CAN'T TAKE THE LEFT SERIOUSLY ON NATIONAL SECURITY

Well, we once again have General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Although the Democrats have toned down their rhetoric somewhat -- telling MoveOn.org not to run any "General Betray-us" ads and not stating outright that they think the good General is a liar -- they left little doubt on this, the first day of hearings, that the Left simply cannot be taken seriously on matters of national security.

The New York Times piece on the matter provides the quotes from the various Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination. Clearly, neither of them is ready for prime time.

Hillary, the lovely and talented wife of the priapic Bill, cited what The Times calls "sluggish political progress and a questionable recent Iraqi military campaign in Basra" to make the dubious point that the surge, ably led by Gen. Petraeus, wasn't working. Said the would-be Madame President, “It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again."

Right! We aren't getting any results. Check your sources, Hillary. Violence all over Iraq has gone down. The Iraqi government has come up with oil revenue sharing plans. Sunnis, once given the cold shoulder in the Shiite majority government, are now taking their places in the government and the military with outstanding results. Oh, and that mission in Basra? Much has been made about the 1000 Iraqi deserters, but no mention of the 96% or more who stayed and fought bravely.

Just a little historical reminder: the Iraqis are trying to do what our Founding Fathers did when they formed our government. They are doing it under fire from outsiders (al Qaeda, Iran, and Syria) and they are doing it in a part of the world that hasn't seen anything like representative government in its entire history, until the founding of Israel in 1948. More importantly, they are doing it faster than our Founding Fathers. If this is failure, than we need far more of it in the world.

Speaking of Iran, none of the Democrats on the Armed Services Committee seemed at all interested in Gen. Petraeus' account of Iranian interference in Iraq, principally among the Shiite militias, but also through their puppet, Syria, which is arming and aiding al Qaeda and other Sunni fighters. It's not as if Iran doesn't have a dog in this fight. If the Democrats get their way, Iran will be left in control of Iraq, whether the Sunnis or the Shiites win out. Either way, they'll be dancing to Tehran's tune.

Which, of course, brings us to the Saintly One, Barak Obama, who spent his time in the limelight on the Committee to restate his view that the Iraq war was a “massive strategic blunder.” OK, so what do we do now, other than turn tail and run?

Elsewhere, Saint Obama has called for direct talks, a "diplomatic surge" he called it, with Iran, saying that "I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without that." He also wants to put pressure on the Iraqis to step up to self governance by pulling American troops out. Said His Holiness: "I think that increased pressure in a measured way, in my mind, and this is where we disagree, includes a timetable for withdrawal. Nobody is asking for a precipitous withdrawal."

Did someone say, "Neville Chamberlain"? Saint Obama seems to think that if we just sit down with the mullah-tocracy of Iran and send our troops home from Iraq, all will be suddenly right in the world! Doesn't anyone read history anymore? We are talking about Islamo-fascists. Iran has made countless deals with the West. They've gotten concession after concession. And every one of those deals they have violated. So Saint Obama wants to talk some more? Let me know how that one works out!

While Saint Obama is making his pitch for a "diplomatic surge", it seems that Iran has been honoring past agreements about their nuclear program by announcing the completion of 6,000 new centrifuges to make even more fuel for a power program and, more likely, weapons use. This thanks to the outstanding (well, maybe not) efforts of the UN and the European Community, which has been trying to get Iran to stop.

Clearly, Saint Obama is not at all mature enough, nor knowledgeable enough, to take the helm of this great nation. Negotiating with Islamo-fascists is every bit as futile as negotiating with Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich. It's worse than futile. It lets our leaders slap themselves on the back for a job well done, while the real enemy laughs at our naivete and goes about the business of fascists everywhere: total global domination.

Which, by the way, is also the ultimate goal of Islam itself. On this matter, I don't think that the Republicans are much better than the Democrats. It annoys me to no end when President Bush says that the Islamic terrorists have hijacked a "great religion of peace". Even a casual perusal of the Qu'ran will show you how uninformed that is.

That being said, at least the Bush administration has taken this fight back to the enemy in their lands, rather than here in the United States. Whatever their weaknesses, the Republicans, especially the Conservatives, are far and beyond superior to the Democrats and the Left when it comes to national security.

Let's not forget that, until 9/11/2001, we were getting hit by Islamo-fascists at least once every other year. The Clinton years are especially illustrative. The absolute most that the Clintonistas did against al Qaeda was to fire a few cruise missiles. Even then, they tipped them off by warning Pakistan. Worse, they picked the day the priapic Bill Clinton was waiting to see if he had truly suborned Monica Lewinski's perjury before the grand jury. Other than those less than useless pinpricks, he did nothing!

On the other hand, the case can be made, based upon the afore mentioned statistics, that the Bush policies have actually made Americans safer. After all, how many attacks have we experienced since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?

Let me count... Oh! We haven't had any! Yet the Democrats still insist that President Bush has made us less safe than we were in the 1990's.

This is why the Left and the Democrats cannot be taken seriously on national security.

They really don't get it!

Copyright April 8th, 2008

HOW CAN YOU TELL WHEN A CLINTON IS LYING?

Of course, everyone knows the punchline: "When her lips are moving."

Hillary has the very same aversion to honesty as her priapic husband, Bill. The only difference is she just can't pull it off with the aplomb, the elan, of the former Co-conspirator in Chief.

And now, with the Legacy Media all agog with Saint Obama, even the Clintonistas' propaganda organ can't keep a lid on the lies. Let's review, shall we?

Remember the cattle futures?

Back in 1994, the Washington Post reported that, in 1978, Hillary was allowed to make a $12,000 investment in cattle futures, although she had only $1000 in her account. Within ten months, she somehow leveraged that under capitalized "investment" into a $100,000 profit, a 10,000% rate of return. Of course, when questioned about these things, Hillary claimed that she learned how to do that by reading the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ, for its part, questioned this stunning windfall, asking if, perhaps, this was some sort of bribe filtered through the futures market.

The bottom line is, no one who is at all experienced in such financial dealings believes that Hillary benefited from nothing more than good advice and a little luck. There is something rotten there, and although the Legacy Media didn't want to look to deeply into it, the smell lingers on.

Anyone remember when Hillary claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary?

It didn't take long for that whopper to be found out! It turns out that Hillary (the mendacious politician) was born five years before Sir Hillary and Tonzig Norgay climbed Mount Everest. This one still stinks, since snopes.com even references the matter and thoroughly debunks this myth as an utterly false urban legend. Still, the Legacy Media does little promote the truth of this fairy tale. Katie Couric, on CBS News, reported on Sir Edmund's death this past January with fluffy comments about our very own prevaricator, Hillary. No mention in the piece, by the way, of the false story that Hillary started.

Rose Law Firm billing records, anyone?

They were subject to subpoena for two years, in relation to congressional investigations Clintonista scandals, but the Clinton White House denied they had them. Suddenly, the New York Times reported, just twenty four hours after another "miraculous discovery", as Sen. Alphonse Damato (R, NY) quipped, they turned up in the First Lady's book room in the White House residence. Further, when subjected to forensic examination, they were found to have only Hillary's fingerprints all over them. No serious explanation was ever forthcoming, and the matter seemed to disappear. But is does make one wonder...

Oh, and the other "miraculous discovery"? That was an internal White House memo detailing Hillary's involvement in the firing of the White House Travel Office employees (otherwise known as "Travelgate") which Hillary was also denying any knowledge of.

If you are tempted to defend Hillary by saying this was merely the result of being closely identified with her known perjurer, the priapic Bill, let's also recall that she worked for the House Judiciary Committee back in 1974. World Net Daily has the story. Her boss, Jerry Zeifman, no member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, had to ultimately fire her without a letter of recommendation. What Hillary and her partner, Bernard Nussbaum of Clintonista scandal fame, tried to do was to deny President Richard Nixon the right to counsel in the Watergate investigation, on the grounds that there was no precedent, despite the then recent impeachment case of William O. Douglas. So how did Hillary support her arguments? World Net Daily reports: "Zeifman claims Clinton bolstered her fraudulent brief by removing all of the Douglas files from public access and storing them at her office, enabling her to argue as if the case never existed." The article further quotes Mr. Zeifman as saying that Hillary was a "liar" and "an unethical, dishonest lawyer." This from a lifelong Democrat.

We could go on and on with the many versions of Hillary's reality, but let's just skip ahead, shall we? Let's look at some of the more recent adventures in the Land of Hillary.

Hillary was an opponent of the Iraq war before Saint Obama:

Jake Tapper, of ABC News, makes mincemeat of that bit of theater. Even, as Hillary has tried to say, if you only consider the question from the year 2005, when Saint Obama entered the Senate. And if you don't use the Hillary measuring stick (the January, 2005 starting date) she still doesn't explain her vote for the Iraq invasion in the first place. Nor her sometimes pro, sometimes con stances regarding our troops in Iraq.

Hillary knows what it's like to be under fire:

Everyone has heard about this one -- that Hillary and Chelsea landed in Bosnia under heavy sniper fire -- by now, so there is little point in going over the matter in detail. Suffice it to say that even CBS News, purveyor of the phony documents story, couldn't let that one slide. Although, I have to admit that I have questions after viewing Barely Political's revealing video on YouTube. Actually, no, I thought it was a brilliant bit of political satire.

Young woman dies after being denied medical care:

The NowPublic.com web site reports Hillary's anecdote thusly:

Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton shared a touching story while on the campaign trail the last few weeks. If we had health care for everyone, things like this wouldn't happen.

Clinton shared, “I remember listening to a story about a young woman in a small town along the Ohio River, in Meigs County, who worked in a pizza parlor,” “She got pregnant, she started having problems. There’s no hospital left in Meigs County, so she had to go to a neighboring county.”

“She showed up, and the hospital said, ‘You know, you’ve got to give
us one hundred dollars before we can see you.’ She didn’t have a hundred dollars.”

“So the young woman went back home. The next time she went back,
she was in an ambulance. It turned out she lost the baby. She was airlifted to Columbus. And after heroic efforts at the medical center, she died.”

Folks should be angry that this happened in America. Angry about the woman who died? No, The Story, it is inaccurate.

Even the New York Times, long standing Clinton defenders that they are, had to cover this contatempt. It seems that both the hospital and the family of the young lady deny the veracity of the story. The only thing Hillary got right was that the mother and baby both died. But they did have health insurance and they were not denied treatment. But that doesn't stop Hillary from repeating the apocryphal tale on the stump. Hey! Why let facts get in the way of a good speech? Says Hillary, " “It hurts me that in our country, as rich and good of a country as we are, this young woman and her baby died because she couldn’t come up with $100 to see the doctor.”

Again, I could go on and on with these tid bits. But the point of the matter is, how much more mendacity do Americans have to take from the Clintons? Weren't the 1990's bad enough?

And if -- God forbid! -- Hillary wins the election in November, why would anyone in the world believe anything coming from her administration?

Ah, yes! The Clintons! They are a gold mine for folks who write about the political scene. Still, America will be much better off when they finally leave that scene.

Copyright April 7th, 2008

CHAOS IN LIBERAL LA LA LAND

You know, it's almost too good to be true! The more the Left looks silly, the sillier they get. I couldn't make this stuff up on my best days!

What I am talking about is the pure chaos that has befallen the Democratic Party. They are in complete disarray and they are beginning to eat their own.

First off, Hillary Clinton didn't get the coronation that the "smart" money said was hers. Her running in the primary was a mere formality back in the Fall. But along came Saint Obama and his message of hope and change. It didn't matter that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two, policy-wise. Obama was the Rorschach candidate, a tabula rosa upon which the Liberal elites could pin their hopes and dreams.

That Saint Obama was a phenomenal public speaker and had little track record to be torn apart by his competitors only fed the mystique. Compared to the trailer trash aura of the Clintonistas, the scandal upon scandal, Obama was a breath of fresh air.

Of course, Hillary won't let some upstart get in her way on the road to the White House. Dirty tricks are bread and butter to the Clintonistas, which is yet another reason why her welcome in the Democratic Party has worn a bit thin. Look to Hillary trying to bully the DNC into seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan, despite the fact that she agreed to cutting the two states out of the primaries as punishment for voting too early. And who knows what she'll do to get the super delegates to vote for her?

Dirty tricks aside, look at the conundrum the Liberal voter must face: "Am I a sexist if I vote for the man, or am I a racist if I vote for the white woman?" What's a Liberal to do? Either way, he's open to charges of bigotry of one stripe or another.

Speaking of bigotry, there is still more fallout from the affair of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. First, Geraldine Ferraro (who's questionable comment was, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.") is now taking umbrage to being lumped in with the good Reverend as a racist. Never mind that what she said could very easily be construed as racist to begin with!

Saint Obama, not knowing when to leave well enough alone, went on the talk radio circuit to elaborate on his big race speech. Said the Saintly One:

"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society."

Just asking, but how far would I get if I called Obama a "typical" black person? Wouldn't I be considered racist? To be fair, an Obama spokesman parsed the Senator's words, saying that he meant to say "a person of her generation.".

Yet, what he really said was that white folks are afraid of blacks, think they are criminals and that they're dangerous. Regardless of what Saint Obama meant to say, what he actually said was an invidious stereotype of white people.

In short, what he said was racist.

But, it seems, that Hillary has a bit of a Rev. Wright problem herself! The New York Times, in their Caucus blog, published a photo of Rev. Wright shaking hands with the priapic Bill Clinton in 1998. The photo was provided to the Times reporters by none other than the Obama campaign.

And what was Rev. Wright doing with old Priapic Bill? Why it was none other than the prayer breakfast he held on the cusp of Ken Starr's reporting on his investigations. Yup! The Horn Dog in Chief met with the Racist Reverend to atone for Monica Lewinski!

Meanwhile, Hillary's lackey, Bill Richardson, who performed so admirably as her screen during the early days of the primaries, has jumped ship and endorsed Saint Obama. Richardson, who polls extremely well among Hispanics, being an Hispanic himself, probably didn't get enough goodies promised from the Clintonistas. So he's taking his ball (and a good chunk of the Hispanic vote that Hillary really needs right about now) and ran to the Saintly One, saying, "Este es un hombre que nos entiende y que nos va a respetar!" (This is a man who understands us and who will respect us!)

I told you I couldn't make this stuff up!

If this sort of thing keeps up, I might have to reassess my predictions for the November elections. While Hillary and Saint Obama keep hammering at each other, spending money better spent on the actual elections rather than the primaries, John McCain looks more and more like the grown up!

Here's another cloud on the horizon of the Leftist La La Land: the Franklin and Marsh College Poll reports that one in five Democrat voters will vote for John McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination. That is a significant, if not fatal, weakness in the base, don't you think?

Personally, I'm having more fun this election cycle than anyone should be allowed! Despite their arrogant confidence that the nation has turned Left, the Democrats just can't seem to get their act together.

But will John McCain take advantage of this chaos? So far, it seems not. As written here at Montag's World, in McCain on the Warpath, he disavowed the help and endorsement of Conservative talk host, Billy Cunningham, for his use of Saint Obama's middle name. Then, he fired a campaign aid who e-mailed a link to a video that made Obama seem un-American, when juxtaposed with the sermons of Rev. Wright.

Hey! John! Wake up! This is a presidential campaign, not a student body election! If you can't play rough, then get out of the sandbox!

With the Chaos In Liberal La La Land, this could be John McCain's election to lose. Let's just see if he gets on the ball.

Copyright March 21st, 2008

THE AUDACITY OF ROPE-A-DOPE

Saint Obama made his "big speech" about race in America, yesterday, entitled A More Perfect Union. As he usually does, he made a wonderful speech. There are few better public speakers than Barak Obama. And, on the surface at least, he seemed to "transcend" the racial divide in America, while trying to put paid to the hateful rhetoric of his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.




That was the style, anyway. But what about the substance? Yes, let's look at the substance of his wonderful speech.


He starts out, pretty accurately, looking at our Founding, and how slavery was one issue that was deferred for "at least twenty years". That much was true.


Unfortunately, he left out the genius of the Founding Fathers and how they minimalized the power of the slave states with the infamous "three-fifths rule", wherein blacks in the slave states, who were already forbidden to vote, would count as three-fifths of a vote when apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. No, the Founding Fathers didn't actually believe that blacks were less than whites. But the Southern states, the slave states, were left with fewer votes in the House, thereby hastening the eventual abolition of slavery in the newly minted United States.



Still, Obama was quite accurate when he described America as a nation that seeks "a more perfect union", that seeks always to improve itself. It's just his ideas of improvement and perfection that I find problematic.



After this brief, if not misleading, history, we are regaled with Obama's personal history. This is the sort of story that proves the lie of the Modern Civil Rights Industry, Inc. With all the strikes against him (bi-racial parents, single mother, raised by his grandparents, etc.) there should be no possibility of him reaching for the White House. That is, if we were to believe the various Professional Victims of the MCRI, Inc.



Yet, here is Obama. He's at, or very nearly so, the pinnacle of American politics. He's highly educated, he's rather wealthy, despite his sweetheart deals with Tony Rezco. His wife sits on some very powerful corporate boards, which she advises her listeners not to aspire to.



I still believe that Obama will win the election in November against John McCain, provided Hillary doesn't steal the nomination. But should he lose, it will not be racism. It will be the rejection of his Liberal agenda.



At this point in the speech, Saint Obama seems to make a few oblique references to the vile and hateful teachings of his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright:

...we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary
language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial
divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our
nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views?
Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors,
priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Fine enough. But I don't recall any sermons from my church experience that accused America of inventing AIDS, or wantonly incinerating thousands, or purposely selling drugs to imprison minorities.


Obama goes on to cite the good that Rev. Wright has done:

The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me
to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one
another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his
country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest
universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a
church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing
the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and
scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from
HIV/AIDS.

Forgive me, but isn't this a little like saying Hitler wasn't all that bad? After all, look at the Volkswagen or the fact that the trains ran on time. Louis Farrakhan told his followers to get educated, take care of the children you father, and follow Islam. That didn't change the fact that he was a bigot, and anti-Semite, and un-American. What we have here is the minimization of Rev. Wright's horrible beliefs, with the over exaggeration of his virtues.



Obama, though, stays loyal to his pastor, but less so to his grandmother:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

There goes grandma, right under the bus. Grandma, you see, was also a racist. Basically, she is racist because she said the same things about passing black men that Jesse Jackson so famously once said. What's worse, he took the private comments by an old woman (who, God help her, is alive to see her grandson publicly humiliate her) and equated them with, as James Taranto observed, was a "systematized black liberation theology." Simply put, the man is shameless.



Charliein wrote to Montag's World, that "...he can't disown his blood relative, but he never had to embrace his pastor by naming him to his campaign." Truer words have never been uttered.

Suddenly, Obama goes off the rails entirely, trying to "me-too" the debate:

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most
working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been
particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

Uhh... where to begin on this one? First, the Reagan Coalition was forged from more than affirmative action and Political Correctness, although they were a part. Let's not forget the near despair Americans viewed their nation after Nixon and Carter, after the idiocy of the welfare state, the crushing taxation and over-regulation that it entailed. Of course, were Saint Obama to actually mention any of those things, he would have to find some other way to sell his social utopian visions for America's future.



Which, he is quick to add, are just what we Americans need to overcome the "divisiveness" (he used this word a lot in this speech) of racial issues today.

So, in a nut shell:

• Rev. Wright's speech is a result of past racism in America, an expression of black bitterness.
• White antipathy to Liberal solutions (affirmative action, welfare, bussing, etc.) are the result of their misunderstanding of the real issues.
• Both blacks and whites need to cool their rhetoric while voting for Saint Obama who is going to bring "change" by supporting the same old policies that caused all that white angst.
• Grandma just has to understand the "bigger picture" and not be upset that her grandson just humiliated her on national television.

Yup! This is what Saint Obama is all about. This is the Audacity of Rope-a-Dope. Disavow vaguely "controversial" comments, tear grandma a new one, blame white America, change the subject.

And, of course, offer himself, messiah-like, as the solution.

Are you buying any of this?

Copyright March 19th, 2008

DUELING ENDORSEMENTS

So, Anonymous wrote, asking what I thought about John Hagee and Tim LaHaye, considering their endorsements of John McCain and their sometimes controversial views. Apparently, he was trying to make some sort of equivalence between them and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

OK, Anonymous, here are my thoughts.

Both Rev. Hagee and Dr. LaHaye have made many comments regarding the Catholic Church. It is these that we shall examine first, keeping in mind that I, myself, am a Roman Catholic.

Christianity, as a whole, has never been a monolithic whole. From the very beginning, there were divisions and schisms. The earliest was between the followers of the Apostle John and the followers of the Apostle Paul, regarding the necessity of first becoming Jewish in order to become a Christian. This schism was ultimately settled by the Roman Empire in 70AD with the sacking of Jerusalem and the Diaspora, leaving only the followers of St. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, to carry the Gospels to the rest of the world.

That being said, there has long been a simmering tension between Roman Catholics and the Protestant Reformists. Among many of the bones of contention was the selling and awarding of indulgences, certified notes and trinkets that bestowed absolution, regardless of confession or the forgiveness of the Church.

The Protestant Reformists have long denied the powers of the Pope, and have rejected many of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. To their minds, the Reformists were returning the Faith back to the roots of the Gospels. As such, the Roman Catholics were apostates, having deviated from the Truths taught by Jesus in the Gospels.

The Rev.'s Hagee and LaHaye are merely products of the long-standing traditions of fundamentalist Protestant teachings. Of course they would consider the Roman Catholic Church apostate, or, in the words of Rev. Hagee, "The Great Whore". This is nothing new, at these sort of ideas have been around a lot longer than the United States.

Personally, it is my belief that, at the time of the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church was in the wrong. It was using absolution as a fund raising tool. It was also virulently anti-Semitic, which is yet another criticism leveled by Rev. Hagee. But that was then. Nowadays, the Catholic Church is trying, at least, to rid itself of that old baggage, to varying degrees of success. That some in the other Christian schisms aren't ready yet to let those bygones be bygones is hardly surprising and is a measure of how far all Christians have to go.

But this is far removed from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his slanderous and racist accusations leveled at America, whites, and Christians. Whereas, Hagee and LaHaye are rooted in historical theological thought, Wright spews hate and bile for the country that made his ministry possible. Worse, he has to lie about America. Hagee and LaHaye are merely on a different point of view from the Roman Catholic Church.

Rev. Hagee is also tagged with his devotion to the State of Israel. Of course, to the Left, Israel represents all that is wrong with the Mideast and with American policy in the region. What do you think Liberals mean when they complain about "neo-cons"? The word is nothing short of code speak for "Jew". They look to Israel as the only reason for bloodshed in the Mideast. In any fight between Israel and the Arab world, you can count on the Left siding with the Arabs. Anybody recall Jimmy Carter?

But what really gets the Left all in a twist is Rev. Hagee's comparison of Islam with Christianity. The sermon wherein he makes this examination can be viewed on YouTube. He uses quotes from both the Bible and the Qu'ran to make his points. And, I have to admit, he's absolutely correct in saying that Islam is a false religion.

Am I going too far? Well, consider the writings of Dr. Mark A. Gabriel. Here is a man who was raised in Egypt as a devote Muslim, becoming a scholar of Qu'rannic studies. But when he had a crisis of faith and embraced Christianity, he was forced to flee his native land, lest his father carry out the dictates of the Qu'ran and kill him. If anyone would know about Islam and Christianity, it would be him.

Dr. Gabriel (this isn't his real name, which he has to keep secret to prevent retribution aimed at his family still in Egypt) definitely supports Rev. Hagee's arguments. Just wander the Internet, and you can find myriad other scholars who have come to the very same conclusion. There is a definite difference between bigotry and actual study of a religion's beliefs and scriptures. Having read the Qu'ran, I am forced to acknowledge that Rev. Hagee is doing nothing but reporting the truth about Islam, regardless of what you might think of Christianity or his particular brand of Christianity.

But, even if Hagee and LaHaye were every bit the bigots that the Left claims them to be, the problem of their endorsement of John McCain is miniscule. After all, McCain was never a member of their congregations, nor had he a twenty year association with them. Nor has McCain used any of their sermons as a springboard for a book.

Saint Obama, on the other hand, does have that and more on the record. Rev. Wright was Obama's pastor. He married the Obama's and baptized their children. The title of one of his books, The Audacity of Hope, was lifted directly from one of Wright's sermons. Indeed, Obama prayed with Wright on the eve of his announcement of his candidacy. And it was only this week that Rev. Wright stepped down from his role in the Obama campaign.

As near as I can tell, John McCain has absolutely none of this baggage regarding Hagee and LaHaye, other than the endorsements.

Tomorrow, we'll look at Saint Obama's big race speech, and the Audacity of Rope-a-dope.

Copyright March 18th, 2008

LOOKS LIKE HIS HALO IS SLIPPING!

When one is bestowed with mythical, near messianic, status, one had better make sure he's got all his ducks in a row. Such is the case for Barak Hussein Obama, the new Saint of our age.

Since his speech in the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he has garnered a reputation with his fine oratorical skills, his mouthing of pious platitudes, and his squeaky clean good looks. Just Google the words Obama messiah. You'll come up with 274,000 hits. We are told daily how he will unite our fractured nation, how he will transcend race and political party, how he will restore hope to our troubled masses.

Then, reality strikes. We start examining his proposals (just the same old neo-socialist Liberal agenda, hidden beneath the flowery rhetoric of "hope" and "change") and we start to learn about the folks around him, the folks who have shaped and molded his philosophies, and with whom he seems to agree.

Previously, in It's An Obama-nation! we examined such luminaries of Saint Obama's life as Frank Marshall Davis, Abongo "Roy" Obama, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and his pastor and spiritual advisor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I think it's incumbent on us to look a little closer at these and other characters.

Bill Ayers serves on the board of the Woods Fund, as did Saint Obama. This charitable foundation, as you'd probably imagine, tends to donate to Left of Center causes. During Saint Obama's tenure with the foundation, funding was granted to an organization called the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN.

Fox Business.com, sourcing the story to Aaron Kline, reports thusly:

The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barack Obama served as
a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist granted funding to a
controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a
"catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing
drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens, according to Aaron Klein,
Middle East correspondent for WND.com.

The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western
terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.

OK, then! Not only did Saint Obama serve on a board with a confessed terrorist bomber, he arranged for funding for Prof. Rashid Khalidi, who supports and has worked with terrorists. And he even accepted donations raised by this unapologetic anti-semitic Islamist!

No matter how you cut it, this is more than guilt by association, as many on the Left have been trying to claim. It is apparent, from the exchanges of funding, that both Prof. Khalidi and Saint Obama are at least reading from the same chapter, if not the same page.

And they have a history that goes back some years besides. Khalidi, before being bestowed the Edward Said Chair of Arab Studies at Columbia University, taught at the University of Chicago, where he met Saint Obama. We are not talking here about casual acquaintances.

It took long enough, but at long last, the Legacy Media has caught up to the story of Saint Obama's spiritual leader, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Only now, four years after Saint Obama became a household name, do we learn that the Rev. Wright said this, the Sunday following 9/11:

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki and we nuked far more than the
thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have
supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and the black South Africans,
and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been
brought back into our own front yard. America's chickens are coming home to
roost."

Now I know many on the Left actually believe this bilge, but I sincerely doubt that most Americans do. To say such nonsense about America, the single most important force for good in the world, is, to my mind, unconscionable. Worse, he has damned America in God's name, as can be seen in this video clip.

Finally, Saint Obama has decided to disavow the racist, anti-semitic, and anti-American preachings of Rev. Wright:

"Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the
statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically
denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us
from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

"Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country."

Well that's just wonderful! But Saint Obama had been a member of the Rev. Wright's congregation for twenty years. Yet he makes the ludicrous claim that he had only become aware of his despicable preachings last year:

"I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments," Obama
said. "But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because
of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife
and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to
leave the church."

Well, that's wonderful! But what did Saint Obama really have to say about his pastor? Something to the effect that he was like a beloved, albeit eccentric, uncle who was prone, now and then, to spouting out things that were a bit outrageous.

Outrageous? A bit? Geez! I'd hate to see the Rev. Wright on a really bad day!

Thanks to the New Media (talk radio and the Internet) these things have been
brought to the fore of our national awareness. Otherwise, we'd only find out
years later, when the damage is already done.

Hopefully, the Legacy Media will get its collective butt in gear and start asking some real questions of the presidential candidates. The electorate deserves to know just who is in each candidate's Rolodex.

Hopefully, too, enough Americans will pay attention to those Men Behind the Curtain.

Copyright March 14th, 2008

LOOKS LIKE WE NEED A NEW SHERRIFF!

As this is written, it appears that New York Governor Elliot Spitzer, long famed as "The Sherriff of Wall Street", is preparing to resign from his office. Although there are many, including Gov. Spitzer himself, who are trying to portray this scandal as "a private matter", the fact remains that he has abused the public's trust and must resign immediately.

Of course, just like the good Democrat he is, he is trying to cut whatever deal he can to avoid any real penalty for his misdeed. Hopefully, Republicans in New York won't allow him to stay in office, the way the Senate Republicans did with the priapic Bill Clinton.

Let's examine briefly the life and times of one Elliot Spitzer. Fred Dickers column in the New York Post, Bully Gets His Comeuppance, is most illuminating:

A disgraced Gov. Spitzer has been publicly and privately described for more than a year by New York's top political figures as a ruth less, sanctimonious, amoral man whose righteous public persona was regularly contradicted by the realities of how he
conducted his political life.

We are talking about a man who was raised in the tony environs of wealthy suburbs and Ivy League schools, who preposterously claimed to have been raised in the Bronx. He affected an accent and used Brobdingnagian words to burnish his image. Yet his thuggish behavior, as a district attorney, as state attorney general, and as governor was legend.

Although he was caught red handed, in 1994, violating election laws with improper loans from his wealthy father, he eventually went on to being elected New York State Attorney General. The press was oddly silent about his past campaign misdeeds, even letting his repeated lies about the matter stand. He was helped along by his opponent, Dennis Vacco, who had foolishly rejected the endorsement of the Right to Life Party, thereby denying himself thousands of votes and ensuring Spitzer's win in 1998.

Spitzer then went on something of a rampage, prosecuting or threatening prosecution of various Wall Street firms, which may have endeared him to the Liberal elites by raising millions in fines and penalties, but did little to help New York's problematic job market, since firms simply up and left the state for more congenial climes.

And it wasn't just Wall Street executives who were threatened. Sean Hannity has a recording of then Attorney General Spitzer, threatening to use his office to destroy the talk show host for some rough questioning he'd endured on Hannity's national radio program. Can you say "abuse of office"? Sure you can!

From the very first, Gov. Spitzer has been in trouble. Right from the start, he tried using state troopers and the State IRS to discredit state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno. When word of these abuses of power went public, Spitzer pulled a Nixon, throwing his lead Dirty Trickster, Darren Dopp, under the bus in an effort to deflect the dubious operation away from himself. The spurious nature of these attacks was underscored by the finding of Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, ostensibly a "friend" of Spitzer, that exonerated the Senator. Afterwards, Sen. Bruno had this to say:

"There's something wrong with Spitzer, something wrong in his head. He's a
liar, he's a hypocrite and he cannot ever been trusted,"

It's, to be sure, a delicious irony, that Spitzer's Dirty Tricks squad was trying to pin Bruno to the misuse of the very same state-owned aircraft that the Governor most likely used in his trysts with call girls over the past ten years.

Yes, as a district attorney and as Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer styled himself as a sort of White Knight, defeating Wall Street "crooks" (although John Whitehead's op ed piece in the Wall Street Journal raised some doubts) and escort services alike. And guess what? He was tripped up by the very same laws that he used against his targets of prosecution.

The AP's Samantha Gross and Devlin Barrett describe how Spitzer's illicit activities came to the attention of federal investigators. Banks, it seems, are required by law to report any activities that appear to attempts to conceal (or "smurf" as it is termed) transactions that might be violations of the law. Spitzer's hurried effort to get his hands on $4,000 in cash, coupled with previous instances of similar behavior, set off red flags to investigators.

Spitzer's phones were then tapped and his perfidy was uncovered. It turns out that he'd probably spent upwards of $80,000 on sex with prostitutes, according to the New York Post.

Now, also according to The Post, it seems that he "is likely" to resign tomorrow, depending on if he can get a deal that avoids his prosecution. Of course, earlier in the day, his aides suggested that he'd like to finish off the remaining three years of his term. But GOP legislators gave him a deadline: resign immediately or impeachment begins in forty eight hours.

Now this all may seem to be a local New York State matter, but it can have repercussions on the presidential race. After all, Elliot Spitzer, so long as he's governor, is one of those Democratic Party superdelegates we've been hearing so much about. In fact, he's already pledged to one of the two candidates: Hillary Clinton, the wife of well known philanderer, the priapic Peroni Bill.

God! Don't you just love the irony? What's Hillary to do? Stand by yet another man?

Just a couple of last thoughts on the matter. Is it just me, or is there something really creepy about Democrats who get caught in sex scandals who trot their wives out for the press conference? Jim McGreevy in New Jersey, now Elliot Spitzer. What is most frightening about these spousal appearances is that they seem, well... drugged... for lack of a better word. It's not bad enough that their husbands are cheating (McGreevy with another man, for Pete's sake!) but that the humiliation has to be so public. No wonder they appear over medicated. Either it's the shock alone, or the shock that made the medication so very necessary.

But what goes on in the minds of these women? Why would they even think of appearing in public with these pigs when the news gets out? And how is it that they are the last to hear about these troubles?

My most profound sympathies go to Spitzer's children. These are the real victims of his calumny. The pain they must be going through is unthinkable. And the humiliation to come will be even worse. For that alone, Spitzer should resign.

Elliot Spitzer has finally met his judgement, whether he resigns or not. He has finally been brought down, which given his sordid and vicious career, is only right.

See, Liberals? There really is a God!

Copyright March 11tn, 2008

WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

One group of folks are never asked, by the Legacy Media at least, which American political parties they prefer. Yet, you can look between the lines of the Legacy Media and see a few signs.

Take the bombing of the New York City Army recruiting station in Times Square this morning. Who would do such a thing? Personally, I find it telling that eight Democrats from New York received letters ranting about America and including a photo of the station. Why would they send them to Democrats?

Then again, there's this story from South America. It seems that, when Colombian forces took out that FARC camp in Ecuador, they found a bit of intel. One of the terrorists killed in the attack had a laptop computer, which gave up all sorts of evidence that Hugo Chavez, the diminutive dictator of Venezuela, has been helping them along for the last ten years.

This laptop contained correspondence between Raul Reyes, the lead terrorist killed who also served as the "public face" of FARC; Manuel Marulanda, the legendary supreme leader of the Marxist group; and Ivan Marquez, FARC's man in Venezuela. The upshot of the documents on the seized laptop is that Venezuela is working with FARC to overthrow the government of Colombia, which is an American ally.

Also, little remarked upon in the Legacy Media, is this little datum: it seems that FARC and Chavez are rooting for Saint Obama in the US presidential race. Reports World Net Daily:

Writing two days before his death, Reyes tells his secretariat comrades that "the gringos," working through Ecuador's government, are interested "in talking to us on various issues."
"They say the new president of their country will be (Barack) Obama," noting that Obama rejects both the Bush administration's free trade agreement with Colombia and the current military aid program.
Reyes said the response he relayed is that the U.S. would have to publicly express that desire.

So, apparently, someone in Saint Obama's camp is working with Marxist narco-terrorist, who fund their operations with the poison sold to our people, who murder, bomb and kidnap, and who seek the violent overthrow of a government friendly to the United States. Where have we seen this before?

Looking at past behavior, one can be certain that the Democrats in Congress, as well as those vying for the Presidency, will not be entirely friendly with the Colombian government. After all, Charlie Rangel (D-NY) feted Fidel Castro, another friend of FARC, when he last visited New York. And more recently, he had a trip to Cuba partly funded by the Castro government.

We all remember, also, the hapless Jimmy Carter, who allowed one ally of the United States after another to fall to Marxist and Islamo-fascist forces. And the Democrats who sided with Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, while President Reagan, whose power it was as President, was trying to unseat the Marxists and let the people of Nicaragua have a chance at electing their own government.

Well, Ortega got elected el Presidente of Nicaragua last year, and he's been pretty chummy with Chavez and the Castro boys. Now, he's dabbling in American politics. The International Herald Tribune reports Saint Obama has received the endorsement of formet Soviet lackey and Marxist thug Daniel Ortega.

It just gets more and more surreal, folks! Not only does Saint Obama have a rather sordid and Marxist past (see It's An Obama-Nation!) he is now garnering the support of noted, if not in all cases still breathing, Marxists from South America.

Is he walking and quacking enough like a duck yet?

Aaron Kline, the Israeli journalist and author of Schmoozing With Terrorists, has documented exhaustively the preference of Jihadists and other Islamo-fascists for Democrats and Liberals in American politics. Take any video or audio tape by Osamma bin Ladin, for instance. Every point he raises comes straight out of the Democrats talking points memos.

The Democrats, I've often pointed out, cannot be trusted to define, let alone defend America's national interests. Historically, they have been on the wrong side, every time:

• The sided with the Confederacy


• They promulgated Jim Crowe and fought the Civil Rights Act of 1964


• The started (with a lie) the Viet Nam War and then tried to hang Nixon with it, in the end causing us to quit, rather than to achieve victory.


• They opposed the liberation of Kuwait.


• They opposed Reagan's efforts to win the Cold War.


• And now they oppose America actually winning another, more dangerous, war, the War on Terror.

With a track record like this, is it any wonder that America's enemies are rooting for Saint Obama?

Copyright March 6th, 2008

THERE WILL BE BLOOD!

So what is the political landscape after Tuesday's voting in states all across the nation? Actually, pretty much the same as last week.

First off, John McCain is now the official and legitimate nominee for the Republican Party. Having won enough delegates to clinch said nomination, he also received the endorsement of President George "Dubya" Bush. I now await Senator McCain's rebuke for having used the president's middle initial, as he has done to Billy Cunningham. For the remainder of the Spring and Summer, McCain has to knit his support into a cohesive force, although how he hopes to do that while attacking his base, I have no idea.

But there is a ray of sunshine here, and it comes from the Democratic Party.

Hillary Clinton has made something of a comeback. We know this because the Legacy Media keeps telling us. My friend, Vox Day on his blog Vox Popoli, points out that this is the exact same narrative that they force fed the audience in the 1992 election cycle, albeit about Bill, not Hillary. Regardless of who the Legacy Media is talking about, the story line is getting a bit tired.

But this can be good news for McCain, since the Democrats are in for a long and bloody campaign. While he is shoring up his base (allegedly, that is) the Democrats will be tearing new orifices in each other.

In other words, Hillary will live to fight on, attacking and discrediting Saint Obama, something to which both the McCain campaign and the RNC say they will not stoop. They need Hillary in the race because the Republican leadership just doesn't have the stomach to go after the sacrosanct Saint Obama.

The political landscape remains unchanged, since Saint Obama ended Tuesday with the same delegate lead over Hillary as he began. All that Hillary succeeded in doing was to keep in the race a few more weeks.

But, as I already said, this is a good thing. The Clintonistas are masters of the scorched earth style of politics. They've already said they were going to throw the kitchen sink at the Annointed One. For example, does anyone really doubt that it was Hillary's people who disseminated that photo of Saint Obama looking like Gunga Din?

While that bad photo won't make or break Obama, at least not in my book, it is all part of a piece with the Clintonistas. Recall how they smeared Ken Starr, the Travel Office employees, the abused women, etc. The Clintonistas will stop at nothing -- NOTHING! -- in the pursuit of power. How much do you want to bet that the Clintonistas were doing some rather snarky push polls in southern Ohio, emphasizing Obama's melanin surfeit?

On more substantive matters, it was to the Clintonistas that an unnamed Canadian official leaked a memo, describing Saint Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric as just campaign pap. Despite claims to the contrary, the memo does exist and Canada is investigating possible criminal charges in the matter.

Hillary's weekend appearances on national TV, most notably Saturday Night Live, probably helped her showing on Tuesday, as it spurred the Legacy Media to look a little more sharply at Saint Obama. On Monday, Obama was left sputtering as he was peppered with questions of his long time pal, Antoin "Tony" Rezco. (Ooops! I want to apologize to Sen. McCain for referring to Mr. Rezco's middle name. I'll try not to do it again!) Rezco, you might recall, has begun his trial for illegal campaign solicitations and kickbacks, to little Legacy Media attention. An example of Obama's aversion to questioning regarding Rezco can be seen here.

But what, do you think, was the biggest reason for Hillary's surprise uptick in the primaries? The Los Angeles Times got a hint of the reason Sunday. Exit polls show that one in ten voters in Texas for the Democratic primary were Republican. This is merely just desserts, since McCain won his primaries with mainly Democrat and Independent voters in open primaries. Hey, if the Democrats can pick our candidate, why can't we pick theirs?

The bottom line is that McCain can now coast into the convention in August. The Democrats, meanwhile, are in for a bruising and bloody war. Make no mistake about it. Hillary will stop at nothing to secure her nomination. If, in the process, she destroys the Democratic Party, then so be it!

As I have frequently remarked, I love when Political Correctness runs into itself. We are now faced with the spectacle of two radical Leftists, each playing on his/her own Politically Correct identity group. Whoever actually gets the nomination will alienate some, if not most, of the natural constituency, the identity group, of the other.

Obama is from the streets of Chicago. He is a Daly machine politician. For them, politics is hardball and they don't give up easily. Hillary, on the other hand, views power as her sole reason for life itself. No pesky rules, customs, niceties, or etiquette for her, not when her power is at stake! Liberal women are upset that Oprah has endorsed Obama. Black activists are worried that Hillary will try to steal the nomination from a black man. The enmity is palpable and the knives are being sharpened as we speak.

The only hope for McCain in November is if the scenarios I described in Let's Get Dirty! come to pass. That is when the real fun begins!

Yes, my friends! There will be blood!

Copyright March 5th, 2008

IT'S AN OBAMA-NATION!

Many years ago, Dennis Prager said something to the effect (and I paraphrase here) "You don't vote for the candidate so much as you vote for his Rolodex." This truism is still valid today.

It is almost inevitable that Barak Hussein Obama will become the Democratic nominee for the presidency of the United States. His record is thin, at best, and his rhetoric is strong on charisma, but short on substance. We've already explored some of his ideas and their extreme Leftist philosophical underpinnings.

But what of Obama's Rolodex? Who are the folks who've most influenced him? Who would he be likely to call on for advice? Let us explore just three of his primary influences.

Frank Marshall Davis:

In his book, Dreams From My Father, Barak Obama describes a man, identified only as "Frank" who became something of a mentor to the young Obama growing up in Hawaii. Now, Obama has admitted to attending "socialist conferences", even having contact with Marxist Literature. But he poo-poohed any suggestion that he was a hardcore Marxist, as had been suggested by Alan Keyes in his Illinois senate race.

"Frank" was an old man the youth had befriended who wrote poetry and gave career advice. So just who was this "Frank"?

Cliff Kincaid, in an essay on Accuracy In Media, identifies "Frank" as one Frank Marshall Davis. For the most part, Mr. Davis was famous for his poetry and for his journalism. He'd written many books of poetry and had been an editor and reporter for many publications around the country. However, in 1951, he was identified as a member of the Communist Party USA, which was nothing but a front group for Stalin and the Soviet Union. This was from a report from the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii, so let's not bring in McCarthy here.

Obama writes glowingly of "Frank", who brought "hard earned knowledge" and advice. He also claimed to be a contemporary of other noted Communists, Richard Wright and Lanston Hughes.

Admittedly, "Frank" has been dead for twenty years. But is this the kind of influence we want in a President? Does America really need someone who belonged to a group funded and influenced by the Kremlin under Stalin?

Just asking, is all!

The Reverend Jerimiah Wright:

There have been attempts to stick Obama with being a Muslim. Both his natural and his step fathers were Muslims and he spent his early childhood in Indonesia. Indeed, his older brother, Abongo "Roy" Obama, is an Islamic Marxist in Kenya. However, it is apparent that Obama is a Christian. Although, precisely what kind of Christian we must explore.

Barak Obama belongs to the Trinity United Church of Christ, a Chicago church headed by Rev. Jerimiah Wright. If that were the whole story, there would be no essay here. However, that is far from the whole truth.

A visit to the Trinity United Church's web site offers a rather disturbing glimpse into the radical "liberation" theology that has plagued the Americas for the last half a century. Rather than focus of Christ's teachings, they use those teachings to foster a black separatist message, laced with Marxist tendencies toward wealth redistribution and "economic justice".

Once again, we have an unabashedly Marxist mentor to the would-be President of the United States. Worse, he is a separatist as well, pitting Americans against one another on the basis of skin color. And he tries to conceal this harmful worldview under the rubric of Christianity.

Tell me what's so Christian about statements such as these, all by the Rev. Wright:

• The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for almost 40 years now. It took a divestment campaign to wake the business community up concerning the South Africa issue. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community up and to wake Americans up concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.



• "In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01," "White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just `disappeared' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns."



• "Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!...We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."
  

So, it should come as no surprise that the Trinity United Church, through its Trumpet Newsmagazine, gave noted racist and antisemite Louis Farrakhan an award. The Rev. Wright had this to say about Farrakhan:

"He is one of the 20th and. 21st century giants of the African American religious experience. When Minister Farrakhan speaks, black America listens. His depth on analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye-opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest. His love for Africa and African-American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change, and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose."

It should also come as no surprise that the Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan made a pilgrimage, of sorts, to Libya for a visit with Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi. Upon their return, Col. Gaddafi make a video presentation to the Nation of Islam's Saviour's Day Convention in which he pledged to provide weapons for a black army to destroy white America.

Quite the Christians, aren't they?

Obama has rebuked Farrakhan for his antisemitic rhetoric. He has also tried to distance himself from the Rev. Wright, according to whom Obama said: "'You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public.'"

Yet, Obama is still a member of his church for more than twenty years. And he has had the Rev. Wright in his circle, behind the scenes, at least.

Oh, and lest we forget, the title of Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, was lifted right out of one of the good reverend's sermons.

Are we concerned yet?

William Ayers:

William Ayers was a violent revolutionary, a member of the Weather Underground. He has never recanted his violent militism. Nor has he paid any sort of debt to society. All charges against him were dropped, thanks to the ineptitude of the federal authorities who were searching for him throughout the 1970's.

In National Review, Jonah Goldberg notes that this quote: "Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon.” appeared in the New York Times as they published a paeon to the counter cultural guerrilla. What made that even more poignant was that this was on the morning of Sept. 11th, 2001. The New York Times also quoted Mr. Ayers about his days as a mad bomber: "''I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.''

Today, Mr. Ayers is, beyond all reasonable expectations, a distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. This, presumably, might explain many of the problems in American schools today.

It turns out that both Ayers and Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund, a charitable organization that purports to help the disadvantaged, where they served together for a number of years.

Look back to 1995. Ben Smith, of the Politico, reported that Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer had a sort of "coming out"party for her chosen successor to her seat in the state legislature. That successor was a young Barak Obama. The party was held at the home of one William C. Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, also a member of the Weather Underground.

A question for all those concerned with America's security: Doesn't a clear association with an unrepentant terrorist raise any flags of warning? Is this the sort of person we want to have access to the President of the United States?

I still believe that, at this moment anyway, Barak Obama will beat John McCain in November. However, before we elect this unreconstructed socialist and radical, we ought examine his Rolodex. So far, we've found a liberation theology pastor, an avowed Communist mentor, a Marxist Islamist brother, and a violent terrorist.

These are not the sort of folks we need running around the White House or influencing the President.

Copyright Feb. 29th, 2008

McCAIN ON THE WARPATH

Well, it finally happened. John McCain showed a bit of his famous temper yesterday. The trouble is, it wasn't against his prospective opponents among the Democrats. Once again, John McCain has demonstrated why he shouldn't even be in the Republican Party, let alone the putative nominee for the presidency.


What got McCain all in a twist were the comments of Billy Cunningham, a Conservative talk radio host who was doing the warm-up for a McCain rally in Cincinnati, Oh. Apparently, Mr. Cunningham's remarks were so beyond the pale that Senator McCain made a special point to repudiate those remarks. He then went on to apologize that they were made at his rally. USA Today quotes the GOP front runner:

"I take responsibility and I repudiate what he said. I will not tolerate
anything in this campaign that denigrates either Sen. Obama or Sen.
(Hillary) Clinton."

This is all fine and dandy. It shows McCain's genteel side. It's just a shame that he can't show the same fire and outrage about the Democratic contenders that he shows for his Republican supporters. There was the famous exchange last year wherein McCain dropped the F-bomb on fellow Republican Senator John Cornyn during official Senate business. CNN's Jack Cafferty wrote an extended piece on his temper. Let's not forget that he implied that Conservative opponents to his amnesty bill for illegal aliens were racist nativists.

But enough about McCain, at least for the moment. What did Billy Cunningham say that deserved such ire? What did he do at that rally that so embarrassed John McCain?

Well, he made several pointed comments regarding the front runner for the Democratic nomination: Barak Hussein Obama and the coverage of his campaign in the Legacy Media. From the USA Today story:

• [sooner or later, the media would begin covering Obama's] "sweetheart deals in Chicago and the illegal loans he got in Chicago."


• He also called Obama a "hack Chicago-style Daley politican"


• He described an Obama administration as "the great prophet from Chicago takes the stand and the world leaders who want to kill us will simply be singing Kumbaya together around the table with Barack Obama."


• What was even worse he called Barak Hussein Obama-- not once, but twice...TWICE, I say! -- "Barak Hussein Obama".
  

These would be very serious matters in the fantasy world that the Legacy Media and John McCain live in. But here in the Real, we know that everything Billy Cunningham has said is absolutely true!

Saint Obama has yet to explain his cozy financial arrangements with the indicted Tony Rezco, other than to say it was a mistake. But just what was the mistake? What did he do to make it right? We don't know, because Obama won't say and Rezco is now lawyered up. But it is apparent that Obama received some loans from Rezco, and that Rezco didn't have that kind of money. So where did it come from?

Here's a trick question for you: Name one politician from Chicago who wasn't a "hack Chicago- style Daley politician"? Let's be real here, folks! We're talking about a town where everyone who dies is immediately registered as and votes for Democrats. The Daley's have run this town for decades, and there is little chance that this state of affairs will change in the near -- or even the distant -- future. Only New Jersey and New Orleans can come close to the corruption of Chicago. These aren't attacks on Saint Obama. These are merely statements of fact.

Oh, so why do I write "Saint" Obama? It's his supporters who claim his near divinity. Right here on BlogSpot, there's a site that asks the question "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?" Timothy Noah posts, on Slate.com a periodic item entitled "Obama Messiah Watch" which explores the possibility that Obama is the Son of God. And then, Louis Farrakan had this to say about Obama:

"This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be
made better. This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red
and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of
his words, those people are being transformed. A black man with a white
mother became a savior to us," he told the crowd of mostly followers. A
black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from
her fall."

Which now brings us to Billy Cunninghams next point about the "great prophet from Chicago etc..." What is a messiah but a "great prophet"? Isn't that what Obama's supporters are saying?

And what of Obama's foreign policy statements? He's already signed on to the idea of diplomacy, first, last, and only. He's already pledged to meet with our enemies unconditionally. And he's threatened to invade one of our allies, Pakistan.

And John McCain says "I will not tolerate anything in this campaign that denigrates either Sen. Obama or Sen. (Hillary) Clinton"? What did Billy Cunningham say that wasn't true?

Could it be that he used Barak Hussein Obama's full name, as has been done for many past presidents and presidential candidates? William Jefferson Clinton, Ronald Wilson Reagan, Richard Milhaus Nixon, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Hillary Rodham Clinton? Since when is using a candidates real middle name a faux pas?

But you have to give Billy Cunningham credit. When he found out how McCain threw him under the bus he said '"I've had it with McCain. I'm going to throw my support to Hillary Rodham Clinton."

This story is precisely the reason that John McCain won't win the election in November. He has no fire in his belly when it comes to the Democrats he is running against. He has nothing but disdain for his fellow Republicans and, when speaking of the differences between him and the Democratic contenders, he mumbles his remarks in a passionless monotone.

John McCain, in short, would have been a far better candidate for the Democrats.

Copyright Feb. 26th, 2008