Arafat in his last minute push for a peace agreement. Fortunately for Israel, Arafat refused (showing he really didn't want peace, he wanted all of Israel gone, as does his successor Mahmoud Abbas.)


Did we say "giddy?"

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post says the press on Obama is showing "a giddy sense of boosterism." Will honest reporting every return?


As the bailout rolls on, a real difference in philosophy is emerging in the case of the auto industry. Democrats want to use bailout money to "save" the industry. The White House and Congressional Republicans oppose that, saying that reviving credit for all is what the bailout was intended for and money should be limited to that sector.

Democrats, eager for a European-style socialist economy, or worse, want to keep the U.S. auto companies afloat pretty much as they are. Those who know how bloated and unsustainable the costs of the industry are say that bankruptcy is a far better solution, as it has been for other industries and companies, including large ones such as the airlines. In bankruptcy, companies keep operating but work together with their creditors and all other involved parties and the court to fashion a solution for sensible survival. All parties generally have to give up something to make it work, including, in this case, the powerful auto unions that the Democrats are trying to continue as business as usual. It is labor costs that are sinking the U.S. auto companies, as Charles Krauthammer points out. Toyota's worker cost is $48 per hour; GM's.$73.

Also, if bailout money is used outside the credit industry, where do you stop? There is no longer any "bright line," it's who has the muscle, the clout and the connections to get on the gravy train to socialism. Let bankruptcy work and make the auto industry competitive. Asian carmakers are turning out millions of vehicles in America profitably. So can the Big Three.

Obama is setting another historic record in addition to his election as the first African-American president. The stock market has suffered its worst immediate short term loss ever after a presidential election in history.

The substance of what Mr. Obama has promised for the economy is bearish for stocks. The threat of higher tax rates, especially on capital gains and dividends, now may be getting priced into the market. Add that to investor doubts about Democratic policies on unions, health care and trade -- and no wonder stocks are falling. Lower stock prices in turn reduce household net worth, thus slamming consumer confidence and contributing to what appears to be a consumer spending strike.

Obama is an intelligent, but inexperienced ideologue with a socialist agenda he is determined to push through. Whether he will do that despite facts indicating this would be disastrous for the economy -- and for all those he says he believes are entitled to welfare benefits from the government -- is unknown. Will a Democratic Congress led by Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid be a restraining force? Unlikely.

Obama's plans are anti-growth and will cost the country jobs. So are investors right to be worried? Not only should investors be worried, everyone should be.

NOVEMBER 13, 2008
Wall Street Journal editorial opinon

A Barack Market

The voters may be full of hope about the looming Obama Presidency, but so far investors aren't. No President-elect in the postwar era has been greeted with a more audible hiss from Wall Street. The Dow has lost 1,342 points, or about 14%, since the election, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq hitting similar skids. The Dow fell another 4.7% yesterday.

Much of this is due to hedge fund deleveraging, as well as dreadful corporate earnings reports and pessimism that the recession will be deeper than many had hoped. We also don't want to read too much into short-term market moves. But there's little doubt that uncertainty, and some fear, over Barack Obama's economic agenda is also contributing to the downdraft.

The substance of what Mr. Obama has promised for the economy is bearish for stocks. The threat of higher tax rates, especially on capital gains and dividends, now may be getting priced into the market. Add that to investor doubts about Democratic policies on unions, health care and trade -- and no wonder stocks are falling. Lower stock prices in turn reduce household net worth, thus slamming consumer confidence and contributing to what appears to be a consumer spending strike.

If Mr. Obama wants to reassure markets, he could announce that he won't be raising taxes for the foreseeable future. Unlike hundreds of billions in new government spending or more taxpayer cash for Detroit auto companies, this no-tax-hike declaration is a "stimulus" that would cost the U.S. Treasury nothing. In the current market, there won't be many capital gains and few companies will have surplus earnings to pay out in dividends. A higher tax rate on zero gains yields zero revenue, so what's the point of raising rates?

What markets want to see from Mr. Obama is a sense that the seriousness of this downturn is causing him to rethink the worst of his antigrowth policies.

Update: At tne end of the week the market is down 14% from Election Day. It looks like more lows are to follow.

The elections aren't over yet. And the outlook is grim. The Democrats are close to achieving a filibuster-proof Senate.

For those who fear Obama's extreme socialist and anti-life agenda and honor the U.S. Constitution, it is a dangerous situation. Obama has made it clear he thinks the Constitution is fundamentally flawed and should have guaranteed not equal opportunity but "fair" wealth redistribution. He has said he would appoint radical judges to the Supreme Court who have "empathy" for African-Americans and others he considers disadvantaged to "interpret" the Constitution the way he wants. He clearly prefers giving those he wishes to benefit a handout, not just a hand up. Since the money has to come from somewhere, it will clearly come from the successful and productive in society through much higher and more sharply progressive taxes. Defense and national security are likely to suffer as funds are diverted to social and income redistribution programs. The number one cause of death in the U.S. today is abortion and if Obama's pledge to Planned Parenthood to sign the so-called Freedom of Choice Act is realized, the number of those deaths will explode.

In the House, the solid Democrat majority will be able to ignore the minority Republicans altogether on virtualy all issues. With the filibuster threat the majority in the Senate usually has to listen to and work with the minority and that is why the Senate often tempers extreme legislation originating in the House. That won't be the case if the Republicans can routinely muster 60 votes to block filibusters. Minority Republicans will be virtually defenseless except for their ability to get their message out to the American people. You can be sure the media won't be helping them do that.

How is this happening?

Democrats appear to be attempting to steal a U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota. The incumbent Republican Norm Coleman had about a 1,000 vote lead over the execrable former sick comedian Al Franken when the polls closed on Election Day. Mysteriously, additional ballots turned up after the initial reporting, all favoring Franken. About half of them came from two small towns in the heavily Democratic north. 32 more ballots were "found" in a poll worker's car. Coleman's lead shrank to about 200 votes. The Power Line blog, two of whose writer-lawyers live in Minnesota, are following developments closely. A statewide recount will get underway and is estimated to take a month. The Minnesota Secretary of State who oversees elections is a Democrat who was affiliated with ACORN before his election. Coleman has already filed one lawsuit alleging fraud.

Democrats made a concerted effort to elect Democratic Secretaries of State in states in which close elections were likely (because of the closeness of party registrations and past elections) and have had considerable success. One of those targeted states was Minnesota.

In Georgia, incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss received 49.9% of the vote in a three-way race and there will be a run-off election. Democrats are sure to pour oceans of money into the race.

If Coleman and Chambliss lose, Democrats will have 59 Senate seats (with Alaska's Republican seat still undecided) and will surely be able to get the 60 votes to block Republican filibusters. There are two independents (Lieberman and Sanders) who normally vote with the Democrats and the two liberal Maine Republican senators (Collins and Snowe) all too frequently side with the Democrats.

Even veteran newsmen Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose admitted on a recent Charlie Rose show that they didn't know much about Obama. Nor did most of those who voted for Obama, many of whom just wanted to elect the first non-white president of the United States, assuming he was just a "normal" Democrat and they liked the idea of "change." Well, the change we may get may not be to their liking.

Update: In Alaska absentee ballots are being counted and the Democrat has moved into the lead. The best guess is he will hold the lead. This brings the Democrat Senate total to 58 with Minnesota very much at risk because of the manipulation that is going on there. Whether Democrats move to an absolute 60 majority or not, they, with the aid of two independents, one of whom (Sanders of Vermont) will always vote with them, have now a filibuster-proof majority to be as radical as the House will be.

Catholic bishops are still meeting in Baltimore and the discussions are getting heated about the lack of backbone on the issue of life by too many of their number. A new statement will be drafted under the leadership of the Archbishop of Chicago George, who has been outspoken in his condemnation of the "intrinsic evil" of abortion and of Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion. There was unanimity in aggressively opposing Obama's extreme pro-abortion agenda.

Obama backs Planned Parenthood's Freedom of Choice Act (H.R. 1964) which, among other things, would force Catholic hospitals and doctors to perform abortions or lose federal funds. Bishops vowed hospitals would close rather than comply; Catholic hospitals are roughly one-third of all U.S. hospitals, so their closure would be a disaster for the country's health care network.

Catholic Bishops Vow to Confront Obama Administration Over Abortion
Tuesday, November 11, 2008

BALTIMORE -- The nation's Roman Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights, saying the church and religious freedom could be under attack in the new presidential administration.

In an impassioned discussion on Catholics in public life, several bishops said they would accept no compromise on abortion policy. Many condemned Catholics who had argued it was morally acceptable to back President-elect Obama because he pledged to reduce abortion rates.

And several prelates promised to call out Catholic policy makers on their failures to follow church teaching. Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pa., singled out Vice President-elect Biden, a Catholic, Scranton native who supports abortion rights.

"I cannot have a vice president-elect coming to Scranton to say he's learned his values there when those values are utterly against the teachings of the Catholic Church," Martino said. The Obama-Biden press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Diocese of Kansas City in Kansas said politicians "can't check your principles at the door of the legislature."

Naumann has said repeatedly that Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic Democrat who supports abortion rights, should stop taking Holy Communion until she changes her stance.

"They cannot call themselves Catholic when they violate such a core belief as the dignity of the unborn," Naumann said Tuesday.

The discussion occurred on the same day the bishops approved a new "Blessing of a Child in the Womb." The prayer seeks a healthy pregnancy for the mother and makes a plea that "our civic rulers" perform their duties "while respecting the gift of human life."

Chicago Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is preparing a statement during the bishops' fall meeting that will press Obama on abortion.

The bishops suggested that the final document include the message that "aggressively pro-abortion policies" would be viewed "as an attack on the church."

Along with their theological opposition to the procedure, church leaders say they worry that any expansion in abortion rights could require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or lose federal funding. Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago said the hospitals would close rather than comply.

During the campaign, many prelates had spoken out on abortion more boldly than they had in 2004, telling Catholic politicians and voters that the issue should be the most important consideration in setting policy and deciding which candidate to back.

Yet, according to exit polls, 54 percent of Catholics chose Obama, who is Protestant. The new bishops' statement is meant to drive home the point in a way that cannot be misconstrued.

"We have a very important thing to say. I think we should say it clearly and with a punch," said New York Cardinal Edward Egan.

But some bishops said church leaders should take care with the tone of the statement.

Bishops differ on whether Catholic lawmakers should refrain from receiving Communion if they diverge from central church beliefs. Each bishop sets policy in his own diocese.

"We must act and be perceived as acting as caring pastors and faithful teachers," said Bishop Blase Cupich of Rapid City, S.D.

But Dr. Patrick Whelan, a pediatrician and president of Catholic Democrats, said angry statements from church leaders were counterproductive and would only alienate Catholics.

"We're calling on the bishops to move away from the more vicious language," Whelan said. He said the church needs to act "in a more creative, constructive way," to end abortion.

Catholics United was among the groups that argued in direct mail and TV ads during the campaign that taking the "pro-life" position means more than opposing abortion rights.

Chris Korzen, the group's executive director, said, "we honestly want to move past the deadlock" on abortion. He said church leaders were making that task harder.

"What are the bishops going to do now?" Korzen said. "`They have burned a lot of bridges with the Democrats and the new administration."


There is still a liberation theology streak running through many Catholic operations. As ACORN's corrupt practices came into sharper view because of Obama's connection to the communist-founded organization, it was learned that Catholic money had been going to ACORN for years through the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. The Catholic Bishops, reacting to the widespread investigations of ACORN for voter registration fraud and the revelation of a hushed-up $1 million embezzlement by the brother of ACORN's founder, have ended all ACORN funding.


Catholic Bishops Cut Off ACORN Funding Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:30 PM

BALTIMORE — A community grantmaking arm of the U.S. Roman Catholic bishops has cut off all funding for a group embroiled in controversy over claims of voter registration fraud and embezzlement, church leaders said Tuesday.

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development, which supports anti-poverty and social justice programs nationwide, will no longer make grants to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as ACORN, said Auxiliary Bishop Robert Morin of New Orleans.

The decision was made following claims that nearly $1 million had been embezzled from ACORN by the brother of its founder.

Morin, who helps oversee the Catholic program, said forensic accountants hired by the church found that "our funds were not involved with those that had been embezzled."

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development, which has an annual budget of about $10 million, had planned to grant about $1 million to local groups across the country through ACORN this fiscal year, Morin said. None of that money will be distributed.

"There will be no funding relationships with ACORN groups in the future," Morin said, during the fall meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Steve Kekst, ACORN executive director, said Tuesday night that he had just learned of the decision and declined to comment until he could speak with church leaders.

ACORN founder Wade Rathke has defended allowing his brother to make restitution privately, saying that getting law enforcement involved could have risked ACORN's financial ruin.

New Orleans-based ACORN, which has chapters in 110 cities and 40 states, completed a massive registration drive in poor and working-class neighborhoods _ which tend to vote Democratic _ across 21 states, signing up more than 1 million new voters.

ACORN, which advocates for the underprivileged, has said the registration problems were isolated and that its own workers noticed the problems and alerted local election officials in every state that is now investigating.

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development gets most of its funds from parish collections the weekend before Thanksgiving, according to its annual report.

The collection this year is set for Nov. 22-23.

Sarah Palin came out of Alaska as an unknown and immediately capitvated and energized much of the Republican Party. Seeing her as a threat to Obama/Biden, the media and Obama supporters went into a frenzy of trashing her and her family.

She's now back in Alaska and giving some interviews to disprove the many wild claims made, including some by anonymous McCain so-called "insiders." McCain last night on Jay Leno dismissed all those claims, saying he was gratified she agreed to run with him and called her an asset to the campaign and someone who has an important future in the Repblican Party. It is already clear that she is in great demand to appear at fundraisers across the country.

Camille Paglia is a university professor, atheist, feminist and Obama voter. Yet she is a fan of Sarah Palin and deplores the savage attacks by Obama supporters and the sycophantic Obama media. She also, belatedly, is disturbed by all the information that Obama kept to himself or lied about. She is doing some investigation on her own and is uncomfortable with what she's finding out, such as the close collaboration of Obama and unrepentant terrorist William (Bill) Ayers in funding radical projects for school children. Here's what she has posted about Sarah Palin.

Given that Obama had served on a Chicago board with Ayers and approved funding of a leftist educational project sponsored by Ayers, one might think that the unrepentant Ayers-Dohrn couple might be of some interest to the national media. But no, reporters have been too busy playing mini-badminton with every random spitball about Sarah Palin, who has been subjected to an atrocious and at times delusional level of defamation merely because she has the temerity to hold pro-life views.

How dare Palin not embrace abortion as the ultimate civilized ideal of modern culture? How tacky that she speaks in a vivacious regional accent indistinguishable from that of Western Canada! How risible that she graduated from the State University of Idaho and not one of those plush, pampered commodes of received opinion whose graduates, in their rush to believe the worst about her, have demonstrated that, when it comes to sifting evidence, they don't know their asses from their elbows.

Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle. A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage was exposed at the heart of current Democratic ideology -- contradicting Democratic core principles of compassion, tolerance and independent thought. One would have to look back to the Eisenhower 1950s for parallels to this grotesque lock-step parade of bourgeois provincialism, shallow groupthink and blind prejudice.

I like Sarah Palin, and I've heartily enjoyed her arrival on the national stage. As a career classroom teacher, I can see how smart she is -- and quite frankly, I think the people who don't see it are the stupid ones, wrapped in the fuzzy mummy-gauze of their own worn-out partisan dogma. So she doesn't speak the King's English -- big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes. She uses language with the jumps, breaks and rippling momentum of a be-bop saxophonist. I stand on what I said (as a staunch pro-choice advocate) in my last two columns -- that Palin as a pro-life wife, mother and ambitious professional represents the next big shift in feminism. Pro-life women will save feminism by expanding it, particularly into the more traditional Third World.

As for the Democrats who sneered and howled that Palin was unprepared to be a vice-presidential nominee -- what navel-gazing hypocrisy! What protests were raised in the party or mainstream media when John Edwards, with vastly less political experience than Palin, got John Kerry's nod for veep four years ago? And Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, for whom I lobbied to be Obama's pick and who was on everyone's short list for months, has a record indistinguishable from Palin's. Whatever knowledge deficit Palin has about the federal bureaucracy or international affairs (outside the normal purview of governors) will hopefully be remedied during the next eight years of the Obama presidencies.

The U.S. Senate as a career option? What a claustrophobic, nitpicking comedown for an energetic Alaskan -- nothing but droning committees and incestuous back-scratching. No, Sarah Palin should stick to her governorship and just hit the rubber-chicken circuit, as Richard Nixon did in his long haul back from political limbo following his California gubernatorial defeat in 1962. Step by step, the mainstream media will come around, wipe its own mud out of its eyes, and see Palin for the populist phenomenon that she is.

It has just been revealed that aides to Obama were meeting with Hamas representatives before the election. The Obama people told the Hamas group to keep their meetings secret since disclosure might affect the election. Obama got 78% of the American Jewish vote.

Obama's public position was that he would not meet with Hamas until they renounced terrorism and recognized Israel's right to exist. Of course, Hamas has done neither.

John Hinderaker of Power Line is deeply concerned.

It's hard to disagree with this assessment by David Hornik of Pajamas Media:

A clash between Obama's public, anodyne, mainstream statements and behind-the-scenes activities of a different nature would confirm the fears of those concerned about Obama's history of association with radical people and ideologies.

It would have been nice to know about the cordial relationship between Obama's advisers and Hamas during the campaign. But, of course, it was an article of faith in the mainstream media that Obama's many unsavory and radical associations were somehow irrelevant to any expectation as to how he would govern as President.

Catholic bishops are meeting. The Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley has spoken out about the Obama election. The Boston Globe reports that "O'Malley is visibly moved by the moment, but also horrified by what he sees as Barack Obama's "deplorable" record on abortion rights." O'Malley said:

"My joy, however, is tempered by the knowledge that this man has a deplorable record when it comes to prolife issues, and is possibly in the pocket of Planned Parenthood, which, in its origins, was a very racist organization to eliminate the blacks, and it's sort of ironic that he's been co-opted by them."

The Globe points out, "As a senator, Obama voted 100 percent of the time with abortion-rights organizations, according to evaluations by abortion rights groups."

Obama's record is worse than that. In 2001-2003 Obama was leading the fight in the Illinois Senate against the Born Alive Act that would require proper medical care for babies who survive a failed abortion, saying keeping the babies alive would put an unfair burden on the decision of the mother. In other words, even though no one disputes that a baby born alive is a baby, Obama still wanted the baby dead so that the "abortion" would be made effective.

And in 2007 he told his enthusiastic backer Planned Parenthood that he wanted his "first thing" (just think of that: his "first thing") as president to be signing legislation (Freedom of Choice Act) allowing abortions without limit, forcing hospitals and doctors to perform abortion despite their religious beliefs or qualms of conscience. Furthermore, the legislation he supports would require all taxpayers to pay for abortions and eliminate funding for pregancy crisis centers which help young pregnant women make informed decisions about alternatives to abortions. This is a Planned Parenthood priority because it will mean many more abortions; as the number one abortion mill in the country Planned Parenthood rakes in hundreds of millions from its abortions and is eager to increase its revenues.

Now, all of the Catholic bishops knew this before the election. A handful of them spoke out forcefully, such as the brilliant Archbishop of Denver Charles Caput, the archbishop of Philadelphia Rigali and the New York archbishop Egan. Most did nothing and few parish priests addressed the issue in sermons.

Boston's O'Malley only issued one mild weak statement in response to an inquiry from the Globe asking for his views about strong statements such as those from Chaput, Rigali and Egan. O'Malley said this:

The American people are not in favor of abortion on demand, partial birth abortion, or allowing babies who have survived an abortion to die

O'Malley, by referencing the Born Alive Act. showed he knew very well Obama's extremist position and why he is considered the most extreme pro-abortion official in the nation. While Obama was fighting that act in Illinois, the same bill passed the U.S. Congress unanimously. O'Malley deplored the tyranny of the Supreme Court, which was nice. But O'Malley also said this:

If we had the opportunity to vote as a nation, there would certainly be limitations imposed on the abortion industry that destroys not just the lives of the babies but also the lives of all involved...We pray for the opportunity to allow the American people to have a voice in such a crucial issue.

Well, Cardinal, your statement was issued on October 30th, less than a week before Catholics would have the opportunity to voice their position on Election Day, but you failed to mention that opportunity.

Pope Benedict and his predecessors have made it crystal clear that abortion is a moral evil on an unarguable level totally different from and above such moral questions as those about war, death penalty, poverty, racial preferences and so on, where Catholics and others may reasonably differ.

One Catholic priest confided he was going to vote for Obama. His listener expressed shock, saying, How can you vote for someone who had announced he will remove all limits on abortion and would force Catholic hospitals and doctors to perform abortions? Wouldn't that be a grave sin? The priest replied, "Oh, well, he'll change." Sure.

How widespread was such self-delusion? Exit polls indicate that 54% of Catholics voted for Obama/Biden. (88% of Evangelicals voted for McCain/Palin.)

So now O'Malley is "horrified." A bit late.

Yesterday we honored the birth of the U.S. Marine Corps. Today we honor all the veterans who have served America.

Freedom is not free. There is a price that Americans have paid throughout the centuries on behalf of this country founded on the belief in the value of evey person with equal opportunity to pursue his dreams.

It is the Armed Forces of the United States who are on the front lines protecting our freedoms. They deserve our thanks and our honor.

One president in a personal note to a Massachusetts mother expressed it as well as it can be said.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, Nov. 21, 1864.

Dear Madam,

I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle.

I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.

I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,

A. Lincoln

God bless, protect and preserve the United States of America.

The "Don't Drill Democrats" now have a "Don't Drill President-Elect" who is already examining Presidential Executive Orders with a view to shrinking, not expanding, drilling. And Democrats have vowed to reinstitute drilling prohibitions that expired on October 1 to prevent off-shore and other new drilling.

Meanwhile, our sensible neighbor to the south Brazil is having fantastic success in its off-shore drilling. A new report from the Financial Times (subscription may be required) indicates the new finds may lift Brazil's reserves from about 14 billion barrels (the U.S. figure is 22 billion barrels) to over 100 billion barrels, putting it about equal to Kuwait, ahead of Russia and only trailing Saudi Arabia. Canada is ahead of the U.S. and is growing its reserves as it continues exploration. (Add in Rocky Mountains shale potential oil reserves, also a Democratic blockage target, and the U.S. could be far ahead of all countries, including Saudia Arabia.)

The U.S. is the only major oil producing country that is denying itself access to its oil and gas resources. As a consequence, high oil and gasoline prices will be inflicted on the American people unnecessarily. Insofar as environmental concerns are argued as reasons for not drilling, they are bogus. American companies are the most technologically advanced and the most environmentally sensitive in their drilling operations. Drilling will go on all over the world, since oil will continue to be the most important energy fuel for many years, probably decades, to come.

So not only much higher taxes will be coming from the Obama administration but also high prices for energy, both of which will be a drag on the economy.

But Saudi Arabia will be grateful to the Obama administration.



In 1775 the establishment of the U.S. Marines was approved by the Continental Congress. In their honor, God Bless America.

And remember the injured Marines needing help. Semper Fi Fund.

The Wall Street Journal interviews Obama's chief- of-staff-to-be Rahm Emanuel and seems to believe what he says, which is total nonsense and intended to mislead.

Obama is not pragmatic as Emanuel says; he's ideological. He has his agenda, which is totalitarian and socialist, and he plans to ram it through. His attitude towards elimination of life shows that. With all of the problems he will face as a new president, it is ghoulish that Emanuel says Obama wants one of his first acts to be pushing through federal funding of embryonic stem cell research that will result in the killing of untold numbers of human beings.

Why this fixation on abortion, which is what is involved in creating embryonic stem cells to kill them?

Obama in his campaign pledged to Planned Parenthood he wanted his first act as president to be the elimination of all restrictions on abortion, including partial birth abortion, making taxpayers who don't support abortion to pay for it and forcing hospital and doctors who for reasons of conscience or religious belief to perform abortions.

While he says he want to see abortion numbers reduced, he favors eliminating funding for pregnancy crisis centers, which help pregnant young women make informed choices rather than assuming abortion is their only choice. His policy, if adopted, will lead to an explosive increase in abortions. Why this priority?

Obama told his significant supporter Planned Parenthood, which makes hundreds of millions of dollars each year from the abortion business, that he would do whatever he could in effect to build their business. Planned Parenthood wants more abortions, not fewer, and more revenues as a result.

Obama's callousness is breathtaking. Emanuel's prediction that Obama will lead off with federal funding of embryonic stem cell research shows where Obama's headed. No medical advances have been attributed to use of embryonic stem cells and none are expected for many years. Recent research has indicated that using stem cells other than embryonic stem cells is just as if not more promising and does not involve killing humans. Therefore, creating and killing human embryos is needless. Nonetheless, Obama ignores these scientific results and appears to be using the embryonic stem cell debate to condition the public to supporting unlimited abortion to the last day of gestation.

Why is he so fixated on eliminating all of the safeguards that states and the federal government have built up over 30 years to reduce the killing of human beings?

Emanuel was picked as chief of staff because he, like Obama, is a member in good standing in the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine that has elected Obama to every office he has sought, including the presidency, and has the same ruthless, moral relativist attitudes (no right or wrong; no truth, just whatever works) as Obama and his mentor Saul Alinsky. The understand each other and can work together.

Obama cut his communist Alinsky community organizer teeth working with and then training ACORN operatives in bullying bankers and registering voters. Just a few years later Emanuel himself became indoctrinated in the Alinsky methods during a tour of his own with ACORN.

Congress opened up for Emanuel when convicted felon Chicago pol Dan Rostenkowski went to prison for stealing from the federal government and the Chicago Daley machine anointed him to take the Rostenkowski seat (2002), just as the Daley machine had done for Obama for Illinois state senate (1996) and U.S. Senate (2004).

It's all about power; whatever it takes.

Obama is ideologically driven to make rich America pay for the the wrongs he perceives they visited upon the non-whites of America and the world. The first of the one-two punch is the "tax cut" bill that will take money from the productive who pay taxes and give it to those who don't pay any income tax. The second will be reinstituting the federal estate tax and raising taxes on dividends and capital gains, which actionss will represent a huge tax increase for everyone. When a questioner asked why raise the capital gains tax, because every study has shown doing so decreased government tax revenue, Obama replied, well, it's the fair thing to do. Even though the federal government will lose money by doing so. Therefore, it is more important to punish the productive and the savers than gain revenue for the federal government. What Obama thinks is fair is the test.

It is natural enough for Emanuel to deny Obama has an ideological agenda, because that might frighten voters. Alinsky taught to pursue the radical agenda incrementally, so as to not to alarm and awaken opposition. Obama starts with embryonic cell funding, since most people don't understand the issue and don't know about better alternatives.

Obama will speak calmly and soothingly and so will Emanuel when it is called for.

Citizen of the world Obama, not putting the needs of the United States first, could take some very damaging steps early in his Administration that will punch holes in our national security and endanger our troops (HT:Power Line).

[By] 63 percent to 16 percent Americans said they see the U.S. Constitution, not international law, as the highest legal authority for Americans. 83 percent think of themselves as U.S. citizens, rather than citizens of the world.

Obama doesn't think so.

Dr. Sowell looks ahead to what he fears will happen when Democrats take control of the White House with strong majorities in both Houses of Congress.

Wars, economic crises and other disruptions all provide opportunities for the left to seize on current problems to create enduring changes in the institutions of society. That is what we are witnessing today. . . .
It is not just a question of being able to put scare headlines on newspapers or alarmist rhetoric on television. Such things are just the prelude to massive political "change" in fundamentally sound institutions that have for more than two centuries made the American economy the envy of most of the world.

If the left succeeds, it will be like amputating your arm because of a stomach ache.

To add to the painful irony, many of those who are most eager to have a massive government intrusion into the market are among those whose previous intrusions into the market are largely responsible for the current financial crisis.

It was the left-- the "liberals" or "progressives"-- who led the charge to force lending institutions to lend to people whose credit history made them eligible only for "subprime" loans that were risky for both borrowers and lenders.

Read it all.

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.


When more than half the population is getting handouts and paying no taxes, a tipping point will have been reached. On current trend, hastened along by the Obama "tax cut" program to take money from taxpayers and give it to those who don't pay income taxes, that point will be reached by 2012 with a majority getting federal welfare. (That's assuming that today's slim majority of taxpayers will not be able to keep Congress from rubberstamping Obama's welfare plan.)

Mark Steyn sees the U.S. inexorably slipping down the European unsustainable welfare black hole.

The Death of the American Idea

An electorate living high off the entitlement hog.

By Mark Steyn

‘Give me liberty or give me death!”

“Live free or die!”

What's that? Oh, don't mind me. I'm just trying out slogans for the 2012 campaign and seeing which one would get the biggest laughs.

Hey, you're for 100 years in Iraq, little girl?

After all, who wouldn't prefer a world like this?

The following is a good up-to-date summary of Obama's fradulent fundraising. As previously reported on this website, tests by private citizens disclosed that all the normal credit card ID safeguards had been disabled on Obama websites. All that was needed was a valid credit card number to have a contribution accepted by the campaign, regardless of the name (Donald Duck, say) that was used. Foreign credit cards were not blocked either. The McCain campaign had all ID security devices activated and foreign credit cards were rejected. More than half of Obama's contributors of $650 millon cannot be identified. The FEC has been formally asked to investigate Obama's fundraising for what appears to be deliberate fraud. The ID security devices cannot be disabled by accident.

Obama Fundraising Sealed Election Win
Wednesday, November 5, 2008 7:00 PM

By: Jim Meyers

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign smashed all previous fundraising records, raking in more than an astounding $650 million from some 3 million donors and giving him a huge advantage over rival John McCain.

But questions abound regarding the legality of many of the donations that helped propel him to victory.

And one question is: Did Obama “buy” the election?


As we've reported on several occasions, communist (Marxist socialist, if you prefer) Saul Alinsky was the founder of the community organizer movement and was and is Obama's hero. (Alinsky's hero was Lucifer, who defied God and got a kingdom of his own to run.)

Alinsky wanted to "transform" America into a socialist state. First, dissastifaction and resentment had to be stirred in the masses. Then they were to be encouraged, that there was "hope" and 'change" could come. Never was it to be disclosed exactly what change would be coming; that might kill the enthusiasm for change. Class envy and resentment were of course important parts of stirring up the anger of the crowds; whatever was going wrong, it was "their" fault.

Obama steeped himself in Alinsky studies and practiced Alinsky methods as a community organizer in Chicago. He then taught classes in Alinsky socialist manipulation to ACORN operatives and others -- how to register voters, how to bully bankers. Organize the massses to prepare to bring the American system down. For the socialist state to function at its best, it should be authoritarian or totalitarian as much as possible, bending the U.S. Constitution as much as it can be bent. Critics should be harassed into silence. Power to the crush all opposition is imperative. But don't say so. Just do it.

Now that Obama will be taking over the White House on January 20th some in the media are beginning to take a look at who will be joining him.

Saul Alinsky Takes the White House

By Quin Hillyer on 11.6.08


Hard-headed British columnist Melanie Phillips provides good advice to American conservatives in the wake of the Obama victory. She cites the disaster that has been building in Britain over recent decades -- and is still building -- hastened along greatly by the ascendency into high office by Labour's charismatic leader Tony Blair, whose arrival was hailed almost as messianically as Obama's. Similar, or worse, damage looms with Obama:

Obama has talked about remedying what he sees as the flaws in the U.S. Constitution which promotes only “negative liberties,” or freedom from something rather than positive rights to something. Well, through human-rights legislation Britain has exchanged its historic concept of “negative” liberty — everything is permitted unless it is actively prohibited — for the ‘positive’ European idea that only what is codified is to be permitted.

As a result, freedom has shrunk to what ideology permits. Equality legislation has cemented a “victim culture” under which the interests of all groups deemed to be powerless (black people, women, gays ) trump those deemed to be powerful (white people, men, Christians). Since this doctrine holds that the “powerless” can do no wrong while the “powerful” can do no right, injustice is thus institutionalized, and anyone who queries the preferential treatment afforded such groups is vilified as a racist or bigot.

Her warning should be read in full and printed out to post above the desk as a constant reminder.

Read it all:

Preventing National Suicide

By Melanie Phillips


Daniel Henninger also takes note of Obama's constant habit of dissing the United States. Even in his victory speech he sounded as if the U.S. should be torn apart and rebuilt brick by brick. In fact, he actually said that.

Obama was announcing he fully intends to implement his Marxist socialist vision for America. The team he will assemble will be the one he believes is best able to help him create the utopia (if the Constitution will only let him do it) envisioned by his Marxist hero Saul Alinsky, in which all share equally in whatever the unproductive can tear from the productive, who, of course, will stop being productive.

Here's Henniger's take.

If you've been wondering who the Obamas would be thinking about inviting to an overnight at the White House, consider their circle of friends from Hyde Park (Chicago). The only question is which American haters would be invited first. Jeremiah Wright might still be too controversial, though he has been closest to Obama through all his time in Chicago. The smiling but unrepentant Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, now respected faculty members, a triumphant return to the city they bombed? Or the Khalidis, sympathizers with the current Islamist enemies of the United States and Israel, who provided so much insight to Obama?

What's particulary fascinating about the Obama Hyde Park circle of American haters is how anti-Americanism is being passed down to the next generation.

As is now well known, the Obamas brought their children to listen to Jeremiah Wright's tirades against America Sunday after Sunday. Think that won't leave an impression?

Rashid Khalidi, now ensconced in the anti-Israel Edward Said Chair at Columbia's Middle East Studies, has passed his animus along to his son Ismail. Ismail writes for the pro-Palestinian Electronic Intifada and has contributed an article to a publication being circulated on college campuses "Letters from Young Activists: Today’s Rebels Speak Out." And who is the editor of that publication? Chesa Boudin, the adopted son of William (Bill) Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn (mother and father in prison for murders committed during a robbery). Dohrn is listed as a co-editor. Chesa Boudin also has written a book praising Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian Revolution and acted as translator for his father on his trip to Venezula during which he complimented Chavez on how successfully he was propagandizing children in the revolutionary cause, as Ayers has been doing, with Obama's help, in Chicago.

So the next generation of the Obama circle of Hyde Park America-haters has been spawned, trained and already at work.

November 03, 2008, 6:00 p.m.

In Obama’s Hyde Park, It’s All in the Family
Passing anti-American radicalism from generation to generation.

By Andrew C. McCarthy & Claudia Rosett

‘It is this world … where white folks’ greed runs a world in need[.]” Barack Obama was writing his memoir, Dreams from My Father, and quoting his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Wright is a racist proponent of Black Liberation Theology, a Marxist creed that depicts America as an imperial, terrorist, apartheid state.

It was a black-separatist creed that Obama and his wife, Michelle, chose to make a core part of their lives. Year after year, they attended Wright’s Trinity Church. They contributed tens of thousands of their personal dollars to it — and Obama added tens of thousands more when he sat with his friend Bill Ayers on the board of the Leftist Woods Fund.


Our president-elect is still the same person he was the day before the election.

He is still a largely unknown figure, having successfully hidden much of his past thus far. Much of what was learned is disturbing.

One can hope, as we do, he will stand in the great American tradition of pride in country, proud of American exceptionalism, proud of its leadership in the world and what it has done through the centuries to better the lot of people everywhere. We hope he will, however belatedly, come to recognize the threats this nation faces and his responsibility to defend the people of America from all threats, foreign and domestic. We also hope he will at last come to realize the free enterprise system is the best way to create wealth that will benefit all who live in this great country.

So we will hope, but we will watch and we will continue to explore who this man is. We also hope he will grow in office, will learn to appreciate how great this country is, which, unfortunately, he tends to disparage more than praise.

Those who have concern must be alert and on guard and prepared to fight against all efforts to weaken America's strength and to push the U.S. along the path to a Europe of socialism, appeasement, worship of multiculturalism and "political correctness," which means limitations on free and frank speech. The Democratic party has been drifting from "liberalism" to "socialism" and with the election of Obama that process could well accelerate. The dignity and worth of every created human being, however weak and vulnerable, deserves respect under our Constitution, a value socialists and some Democrats question. Those of a Marxist socialist point of view tend to think in terms of multiples of lives, millions of lives, and not so much about each and every life. This view must be guarded against. We do believe that each and every individual has been endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights and must be protected, including from the government.

God Bless America.

God Help America.

Well, Obama's first move should give one pause there.

Reports are he's asked Rahm Emanuel to become his chief of staff in the White House. Emmanual is a very smart, very tough, hard-nosed, very left Democrat now in the House from, guess where, Chicago.

Therefore, Emanuel is totally familiar with working with the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine that brought Obama to power and will now be in the White House with Obama. (In the past Emanuel served as advisor to the head of the Chicago machine himself Mayor Daley.) He is known to be vicious to his enemies. He is highly partisan.

Emanuel ran the House of Representives' Democratic operation to increase numbers of Democrats in the House and did a very effective job. That's what the Chicago machine is expert in doiing. They will now be working to consolidate Democratic power nationally by continuing to stir class resentment and to enlarge the numbers supporiting them -- legal and illegal -- who look to the government for handouts. Is he far left? In the Senate for 2007 Obama rated 7 with the American Conservative Union; in the House Emanuel rated zero.

The good news is that Emanuel is Jewish and has a strong identity with Israel. He would work strongly against any Obama inclination to sell Israel out.

Update: Emanuel has accepted the position.

From this first move we can infer two things: Bipartisanship is out the window. Obama intends to drive his Marxist agenda hard and to consolidate power.


The corrupt Chicago Democratic machine has propelled itself and Obama into the White House. America has suffered a major defeat through electoral and campaign finance fraud and the complicity of a media that betrayed its duty to inform the public about who Obama really is. The American people have been duped.

Obama has shown in his writings and his speeches -- and his friendships with Jeremiah Wright, William (Bill) Ayers, Michael Pfleger, Rashid Khalidi and Louis Farrakhan -- that he doesn't much like America. He wants to "transform" America into something that the Founding Fathers expressly rejected. They created a society of equal opportunity. Obama's goal is a totalitarian state which spreads the wealth as it (he) sees fit. He also wants to tell you what you can say and what you should think. His hero Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals should be read by eveyone who wants to keep Obama from achieving his goal of a socialist state, In the process he intends to take a special bite out of the hide of rich white America who he, Jeremiah Wright and other of their friends blame for all the perceived ills non-white minorities have suffered through the centuries.

The challenge now becomes how to protect the nation from the extremist tendencies he has exhibited and the dangerous positions he has voiced. His rhetoric down the stretch of the campaign was close to center-of-the-road. For example, he said he wants to reduce abortions; that's good. However, in 2007 he pledged to Planned Parenthood that he wanted his first act as president to be signing a bill legalizing partial-birth abortions, forcing all doctors and hospitals to perform abortions regardless of conscience, to have all taxpayers pay for abortions and to stop funding of pregnancy crisis centers which help young girls examine other alternatives to abortion. Which will it be?

There was one positive feature of the presidential election: A black man was elected to the most important office in the nation. Hopefully, the omnipresent false charges of racism will now end. Obama received a higher percentage of the white vote than President Clinton ever did. Indeed, the media's and campaign's stoking of white guilt probably made race a plus for Obama, not a negative. Enough.

Michael Ledeen is perhaps this nation's leading expert on the Iranian threat.

Election Thoughts

Posted By Michael Ledeen On November 3, 2008 @ 5:57 pm In Uncategorized | 114 Comments

What makes me angriest: that there is no outcry against election fraud; that the media have become pure political instruments; that our “educational system” has produced an ignorant electorate.

Years and years ago, during Watergate, Barbara and I were living in Rome, and we had lots of journalist friends (I was then a correspondent for The New Republic, so…we saw lots of Italian journalists). They were all openly jealous of America, because they saw American journalism as clearly superior to theirs. American journalists reported, while they, the Italians, were doing politics. “We could bring down our entire Political Class,” they would say, “we all have information so devastating that no politician could survive,” but they didn’t publish it, because they didn’t see an acceptable alternative. We would tell them that their job was not to make political decisions, but to report the news, and let the people decide. But they couldn’t; they were doing politics. And we felt superior, because American journalism, we thought, just reported the news and let the people decide.

Well, that’s over and done with now. Never before has the ignorance of the electorate been so intensely cultivated as in this election. We all know that major publications and broadcasters have simply refused to report news, and what they did report was spun politically. And among the stories they are not reporting, is the massive electoral fraud, from the “where is all that money coming from?” to the “how dare state officials refuse to verify the identity of voters?” one, to the refusal to report, day by day, on Joe Biden’s scandalously inept, incompetent, and often meretricious campaign. Instead, they obsess on every real and imagined misstatement by Sarah Palin, who for me has been the most attractive of the four candidates.

An ignorant electorate is a real threat to good government, and the whole point of the First Amendment is to create a wide-open national debate from which the truth might emerge. The current behavior of the media–now totally politicized–makes it very hard to get to the truth. They censor themselves, just as our Italian friends confessed they were doing to themselves thirty years ago.

Rush today played some clips from a conversation about Obama between Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw. Each said repeatedly “we really don’t know much about him.” Well, duh, whose fault is that, y’all? Yours. You haven’t done your job.

For years now, most thoughtful Americans have known they were being misled by the MSM. But they didn’t know exactly where to go to get the real news. Over time, many of them learned to read blogs, to listen to talk radio, and to read the few good journalists who still believe they should report, and let the people decide. It’s only natural that the Dems should want to shut down these outlets and those reporters, and I think that’s going to be a very big battle in the very near future, whoever wins tomorrow.

It follows from all this that there’s another thing that has my dander flying: the snooty treatment of Palin. It’s as if that old New Yorker cover–the one that shows Manhattan occupying most of the map of the United States, then the Mississippi River and fly-over country in a small strip, then San Francisco and Los Angeles in a larger area–has now become the template for all proper thinkers. I’m sure lots of folks in fly-over country are enraged by this, but many others want to have a seat at the table, want to join the celebrities, want to be thought of as serious thinkers. And so they join the swarm.

American exceptionalism rests upon independent thinking, pride in community and heritage, and disdain for ivory tower intellectuals combined with admiration for self-help and achievement. My greatest fear is that these values are going to be trashed over and over again the next few years, and we will have to fight it very fiercely.

The Ledeen family is now a military family. All three of our children are engaged in the war which to my way of thinking is the single greatest issue for America, but which has virtually vanished from our national debate. There is no escape from this war, there is only victory or defeat. But the Democrats can’t win a national election on that question, and so it has been spiked.

Tough times.

Pajamas Media


If you aren't moved and impressed with this video clip of Sarah Palin after casting her vote in Wasilla, there's something wrong with either you or me. I am doing fine.

Soon we'll know the answer.

Will the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine hoodwink the American people and move its criminal kickback, payoff and patronage operation into the White House?

The machine has brought Obama along through every step of his political career and is running his presidential campaign today. It has successfully hidden the real Obama story and is poised to achieve a corrupt victory over the American people.

With the aid of ACORN, known for its voter fraud drives, registering 1.3 million in key states, hundreds of millions of dollars raised illegally from unidentifiable sources over the internet from all over the world and a media betraying its obligation to inform the Amerian people by refusing to investigate or print anything that might be damaging about the real Obama, where does America stand on election day? British political observer Melanie Phillips put it accurately:

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.

A few brave voices ( have raised warnings of the disaster that will befall America should Obama be elected, but they have not been heard. For example, this:

After this man has wrecked the economy and destroyed constitutional law with his judicial appointments, what can he do for an encore? He can cripple the military and gamble America’s future on his ability to sit down with enemy nations and talk them out of causing trouble.

And this:

[McCain] 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.

Whether through wickedness, ideology, stupidity or derangement, the [Obama true believers] 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.

And this:

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.
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. . .

Obama's dislike of America goes back to his college and pre-college days, perhaps even earlier. With the death of his white grandmother, all of Obama's relatives are adherents of the ideology of political Islam, which seeks to destroy America on its way to world domination. Jeremiah Wright, an ex-Muslim, preached a strange form of black liberation Christianity, with Obama in the pews for 20 years, blaming the world's problems on America, white people and Jews. So Obama wants to transform America into something he likes better. The inexperienced, the narcissist, the follower of the Marxist socialist community organizer Saul Alinsky, whose hero was Lucifer who rebelled against God. With power in the hands of Obama and the Chicago political machine, as the writer above advises: "Be afraid. . . be very afraid."

* Footnote: What is a Marxisant?

"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 [socialist] 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 is 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, which they did with the aid of Barack Obama, would be more effective.

Update: Yes.

He's not only changing his position constantly, he keeps lying about what his positions were.



Monday's Christian Science Monitor carried this argument for the election of John McCain composed b two of the brilliant lawyers who write for Power Line. We couldn't agree with it more. This is no time to gamble on a smooth-talking, inexperienced narcissist who wants to remake America in his image. We need John McCain to protect and defend the America we love.

A closing argument for John McCain

His mettle has been tested; he's ready to lead.

By John H. Hinderaker and Scott W. Johnson

from the November 3, 2008 edition

Minneapolis - Speaking in Seattle to campaign contributors behind closed doors earlier this month, Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden all but endorsed John McCain for president.

"Mark my words," Senator Biden warned the assembled supporters. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden continued, citing the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you – not financially to help him – we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Recalling that Senator Obama selected Biden as his running mate because of his purported foreign-policy expertise, one might think that more attention would be paid to the obvious import of Biden's words.

Not surprisingly, Biden made no mention of the world testing the mettle of Senator McCain if he were to take office (although he did later, lamely seeking to dismiss the meaning of his words). And for good reason. McCain's mettle has already been tested – proved under conditions beyond the imagining of most Americans. If it is possible to give something beyond the last full measure of devotion to our country, McCain has.

We think that the country would be best served by calling on McCain for one last mission – as president.

The financial crisis in which we now find ourselves poses an economic challenge to American well-being unlike any we have faced since the Great Depression. Before it materialized, Obama supported substantial tax increases through the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the highest income-earners (of shifting definition). Now that America faces a recession, Obama still supports counterproductive tax increases – on capital gains, the most productive workers, and successful small businesses – that are guaranteed to throw additional sand into the wheels of the economy.

When Obama explained to Joe the Plumber that he believed in "spread[ing] the wealth around," he meant it. He doesn't seem to have much respect for the income and wealth of those who have earned it. He seems to believe it the job of government to redistribute to those trailing "behind" Joe.

If he wins, Obama will take the oath of office, in which he'll swear to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Yet the record shows that Obama isn't particularly fond of the Constitution. In a 2001 interview on Chicago public radio, Obama noted that the Warren Court had "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical." Obama asserted that the Constitution "reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day."

He also noted that the Court "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." Obama seemed to think the Constitution deficient, because it provided only a guarantee of negative liberties – what the government can't do to citizens – rather than a positive right to welfare. The Founding Fathers would be shocked by Obama's attitude toward this cornerstone of American principles.

McCain is a more traditional figure. He advocates lower taxes on earned income and shared prosperity through economic growth rather than the redistribution of wealth. He supports the mutual economic advantage to be found in free trade, particularly with friends and allies such as Canada and Colombia, as well as the preservation of the secret ballot in union elections, a strong defense, and victory in war.

In short, Biden suggests that Obama would invite the kind of crises JFK faced when Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev tested him in the Cuban missile crisis, in Berlin, and in Vietnam. And he should know.

McCain, however, also harks back to JFK – the JFK who represented a generation "tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage – and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."

John H. Hinderaker and Scott W. Johnson are Minneapolis attorneys and contributors to the blog Power Line.


Professor Sowell has pleaded more than a few times already for America to wake up and see the danger that Barack Obama represents for this country. HIs final plea is set forth here in full.

Ego and Mouth

Obama’s trademark.

By Thomas Sowell

After the big gamble on subprime mortgages that led to the current financial crisis, is there going to be an even bigger gamble, by putting the fate of a nation in the hands of a man whose only qualifications are ego and mouth?

Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else.

Anyone who has actually had to take responsibility for consequences by running any kind of enterprise— whether economic or academic, or even just managing a sports team— is likely at some point to be chastened by either the setbacks brought on by his own mistakes or by seeing his successes followed by negative consequences that he never anticipated.

The kind of self-righteous self-confidence that has become Obama’s trademark is usually found in sophomores in Ivy League colleges— very bright and articulate students, utterly untempered by experience in the real world.

The signs of Barack Obama’s self-centered immaturity are painfully obvious, though ignored by true believers who have poured their hopes into him, and by the media who just want the symbolism and the ideology that Obama represents.

The triumphal tour of world capitals and photo-op meetings with world leaders by someone who, after all, was still merely a candidate, is just one sign of this self-centered immaturity.

“This is our time!” he proclaimed. And “I will change the world.” But ultimately this election is not about him, but about the fate of this nation, at a time of both domestic and international peril, with a major financial crisis still unresolved and a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon.

For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of “spreading the wealth,” is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries.

The equally casual ease with which Barack Obama has talked about appointing judges on the basis of their empathies with various segments of the population makes a mockery of the very concept of law.

After this man has wrecked the economy and destroyed constitutional law with his judicial appointments, what can he do for an encore? He can cripple the military and gamble America’s future on his ability to sit down with enemy nations and talk them out of causing trouble.

Senator Obama’s running mate, Senator Joe Biden, has for years shown the same easy-way-out mindset. Senator Biden has for decades opposed strengthening our military forces. In 1991, Biden urged relying on sanctions to get Saddam Hussein’s troops out of Kuwait, instead of military force, despite the demonstrated futility of sanctions as a means of undoing an invasion.

People who think Governor Sarah Palin didn’t handle some “gotcha” questions well in a couple of interviews show no interest in how she compares to the Democrats’ vice-presidential candidate, Senator Biden.

Joe Biden is much more of the kind of politician the mainstream media like. Not only is he a liberal’s liberal, he answers questions far more glibly than Governor Palin — grossly inaccurately in many cases, but glibly.

Moreover, this is a long-standing pattern with Biden. When he was running for the Democratic party’s presidential nomination back in 1987, someone in the audience asked him what law school he attended and how well he did.

Flashing his special phony smile, Biden said, “I think I have a much higher IQ than you do.” He added, “I went to law school on a full academic scholarship” and “ended up in the top half” of the class.

But Biden did not have a full academic scholarship. Newsweek reported: “He went on a half scholarship based on need. He didn’t finish in the ‘top half’ of his class. He was 76th out of 85.”

Add to Obama and Biden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and you have all the ingredients for a historic meltdown. Let us not forget that the Roman Empire did decline and fall, blighting the lives of millions for centuries.

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.

Odinga lost the election, claimed fraud, instituted rioting by his Muslim Luo tribe, killing Christians, including a group which had sought refuge in their church which his supporters burned down, killing all inside. Odinga headed the socialist party and had pledged to Muslims he would institute Islamic law in Kenya if elected and ban Christian missionary activity. In the riots, 1500 were killed and many more injured. Obama went to Kenya at taxpayer expense at the end of 2007 and campaigned for his "counsin."

No one has dug deeper and written more about the real Obama than Stanley Kurtz, the independent researcher at Washington's Ethics and Public Policy Center. On the day before the election he provides his overall conclusion based on what he has learned from his extensive investigation: Barack Obama is a Far Left radical deeply steeped in and following the principles and practices of his intellectual and spiritual guiding light the communist agitator Saul Alinksy, whose goal was to destroy America's capitalist society and replace it with a totalitarian socialist one.

Wealth redistribution, not wealth creation, is at the center of Obama's plan. He will build support for this socialist end by vastly expanding the ACORN-style community organizating movement by linking the massive youth corps that he has said he will create as president. As Kurtz points out, ACORN, funded by Obama and Ayers through foundations, was a prime agent in undermining the credit standards of the nation's banking system as Obama supported “major redistributive change. Via ACORN, that project has already nearly wrecked our economy. What will happen when it’s generalized?"

Obama's words will be soothing and moderate as always (Alinsky preached using vague words such as "hope" and "change" rather than the specifics of the socialist agenda), but a totalitarian socialist society will continue to be his ultimate goal.

Kurtz's brilliant exposés have been ignored by the nation's mainstream media when they could and whitewashed by them when they could not. The tragedy for America is that the vast majority of voters has never seen, heard or been able to discuss Kurtz's Obama disclosures. What Obama and the Obama campaign have chosen to hide from the general public largely remains hidden because of the media's corrupt complicity.

Kurtz deserves our heartfelt thanks. If this far left radical, so far out of and opposed to mainstream American values, is elected president, at least a core few will be armed, alert and ready to do battle to defeat his totalitarian socialist agenda.

Here's Kurtz's conclusion in its entirety. To read all his investigative pieces, click here.

November 3, 2008

What We Know About Obama

The illusion of pragmatism advances far-left goals, in baby steps.

By Stanley Kurtz

Reflecting on all that I’ve written about Barack Obama over these past six months, four inter-related points stand out: Obama’s radicalism, his stealthy incrementalism, his interest in funding and organization-building, and his willingness to use — or quietly support — Alinskyite intimidation tactics. Since we stand on the cusp of the election, I’ll lay out the bottom line. For those who want to know more, go back and read the detailed studies on which I base these conclusions.

Obama’s troubling associations are more than isolated friendships or instances of bad judgment. His ties to Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi, Michael Pfleger, James Meeks, ACORN, the New Party, and the Gamaliel Foundation all reflect Obama’s sympathy with radical-left ideas and causes — wealth redistribution prominent among them. At both the Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, for example, Obama and Ayers channeled money into ACORN’s coffers. ACORN, a militant group pursuing economic redistribution, succeeded in undermining credit standards throughout the banking system, thereby modeling the New Party’s plans to tame capitalism itself. So the association with Ayers is not an outlier issue, but part and parcel of a network of radical ties through which Obama’s supported “major redistributive change.” Via ACORN, that project has already nearly wrecked our economy. What will happen when it’s generalized?

Similarly, Obama’s “association” with Wright was far more than a mere pastor-parishioner — or even mentor-protégé — relationship. Obama’s work with the Gamaliel Foundation required him to “organize” left-leaning churches into a larger political force. His real interest in Wright, Pfleger, and Meeks was to turn them into the nucleus of a far broader politicized coalition of radical black churches — as shown, for example, by his work with them on the Illinois racial-profiling bill. Again, we are not dealing with mere “associations,” but with intentional political partnerships.

Although media malfeasance is at the heart of our ignorance about these broader patterns, Obama’s absorption of Alinskyite strategies of stealthy incrementalism have helped to hide the truth. Following well-worn organizer strategies, Obama knows how to wrap ideological radicalism in the soothing rhetoric of “pragmatism” and classic American values. There is a kernel of truth to the pragmatism, however. Radical though his ultimate goals may be, Obama follows classic organizer strategy — pursuing his ends in tiny, incremental, and cumulative baby-steps. The municipal “living wage” campaigns supported by Obama, Wright, and groups like ACORN and the New Party were never designed, in themselves, to bring fundamental economic change. These ordinances actually applied to only a very small number of companies. The broader purpose of these battles was to build coalitions for deeper structural change on the national level, when the moment was right. Obama would likely hew to this incrementalism in power, with the same radical long-term goals in mind.

Obama was a master at channeling funding to his organizer allies. He was the key force turning the Woods Fund toward a major increase in support for community organizers, at a moment when other foundations shied away from funding the militant and confrontational tactics of groups like ACORN. In his now infamous 2001 radio remarks, Obama’s preferred strategy for promoting “major redistributive change” was through society-wide organizing from below. As president, Obama would connect his massive youth-volunteer program to his favorite community-organizer groups, thereby creating a political force for long-term restructuring of the American economy. This was the program of the New Party, and I believe it is still Obama’s long-term goal.

In pursuit of his goals, Obama has shown himself willing to quietly support, and sometimes to openly use, radical Alinskyite tactics. At the Woods Fund, Obama’s allies bragged about the way their “post-ideological” cover had allowed them to fund ACORN’s confrontational tactics, while escaping public criticism. Obama has shamelessly used Alinskyite “direct action” to silence and intimidate political foes during the current campaign (a matter well-known to conservatives, yet little noted by the mainstream press). Victory would only cement the conviction in Obama and his allies that these tactics had “won,” and therefore should be used again.

Has Obama changed? Was he merely using his radical Chicago allies to gain national renown, and thereby an opening for a more moderate political program? I find this view unconvincing. Obama has often claimed that his early community organizing, and his redistributive legislative work, were at the very core of his political identity. We’ve heard his radicalism on the radio in 2001. Does anyone really believe that he’s changed in 2008? Obama’s political radicalism consolidated his shaky personal identity. It formed him as an adult. He cannot abandon that inner stance without losing hold of an already precarious self. Obama chose to live in Hyde Park — chose that radical setting as the site of his adult self-creation. Hyde Park was never the place Obama needed to conquer in order to escape. On the contrary, it was the personally chosen home he now hopes to nationalize by spreading his organizing gospel to America’s youth.

Obama is clever and pragmatic, it’s true. But his pragmatism is deployed on behalf of radical goals. Obama’s heart is, and will remain, with the Far Left. Yet he will surely be cautious about grasping for more, at any given moment, than the political traffic will bear. That should not be mistaken for genuine moderation. It will merely be the beginning stages of a habitually incremental radicalism. In his heart and soul, Barack Obama was and remains a radical-stealthy, organizationally sophisticated, and — when necessary — tactically ruthless. The real Obama — the man beyond the feel-good symbol — is no mystery. He’s there for anyone willing to look. Sad to say, few are.

— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.


A surprising video has just appeared on the internet sponsored by a young popular Mexican actor and producer Eduardo Verastegui. He has just found out about Barack Obama's advocacy of unlimited abortion and learned that many of the "abortion clinics" or abortion mills in the U.S. are targeted at minorities. The link is to his website. Click on the language you prefer. Sequences in the video showing what is done to unborn babies are heart rending, so you have the option at that point to skip forward to the end of the video for Eduardo's final words. Eduardo delivers a powerful message.

Click here.


Father- Daughter Talk…

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of 'the redistribution of wealth concept touted by the Obama campaign. She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. She felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?'
She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'

Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican Party!"


It ain't funny, but ...

Limbaugh reported this on his Friday show:

On Charlie Rose Show last night on PBS. He had on Tom Brokaw last night, ladies and gentlemen. Here's a montage. Now, this is last night. As you listen to this, keep in mind everything you've heard from Brokaw and others in the Drive-Bys can for the past six months, three months, two months or whatever. This is a montage of Charlie Rose and Brokaw trying to figure out who Obama is.

ROSE: I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is.

BROKAW: No, I don't, either.

ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW: Yeah, it's an interesting question.

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

BROKAW: Two of them! I don't know what books he's read.

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know.

Two of the top media Obama boosters a few days before the election saying they don't know very much about Obama.

As Limbaugh said, why didn't you get reporters on the case as you did on Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin.

Disgusting. They covered so much for Obama they don't even know.

In efforts to make the U.S. energy independent of overseas hostile and unstable suppliers, coal will play a big part. As is often said, the U.S. is the "Saudi Arabia of coal," since the U.S. has the largest reserves of coal in the world. As drilling offshore proceeds (unless Democrats block that again) and other alternatives become commercially viable, coal is the rock solid base on which energy independence will be built. More coal is used to generate electricity in this country than any other power source and that is not likely to change soon. Developing nuclear power plants will no doubt replace some coal-fired power plants, but they won't be active for a decade or longer. Natural gas is a cleaner fuel for power plants, but availability is constrained by pipeline capacity. And, of course, there are urgent research projects underway on clean coal technology. Why not use what the U.S. has the most of, particularly since there are established companies employing thousands of Americans?

Yet Obama has promised he will drive those companies out of business, putting those workers out a job. Once again, the media has neglected or deliberately refused to do its job in exposing the real Obama and his intentions. Listen to this audio from January of this year:

This is another example of Obama's extremist ideology driving him, in this case without regard of the consequences to energy independence, the cost of electricity, national priorities and the jobs of working Americans. Some 80,000 have jobs in the coal industry, with 25% of them in West Virginia.

And in that same interview, Obama also promised that "[u]nder my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." So much for the working family trying to make ends meet.

Update: Mike Carey, President of the Ohio Coal Association, issued this statement:

Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America's coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it.

These undisputed, audio-taped remarks, which include comments from Senator Obama like 'I haven't been some coal booster' and 'if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them' are extraordinarily misguided.

It's evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio,Virginia, West Virginia,Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state's voters.

Senator Obama has revealed himself to be nothing more than a short-sighted, inexperienced politician willing to say anything to get a vote. But today, the nation's coal industry and those who support it have a better understanding of his true mission, to 'bankrupt' our industry, put tens of thousands out of work and cause unprecedented increases in electricity prices.

In addition to providing an affordable, reliable source of low-cost electricity, domestic coal holds the key to our nation's long-term energy security - a goal that cannot be overlooked during this time of international instability and economic uncertainty.

Few policy areas are more important to our economic future than energy issues. As voters head to the polls tomorrow, it is essential they remember that access to reliable, affordable, domestic energy supplies is essential to economic growth and stability.

Does the Obama tax plan work? Will it just be those rich making $250,000 or more who will bear the burden? And will those rich only see their marginal tax rate go to 39% from 35%?

The answers to these three questions are No, No and No. And, as for the new Obama marginal rate, it will be 93%, not 39%.

See why.

It's a plan to destroy a productive economy. Taking from the productive to spread the wealth to those who don't pay taxes sounds great, very European really, but it's a recipe for economic disaster.

As has been pointed out, taxes on the top 10% of households are higher in the U.S. than in any other developed nation, including socialist exemplar Sweden. And Obama intends to make them higher yet (even higher than he says, as the linked article shows.)

No one has done more to investigate and expose the many factors in Obama's background that disqualify him and show him unfit to be president of the United States than Stanley Kurtz. Kurtz is an independent researcher at Washington's Ethics and Public Policy Center. For a full list of Kurtz's articles on Obama, click here.

National Review Online has now reposted an article Kurtz did back in September and Kurtz has added a new Author's Note as a preface that is reproduced here. The dismaying fact remains that the media had not done its historic work of unflinchingly examining and exposing how totally out-of-the-mainstream, how far left and dangerous this candidate for president is.

Senator Stealth

How to advance radical causes when no one’s looking.

By Stanley Kurtz

AUTHOR'S NOTE: When I wrote “Senator Stealth,” just over two months ago, it still seemed realistic to expect that its revelations might stimulate press follow-up. After all, the Wright affair had occasioned significant media interest. Since “Senator Stealth” established that Barack Obama had intimate and long-standing ties to yet another organization with Wright-like anti-American views, the piece’s news value seemed obvious. The Wright affair was no fluke, but part of a systematic pattern. Unfortunately, as Obama moved closer to nominee status, the press circled the wagons and began its own systematic pattern of refusing to question or report on his past.

Beyond its revelation that Obama’s original community organizer home-base is pervaded by anti-Americanism, “Senator Stealth” foreshadows today’s debates over redistributionism, and shows that concerns over Obama’s radical “associations” cannot be separated from the most significant policy disputes of the campaign.

“Senator Stealth” also lays out a way of resolving the contradiction between Obama’s radical past and his apparently moderate present. After learning that incrementalism, rhetorical disguise, and ideological stealth are second nature to Obama’s community organizer compatriots, it’s tougher to take his current self-presentation at face value. More than two months later, the same issues play out in the latest flap over Obama’s ties to the New Party.

Finally, I couldn’t have guessed, more than two months ago, that the Obama campaign, abetted by the press, would have taken refuge in near-total denial of his unsavory associations, from the question of his New Party membership, to the relationship to Bill Ayers, to the links to ACORN. Obama has downplayed or denied these many ties to an extent that is shockingly at odds with the public record, while the press has played along.

As the race tightens, let us hope that, however belatedly, the sheer weight of questions and revelations are beginning to take their toll. — Stanley Kurtz

The original article Senator Stealth details yet another of Obama's anti-American connections to go along with Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, ACORN and the New Left party he belonged to when he ran for the Illinois senate. (Rashid Khalidi is anti-Israel and it is possible his dislike of America is limited to its support of Israel.)

Senator Stealth can be read by clicking here.

Most of Kurtz's articles are on this website as well and can be found by going to the SEARCH box and entering "Kurtz."


Few writers on public policy are more respected than syndicated columnist and acclaimed author of works on economics and public policy questions than Professor Thomas Sowell of Stanford's Hoover Institution.

What may be Professor Thomas Sowell's last chapter in his indictment of Barack Obama as a grave danger to America follows. Excerpts:

After the big gamble on subprime mortgages that led to the current financial crisis, is there going to be an even bigger gamble, by putting the fate of a nation in the hands of a man whose only qualifications are ego and mouth?

Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else.

The kind of self-righteous self-confidence that has become Obama’s trademark is usually found in sophomores in Ivy League colleges— very bright and articulate students, utterly untempered by experience in the real world.

Dr. Sowell is deeply worried about the enormous damage an Obama presidency will do. Literally, not figuratively, he can destroy America.

After this man has wrecked the economy and destroyed constitutional law with his judicial appointments, what can he do for an encore? He can cripple the military and gamble America’s future on his ability to sit down with enemy nations and talk them out of causing trouble.
Add to Obama and Biden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and you have all the ingredients for a historic meltdown. Let us not forget that the Roman Empire did decline and fall, blighting the lives of millions for centuries.

One can be sure this cataclysmic forecast is not made lightly.

Read it all.

For all of Professor Sowell's reasons why Obama should not be elected president, click here or click Sowell in the list of Categories on this website to the right of this column. You can also enter the word "Sowell" in the search box to the right and pull out the Sowell columns previously published on this website.


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.


Democratic policies promoting mortgage loans to those who couldn't afford them created the housing boom and bubble and its collapse that was at the heart of the worldwide financial panic that has cost American savers hundreds of billions of dollars of losses in their life savings. There was a chance to head off disaster in 2005 and 2006 but Democrats in the Senate led by Harry Reid and supported by Barack Obama and other Senate Democrats blocked the Republican bill to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. House Democrats led by Pelosi and Barney Frank backed them up. The Democrats who pushed such policies deserve to be rejected. They sought to "spread the wealth" and instead impoverished tens of millions.

However, the most important decision on November 4th is electing our Commander-in-chief.

These are dangerous times, it is a dangerous world. Many don't want to think about it, but Islamic radicals are waging a world war against Western Civilzation targeting first and foremost the United States. Battlefronts are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Lebanon, Israel, Nigeria, across all of Western Europe and in the United States, Canada and Australia. In some places it's active warfare, in others, terrorism, in others, subversion of our values and way of life to replace them with Islamic law. And Russia and China are building military strength while Iran seeks nuclear warheads for its long-range missiles.

Only John McCain is qualified and fit for the job of Commander-in-Chief. 69% of our military polled agree. McCain loves America and will do his utmost to protect it. Obama finds it difficult to say a good word about America. He constantly disparages America, it's bad and it needs to be changed.

Not only is Obama unqualified, he denies the importance of these threats, has pledged to slash our military to help fund new welfare programs and seems to believe appeasement and a weakened military will bring us peace in our time, just as Neville Chamberlain did in 1939. What prize would he offer up to Iran as Chamberlain offered (and gave) the Sudetenland to Hitler? No wonder Israelis polled prefer McCain by a wide margin.

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff grieves for America:

No self-respecting country would elect as president a man who spent 20 years taking spiritual guidance from a pastor who openly hates the country. And no country that loses its self respect can anticipate a bright future.

Obama friend Bernadine Dohrn dedicated her book about her life as a a terrorist to, among others, Sirhad Sirhan, who murdered Robert Kennedy. Dorhn, of course, is the terrorist accomplice of William (Bill) Ayers, who partnered with Obama for seven years in Chicago funding programs to indoctrinate school children in hate for America and to undermine American society..

Don't Democrats care the person they have nominated for president has such despicable people as his friends and partners?

How many friends do you have who hate America?


Synidcated columnist to the world Mark Steyn says things so much better than almost everyone else. This Saturday's observations on Barack Obama echo remarks which have previously been posted on this website, but they are so well stated it is worth reading every word.

He is so accurate in describing the vast majority of support for Obama -- "Woudn't it be nice if...." with no real understanding of or concern about who the man is. It's just assumed he's a "normal" or "average" Democratic politcian when he's anything but.

The conservatives who have jumped over to Obama swayed by his rhetorical skills, all of them, without exception, are assuming his extremist past, his extremist close allies and friends and extremist votes mean nothing and he will morph into a pragmatic, sensible, middle-of-the road sort of fellow. Steyn advises, "Don't bet on it."

Remember the movie "Bad News Bears"? The coach gave sage advice to his new team at the start of the season:

The coach (Walter Matthau) points out the folly of assumptions. He writes “ASSUME” on the chalkboard, then adds slashes “ASS/U/ME” while saying, “When you ASSUME—it could make an ASS out of U and ME!”

Get ready. Reality will come crashing in if Obama is elected.

Obama in 2-D Remember: We’re not electing a symbol, a logo, a two-dimensional image.

By Mark Steyn
Novemberf 1, 2008

In Tokyo last week, over a thousand people signed a new petition asking the Japanese government to permit marriages between human beings and cartoon characters. “I am no longer interested in three dimensions. I would even like to become a resident of the two-dimensional world,” explained Taichi Takashita. “Therefore, at the very least, would it be possible to legally authorize marriage with a two-dimensional character?”

Get back to me on that Tuesday night. We’ll know by then whether an entire constitutional republic has decided to contract marriage with a two-dimensional character and to attempt to take up residence in the two-dimensional world. For many of his supporters, Barack Obama is an idea. He offers “hope, not fear”. “Hope” of what? “Hope” of “change.” Okay, but “change” to what? Ah, well, there you go again, getting all hung up on three-dimensional reality, when we’ve moved way beyond that. I don’t know which cartoon character Taichi Takashita is eyeing as his betrothed, but up in the sky Obamaman is flying high, fighting for Hope, Change, and a kind of Post-Modern American Way.

The two-dimensional idea of President Obama is seductive: To elect a young black man of Kenyan extraction and Indonesian upbringing offers redemption both for America’s original sin (slavery) and for the more recent perceived sins of President Bush — his supposed enthusiasm for sticking it to foreigners generally, and the Muslim world in particular. And no, I’m not saying he’s Muslim. It’s worse than that: He’s a pasty-faced European — at least in his view of state power, welfare, and taxation.

But, in a sense, he’s not anything in particular, so much as everything in general. The media dispatched legions of reporters to hoot and jeer at Sarah Palin’s Wasilla without ever wondering: Where would we go to do this to Obama? Where’s his “home town?” Bill Clinton was famously (if not entirely accurately) from “a place called Hope.” Barack Obama is from an idea called hope. What’s the area code? 1-800-HOPE4CHANGE. The 1-800 candidate offers the hope of electing a younger Morgan Freeman, the cool, reserved, dignified black man who, when he’s not literally God walking among us (as in Bruce Almighty), is always the conscience of the movie.

You can understand the appeal of such an idea. Even if you’re not hung up on white liberal guilt or Bush loathing, there’s an urge to get it over with, to say, well, America should have a black president, and the sooner the better — ie, the sooner we do it, the better it speaks of us. They have a point. I look at the roll call of the dead on 9/11: Arestegui, Bolourchi, Carstanjen, Droz, Elseth, Foti, Gronlund, Hannafin, Iskyan, Kuge, Laychak, Mojica, Nguyen, Ong, Pappalardo, Quigley, Retic, Shuyin, Tarrou, Vamsikrishna, Warchola, Yuguang, Zarba. Black, white, Scandinavian, Balkan, Arab, Asian — in a word, American. The presidential pantheon has a narrower ring: Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson. Obama has a tedious shtick about how his name sounds odd and he doesn’t look like “all those other presidents on the dollar bills.” He’s not just picking out the drapes for the Oval Office, he’s ordering up the new currency and booking the sculptors for Mount Rushmore.

And why not? Obama in the White House, Obama on the dollar bill, Obama on Rushmore would symbolize the possibilities of America more than that narrow list of white-bread protestant presidents to date.

The problem is we’re not electing a symbol, a logo, a two-dimensional image. Long before he emerged on the national stage as Barack the Hope-Giver and Bringer of Change, there was a three-dimensional Barack Obama, a real man who lives in the real world. And that’s where the problem lies.

The Senator and his doting Obots in the media have gone to great lengths to obscure what Barack Obama does when he’s not being a symbol: his voting record, his friends, his patrons, his life outside the soft-focus memoirs is deemed non-relevant to the general hopey-changey vibe. But occasionally we get a glimpse. The offhand aside to Joe the Plumber about “spreading the wealth around” was revealing because it suggests a crude redistributive view of “social justice.” Yet the nimble Hope-a-Dope sidestepper brushed it aside, telling a crowd in Raleigh that next John McCain will be “accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.”

But that too is revealing. As John Hood pointed out at National Review, communism is not “sharing.” In a free society, the citizen chooses whether to share his Lego, trade it for some Thomas the Tank Engine train tracks, or keep it to himself. From that freedom of action grow mighty Playmobile cities. Communism is compulsion. It’s the government confiscating your Elmo to “share” it with someone of its choice. Joe the Plumber is free to spread his own wealth around — hiring employees, buying supplies from local businesses, enjoying surf’n’turf night at his favorite eatery. But, in Obama’s world view, that’s not good enough: the state is the best judge of how to spread Joe the Plumber’s wealth around.

The Senator is a wealthy man, mainly on the strength of two bestselling books offering his biography in lieu of policy and accomplishments. Many lively members of his Kenyan family occur as supporting characters in his story and provide the vivid color in it. But they too are not merely two-dimensional cartoons. His Aunt Zeituni, a memorable figure in Obama’s writing, turned up for real last week, when the dogged James Bone of the London Times tracked her down. She lives in a rundown housing project in Boston.

In his Wednesday-night infomercial, Obama declared that his “fundamental belief” was that “I am my brother’s keeper.” Back in Kenya, his brother lives in a shack on 12 bucks a year. If Barack is his brother’s keeper, why couldn’t he send him a ten-dollar bill and near double the guy’s income? The reality is that Barack Obama assumes the government should be his brother’s keeper, and his aunt’s keeper. Why be surprised by that? For 20 years in Illinois, Obama has marinated in the swamps of the Chicago political machine and the campus radicalism of William Ayers and Rashid Khalidi. In such a world, the redistributive urge is more or less a minimum entry qualification.

The government as wealth-spreader-in-chief was not a slip of the tongue but consistent with Obama’s life, friends and votes. The Obamacons — that’s to say, conservatives hot for Barack- - justify their decision to support a big-spending big-government Democrat with the most liberal voting record in the Senate by “hoping” that he doesn’t mean it, by “hoping” that he’ll “change” in office. “I sure hope Obama is more open, centrist, sensible,” declared reformed conservative Ken Adelman, “than his liberal record indicates.”

He’s “hoping” that Obama will buck not just Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and the rest of the gang but also his voting record, his personal address book, and his entire adult life. Good luck betting the future on that. The “change” we’ll get isn’t hard to discern: An expansion of government, an increase in taxes, a greater annexation of the dynamic part of the economy by the sclerotic bureaucracy, a reduction in economic liberty . . . oh, and a lot more Chicago machine politics.

On Tuesday many Americans will vote for the two-dimensional Obama — the image, the idea, the “hope”. But it will be the three-dimensional Obama — the real man with the real record — that America will have to live with.

Among the haters in Obama's circle was Rashid Khalidi, a former spokesman for Yasser Arafat and now, like communist and terrorist bomber Wiliam (Bill) Ayers, comfortably ensconsced on a university faculty where their prior activities don't raise an eyebrow. The Obamas and the Khalidis often had dinners together in Chicago and in 2003 Obama toasted Khalidi as he left to take over the official anti-Israel position at Columbia heading up Middle East Studies. With Ayers, it was the New York Times pooh-poohing any significance of the Ayers relationship to Obama, although the two worked together for seven years funding programs to indoctrinate Chicago school children in anti-American sentiments, teaching them that America was bad and they should join the needed social revolution. Now the Washington Post takes its turn in belittling the Khalidi-Obama relationship, denying that Khalidi was ever very close to Palestinian terrorists.

John Hinderaker of Power Line exposes that lie:

Salah Khalaf, better known as Abu Iyad, masterminded the murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. By his own account in his memoirs, he personally selected the terrorists who carried out the attack and delivered weapons to them. So the fact that he was a leading terrorist was anything but a secret. Nevertheless, when Khalaf was murdered in 1991, Obama's close friend Rashid Khalidi praised him and said that he would be "sorely missed." He was, no doubt, missed by those who approve of terrorist mass murders. It is fair to say that Khalidi, a representative of the PLO, was among that number.

It was shortly after this that Obama and Khalidi became friends and, as Obama has said, Khalidi "offered constant reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases." Isn't this a bit odd, to say the least? A person of normal sensibility would say that someone who praises the founder of Black September and the perpetrator of the Munich horror suffers from "blind spots and biases." (I, actually, wouldn't put it that politely.) So what was it, exactly, that Obama learned from Khalidi? Why did he, by his own account, find Khalidi to be not only a congenial friend but a mentor of sorts?

In short, what sort of a person would consider a professor who speaks for Yaser Arafat's PLO and mourns the death of a proud terrorist, the perpetrator of one of the 20th century's vilest acts, to be not just a profound thinker but a moral compass? That is to say: what sort of a person is Barack Obama?

Update: The Washington Post has decided in its Obama defense to deny that Khalidi was in fact associated with Arafat and the terrorist PLO during his time in Lebanon. The Post didn't do its homework. Martin Kramer did his.

Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from November 2008 listed from newest to oldest.

October 2008 is the previous archive.

December 2008 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.