Let's Rap the LHC

For your Labor Day enjoyment.

Convention Cut Back Emphasizes Katrina Lie

This very insightful and important post from the guys over at Power Line:

Earlier today, John McCain directed that the Republican National Convention be scaled back because of Hurricane Gustav. Tomorrow's program has been cut from seven to two and a half hours, with only "essential business" being conducted. Neither President Bush nor Vice-President Cheney will address the convention, as had been planned. Further, McCain announced that an airplane has been chartered to fly Gulf State delegates back to their home states so that they can...I'm not sure what, exactly. Tote sandbags, maybe.

The RNC issued a press release that says, in part:

At the direction of Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican National Convention announced substantial changes to the convention’s program and actions being taken to help with Hurricane Gustav relief efforts. On Monday, all program activities beyond the official business that must be conducted in accordance with party rules will be cancelled. Among the other actions announced today are the formation of the Affected States Working Group, the establishment of an Affected States Information Center, and the chartering of a DC-9 to transport affected delegates.

Rick Davis, campaign manager for McCain 2008, announced that the upcoming Republican National Nominating Convention is making serious revisions to the convention program and surrounding activities. Davis said, “We are deeply concerned about the safety and welfare of the residents of the Gulf State region. Our top priority is to assist those who will be affected by Hurricane Gustav. This is not a time for politics or celebration; it is a time for us to come together as Americans and assist the residents of the Gulf States.”

You'll be reassured to know that the Republican candidates will, at some point, be nominated:

Davis concluded: “At some point between Monday and Thursday evening, we will convene once again to complete the activities needed to qualify Senator McCain and Governor Palin for the ballot in all 50 states. Beyond that, all we can say is that we will monitor what is happening and make decisions about other convention business as details become available.”

So those who remain in St. Paul apparently will spend much of their time wringing their hands about Hurricane Gustav. Here's an idea: instead of the scheduled convention, the Republicans could turn the whole affair into a telethon in which delegates would man telephones and take contributions from around the country to aid hurricane victims.

This strikes me as one more step in the seemingly unstoppable Oprahization of American politics. There is no earthly connection between the RNC and Hurricane Gustav. Few delegates have anything to do with hurricane preparedness or response. The handful who do--Bobby Jindal, for example--can return to, or remain in, their home states. The rest ought to go about their business.

The RNC's press release weirdly seems to presume that voters may be outraged that the convention is going forward at all. It explains why--much as we might like to cancel the convention entirely--we just can't:

The convention program has been altered in response to the situation developing in the Gulf States region. However, the convention will still take place. According to party rules, it is necessary for the convention to proceed in order to ensure that the party is able to place its candidates’ names on the ballot in November.

On November 9, 2007, pursuant to the rules adopted at the 2004 National Republican Convention, the party issued the call for its convention. The call requires that the convention meet on Sept. 1, 2008. The session must be convened no earlier than 9 a.m. and no later than 7 p.m. Under the current party rules, this is the only method by which the party may select a candidate for President and Vice President.

This preemptive hurricane hysteria reflects, of course, the unfair beating the Bush administration took over Hurricane Katrina. Liberal reporters were worried about the ascendancy of the Republican Party, as President Bush had been elected the preceding November with more votes than had ever been cast for a Presidential candidate. As a result, reporters and editors were not above misleading and outright fabricated reports of events in New Orleans, as long as such reports could be twisted to reflect badly on the Bush administration.

When, in the following days and weeks, it developed that much of what television networks and newspapers had reported about Katrina was false, there was no investigation into the sources of this journalistic malpractice. Rather, the facts were quietly buried and the myth of Bush indifference lives on.

The Republicans would be much better served to proceed with their convention as scheduled, but devote some prime time to revisiting Katrina and rebutting the false claims that have circulated for the last three years.

You know you cain't vote for her without voting for McCain too

H/T: Angry White Boy

Sarah Palin - Reaganite Conservative

Lisa Schiffren at City Journal provides this insight on McCain's Veep pick:

By putting the relatively unknown governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, on his presidential ticket, John McCain has demonstrated that rarest of all political qualities: willingness to take a real risk on a serious new venture with great potential. It’s a sign of confidence, not desperation.

If the response from the conservative base is any indication, McCain has hit a home run with the Palin selection. A sullen GOP, set to vote reluctantly, if at all, for the “maverick” (some say unprincipled) senator from Arizona, has suddenly become electrified. In the first 36 hours after McCain announced his pick, $7 million in new contributions poured in online. This isn’t because Palin is making history as the first woman on a GOP ticket. It’s because of the type of woman and politician that she is. She’s a normal person, a mother and wife, who entered politics in 1992 by running for city council in Wasilla, Alaska to oppose tax hikes. She became mayor and swept a bunch of cronies out of the bureaucracy. She ran for, and lost, a race for lieutenant governor. She served on the state’s Oil and Gas Commission, where she went after the corrupt state GOP chairman, who had taken money from oil companies. In 2006, she ran for governor and won, after first beating the Republican incumbent for the nomination.

Throughout, she hewed to a few clear principles. She championed fiscal responsibility, cutting pork in the form of capital projects as well as larger symbols of waste, such as the infamous “bridge to nowhere” sponsored by Republican senator Ted Stevens. In a state that has been awash in oil money and political corruption, she also demanded real ethical standards and sent people who didn’t meet them to jail, never hesitating to challenge Republicans who were corrupt or ineffective. And she was pro-development, supporting drilling in ANWR; for that matter, she has dealt extensively with the tricky energy issues that have become central to this year’s election, and she understands them better than anyone else on either ticket.

In summary, Palin worked her way up the political ladder, rising on talent (she’s likable and a good speaker) and incremental achievement. She didn’t marry into power, and no one handed her anything. This is what conservatives say they want in female and minority candidates for high office. Further, she’s a reformer and a Washington outsider in a year when, as Republicans know, their own party is part of the problem. She represents real “change,” to adopt a word of the moment, and for Reaganites who have been waiting for the first post-Reagan conservative generation to rise to power, Palin represents “hope” as well.

Now about that woman thing: some commentators object that Palin was chosen primarily as a sop to female voters, especially disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters. Well, of course the McCain campaign wants to entice those women to vote for the Republican ticket. Putting together coalitions is how elections are won. Women happen to be 52 percent of the electorate. Ignoring them, let alone insulting them as Barack Obama is perceived to have done, is politically foolish. Some worried that McCain would pick a token woman, such as Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas—she of the long Washington tenure, liberal Republican views, and few accomplishments (though she does look the part). Instead, he surprised many by picking Palin.

Is it irresponsible to put a half-term governor in the vice presidential slot? It depends on her record. But surely for a Washington novice, the vice presidency is more appropriate than the presidency. A half-term governor has more claim to leadership and experience than does a one-third-term U.S. senator who has risen through a big-city political machine. Palin is a woman of action, moreover, who has used her political capital at every stage to fight corruption and bad policy. It’s hard to find anyone in politics who does that; pols “save” their capital instead, as Obama has done by voting “present” on numerous occasions, lest spending it cost them something somewhere down the road. Her personal profile—raising five children, hunting, fishing, and being a real NRA member—make an appealing contrast with the overly cerebral, political calculations of those who merely hold positions and whose lives have been led in the service of their résumés.

Add to all this that Palin was a brilliant choice compared with everyone else McCain was considering. Mitt Romney, who has much impressive experience, was another rich white guy, and he bombed in the primaries. Joe Lieberman is a liberal Democrat who is sound on Iraq but on little else, from a Republican perspective. Tom Ridge is terminally boring and didn’t really succeed at the Department of Homeland Security. True, Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty is another young Reaganite conservative who should have a big future, with impressive “Sam’s Club” working-class credibility, but he lacks dazzle. Making the ticket attractive enough to pique interest is a reasonable political choice, considering that McCain can’t govern if he doesn’t get elected first.

On the Democratic side, Palin’s counterpart Joe Biden has a hard-core liberal voting record in 36 years in the Senate, during which he has helped radicalize the judiciary. True, he knows more than Palin does about foreign policy; but much of what Biden knows is wrong—he argued, for instance, that Iraq should be partitioned. As for his sounder impulses to send more troops to Iraq and to resist the temptation to withdraw prematurely, it’s important to note that the man at the top of the Democratic ticket, Obama, disagreed with both.

No vice-presidential pick is ever perfect. Presidential candidates perforce make tradeoffs among competing considerations of appeal to key constituencies, particular expertise, ability to muster electoral votes, and compensation for perceived weaknesses at the top. But Sarah Palin brings real reform credentials, authentic Reaganite conservatism, small-government values, and the pragmatic ethos of a middle-class mother of five. And she is a natural talent. It couldn’t get much better than that—not even if she were a man.

JFK, NeoCon

Monday night (8/25), Caroline Kennedy gave a speech at the Democratic Convention intended to pay tribute to two extreme leftist politicians, Barack Obama and Uncle Teddy Kennedy who supposedly "share a commitment to the timeless American ideals of justice and fairness , service and sacrifice, faith and family." These hyperbolies remind me of Obama's "Just Words" speech. She had little to say about her father that did not denegrate him: "I have never had someone inspire me the way people tell me my father inspired them - but I do now. And I know that someone who's been inspired all over again by Senator Obama."

Caroline was a few days short of six when they buried her father and lit an eternal flame to substitute for Camelot which had been snuffed out. The wonderous hindsight of history now allows us to remember the good and ignore President Kennedy's womanizing.

James Lewis wrote an article for American Thinker that reminds us that JFK was in fact the last great Democratic President who had more in common with neo-cons than he did with today's liberals.

JFK was a passionate Cold War liberal, at a time when patriotism was not yet twisted into its opposite. Jack really did earn his combat medals, unlike copycat buffoon John F. Kerry. And Jack's eldest brother Joe died fighting in World War Two.

"Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans-born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage-and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."

That was JFK's Inaugural Address. How un-Politically Correct can you get? Did he get UN permission to say that?

A neocon is a liberal mugged by reality. Well, JFK was mugged by reality in more ways than one: By the death of brother Joe, by his own experiences in combat, and by his carefully hidden ailments. JFK actually resembled today's media's Satan Made Flesh, President George W. Bush, more than any Boomer Leftie now in a position of power. Would somebody please tell them?

Martyrdom does funny things to public memory. JFK's assassination in Dallas was the first of many emotional shocks for the youthful Boomer Left. It helped to radicalize them, and it taught them to hate Dallas.

Contrary to Camelot myth, it was JFK who first beefed up US troops in Vietnam to fight Ho Chi Minh, not his hated successor Lyndon Baines Johnson. It was JFK who picked Robert MacNamara to be SecDef, and solidly backed his ideas to fight Communist insurgencies around the world. On foreign policy Kennedy ran to the right of Nixon in 1960, charging that the United States suffered from a "missile gap" in its titanic struggle with the Soviet Union. Just think --- in 1960 the Democrats were stronger on national security than Richard M. Nixon. They even tried to out-do Nixon's anti-Communism. Jack and Bobby were out to assassinate El Jefe Fidel with explosive cigars.

That's hard to fit into the legend of Camelot. Stubborn facts. Arguably JFK was not a very good Cold War leader, giving contradictory orders in the Bay of Pigs, barely managing the Cuban Missile Crisis, and spending far too much time chasing skirts when he should have been paying attention to his job.

Domestically, Kennedy ran on a tax-cut platform, simply unimaginable for today's Dems. The NASA Moon Landing program he started reflected a real passion for national greatness. No multicultural wimp, JFK.

Follow Up: Mark Perry over at Carpe Diem reminds us that in 1962 the highest marginal individual income tax rate was 91% and the highest marginal corporate tax was 52%.

What if one of us was God?

From Rodger over at Curmudgeonly & Skeptical:

Limbaugh today announced that the backdrop for Obama's acceptance speech, before 75,000 democrat cultists ...will be columns replicating a Greek temple. I am not making this up. Is it possible that the the messiah has missed the derision and scorn his haughty behavior inspires? Evidently not. A Rush caller suggested that Obama's theme would be - "What if one of us was God?" I soiled myself, because it's something that fits exactly. You know what? It could still happen.

Tomorrow night may well be the long-ago prophesied Rapture when, yeah verily, The Obamamessiah descends from the clouds to walk most self-righteously amongst the faithful at the Temple of Invesco. Whereupon he may, with favor, accept the offerings of both the quick and the dead and thence gather his sheep unto his bosom so that they might dwell in his house forever and ever amen.

I got popcorn and TiVo ready just in case.

Charlie Wilson Said What?

This from the Trail Blazer blog of the Dallas Morning News:

Charlie Wilson -- he of "Charlie Wilson's War" fame -- rallied a midday gathering of Texans Monday with a call to end the war in Iraq. The former Texas congressman said the U.S. should have kept its focus on Afghanistan and never gone into Iraq. Wilson knows something about Afghanistan. The book and movie is about his advertures arming the mujahedin against the Soviet Union.

The speech got a good response, but Wilson flubbed one line in his call for new leadership.

"We should be led by Osama bin Laden," he said, then quickly corrected himself. "I mean Obama and Biden."

McCain's policies would be "nonsense," he said. "Just like that last statement."

Possible Plot To Kill Obama

The story began emerging Sunday morning when Aurora police arrested 28-year-old Tharin Gartrell. He was driving a rented pickup truck in an erratic manner according to sources.Sources told CBS4 police found two high-powered, scoped rifles in the car along with camouflage clothing, walkie-talkies, a bulletproof vest, a spotting scope, licenses in the names of other people and methamphetamine. One of the rifles is listed as stolen from Kansas. Subsequently authorities went to the Cherry Creek Hotel to contact an associate of Gartrell's. But that man, who was wanted on numerous warrants, jumped out of a sixth floor hotel window. Law enforcement sources say the man broke an ankle in the fall and was captured moments later. Sources say he was wearing a ring with a swastika, and is thought to have ties to white supremacist organizations.
cbs4denver.com - Investigators Look Into Possible Plot To Kill Obama

Biden's Familiar Quotations

Monday, Sep. 28, 1987


It should have been the best of times, but it was the worst of times for Joseph Biden. For months it had been a truth universally acknowledged: that the Senator in want of the presidency could revive his flagging candidacy as he presided over the Robert Bork confirmation hearings. But, oh, the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Before Bork even took the witness stand, Biden learned the hard way that 1988 presidential politics has become a school for scandal. Now many believe that Biden's beleaguered candidacy has almost certainly shuffled off its mortal coil. But the defiant candidate still insists that the whole flap is "much ado about nothing."

One thing is for sure: Joe Biden has surmounted his name-recognition problem. In fact, he received more exposure last week than he may be able to bear. Serious students of public affairs probably noticed that he performed competently, but far from memorably, at the Bork hearings. But what most voters are more likely to remember was the endless TV sequences of Biden's words on the campaign trail juxtaposed with almost identical oratory coming from the mouth of Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey and British Labor Party Leader Neil Kinnock. English teachers in New Hampshire high schools were soon using Biden as the bad example in lessons on the evils of plagiarism.

What might be called the Glib Crib Crisis began when the New York Times revealed that Biden had been guilty of rhetorical shoplifting. Biden's passionate and seemingly personal closing statement in a Democratic debate in Iowa in late August had been swiped without attribution and almost word for word from a Kinnock TV commercial designed to evoke memories of the British class struggle. Where Kinnock's coal-mining ancestors worked "eight hours underground," Biden's somewhat mythical forebears "would come up after twelve hours." Biden in the past had given credit to Kinnock, but in Iowa he introduced the fiery rhetoric by deceptively claiming, "I started thinking as I was coming over here . . ." To make matters worse, Biden repeated the offense in a tape he made three days later for the National Education Association.

It was clearly folly for Biden to expropriate Kinnock's family tree as he conjured up coal-mining ancestors "who read poetry and wrote poetry and taught me how to sing verse." But hitherto, politics has been far more tolerant of borrowings from Bartlett's than of monkey business in Bimini. In fact, some of the most famous lines of modern oratory have questionable paternity. Winston Churchill's "blood, toil, tears and sweat" was inspired by John Donne; John Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you" echoed Oliver Wendell Holmes; and Ronald Reagan's 1980 debate cry, "I am paying for this microphone," was apparently lifted from a 1948 movie, State of the Union.

Why, then, has Biden become a modern-day Jean Valjean, condemned to suffer permanently for the political equivalent of stealing a loaf of bread? Biden is more than a hapless victim, since his Gatling-gun rhetoric certainly compounded the problem. Still, the Biden brouhaha illustrates the six deadly requirements for a crippling political scandal.

1) A Pre-Existing Subtext. "The basic rap against Biden," explains Democratic Pollster Geoff Garin, "is that he's a candidate of style, not substance."

2) An Awkward Revelation. The Kinnock kleptomania was particularly damaging to Biden since it underscored the prior concerns that he was a shallow vessel for other people's ideas.

3) A Maladroit Response. Top Aide Tom Donilon claimed that Biden failed to credit Kinnock because "he didn't know what he was saying. He was on autopilot."

4) The Press Piles On. Once textual fidelity became an issue, reporters found earlier cases in which Biden had failed to give proper citation to Humphrey and Robert Kennedy. By themselves these transgressions would not have been worth noting.

5) The Discovery of Youthful Folly. During his first months at Syracuse University Law School, in 1965, Biden failed a course because he wrote a paper that used five pages from a published law-review article without quotation marks or a proper footnote. Since Biden was allowed to make up the course, the revelation was front-page news only because it kept the copycat contretemps alive.

6) An Overwrought Press Conference. With a rambling and disjointed opening statement, Biden failed to reap the benefits of public confession, even though he called himself "stupid" and his actions "a mistake." Part of the problem is that he contradicted himself by also insisting that it was "ludicrous" to attribute every political idea.

Was the peculiar timing of the barrage of Biden brickbats accidental? The Des Moines Register reported that an unidentified campaign had circulated an "attack video" linking Kinnock's and Biden's rhetoric. A reporter for a Florida legal newspaper, the Miami Review, was also tipped off last week about the law school plagiarism incident and alerted a sister publication, Washington's Legal Times. In trying to confirm the information, reporters for the paper talked to a variety of Washington political insiders, including an adviser to the Richard Gephardt campaign.

Whatever the justice of the case, Biden's campaign does appear seriously wounded by the latest outbreak of the New Politics of Rectitude. Biden vowed that his campaign will continue, but barring some cleansing act of valor, he may be doomed to limp along until the chance comes to withdraw honorably from the fray. In the end, Biden may be remembered as the candidate who truly offered the voters an echo and not a choice.

Slow Joe OK with borking, dislikes swiftboating

The August 24, 1987 edition of Time reported on the upcoming Senate hearings on U. S. Supreme Court candidate Robert Bork , who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to succeed retired Justice Lewis Powell. In order to boost his flagging presidential candidacy, Joe Biden, when finished with these hearings, would add a new verb, "bork" to the English language. According to the encarta dictionary, "bork" v. (borked, borking, borked) is "block Senate confirmation of judicial candidate ...by use of sustained public disparagement. Thus began the new era of judgeship appointments whereby political leanings took precedence over judicial qualifications and scholarship.

The war of words over Bork heated up last week as Delaware Democrat Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, delivered his most forthright criticism yet of Bork. A presidential candidate who has already announced his intention to vote against Bork's confirmation, Biden told the American Bar Association convention in San Francisco that Bork might try to revoke "dozens" of the milestone Supreme Court decisions that the judge has called "lawless," "unprincipled" and "utterly specious." Said Biden: "Had he been Justice Bork during the past 30 years and had his view revailed, America would be a fundamentally different place than it is today."

Later that day former Chief Justice Warren Burger condemned Biden's plan to grill Bork during the confirmation hearings. "No judge up for nomination under any circumstances should ever be asked to commit himself on how he's going to vote on a case that's coming before the court at some future date," declared Burger.

Bork's strongest defense, appropriately, came from the White House. In his television address, Reagan cited Bork's confirmation as his first goal for the remainder of his presidency. Bork's nomination, said the President, "is being opposed by some because he practices judicial restraint. That means he won't put their opinions ahead of the law; he won't put his own opinions ahead of the law. And that's the way it should be."

Even before the hearings began, Democratic Senators had aligned against the eminately qualified, strict-constitutionalist jurist. Nonetheless, they spent two weeks disparaging Robert Bork before voting 58-42 against him. On the day of the vote, Senator Dansforth rose to defend Bork, but he too was attacked by Biden.

Senator John C. Danforth, a Missouri Republican who was a student of Judge Bork's at Yale Law School, gave a long speech on his behalf this morning, contending that opponents had distorted the nominee's record and defeated him by making the public afraid of him.

The normally soft-spoken Senator continued, his voice rising: ''What has happened to Robert Bork is wrong. The man's been trashed in our house. Some of us helped generate the trashing, others yielded to it, but all of us are accomplices.''

Senator Biden replied that Senator Danforth was making ''one heck of an indictment of your colleagues'' by suggesting that senators had not reached independent decisions on Judge Bork but had ''succumbed to raw pressure.''

Senator Biden continued: ''I have a higher opinion of the ability of my colleagues to do what's right.''

Later, in closing the debate, the Judiciary Committee chairman [Biden] said: ''This has been a great debate, a debate about fundamental principle, about how one interprets the Constitution.''

Senator Biden repeated the statement with which he opened Judge Bork's confirmation hearings last month, and which he has made a theme for the entire proceeding. ''I believe I have rights because I exist, in spite of my government, not because of my government,'' he said. ''Judge Bork believes that rights flow from the majority, through the Constitution to individuals, a notion I reject.''

After the vote, Senator Biden said that although ''I enjoy winning,'' this particular victory was ''less enjoyable than others, because we are talking about a man who had to sit home and listen to this, a fine man who just had a view of the Constitution that is out of touch with the 1980's and 1990's.''

So like all liberals, Slow Joe and The Messiah remain out-of-touch with our Constitution and the intent of our founding fathers. Biden is once again resorting to disparagement by using the term "swiftboating" in the pejorative sense that Republicans (read McCain) are smearing or lying about Democrats and Obama as happened to John Kerry (who served in Vietnam).

My preferred definiition of "swiftboating" is posted at the bottom of the information surrounding the term on Wikipedia.

The use of this term as a pejorative has caused objections from conservatives who object to the implied criticism of the Swift Vets and POWsfor Truth. At least one conservative commentator has denounced its repeated negative usage as "a hate term."

A group formed for the purpose of opposing John Murtha's reelection to Congress, Vets for the Truth, posts at its website a definition of "swiftboating" as "exposing the lies, deceit and fraud of self-glorifying public officials or candidates for office who exaggerate their military service by lying about their feats of heroism and combat wounds."

In a 2006 Veteran's Day interview, John O'Neill, spokesman for Swift Vets and POWs for Truth commented on the term's usage: "I think that's a word [swiftboating] people will use for however they want to. I have always thought that having left wingers go to bed at night, and put their little children to bed, and [saying] Be good little children or the Swiftboats will get you!... that has never particularly worried me ...

The latest John McCain Ads

Erasing Obama's Past

From Power Line:

One shadowy aspect of Barack Obama's career is his service as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where he worked closely with former terrorist Bill Ayers. The Challenge's papers are housed at the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Stanley Kurtz wanted to dig deeper into Obama's work with the Annenberg Challenge, so he contacted the Daley Library and asked for access to the extensive papers that are housed there. The library said to come and look at them.

Kurtz explains the significance of Obama's leadership of the Annenberg Challenge:

The problem of Barack Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers will not go away. Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn were terrorists for the notorious Weather Underground during the turbulent 1960s, turning fugitive when a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally exploded in a New York townhouse. Prior to that, Ayers and his cohorts succeeded in bombing the Pentagon. Ayers and Dohrn remain unrepentant for their terrorist past. Ayers was pictured in a 2001 article for Chicago magazine, stomping on an American flag, and told the New York Times just before 9/11 that the notion of the United States as a just and fair and decent place “makes me want to puke.” Although Obama actually launched his political career at an event at Ayers’s and Dohrn’s home, Obama has dismissed Ayers as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” and “not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” For his part, Ayers refuses to discuss his relationship with Obama.

Although the press has been notably lax about pursuing the matter, the full story of the Obama-Ayers relationship calls the truth of Obama’s account seriously into question. When Obama made his first run for political office, articles in both the Chicago Defender and the Hyde Park Herald featured among his qualifications his position as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a foundation where Ayers was a founder and guiding force. Obama assumed the Annenberg board chairmanship only months before his first run for office, and almost certainly received the job at the behest of Bill Ayers. During Obama’s time as Annenberg board chairman, Ayers’s own education projects received substantial funding. Indeed, during its first year, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge struggled with significant concerns about possible conflicts of interest. With a writ to aid Chicago’s public schools, the Annenberg challenge played a deeply political role in Chicago’s education wars, and as Annenberg board chairman, Obama clearly aligned himself with Ayers’s radical views on education issues. With Obama heading up the board and Ayers heading up the other key operating body of the Annenberg Challenge, the two would necessarily have had a close working relationship for years (therefore “exchanging ideas on a regular basis”). So when Ayers and Dorhn hosted that kickoff for the first Obama campaign, it was not a random happenstance, but merely further evidence of a close and ongoing political partnership.

Kurtz relates that, just as he was about to board an airplane for Chicago to review the Annenberg Challenge papers at the Daley Library, a representative of the library emailed him to say that the Annenberg Challenge collection "is closed" and that he would not be permitted to see the papers. A shifting series of explanations ensued, but the bottom line is that the library has cut off public access to the records of the Annenberg Challenge. Kurtz suspects that Ayers himself may have intervened to prevent the history of Obama's involvement in the foundation from coming to light.

The library says that there is some chance the collection may once again be opened to the public in the future, but, as Kurtz delicately puts it, there is a need "to ensure the security of these documents in the meantime." [Ed.: Maybe Obama can send Sandy Berger to make sure there's nothing missing.] It remains to be seen whether the full story of Barack Obama's involvement with Bill Ayers and the Annenberg Challenge will ever see the light of day.

Stanley Kurtz' article contains links other writings about Obama that he has written ...which are very interesting.

Transcript of Obama - Brody Interview?

Sometimes you have to take what you find on the internet with a grain of salt, but this Doug Ross @Journal posting is both entertaining and informative:

Parts of the interview faded out on my computer, but I'm pretty sure this transcript is accurate.

Q: The born-alive infant protection act, we get a lot of emails about it.

A: Let me clarify this right now. My opponents have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but they're lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have fully supported the federal bill that everybody supported... That was not the bill that was presented at the state level, which would have undermined Roe v. Wade.

Q: Well, our researchers discovered this document from March 2003, which shows the state bill was amended to be identical to the federal bill... and that you then voted to kill the amended bill, which went down to defeat 6-4 with all of the Democrats voting to kill it.

A: Uh oh. I mean, well, I have said repeatedly that... that... can I get back to you on this one?

Q; We've noticed that when you resort to the phrase "I have said repeatedly" that you're generally getting ready to change positions, waffle, fib... a few examples: the death penalty for raping a child, on supporting the surge, on the born-alive infant protection act, on respecting Hillary Clinton, on moving troops out of Iraq in 16 months, on your campaign bringing people together, on whether you respect Sen. McCain's service to his country, on accepting $1.5 million from lobbyists, well... you get the picture...

A: I have consistently stated that my glib and forthright patter should not be judged for its veracity, but its tone and tenor.

Q: Let's switch to spirituality for a moment. Your controversial church -- Trinity United -- espouses a "Black Liberation Theology", which "refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.. [the] power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal." Many theologians believe that, beyond a non-loving God, the church is nothing more than a thinly disguised form of Marxism.

A: I have said repeated-- uhm, I have consistently stated that I never heard any of these divisive statements during my seventeen years as a congregant of Trinity. I could very well have been asleep during all of the sermons, but I know for certain that none of these hateful remarks ever penetrated my cranium.

Q: One last question: what do you say to those promoting the rumors that you're the anti-Christ or a Messianic, apocalyptic figure?

A: Absolutely not true, Pat. I have, on occasion, been consumed by evil spirits such as this one -- Iblis, the thrice-damned, a second-tier demon who wanders the Earth seeking opportunities to subvert Heaven's work. But those instances are few and far between and would never, ever cloud my judgment as commander-in-chief.

Q: Well, sir, th- tha- thank you for your time. I have an urgent, er, appointment... must be going...

Obama's Reactionary Postmodernism

Barrack Obama has announced himself to be a citizen of the world in the finest sense of Jean-Francois Lyotard's theory of postmodernism which succinctly refers to the "grand, large-scale theories and philosophies of the world such as the progress of history, the knowability of everything by science, and the possibility of absolute freedom."

Victor Davis Hanson nails down the ugly aspects today's world at the Olympics and Obama's postmodern worldview on display during the Rick Warren interview at Saddleback.

Citizens of the World at the Olympics
Obama, like Socrates, announced in Berlin that he was a citizen of the world. We see many such citizens at the Olympics, but I am not sure I would wish to be counted among them.

There were the Chinese hosts, staging a Triumph of Will-like opening ceremony with Red Army soldiers, and computer-enhanced, Cecil B. DeMille backdrops. Tiny girls, some apparently with their baby teeth, were passed off as 15-year olds in the gymnastic competitions. A Newsweek or Time was not about to do an expose such a gargantuan Olympian fraud—not when journalists were muzzled or deported.

The utopian Europeans were, well, Europeans, eager to point out the pimple on the American nose, blind to the wart on their own. So the Spanish posed in group portraits with fingers pulling at their eyes, mimicking the Asian look of their Chinese hosts—just the sort of racism that they usually allege boorish Americans engage in.

Fast forward to beach volleyball. The Swiss duo, defeated by the Americans, were classic poor sports—Jan Schnider alternately whining, pouting, and bragging in the worst sort of showmanship. The French swimmers boasted, in empty fashion, of the defeat to come of the Phelps and the Americans. And so on. If we sometimes imagine that collective European utopianism and sermonizing are psychological recompense for rather self-indulgent, self-absorbed private lives, no better window exists on that than at the Olympics.

A Purpose Driven Obama on Justice Thomas
In tonight’s Rick Warren interview, I don’t know why Obama chooses to insult a Supreme Court Justice at a religious forum, but his comments that Justice Thomas was not qualified to be on the Court were revealing. Why would Obama think, given his own credentials, that he was better qualified for President than
Clarence Thomas was for the Supreme Court?

As far as working at University of Chicago Law School, the real question is how is it that Obama, without any major publications, would be qualified to teach law at Chicago? There were literally thousands of law professors who would not be hired at Chicago, even as adjuncts, who had far more impressive records of scholarship than did Barack Obama. His other comments on the Court were incoherent: Roberts gave away too much power to the executive branch—but no examples follow as evidence (especially not the FISA laws!). Scalia is bright (after all, he taught at Obama’s Chicago, we are told), but he too shouldn’t have been appointed.

More on the Warren Interview—St. Nuance
One is struck by Obama’s postmodern worldview. There are no absolutes, just nuances and contexts that preclude certainty. Evil for Obama: “A lot of evil’s been perpetuated based on the claim that we were fighting evil.” Could he be specific where we have perpetrated “a lot of evil?”

Again, the gut instinct for Obama—whether talking about our “tragic history”, or the need for more “oppression studies” or evoking our sins in front of the Germans—is always to start out with the premise of a flawed America, rather than appreciation of the vast difference between us and the alternative. Never a word here about evil abroad, or bin Laden or Dr. Zawahiri. No, instead, we need humility about that “lot of evil” perpetrated by you know whom.

Somehow he is pro-choice, but anti-abortion, for man/woman marriage, but not in the legal sense, not for merit pay, but for rewarding good teachers—all this is in the manner he was against the Russians and for them while for and against the Georgians. His mushy responses were emblematic of the therapeutic style—empathy with everyone, judgment on no-one. We may soon be back to Jimmy Carter, paralyzed how to divvy up the White House Tennis Courts among feuding subordinates. He can’t say much pro or con on abortion, other than there is an ethical and moral element to the issue. And any of you who deny that, well are just darn wrong. He is against late-term abortion— but only if the mother’s life is in danger. And so on.

After watching some of this, I don’t think Obama will be having many town hall debates with McCain. However undeniable his calm and presence, he is simply incapable of extemporizing. A written transcript of this interview would be embarrassing, since it would be largely streams of meandering—and, but that, ah, you know, that, and, with uh, uh, I don’t think, ah, ah, that, that, I think, that, that, on, on, an issue…”

The Obama Effect
When Obama is asked a question he has not prepped for, he sort of goes into the spinning-eyes mode that one used to associate with the young Dan Quayle in his first weeks on the campaign trail. He knows he should not mouth his postmodern banalities, pauses, and then says something he knows simply won’t work. The wisest three people he knows? The first, of course, is his “raise the bar”, “downright mean” America, and “no pride in America” spouse Michelle. The second? His grandmother, whom he once told American was a “typical white person,” as he exposed her supposed racism. I’ll stop there.

America’s greatest moral failure for Obama? Poverty, racism, sexism—the same old race/class/gender mantra. As someone who just minutes ago walked out of the jammed-packed Selma Wal-Mart, in the poorest sector of a rather poor Fresno County, I would say a more likely moral failure is a sort of unthinking
consumerism, where people buy things they don’t need with money they don’t have. I didn’t see poverty in the store there today, but a real poverty of the spirit, if the contents of the stuffed shopping carts are any indication.

Obama’s most gut-wrenching decision? Apparently as a state-legislator in a far left-wing district in Illinois, he opposed the war in Iraq! In fact, his “decision” had zero influence on anything other than his political livelihood in a ward of Chicago, where being anti-war was easy for a liberal politician in the Democratic Party.

Bopp Represents Anti-Obama Group

James Bopp,Jr., a Terre Haute , IN attorney specializing in campaign and election law, is representing The Real Truth About Obama, Inc before a Federal Court judge in Richmond, VA.. Bopp recently represented Fort Wayne mayoral candidate Matt Kelty in a election campaign financing hearing and was an adviser to Mitt Romney during Romney's unsuccessful bid to become the Republican presidential candidate.

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A group purporting to tell the "real truth" about Barack Obama's views on abortion wants a judge to rule it is not subject to federal election restrictions on fundraising and advertising.

The Real Truth About Obama Inc., a group formed by anti-abortion activists, is trying to establish a Web site and air radio ads. But the group's attorney says his clients fear they will be prosecuted for breaking federal rules that restrict fundraising and advertising by political action committees, or PACs.

The Richmond-based group argues it is not a PAC because it would be talking about an issue, not advocating Obama's defeat or election.

U.S. District Judge James Spencer has scheduled a Sept. 10 hearing on a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the Federal Election Commission and Justice Department from imposing the restrictions.

"The Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed that you are free to discuss the petitions of candidates on issues and how officials have voted in office without being subject to campaign finance restrictions," said the organization's attorney, James Bopp Jr. of Terre Haute, Ind.

The high court, in a 5-4 decision last year, upheld a lower court's ruling that a Wisconsin anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 election.

The Real Truth About Obama wants to post ads on its Web site and on the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity talk shows in key states during the "electioneering communication" blackout period 60 days before the general election. The ad features an "Obama-like voice" saying he would make taxpayers pay for all abortions, ensure minors' abortions are concealed from their parents, appoint more liberal Supreme Court justices and legalize the late-term procedure that abortion opponents call "partial-birth" abortion.

A spokeswoman for Obama's campaign declined to respond to the organization's proposed ad. Obama supports abortion rights.

The Axis of Oil

The Axis Of Oil

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Security: What do Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez and Islamic extremists have in common? They're funded by America's thirst for foreign oil. If drilling isn't a cure by itself, it's a start.

Wars aren't cheap, even when they go well. But Russia has plenty of money to burn on war. It's flush with Western cash because it's flush with oil and natural gas. If Putin wishes to recreate the domain of the tsars, he has the wherewithal for that grand ambition.

The resurgent Russian empire is one of the big winners in the massive wealth transfer that has taken place in recent years with rising oil prices. OPEC countries are cleaning up, too. The U.S., which consumes 24% of the world's oil while producing just 10%, is the main source of the oil powers' new riches. Not all this money goes into war, terrorism or other evils. Some is used to build over-the-top commercial real estate projects in places such as Dubai. Quite a bit finds its way back to the U.S. to finance our national debt.

The membership list of the Axis of Oil seems to include more than the normal share of bad actors. One is Putin, who might be more circumspect if his country were not so rich. Venezuela's Chavez would not be exporting revolution Castro-style if he did not have a cushion of oil wealth that, among other things, keeps his own people pacified with cheap gasoline.

Iran wouldn't be thumbing its nose so brazenly at the U.S. and Europe if it didn't export oil and occupy one side of the choke point for all oil leaving the Persian Gulf. Islamic extremism would be less of a threat if the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia had difficulty funding its global spread through madrassas and mosques.

Some oil exporters are benign, such as Canada and Mexico (America's two largest sources). But the net effect of cutting U.S. demand for foreign oil, especially from outside North America, is clearly to the upside. The move would help defund nations and movements that are sowing fear and instability, and it would make the U.S. less of an economic hostage to questionable allies and outright foes.

As to how this can be accomplished, the answer is simple: Do everything, but in a realistic order. Oil's dominance is gradually ebbing and will eventually end. But eventually is a long time, and our energy economy can't totally retool in a decade.

Down the road, there's a future powered by solar, wind, nuclear, biofuels and maybe hydrogen. In the meantime, the fastest way to boost energy security as well as slow the flow of wealth to terrorists, tinpots and would-be tsars is to drill, drill, drill wherever oil in U.S. territory may be found.

Media Reaction to Obama Nation Book

From James Taranto at WSJ's "Best of the Web":

The Incredible 'Obama Nation' Publicity Machine
Greg Sargent of the left-liberal TalkingPointsMemo.com reports on the Obama campaign's campaign against Jerome Corsi, author of "Obama Nation":

In stark contrast with the Kerry campaign in 2004, the Obama campaign is mapping out an aggressive counter-attack against the new Swift-Boat-Vet style book targeting Obama--including plans to dig more deeply into the author's past statements, plans for increased surrogate action against the book, and stepped up pressure on high-level media executives to let the Obama team have air time to rebut the charges.

National Review's Byron York counters:

With the exception of pressuring of TV executives, isn't that what the New York Times, Washington Post, and Politico are already doing? It's often said that John Kerry learned a terrible lesson in 2004: that he should have addressed the Swift Boat charges head-on, and quickly. I think it's fair to say that top media types believe the same thing about themselves: that they should have knocked down the testimony of the Swift Boat veterans before it got a chance to spread. Perhaps, they believe, things might have been different if they had taken quick action. So they're jumping this time. Obama doesn't really need to do much. It's already being done.

What's astonishing, though, is that many of the news articles rebutting the book have been so amateurishly constructed as to reinforce suspicions of media partisanship. We noted the New York Times coverage Wednesday. Here are some howlers from a later dispatch by the Associated Press's Nedra Pickler:

The book is a compilation of all the innuendo and false rumors against Obama—that he was raised a Muslim, attended a radical, black church and secretly has a "black rage" hidden beneath the surface.
In fact, Obama is a Christian who attended Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Pickler might want to dig a bit more deeply into the Trinity United Church of Christ before declaring that it is not "a radical, black church." Pickler also adds:

Corsi writes for World Net Daily, a conservative Web site whose lead headline Thursday was "Astonishing photo claims: Dead Bigfoot stored on ice."

OK, that's fun even if it's a cheap shot. But by Pickler's standards, anyone who writes for the New York Times now stands discredited.

A Washington Post piece by Eli Saslow states baselessly and in passing that "Unfit for Command," the boat book Corsi co-authored with swift-boat vet John O'Neill "was also widely disproved." An anti-Corsi Post editorial is actually more persuasive than any of these news stories, probably because editorialists are under no pressure to disguise their opinions as objective reporting.

This column has no brief for Corsi or his current book, which we have not read. What does seem clear to us, though, is that he has figured out how to leverage the media's liberal bias. All the attention he's getting can only help sell books, and the obvious bias in the critical coverage enhances Corsi's credibility, whether deservedly so or not.

Pelosi's Portfolio

And here is Michelle Malkin from over on the [NRO] homepage. I excerpt below some juicy reporting, but you should read the whole thing.

Which brings us to Madame Speaker’s 2007 financial disclosure form. Schedule III lists “Assets and ‘Unearned Income’” of between $100,001-$250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp. — Public Common Stock. Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE) is a natural gas provider founded by T. Boone Pickens. Yep, that T. Boone Pickens — former oilman turned wind-power evangelist whose ads touting a national wind campaign are now as ubiquitous as Viagra promos.

Pickens and Pelosi share the same talking points downplaying the need to drill and open up more access to American oil. Instead, the Pickens pie-in-the-sky plan proposes to replace natural gas with wind power in power generation and theoretically free up natural gas for America’s transportation needs. . . .

Naturally, the Pickens Big Wind plan is proudly endorsed by Do-Nothing Pelosi’s friends at the obstructionist Sierra Club. Through another company, Mesa Power, Pickens has committed upward of $12 billion in wind farms on the Texas panhandle. CLNE and Mesa Power are separate entities, but what benefits one piece of the Pickens puzzle benefits them all. The wind venture, as Pickens himself acknowledges, depends on permanent federal subsidies.

Pickens is banking on ‘em. And Pelosi is banking on him.

As reported on dontgomovement.com, Speaker Pelosi bought between $50,000 and $100,000 worth of stock in Pickens’ CLNE Corp. in May 2007 on the day of the initial public offering: “She, and other investors, stand to gain a substantial return on their investment if gasoline prices stay high, and municipal, state and even the Federal governments start using natural gas as their primary fuel source. If gasoline prices fall? Alternative fuels and the cost to convert fleets over to them become less and less attractive.”

CLNE also happens to be the sponsor of Proposition 10, a ballot initiative in Pelosi’s home state of California to dole out a combined $10 billion in state and federal funds for renewable energy incentives — namely, natural gas and wind.

Follow the money. . . .

Social Security is 73

An editorial from Club for Growth:

Club for Growth Statement on Social Security Anniversary
Another Year, Another Opportunity Missed

Washington – Today marks the seventy-third anniversary of the establishment of the Social Security program under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It also marks another year of missed opportunities for reform and the generation of wealth for millions of American workers.

There is no question that Social Security is going broke. Outgoing Social Security benefits to retirees are scheduled to exceed incoming taxes by 2017. The reason for this looming disaster is simple demographics. In 1945, we had 41.9 workers covering each beneficiary; today we have 3.3 workers; by 2040, we will have two workers for each beneficiary.

Rather than solve the fundamental problem, the federal government has steadily raised the level of income subject to taxes as well as the tax rate levied, thereby exacerbating the pathetic rate of return a younger worker receives on his contribution into the system. Now, politicians, including Barrack Obama, are proposing further tax increases.

“Raising taxes is like putting a band-aid on an amputated limb,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey, “as we have seen over the past seventy-three years. Tax increases do not address the fundamental structural flaws in the Social Security program; instead they eat away at America’s potential for economic growth.”

“Currently, the Social Security program gives younger workers a meager rate of return on their contributions into the system and fosters dependence on the federal government. Under a personal accounts program, workers of all income levels would have the opportunity and freedom to accumulate personal wealth to enjoy in their retirement years.”

“Opponents of personal accounts have resorted to demagoguery and scare tactics in order to convince workers that personal accounts would destroy the Social Security system. But it is these opponents who are destroying Social Security. Absent structural reforms, the current program is on a collision course with bankruptcy. Personal accounts are the country’s best hope for saving Social Security.”

Silly Senator, Corn is for Food

Mark Perry over at Carpe Diem found this reason.tv gem:

Ethanol advocates claim that the biofuel is a cheap, renewable energy source that reduces pollution and our dependence on foreign oil. It sounds too good to be true—and it is.

Ethanol, especially the corn-based variety, is bad for taxpayers, bad for consumers, bad for the environment, and horrible for the world's poor. In fact, even environmentalists are critical of ethanol subsidies these days. The ethanol craze has distorted markets and increased the price of food worldwide. The only people who still support ethanol subsidies are the ethanol producers—and politicians from both sides of the aisle. Together, they make sure the subsidies keep coming.

In a recent interview about the current food crisis, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said, "If part of our problem is that the Chinese are going to eat meat and you've got to have corn and soybeans to feed the Chinese their meat, then why isn't it just as legitimate for the Chinese to go back and eat rice as it is for us to change our policy on corn to ethanol?"

Let them eat rice? So that American taxpayers can continue to pay people to turn corn into fuel?

Silly senator, corn is for food.

Moscow's Sinister Brilliance

Victor Davis Hanson writes at NRO:
Lost amid all the controversies surrounding the Georgian tragedy is the sheer diabolic brilliance of the long-planned Russia invasion. Let us count the ways in which it is a win/win situation for Russia.

The Home Front
The long-suffering Russian people resent the loss of global influence and empire, but not necessarily the Soviet Union and its gulags that once ensured such stature. The invasion restores a sense of Russian nationalism and power to its populace without the stink of Stalinism, and is indeed cloaked as a sort of humanitarian intervention on behalf of beleaguered Ossetians.

Sinister Timing
Russia’s only worry is the United States, which currently has a lame-duck president with low approval ratings, and is exhausted after Afghanistan and Iraq. But more importantly, America’s attention is preoccupied with a presidential race, in which “world citizen” Barack Obama has mesmerized Europe as the presumptive new president and soon-to-be disciple of European soft power.

Most importantly, Putin and Medvedev have called the West’s bluff. We are sort of stuck in a time-warp of the 1990s, seemingly eons ago in which a once-earnest weak post-Soviet Russia sought Western economic help and political mentoring. But those days are long gone, and diplomacy hasn’t caught up with the new realities. Russia is flush with billions. It serves as a rallying point and arms supplier to thugs the world over that want leverage in their anti-Western agendas. For the last five years, its foreign policy can be reduced to “Whatever the United States is for, we are against.”

Apologists in the West
The Russians have sized up the moral bankruptcy of the Western Left. They know that half-a-million Europeans would turn out to damn their patron the United States for removing a dictator and fostering democracy, but not more than a half-dozen would do the same to criticize their long-time enemy from bombing a constitutional state.

Russia understands that Europe needs its natural gas, that the U.S. not only must be aware of its own oil dependency, but, more importantly, the ripples of its military on the fragility of world oil supplies, especially the effects upon China, Europe, India, and Japan. When one factors in Russian oil and gas reserves, a pipeline through Georgia, the oil dependency of potential critics of Putin, and the cash garnered by oil exports, then we understand once again that power-power is beginning to trump both its hard and soft alternatives.

Europe — both western and eastern — along with the United States and the concerned former Soviet Republics need to sit down, conference, and plot exactly how these new democracies are to maintain their independence and autonomy in the next decade. Hopefully, they will reach the Franklinesque conclusion that “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
Victor Davis Hanson has more to say, so read it all on National Review Online.

Fear and loathing … in the Democratic Party

"Captain Ed" Morrissey reports in Hot Air on the upcoming bruhaha on emails from the Hillary campaign staff:

The Atlantic plans to publish internal memos from the Hillary Clinton campaign in its September edition, and Politico reports that a campaign strategy of xenophobia didn’t come from the GOP. The Clinton campaign suggested painting Obama as un-American:

Mark Penn, the top campaign strategist for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign, advised her to portray Barack Obama as having a “limited” connection “to basic American values and culture,” according to a forthcoming article in The Atlantic.

The magazine reports Penn suggested getting much rougher with Obama in a memo on March 30, after her crucial wins in Texas and Ohio: “Does anyone believe that it is possible to win the nomination without, over these next two months, raising all these issues on him? … Won’t a single tape of [the Reverend Jeremiah] Wright going off on America with Obama sitting there be a game ender?” …

Penn, the presidential campaign’s chief strategist, wrote in a memo to Clinton excerpted in the article: “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.”

Hammering Obama on Jeremiah Wright? Looking for video of the Obamas nodding approvingly to Wright’s demagoguic tirades on race and America? It didn’t start with the Republicans at all; it started with the Clintonites. Furthermore, the Clintonites apparently agreed with Republicans in their assessment of Obama and his long-time association with anti-American radicals like Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, and Bernardine Dohrn. They concluded that Obama is “not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.”

Democrats came to that conclusion long before Republicans even worried about Obama. In March 2007, Penn warned Clinton’s team to focus on values-based voters, women, and working- to middle-class families. That strategy finally got adopted in February 2008, when it was just a little too late to help, but Penn saw Obama’s flaws very clearly even in the early stages of the race.

Some have suggested that the release of these memos during the convention will help Barack Obama by marginalizing the PUMAs in the Democratic Party. That could happen, but it seems more likely that these memos will confirm their own judgment of Obama, and help define him among centrists and independents. Having that message not just confirmed by longtime Democratic strategists but actually originated by them will lend these conclusions a great deal more credibility.

Somehow, we all wish that "All Hell" will break loose in Denver, but we know that the Dems have more political savvy than to permit a floor fight at the Convention.

Democrats are killing themselves trying to prevent Americans from using proven fuels.

Charles Krauthammer nails the energy crisis by agreeing with everybody's ideas for solving the crisis but he points out that:

...Democrats have gratuitously forfeited the issue of increased drilling for domestic oil and gas. By an overwhelming margin of two to one, Americans want to lift the moratorium preventing drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, thus unlocking vast energy resources shut down for the last 27 years.

Democrats have been adamantly opposed. They say that we cannot drill our way out of the oil crisis. Of course not. But it is equally obvious that we cannot solar or wind or biomass our way out. Does this mean that because any one measure cannot solve a problem, it needs to be rejected? Barack Obama remains opposed to new offshore drilling (although he now says he would accept a highly restricted version as part of a comprehensive package). Just last week, he claimed that if only Americans would inflate their tires properly and get regular tune-ups, “we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling.” This is bizarre. By any reasonable calculation of annual tire-inflation and tune-up savings, the Outer Continental Shelf holds nearly a hundred times as much oil. As for oil shale, also under federal moratorium, after a thousand years of driving with Obama-inflated tires and Obama-tuned engines, we would still have saved only one-fifth the oil shale available in the United States.

But forget the math. Why is this issue either/or? Who’s against properly inflated tires? Let’s start a national campaign, Cuban-style, with giant venceremos posters lining the highways. (“Inflate your tires. Victory or death!”) Why must there be a choice between encouraging conservation and increasing supply? The logical answer is obvious: Do both.

[ ... ]

On Monday, Obama outlined a major plan with mandates and immense government investment in such things as electric cars and renewables. Fine, let’s throw a few tens of billions at this and see what sticks. But success will not just require huge amounts of money. It will require equally huge amounts of time and luck.

On the other hand, drilling requires no government program, no newly created bureaucracy, no pie-in-the-sky technologies that no one has yet invented. It requires only one thing, only one act. Lift the moratorium. Private industry will do the rest. And far from draining the treasury, it will replenish it with direct taxes, and with the indirect taxes from the thousands of non-subsidized new jobs created.

Forget it, Charles ...you are making too much sense again!

"Meaningless Statements" on the Georgia-Russia War

John Hinderaker over at Power Line provides us with these insights on the reactions of our presidential candidates to the Georgia-Russia War:

Barack Obama has been criticized for acting as though he is already President. That's natural, since the actions in question have been presumptuous: the pseudo-Presidential seal, the speech in Germany, and so on. Today, one might say that John McCain is acting as though he is already President, but in a substantive and positive way. In his response to Russia's invasion of Georgia, McCain is giving us a preview of what sort of President he would be.

McCain has strongly and unequivocally come out in support of our ally Georgia, while placing the onus for the war squarely where it belongs, on Russia. In this, he has aligned himself with our most loyal European allies. Obama, on the other hand, issued the sort of vapid statement that would ingratiate him with the State Department while not requiring any distraction from his Hawaii vacation.

An interesting point, by the way: McCain is supposed to be the old guy, but Obama is the one who needs a vacation.

Here is the latest from the McCain campaign:

This afternoon I spoke, for the second time since the crisis began, with Georgian President Saakashvili. It is clear the situation is dire. Russian aggression against Georgia continues, with attacks occurring far beyond the Georgian region of South Ossetia. As casualties continue to mount, the international community must do all it can to avert further escalations.

Tensions and hostilities between Georgians and Ossetians are in no way justification for Russian troops crossing an internationally recognized border. I again call on the Government of Russia to immediately and unconditionally withdraw its forces from the territory of Georgia.

Given this threat to Euro-Atlantic security, I am pleased to see the United States, the European Union, and NATO acting together by sending a delegation to the region, in an effort to broker a cease fire. This is an important first step.

The United Nations has been prevented from taking any meaningful action by Russian objections. In view of this, I welcome the statements of democratic nations defending the sovereignty of Georgia and condemning Russian actions.

I strongly support the declaration issued by the Presidents of Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and their commitment that 'aggression against a small country in Europe will not be passed over in silence or with meaningless statements equating the victims with the victimizers.'

I doubt that the Europeans were thinking of Obama when they wrote this, but who knows? Maybe they had seen this "meaningless statement equating the victims with the victimizers" from the Obama campaign:

It’s both sides’ fault — both have been somewhat provocative with each other.

McCain's statement continues:
I share their regret that NATO's decision to withhold from Georgia a Membership Action Plan may have been viewed as a green light for aggression in the region. As they propose, a new international peacekeeping force should be created, in light of -- as they observe -- the 'obvious bankruptcy of Russian "peacekeeping operations" in its immediate neighborhood.' In addition, Finnish Foreign Minister Stubb, the Chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, has said there can be no return to the status quo in South Ossetia and that Russia cannot serve as a mediator in the South Ossetian conflict. Each of these leaders represents a country that has undergone what Georgia is now experiencing.

That last is a key point, but one that is no doubt lost on Obama and his advisers. It is often said that Obama is not ready to be President, but I don't think this is exactly right. It seems pretty obvious that Obama, given his temperament, his self-regard, his blithe ignorance of history and of the material conditions of life on this planet, will never be ready to be President. He is not ready: he is unsuited for, and inadequate to, the office.

The Obama Nation - NY Times #1 Non-Fiction Bestseller

Corsi's blockbuster expose leads charts

Jerome Corsi's blockbuster expose, "The Obama Nation," has been at the top of the best-seller charts since its release last week and now has been reported atop the New York Times best-seller list for Aug. 17, as well as occupying the No. 1 position among all political nonfiction books on Amazon.

In this thoroughly researched and documented book, THE OBAMA NATION: LEFTIST POLITICS AND THE CULT OF PERSONALITY (Threshold Editions; August 1st, 2008; $28.00), the #1 New York Times bestselling coauthor of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., explains why the extreme leftism of an Obama presidency would leave the United States weakened, diminished, and divided, and why Obama must be defeated and how he can be.

Barack Obama stepped onto the national political stage when the then-Illinois state senator addressed the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Soon after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, author Jerome Corsi began researching Obama's personal and political background.

Scrupulously sourced with more than six hundred footnotes, THE OBAMA NATION is the result of that research. By tracing Obama's career and influences from his early years in Hawaii and Indonesia, the beginnings of his political career in Chicago, his voting record in the Illinois legislature, his religious training and his adoption of Christianity through to his recent involvement in Kenyan politics, his political advisors and fund-raising associates, and his meteoric campaign for president, Jerome Corsi shows that an Obama presidency, would, in his words, be "a repeat of the failed extremist politics that have characterized and plagued Democratic Party politics since the late 1960s." In this stunning and comprehensive new book, the reader will learn about:

Obama's extensive connections with Islam and radical politics, from his father's and stepfather's Islamic backgrounds, to his Communist and socialist mentors in Hawaii and Chicago, to his long-term and close associations with former Weather Underground heroes William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn associations much closer than heretofore revealed by the press Barack and wife Michelle's twenty-year-long religious affiliation with the black-liberation theology of former Trinity United Church of Christ Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whose sermons have always been steeped in a rage first expressed by Frantz Fanon, Stokely Carmichael, and Malcolm X, a rage that Corsi shows has deep meaning for Obama.

Obama's continuing connections with Kenya, the homeland of his father, through his support for the candidacy of Raila Odinga, the radical socialist presidential contender who came to power amid Islamist violence and church burnings.

Obama's involvement in the slum-landlord empire of the Chicago political fixer Tony Rezko, who helped to bankroll Obama's initial campaigns and to purchase Barack and Michelle's dream-home property.

The background and techniques of the Obama campaign's cult of personality, including the derivation of the words "hope" and "change" Obama's far-left domestic policy, his controversial votes on abortion, his history of opposition to the Second Amendment, his determination to raise capital-gains taxes, his impractical plan to achieve universal health care, and his radical plan to tax Americans to fund a global-poverty-reduction program.

Obama's naiïve, antiwar, antinuclear foreign policy, predicated on the reduction of the military, the eradication of nuclear weapons, and an overconfidence in the power of his personality, as if belief in change alone could somehow transform international politics, achieve nuclear-weapons disarmament, and withdrawal from Iraq without adverse consequences for us, for the Iraqis, or for Israel.

Meticulously researched and documented, THE OBAMA NATION is the definitive source for information on why and how Barack Obama must be defeated not by invective and general attacks, but by detailed arguments that are well researched and fact-based.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:Jerome R. Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including the No. 1 New York Times bestseller Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. His latest bestseller was The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada. He is a senior staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.com and the author of two books on contemporary Iran: Atomic Iran and Showdown with Nuclear Iran. In his 2005 book, Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil, which he coauthored with Craig R. Smith, Dr. Corsi predicted oil prices at over $100 a barrel.

Source: The Sun News

Democrat Says Obama Running in Violation of US Election Law

From Canadian Free Press, via Curmudgeonly & Skeptical:

Barack Obama is not legally a US natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth; a law that was in effect between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, when the law was changed.

However, the new law did not preempt the former law in the cases of those born between the above listed dates when the old law was in effect.

Therefore, Senator Obama may very well be disqualified as the Democratic candidate in the upcoming Presidential campaign.

Presidential office requires the person elected to be a natural-born United States citizen if the child was not born to two US citizen parents.

US Law very clearly stipulates: “If only one parent was a US citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.”

Barack Obama’s father was not a US citizen, and Obama’s mother was only 18 when he was born, which means although she had been a US citizen for 10 years, his mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years prior to Barack Obama’s birth.

In order for her child to have been a natural-born US citizen, his mother would have had to be 21 at the time of his birth.

In essence, Mrs. Obama was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic US citizenship.

His mother would have needed to have been 16+5 = 21 years old at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen.

Barack Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office of President under current law.

At best, Barack Obama is only a naturalized US citizen.

This is an issue that must be clarified before the election.

Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President as is the case with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other information does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a US citizen for at least 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after she became age 16.

If Obama were elected President without being a natural-born US citizen, it would set precedence that would enable Governor Schwarzenegger and other naturalized US citizens to also run for President.

The above information may be presented from the floor at the Democratic National Convention, and my be the impetus of resurrecting Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Presidential campaign.

Steve Miller, is a former Las Vegas City Councilman. In 1991, the readers of the Las Vegas Review Journal voted him the “Most Effective Public Official” in Southern Nevada. Miller writes internationally syndicated columns on organized crime and political corruption for Rick Porrello’s AmericanMafia.com.