Friday, October 31, 2008




On October 11, 2008 I put a rather long post [Did Bill Ayers Write "Dreams of My Father?"] on this Blog consisting of an article by Jack Cashill, Ph.D., entitled "Who wrote 'Dreams of My Father'". Using literary analysis Dr. Cashill showed sufficient evidence to convince me that Bill Ayers either wrote Barack Hussein Obama's autobiography "Dreams of My Father" or at the very least did a major job of editing the manuscript for publication.

Now, my friend, Ephie Patrickson, Ph.D., has analyzed Dr. Cashill's analysis and offers us this reflection on Barack Hussein Obama, the writer.


“Aping Our Dreams: Obama as Poet”

Although I love his article, I shall quibble with something Dr. Cashill has written on the Obama-Ayres relationship. Jack Cashill quotes from one of Obama’s published poems, indicating that it does not argue well for his literary future. Perhaps not, but it certainly is prophetic of his political future as a US Senator.

Cashill notes: “That trail begins at Occidental College whose literary magazine published two of Obama's poems – ‘Pop’ and ‘Underground’-- in 1981. Obama calls it some ‘very bad poetry’, and he does not sell himself short. From ‘Underground’:

Under water grottos, caverns
Filled with apes
That eat figs.
Stepping on the figs
That the apes
Eat, they crunch.
The apes howl, bare
Their fangs, dance . . .

I realize it is by way of an introductory observation to his larger analysis of the published memoir Dreams From My Father that Cashill cites the poetry. He notes it has slim literary genius. True, it is not Wallace Stevens and it is not Frost either. He should not quit his day job yet. Although I must say the poem actually has some potential as a prophetic work. It certainly sounds like a moving description of your average Democratic National Convention. I have seen things that spiritually resemble the metaphoric descriptions here in the poem when I have watched C-Span. The imagery reminds me so lyrically of DNC speeches: “howl, bare | Their fangs, dance.” From a rousing Hillary or Ted Kennedy speech to Nancy Pelosi grinning away before the balloon drop Obama has nailed the perfect description. Bravo. This is it! Well done.

Comparing them to Apes may be a little cruel on his part, but I do think he has hit something of the spirit of American politics. I certainly felt like I was watching Clinton, Kerry, Gore and Al Sharpton at the old DNC again. This prophetic little poem has brought back memories. If Obama has other poems hiding in notebooks he surely should develop a career as a poet and begin publishing them. He is much better at this whole realm of lyrical poetry about political life than actual speeches. To my ear, I find his speeches to be dreadful and dull. They repulse my spirit. He speaks vaguely of ‘change’ and ‘hope’ without any real purpose, any sense of authentic change and certainly not authentic hope. How can someone who does not respect the life of a baby in his mother’s womb possibly know the first thing about hope and new life?

Obama should write a poem about acorns to add to the canon. Perhaps I could offer to ghost write them myself? I am working on a model to send him (or maybe I should send it to Bill Ayres first? Don’t they do Foundation work together in addition to book deals?). Here goes:

Under ear-marked grottos
And hope-filled caverns
The apes dance on acorns
And dangle their dimpled chads--
‘The dead only vote twice’
As they do in Chicago
Even for small change
The yellow dog howls
And steps on acorns
While apes bare their teeth
Growl. Shine. Bark. Howl.
Dance, baby, dance…

I shall begin working on ghostwriting an ode on Hillary, perhaps a lament about Bill. Biden is tricky. He is not really poetic. What about a limerick about the economy? We really could turn Obama into even more of a master poet with some ghostwriting help. Perhaps Clinton could play the Saxophone on the Audio Book version along with the reading? Perhaps Bill Ayres could make nautical sound effects or dramatic weather sounds?

Humor aside regarding under-examined possibilities for the poetry, I believe Cashill’s article to be excellent on a range of levels. I also hold a doctorate in literature, and have taught for several years in undergraduate classrooms. In my own research I have studied analysis akin to his own on authorship questions and changes in literary voice in the cases of established writers. His methodology is sound, and more work should be done in this area. I do believe he is on to something. For example, he notes Obama being in Indonesia. Was Obama really there then? Surely passport records could be examined, etc. The memoirs should be gone over with great care, for I do feel that Cashill has successfully put ‘a red flag on the play’ in terms of their actual relationship to Obama as either real author or subject.

I noted some of the posted comments on his site, and agreed with the observations underscoring the importance of his work. In the article the sections on nautical themes are particularly interesting to consider. Cashill writes:

“On at least twelve occasions, Obama speaks of ‘despair’, as in the ‘ocean of despair’. Ayers speaks of a ‘deepening despair’, a constant theme for him as well. Obama's ‘knotted, howling assertion of self’ sounds like something from the pages of Jack London's "The Sea Wolf."”

Indeed. The bigger question, though, is what exactly is Obama’s own real “knotted, howling assertion of self”? Perhaps Ayres has been the one tying the knot? It reminds me of the end of a rope tied off in a ‘monkey’s fist’ on a boat. The nautical world of knots has its own poetical language of resonance. If Ayres has been the one tying that knot, just as Obama himself has been the one writing about the apes baring their teeth, then the already puzzling question of exactly who is Barack Hussein Obama becomes just that much more complicated. In terms of weaving a complex web of knots, Ayres and Obama had plausible motive. Follow the money on the educational question, financing of a degree and the movement of money across foundations. What is the real story here? A shady book deal would be just one facet of a much larger picture of deception, self-invention, and grooming.

The larger, very knotty and awkward question, though, is this. We have become so demoralized by politicians in general, at least I have and so has everyone I have spoken with in the last six months on the topic… They lie about ear-marks, taxes, kick-backs and conflicts of interest. They lie about what they are doing today, what they did with the interns yesterday, and how they might raise taxes tomorrow. It is appalling. St. Thomas More, pray for us! Is it any wonder that lawyer politicians— who overrun our government like rats on a sinking Spanish Galleon heavy with too much ballast— will say anything the person with the biggest checkbook contributing to the campaign fund wants to hear and will even go so far as to make up personal memoirs to a high enough bidder? They fabricate the present and future. Why not the past? Why not even their own memoirs? Of course, I am appalled and repulsed, but not surprised.

Personally, I believe Obama should give up on memoirs and speeches that other people are hired to write (or offer to write along with other financial perks and ideological grooming). He should switch back to lyric poetry. He could continue on his own. I know I would be happy to lend a hand and ghostwrite for him for free, if need be. Yet I really feel he has his own spark there. I really think his early work describes Washington so well. Again, “The apes howl, bare | Their fangs, dance . . .” Move over Jane Goodall. You have nothing on Obama. Was he thinking of his fight with Hillary? Maybe he is a type of prophet after all. He could raise some big time change intoning his poems with Bill Clinton accompanying him on the Saxophone…

-Ephie Patrickson




By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, October 31, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Last week I made the open-and-shut case for John McCain: In a dangerous world entering an era of uncontrolled nuclear proliferation, the choice between the most prepared foreign policy candidate in memory vs. a novice with zero experience and the wobbliest one-world instincts is not a close call.

But it's all about economics and kitchen-table issues, we are told. OK. Start with economics.

Neither candidate has particularly deep economic knowledge or finely honed economic instincts. Neither has any clear idea exactly what to do in the current financial meltdown. Hell, neither does anyone else, including the best economic minds in the world, from Henry Paulson to the head of the European Central Bank. Yet they have muddled through with some success.

Both McCain and Barack Obama have assembled fine economic teams that may differ on the details of their plans but have reasonable approaches to managing the crisis. So forget the hype. Neither candidate has an advantage on this issue.

On other domestic issues, McCain is just the kind of moderate conservative that the Washington/media establishment once loved -- the champion of myriad conservative heresies that made him a burr in the side of congressional Republicans and George W. Bush. But now that he is standing in the way of an audacity-of-hope Democratic restoration, erstwhile friends recoil from McCain on the pretense that he has suddenly become right wing.

Self-serving rubbish. McCain is who he always was. Generally speaking, he sees government as a Rooseveltian counterweight (Teddy with a touch of Franklin) to the various malefactors of wealth and power. He wants government to tackle large looming liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare. He wants to free up health insurance by beginning to sever its debilitating connection to employment -- a ruinous accident of history (arising from World War II wage and price controls) that increases the terror of job loss, inhibits labor mobility and saddles American industry with costs that are driving it (see: Detroit) into insolvency. And he supports lower corporate and marginal tax rates to encourage entrepreneurship and job creation.

An eclectic, moderate, generally centrist agenda in a guy almost congenitally given to bipartisanship.

Obama, on the other hand, talks less and less about bipartisanship, his calling card during his earlier messianic stage. He does not need to. If he wins, he will have large Democratic majorities in both houses. And unlike 1992, Obama is no Clinton centrist.

What will you get?

(1) Card check, meaning the abolition of the secret ballot in the certification of unions in the workplace. Large men will come to your house at night and ask you to sign a card supporting a union. You will sign.

(2) The so-called Fairness Doctrine -- a project of Nancy Pelosi and leading Democratic senators -- a Hugo Chavez-style travesty designed to abolish conservative talk radio.

(3) Judges who go beyond even the constitutional creativity we expect from Democratic appointees. Judges chosen according to Obama's publicly declared criterion: "empathy" for the "poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old" -- in a legal system historically predicated on the idea of justice entirely blind to one's station in life.

(4) An unprecedented expansion of government power. Yes, I know. It has already happened. A conservative government has already partially nationalized the mortgage industry, the insurance industry and nine of the largest U.S. banks.

This is all generally swallowed because everyone understands that the current crisis demands extraordinary measures. The difference is that conservatives are instinctively inclined to make such measures temporary. Whereas an Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Barney Frank administration will find irresistible the temptation to use the tools inherited -- $700 billion of largely uncontrolled spending -- as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to radically remake the American economy and social compact.

This is not socialism. This is not the end of the world. It would, however, be a decidedly leftward move on the order of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. The alternative is a McCain administration with a moderate conservative presiding over a divided government and generally inclined to resist a European social-democratic model of economic and social regulation featuring, for example, wealth-distributing growth-killing marginal tax rates.

The national security choice in this election is no contest. The domestic policy choice is more equivocal because it is ideological. McCain is the quintessential center-right candidate. Yet the quintessential center-right country is poised to reject him. The hunger for anti-Republican catharsis and the blinding promise of Obamian hope are simply too strong. The reckoning comes in the morning.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008




By Jeff Jacoby

The Boston Globe

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

It has been, these past eight years, a favorite trope of the Bush-bashers: The 43d president's power-lust is so insatiable, his disdain for constitutional checks and balances so complete, that he has fashioned himself into a dictator. Crackpots can always be counted on to say such things, of course, but even non-loonies have played fast and loose with the D-word.

"In terms of the power he now claims without significant challenge," Michael Kinsley asserted in 2003, "George W. Bush is now the closest thing in a long time to dictator of the world." When it emerged that the National Security Agency was sifting telephone records for possible counterterrorism leads, CNN's Jack Cafferty fumed that the administration intended to establish "a full-blown dictatorship in this country." A 2007 essay for CommonDreams declared: “Bush has granted himself an immense arsenal of powers for which the term ‘dictatorial’ is a modest understatement.” And in a recent piece for the Times of London, Andrew Sullivan informs us that "in war and economic crisis, Bush has insisted that there is no alternative to dictatorial rule."

Well, overwrought cries of "Dictator!" are an old story in American politics. Presidents great and not-so-great have been slammed as "tyrant" and "dictator," not to mention "autocrat," "Caesar," and "slavemaster." Somehow the Republic survived their administrations. Chances are, it will survive the Bush years too.

Bush as a ruthless autocrat? It would be easier to take the idea seriously if it weren't for the omnipresent clamor of voices denouncing the man. Tyrants have a way of squelching public dissent and intimidating their critics. Whatever else may be said about the Bush administration, it has never cowed its opponents into silence. If anything, the past eight years have set new records in vilifying a sitting president: "Bush = Hitler" signs at protest rallies. Crude "Buck Fush" bumper stickers. A 2006 movie depicting Bush's assassination. The New Republic's cover story on "The Case for Bush Hatred." The denunciation has been unending and often unhinged, yet Bush has never tried to censor it.

Will we be able to say the same of his successor?

If opinion polls are right, Barack Obama is cruising to victory. As president, would he show the same forbearance as Bush in allowing his opponents to have their say, unmolested? Or would he attempt to suppress the free speech of those whose views he detested? It is disturbing to contemplate some of the Obama campaign's recent efforts to stifle criticism.

When the National Rifle Association produced a radio ad last month about Obama's shifting position on gun control, the campaign's lawyers sent letters to radio stations in Ohio and Pennsylvania, urging them not to run it -- and warning of trouble with the Federal Communications Commission if they did. "This advertisement knowingly misleads your viewing audience about Senator Obama’s position on the Second Amendment," Obama's general counsel Bob Bauer wrote. "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement."

Similar lawyer letters went out in August when the American Issues Project produced a TV spot exploring Obama's strong ties to former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Station managers were warned that running the anti-Obama ad would be a violation of their legal obligation to serve the "public interest." And in case that wasn't menacing enough, the Obama campaign also urged the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation.

In Missouri, an Obama "truth squad" of prosecutors and other law-enforcement officials vowed to take action against anyone making "character attacks" on the Democratic candidate -- a threat, Missouri Governor Matt Blunt later remarked, that had about it the "stench of police state tactics."

What should we make of these efforts to smother political speech? Perhaps they are simply the overly aggressive tactics of a campaign in an adrenaline-fueled sprint to the finish. Perhaps Obama’s staff is taking his admonition about confronting skeptics -- “I want you to argue with them and get in their face” -- a little too vehemently. But what if they’re more than that? What if these are the first warning signs of how an Obama administration would deal with its adversaries?

Michael Barone, the esteemed and judicious author of The Almanac of American Politics, fears the worst. "In this campaign," he writes, "we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy. . . . We may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead."

Pray that Barone is wrong. Our nation's political life is toxic enough when the president is falsely labeled a dictator. It would be infinitely more poisonous if the label were true.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)

Tuesday, October 28, 2008




Running Against Reid, Pelosi and What's-His-Name.

Senator John McCain's snake-bit campaign may finally have hit on a theme that could resonate with independent voters in the runup to next Tuesday's election.

He has begun raising the specter of what a complete Democratic takeover of Washington would mean. He told a crowd in New Mexico last weekend that if Mr. Obama were elected, the public would have no effective brake on the liberal agenda of Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid.

"Senator Obama's tax increase would put even more people out of work," Mr. McCain said. "But that is exactly what's going to happen if the Democrats have total control of Washington. We can't let that happen. Are you ready for Obama, Pelosi and Reid?"

Other Republicans are raising the dire prospect of one-party government. Senator Liddy Dole of North Carolina is running an ad warning voters not to hand Democrats "a blank check."

All of this harkens back to one of the most successful GOP rescue operations in recent political history. As Bob Dole fell behind the charismatic Bill Clinton in 1996, Republicans boldly appealed to independents to vote in favor of divided government. They put out ads featuring a fortune-teller gazing into a crystal ball showing over-the-top scenes of Biblical devastation, plague and conflict. An announcer warned: "Remember the last time Democrats ran everything? The largest tax increase in history. Government-run health care. More wasteful spending. Who wants that again? Don't let the media stop you from voting. And don't hand Bill Clinton a blank check."

It worked. Republicans kept control of Congress. Haley Barbour, then GOP national chairman and now governor of Mississippi, said at the time voters had responded to the idea of an insurance policy against one-party rule. With time running out, the GOP is resurrecting this golden oldie in hopes that independent voters may not like the idea of having the government completely controlled by the trio of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

-- John Fund

The Disarming Mr. Obama

There's at least one government program Democrats are planning to cut deeply next year. Rep. Barney Frank last week told the editorial board of his home district's South Coast Standard-Times that defense spending will be slashed by 25% in the next Congress. He said such dramatic cuts would likely force the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and a rollback in Pentagon plans for high-tech weaponry. "We don't need all these fancy new weapons," the Massachusetts liberal told the paper's editors.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has made similar comments on the campaign trail. In a video circulating on the Web (, he says he intends to cut "tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending" at the Pentagon. "I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our investments in future combat systems." He also would institute a new oversight panel to monitor the DoD's existing planning panel to make sure "it is not used to justify unnecessary spending."

On his campaign Web site, Mr. Obama says he also wants to increase the size of Army by 65,000 and the Marine Corps by 27,000, while expanding health care, special ops, civil affairs and other specialties and introducing a "Military Families Advisory Board." The Pentagon has worked in recent years to reduce overhead and increase what it calls "the tooth to tail ratio." Mr. Obama's clear agenda is to invest in more military tail, less tooth.

-- Brendan Miniter

Ted Stevens Joins the Pantheon

We now know that the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" championed by Alaska GOP Senator Ted Stevens did indeed lead somewhere: to the end of his career.

The senator was convicted yesterday on seven felony counts of failing to report gifts from the Alaskan oil-services company Veco on his financial disclosure forms.

Make no mistake. The fall of Ted Stevens was tied directly to his endless quest for earmarks -- pork barrel projects -- he could drag home to Alaska. While the federal indictment did not allege a clear quid-pro-quo, Veco CEO Bill Allen was demonstrably seeking earmarks from Mr. Stevens when he helped renovate the senator's house in suburban Anchorage while forgetting to send the senator most of the bills.

I vividly recall a conversation with Mr. Stevens about the earmark process back in 2006, when the testy senator was chairmonster of the Appropriations Committee. Our talk was surreal as he claimed "discretionary federal spending isn't out of whack," despite all evidence to the contrary.

But he also had moments of blinding candor. He acknowledged that a lot of the spending earmarks wouldn't have passed Constitutional muster before the Great Society. "Back when I was a lawyer in the Interior Department under Eisenhower, we wouldn't have dreamed much of this was anything but a state and local responsibility," he said. "But now that these are the rule, there is no one more tenacious in seeing my state is taken care of."

Sadly, Mr. Stevens also took care of himself, accepting gifts "on loan" for his house that ranged from a used La-Z-Boy recliner to an awful fish sculpture that he never reported on his financial disclosure forms.

There hasn't been a more sordid end to a Congressional career since former House Speaker Jim Wright resigned over bulk sales of a vanity press book or former House Ways and Means Chairman Daniel Rostenkowski went to prison for pilfering postage stamps and office furniture from the House.

-- John Fund

Quote of the Day

"[A]ccording to The Huffington Post, Obama's lack of experience is immune from criticism because he attended Ivy League schools, ‘was a serious and successful student,’ is a well-traveled, published author, and has a diverse background. Heck, he's me! Yet, in every one of my encounters with America's rural communities, the diversity of my privileged experience was eclipsed by the depth of theirs. I had rhetoric; they had well-measured speech, punctuated by forbearing silences. I had easy answers; they knew there was no such thing. It is not that the Republican base is anti-intellectual, as David Broder claims; they are anti-elitist. An Ivy League education is hardly a universal signal of competence in anything other than the liberal cultural canon " -- Joan Chevalier, a New York City speechwriter and essayist, writing in the Boston Globe.

From Joe the Plumber to Joe the Non-Taxpayer

Under Barack Obama's tax plan, millions of Americans who have zero federal income tax liability would nonetheless receive tax rebate checks from the government. Liberals claim these handouts are not really handouts, but would partially offset what recipients pay in FICA taxes for Social Security and Medicare. That's how Mr. Obama can claim 95% of Americans would receive a "tax cut" under his plan.

How big is the bill for Mr. Obama's rebate program? A new study from the Heritage Foundation counts a prospective 10 million net new recipients of federal dollars, who would receive an average of more than $2,000 each year. That adds up to a massive $20 billion-a-year new welfare program. The left-leaning Tax Policy Center similarly forecasts a massive increase in spending on Obama's "refundable tax credits."

Now we know where a President Obama would spend some of the money he takes from Joe the Plumber. With Washington staring at a near-trillion-dollar deficit next year, his interest in "spreading the wealth" clearly isn't a sideshow. It's a central priority even amid the country's unprecedented economic troubles.

-- James Freeman




How many TV and radio spots can $600,000,000.00 buy?
That is the amount of money the Obama campaign has announced that it has received during this campaign. What is significant is that the campaign has announced the total amount, but has refused to divulge the identity of the individual conntributors, unlike the McCain campaign that has disclosed its list of contributors.

There is mounting evidence that a lot of the contributions Obama has received have come illegally from foreign sources. The main stream media has refused to investigate this. Sad to say, the FEC will not investigate it until the election is over, too late to prevent the election of Barack Hussein Obama.

Bloggers are the only investigators. Chief among the bloggers is Pamela Geller whose blog Atlas Shrugs has provided us with a list of links which detail the enormity of the scandal:

CAMPAIGN FINANCE FRAUD: Obama, who is Jeanne McCurdy? July 19, 2008

Obama's Foreign Contributions: Who is Ronald Hickel? July 23<Obama's Anonymous Foreign Donors and Other Bizarre Illegal Activity July 30

Obama's Gazan Contributions July 30

Obama's Contributors: Good Will? Loving you? UPDATE: Doo da DooDa July 31

And then there is Obama's Gibberish Donors .... August 2





Obama Response to FEC: Chicago Style "Plausible" Deniability? August 11

Obama Contributions: Moving On MoveOn's Money August 11



OBAMA LIED: "Palestinian" Campaign Contributions NEVER RETURNED OR REFUNDED August 26

More media on Obama's Foreign, Illegal Contributions October 1







CONTRIBUTION FRAUD: John Galt, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Bill Ayers - Obama has Charged Your Credit card October 25





by Mona Charen

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

From the Palestinian Authority Daily: "Twenty-three-year old Ibrahim Abu Jayyab sits by the computer in the Nusairat refugee camp (in the Gaza Strip) trying to call American citizens in order to convince them to vote for the Democratic candidate for president, Barack Obama..."

Like many Palestinians, Abu Jayyab is excited about the prospect of an Obama presidency. (By the way, the Gaza Strip is completely under the control of Hamas. Why then do they persist in speaking of "refugee camps"? But of course, we know why.) If Abu Jayyab and many others in the Palestinian areas are delighted, why are so many American Jewish voters feeling the same way? One side or the other has the wrong man. Which is it?

I've heard from some American Jews that they do not believe Obama is sincere in his leftism. They believe/hope that the anti-Israel sentiments and associations of his past were purely opportunistic; that once in the White House he will shed them like yesterday's fashions. That's quite a leap of faith.

Many politicians have distanced themselves from positions and associations of their youths. But in Obama's case, he is distancing himself from positions staked out as recently as 2003. As National Review Online has reported, the Los Angeles Times is apparently sitting on a videotape showing Obama's remarks at a farewell dinner that year for Rashid Khalidi, the one-time PLO spokesman who now heads the Middle East Studies Department at Columbia. (Columbia University's shame is a subject for another column.) Khalidi is not distancing himself from his past. Consistent with what you'd expect from someone who justified PLO attacks on civilians in Israel and Lebanon from 1976 to 1982, Khalidi routinely refers to Israel as a "racist" and "apartheid" state, and professes to believe in a "one-state" solution to the conflict. Guess which country would have to disappear for that "one" state to come into existence?

The Khalidis and Obamas were good friends. In his capacity as a director of the Woods Fund, Obama in 2001 and 2002 steered $75,000 to the Arab American Action Network, the brainchild of Rashid and Mona Khalidi. According to an L.A. Times account of the dinner, Obama mentioned that he and Michelle had been frequent dinner guests at the Khalidi home (just another guy in the neighborhood?) and that the Khalidis had even baby-sat for the Obama girls. Like William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama in their living room when he unsuccessfully sought a House seat. At the farewell dinner, according to the L.A. Times, Obama apparently related fondly his "many talks" with the Khalidis. Perhaps that's where he learned, as he told the Des Moines Register that "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." Obama told the crowd that those talks with the Khalidis had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table" but around "this entire world."

Even less attention has been paid to the man Obama appointed as his emissary to the Muslim community in the U.S., Mazen Asbahi. Asbahi, it turned out, had ties to the Islamic Society of North America, which in turn was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. The Holy Land Foundation was accused of being a front group for Hamas. When news of these associations became public, Asbahi resigned from the campaign to "avoid distracting from Barack Obama's message of change." And don't forget hope!

Many American Jews preparing to pull the lever for Obama have never heard of Asbahi. But they surely know about Jeremiah Wright. They know that he gave a "lifetime achievement" award to Louis Farrakhan; that he supported efforts to get U.S. businesses to divest from Israel; that he gave space in the Trinity Church bulletin to Hamas; and that he has accused Israel of "genocide" against the Palestinians. They are preparing to vote for a man who tamely tolerated all of that (and more) for 20 years.

Someone is making a big mistake -- and it isn't Abu Jayyab.

Monday, October 27, 2008



Obama And Machete Politics
Sen. Barack Obama’s Strange Friendship With His Cousin Raila Odinga,
The Marxist Kenyan Prime Minister
.October 27, 2008Sen. Barack Obama campaigned on Marxist Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga’s behalf in Kenya in 2006 and, with the help of the son of Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi, raised nearly $1 million for Odinga’s campaign. When Odinga lost his presidential election, he refused to accept the results and incited riots resulting in thousands being macheted to death or burned alive in their churches.
.A video shows Obama with Odinga at an HIV event – and it shows the aftermath of Odinga’s rioters destroying lives and property after the election loss.
Obama traveled throughout Kenya with Odinga and spoke on his behalf at numerous rallies, according to The Washington Times. During his speeches, Obama criticized Odinga’s opponent, President Mwai Kibaki. According to Obama: “The [Kenyan] people have to suffer over corruption perpetrated by government officials.” Obama took trips to Kenya at taxpayer expense in 2004, 2005, and 2006.
His trip in 2006 was also designed to help Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement strategize how to defeat Kibaki. Obama was supposedly in Kenya on a HIV fact-finding trip as part of his official duties as a U.S. Senator. The American taxpayer footed the bill.
The Odinga-inspired rioting resulted in more than 1,000 people killed by machetes, shootings, or having the homes burned to the ground. At least 800 Christian churches were damaged from rampaging, machete-wielding Odinga supporters.
In one grisly killing spree, 50 Assembly of God members were locked in their church before it was set ablaze by Odinga supporters. Those fleeing were hacked to death by machetes.
Like Father, Like Son
.Raila Odinga is a committed Marxist who was educated in East Germany and named one of his sons “Fidel” after Fidel Castro. Odinga’s father, Oginga, served as Vice President of Kenya under Jomo Kenyatta’s presidency in the 1960s. Kenyatta formerly ran the Mau Mau, a terrorist group that ravaged that nation in the 1950s and killed countless white farmers. (Barack Obama, Sr. also served in the Kenyatta administration before he died in an alcohol-induced car crash in 1982. Obama, Sr. was a self-identified socialist.)
Time magazine in 1965 characterized Oginga Odinga as “openly attempting to turn the new nation toward Communism.”
His son, Raila Odinga ran for the presidency of Kenya in 2007 against rival Mwai Kibaki. He lost the election by at least 230,000 votes. In a strategy already worked out in advance, he then claimed voter fraud and incited riots that eventually took the lives of more than 1,000 people and displaced as many as 600,000 citizens.
Obama Campaigns For Odinga
.Barack Obama was deeply involved in campaigning for Odinga and even appointed a member of his Senate staff to stay in touch with the Odinga campaign. Emails from Obama to Odinga were obtained by author Jerome Corsi, through an anonymous source within the Orange Democratic Movement political party. They reveal that Obama had appointed Mark Lippert to be his contact with the Odinga campaign.
As noted above, a strategy was already in place to claim voter fraud. Jerome Corsi noted that this plan involved fomenting ethnic tensions and violence “as a last resort.” One element of the plan was to create tribal animosity between Odinga’s Luo tribe and the Kikuyu tribe of Mwai Kibaki.
.During his campaign for the presidency, Odinga reached an agreement with the minority population of Muslims to establish Shariah Law in that nation if elected president.
Eventually, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan worked out a power-sharing deal with Kibaki and Odinga. He now serves as Prime Minister of Kenya.
“If Corsi’s information is correct, it is possible that Obama and Lippert broke federal law. No congressional aide should be placed at the disposal of a foreign individual campaigning for office overseas,” said TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty.
In addition to Odinga, presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has had an odd assortment of friends over the years since he has been involved in politics. .Among those are Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, unrepentant domestic terrorists; Rashid Khalidi, a former advisor to Palestinian terrorist Yasir Arafat, anti-white, America-hater, adulterer Pastor Jeremiah Wright, and others.
More on Obama’s political views and associates is available in TVC’s Video Election Guide.

Sunday, October 26, 2008




If you vote for Barack Hussein Obama on November 4 you may actually be electing NANCY PELOSI President of the United States.

It could happen this way.
There is a law suit in Federal Court challenging Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States.

The lawsuit alleges that the the United States Constitution requires that the President must be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. The lawsuit alleges that there is no evidence that Barack Hussein Obama was born in the United States and that there is good reason to believe that he was born in Kenya. The lawsuit demands that Barack Hussein Obama produce evidence, such as a certified birth certificate, that he was born in the United States or one of its territories or possessions. So far he has refused to produce ANY documents.

It is unlikely that the lawsuit will be heard before November 4, and so there is the possibility that he will be elected.

HOWEVER, in the time between November 4 when he might be elected and January 21, 2009 when he would take the oath of office as President the lawsuit would certainly be heard all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. If he should be found to not be a natural born citizen of the United States he would not be allowed to take the oath of office.

On January 21 SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN would be sworn in as the President of the United States and, hold onto your seat,
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI, as the next person in line according to the U.S. Constitution, would be sworn in as Vice-President.

Now consider this. Joseph Biden has already had TWO BRAIN TURMORS/BRAIN ANEURYSMS.


Saturday, October 25, 2008



Mark Steyn: Obama nears the "now what?" moment

If elected, he'll likely, as he has done all his life, take the path of least resistance.

Mark Steyn
Mark Steyn
Syndicated columnist

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

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

Yes, technically, this is still a two-party state, but one of the parties is like Elton John's post-Oscar bash and the other is a church social in Wasilla. As David Sedaris put it in The New Yorker:

"I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. 'Can I interest you in the chicken?' she asks. 'Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?'

"To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked."

Well, to be honest, I've never much cared for chicken.

McCain vs. Obama is not the choice many of us would have liked in an ideal world. But then it's not an "ideal world," and the belief that it can be made so is one of the things that separates those who think Obama will "heal the planet" and those of us who support McCain faute de mieux. I agree with Thomas Sowell that an Obama-Pelosi supermajority will mark what he calls "a point of no return."

It would not be, as some naysayers scoff, "Jimmy Carter's second term," but something far more transformative. The new president would front the fourth great wave of liberal annexation – the first being FDR's New Deal, the second LBJ's Great Society, and the third the incremental but remorseless cultural advance when Reagan conservatives began winning victories at the ballot box and liberals turned their attention to the other levers of the society, from grade school up. The terrorist educator William Ayers, Obama's patron in Chicago, is an exemplar of that most-recent model: 40 years ago, he was in favor of blowing up public buildings; then he figured out it was easier to get inside and undermine them from within.

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

In his first inaugural address, Calvin Coolidge said: "I favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people." That's true in a more profound sense than he could have foreseen. In Europe, lavish social-democratic government has transformed citizens into eternal wards of the Nanny State: the bureaucracy's assumption of every adult responsibility has severed Continentals from the most basic survival impulse, to the point where unaffordable entitlements on shriveled birth rates have put a question mark over some of the oldest nation states on Earth. A vote for an Obama-Pelosi-Barney Frank-ACORN supermajority is a vote for a Europeanized domestic policy that is, as the eco-types like to say, "unsustainable."

More to the point, the only reason why Belgium has gotten away this long with being Belgium and Sweden Sweden and Germany Germany is because America's America. The soft comfortable cocoon in which Western Europe has dozed this past half-century is girded by cold hard American power. What happens when the last serious Western nation votes for the same soothing beguiling siren song as its enervated allies?

"People of the world," Sen. Obama declared sonorously at his self-worship service in Germany, "look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

No, sorry. History proved no such thing. In the Cold War, the world did not stand as one. One half of Europe was a prison, and in the other half far too many people – the Barack Obamas of the day – were happy to go along with that division in perpetuity.

And the wall came down not because "the world stood as one," but because a few courageous people stood against the conventional wisdom of the day. Had Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan been like Helmut Schmidt and Francois Mitterrand and Pierre Trudeau and Jimmy Carter, the Soviet empire (notwithstanding its own incompetence) would have survived, and the wall would still be standing. Sen. Obama's feeble passivity will get you a big round of applause precisely because it's the easy option: Do nothing but hold hands and sing the easy-listening anthems of one-worldism, and the planet will heal.

To govern is to choose. And sometimes the choices are tough ones. When has Barack Obama chosen to take a stand? When he got along to get along with the Chicago machine? When he sat for 20 years in the pews of an ugly neo-segregationist race-baiting grievance-monger? When he voted to deny the surviving "fetuses" of botched abortions medical treatment? When in his short time in national politics he racked up the most liberal – i.e., the most doctrinaire, the most orthodox, the most reflex – voting record in the Senate? Or when, on those many occasions the questions got complex and required a choice, he dodged it and voted merely "present"?

The world rarely stands as one. You can, as Reagan and Thatcher did, stand up. Or, like Obama voting "present," you can stand down.

Nobody denies that, in promoting himself from "community organizer" to the world's president-designate in nothing flat, he has shown an amazing and impressively ruthless single-mindedness. But the path of personal glory has been, in terms of policy and philosophy, the path of least resistance.

Peggy Noonan thinks a President Obama will be like the dog who chases the car and finally catches it: Now what? I think Obama will be content to be King Barack the Benign, Spreader of Wealth and Healer of Planets. His rise is, in many ways, testament to the persistence of the monarchical urge even in a two-century old republic. So the "Now what?" questions will be answered by others, beginning with the liberal supermajority in Congress. And as he has done all his life he will take the path of least resistance. An Obama administration will pitch America toward EU domestic policy and U.N. foreign policy.

Thomas Sowell is right: It would be a "point of no return," the most explicit repudiation of the animating principles of America. For a vigilant republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens, it would be a Declaration of Dependence.

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




It is really sad, and something of a mystery, to see the overwhelming support Barack Hussein Obama is receiving from African-Americans in his bid to become the next president of the United States. It is understandable in terms of their pride in one of their race actually having been nominated by one of the major political parties.

But what is tragic about their support of Barack is that they are seeking to put in the White House a man who has promised that his very first act as President will be to support and then sign into law the FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT (FOCA) presently before Congress. FOCA would wipe out all existing legislation regulating the abortion
industry in our Nation. If you do not believe that Obama has promised to do that, watch this video of him addressing the national convention of PLANNED PARENTHOOD IN AMERICA last summer:

I say that black Americans’ support of the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama is a mystery because there is not logical explanation for a people supporting a candiidate who advocates genocide against them. You find that hard to believe?

The hard truth is that Planned Parentoood of America has been supported financially by Obama in the past when he was in charge of two foundations in Chicago and he in turn has had his candidacy supported by Planned Parenthood.

What is wrong with Barack Hussein Obama’s close connection with Planned Parenthood of America? Simply this: Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger with the expressed goal of eliminating the black race from America.

You think I am joking? Look at the photograph above of Margaret Sanger addressing a group of women, wives of KKK members. Read her books.

I first tried to raise the consciousness of black Americans to this tragic situation back in the 1970’s when I first became aware that a black physician, Dr. Mildred Jefferson, had become the President of PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF AMERICA. I wrote several essays on the subject and they were published in the national media. I pointed out the contradiction of Mildred Jefferson heading up an organization dedicated to the extermination of her race.

It is easy to see visible evidence of the planning of Planned Parenthood in placing so many of their abortuaries in ghetto locations.

Wake up, black Americans! Do not help elect Barack Hussein Obama to the presidency of the United States and thereby help him and Planned Parenthood of America achieve the eugenic goals of Margaret Sanger!!



Cardinal Rigali: Abortion is the “Transcending Issue of Our Day.”

By Jonquil Frankham

PHILADELPHIA October 24, 2008 ( – In a pastoral letter released yesterday, Justin Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia, calls abortion the “transcending issue of our day.” The release of the pastoral letter comes only days after Cardinal Rigali released a statement in his capacity as Chair of the Committee for Pro-Life Activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), in which he observed that Catholics are “morally obliged” to oppose Roe v. Wade (See

In his most recent letter Cardinal Rigali drives home the point that the grave immortality of abortion is not a revealed truth known only to Christians, but rather a truth that is universally accessible to all, regardless of religious background. Because the dignity of human life is written on the human heart, he says, “no one … most especially, no Catholic, can ever say: ‘I did not know [abortion is evil]’.”

But despite this fact, he laments, America nevertheless supports abortion in its “most extreme and horrific forms.”

For this reason Cardinal Rigali warns that while a Catholic “owes loyalty to the communities of which he is a part,” this loyalty must be subject to a higher law - the natural and revealed laws of moral conduct. Throughout history governments have sanctioned grave evils, such as the Holocaust, slavery, and racial segregation, a fact that proves that governments cannot necessarily be depended upon to protect the dignity of the human person.

Like these intrinsic evils, the bishop states unequivocally, abortion cannot ever be condoned, even in circumstances where it has been made acceptable or "legal."

Cardinal Rigali writes: “The transcending issue of our day is the intentional destruction of innocent human life, as in abortion. We wish with all our hearts that no candidate and no party were advocating this heinous act against the human person. However, since it is a transcending issue, and even supported in its most extreme and horrific forms, we must proclaim time and time again that no intrinsic evil can ever be supported in any way, most especially when it concerns the gravest of all intrinsic evils: the taking of an innocent life.”

If the right to life is not defended as paramount, the Cardinal says, the cry for all other “rights” crumbles, rendered “illusory”: “Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights — for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture — is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.”

Like those Catholics who risked their lives to end the atrocities of slavery, racial segregation, and the holocaust, today’s Catholics, he adjures, must be willing to respond “with the same generosity of body and heart, and the same courage.”

“When by the most barbaric means, unworthy of any civilized people, the brain of a child is sucked out of his or her head by a vacuum, God thunders: ‘This is a child!’”

“When a baby is left to die of exposure on a shelf because of a failed abortion, and this is considered a ‘right’ by any leader, God, the Source of all law and authority, thunders: ‘This is a child!’”



...and Another


by Randall Terry
Catholic Online

- Like millions of the faithful, I have been thrilled by the sudden and forceful rise of various Bishops’ voices against the errors decimating the hearts of the Faithful in this election cycle. I am speaking of the errors stated by Doug Kmiec (and echoed by others) that go like this: “It is time to set the record straight that it violates no aspect of Catholic teaching for a Catholic Voter to endorse, support, or vote for Barack Obama…” (Doug Kmiec, Catholic Attorney and Author, Can a Catholic Support Him?, pg 36, emphasis added.)

Anyone with “an ear to hear” clearly knows that no Catholic can vote for Obama with a clear conscience – no matter what Doug Kmiec, Roman Catholics for Obama, or any other misguided Catholic may declare. As Bishop Martino declared: “This is madness, people.”

But now – perhaps in an eleventh hour answer to prayer – Bishop Rene H. Gracida has released a stunningly clear radio ad concerning Catholics voting for Barack Obama.

He boldly states:

"This is Bishop Rene H. Gracida, reminding all Catholics that they must vote in this election with an informed conscience. A Catholic cannot be said to have voted in this election with a good conscience if they have voted for a pro-abortion candidate. Barack Hussein Obama is a pro-abortion candidate."

Bishop Gracida recorded the radio spot in English and Spanish; it can be heard at

But there is more good news – where you can be a part of defeating this madness – Bishop Gracida has offered this radio spot without charge for all who want to use it. You - an American citizen committed to protecting innocent unborn life in this election – can download the mp3 file, and pay to place this ad on your local radio station(s).

Simply contact your local radio station(s), buy 10 or 20 radio ads yourself, and they can download the audio file to play on their radio station. It is truly that simple. Call your radio station(s), tell them you want to buy ads, and tell them to download the mp3 file from our web site: (For those with questions, call us at 904-687-9804.)

If this ad receives the airplay it deserves – and the unborn so desperately need – it could jolt Catholic voters back to their senses and moorings; Catholic voters who have been seduced into ethical quicksand by partisan supporters of Obama who betray the lives of innocent unborn children.

Catholics to Demonstrate against Obama’s Pro-abortion Agenda

Theme: “No Catholic Can in Good Conscience Vote for Obama.”

At 12 Noon, Thursday, October 30, Catholics will hold a one hour demonstration, accompanied by a press conference, echoing Bishop Gracida’s words: No Catholic can in good conscience vote for Obama, because of his radical support of child-killing.

Right now, cities include:

Cincinnati, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio
Indianapolis, Indiana
Denver, Colorado
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Jacksonville, FL
St. Augustine, FL
Miami, FL
Charlotte, NC
Arlington, VA
Richmond, VA
St. Louis, MO
Kansas City, MO
Joplin, MO

Our message to the press will be simple: “As Catholic voters – who put innocent life ahead or partisan politics – we reject the Obama/Biden ticket, and urge our fellow Catholics to abandon their plans to betray their faith.”

Our beloved late Holy Father, John Paul II, clearly stated: “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.” 73, Gospel of Life”

With our federal system of government, we do not vote for laws; we vote for lawmakers who make laws in our stead. Given the history and intention of Obama to continue the legalized killing of the unborn, to vote for him is to knowingly to participate in his evil acts and intentions, and in a real way to vote for abortion itself.