At least 13 companies receiving billions of dollars in bailout money owe more than $220 million in unpaid federal taxes, a lawmaker said Thursday.

The lawmaker, Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia and chairman of a House subcommittee overseeing the federal bailout, said two companies owed more than $100 million each.

The House Ways and Means Committee’s subcommittee on oversight discovered the unpaid taxes in a review of tax records from 23 of the companies receiving the most bailout money, Mr. Lewis said, as he opened a hearing on the issue.

“This is shameful; it is a disgrace,” he said. “We are going to get to the bottom of what is going on here.”

The subcommittee said it could not legally release the names of the companies owing taxes.

Well, why the hell NOT??

If they can identify themselves to take OUR hard earned money, they can DAMN sure reveal themselves, or have Congress do it for them. That is absurd!

And John Lewis should sure know about shameful and disgraceful conduct, after the way he plunged the knife into Hillary Clinton’s back about a thousand times (you may recall, he was one of her early supporters who sang her praises up one side and down the other. Until the Black Caucus and Jesse Jackson, Jr., on behalf of Barack Obama, told him, and a few other African American congresspeople who supported Clinton, that if they did not toe the line and support Obama, they could expect to have some heavily funded challengers come nest election season. So, he caved. Yes, he did. In the “karma sucks” department, though, he is having to face a challenger anyway because he supported Clinton in the FIRST place. Obama is just a tad vindictive, you see. Serve’s his ass right, though, for having no freakin’ integrity.

That is to say, spare me the indignation, Rep. Lewis.

Get this:

It said one recipient had almost $113 million in unpaid federal income taxes from 2005 and 2006. A second recipient owed almost $102 million dating to before 2004.

Mr. Lewis said that his panel planned to review tax records from other companies receiving federal money, but that he was unsure if it would look at every one.

Banks and other companies receiving federal money were required to sign contracts stating that they had no unpaid taxes, Mr. Lewis said. But he said the Treasury Department did not ask them to turn over their tax records.

The Internal Revenue Service, a division of the Treasury Department, said it would expect the unpaid taxes to be paid.

Oh, yeah – I’m sure Timmy Geithner is gonna get RIGHT on that!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

But here’s the thing, Rep. Lewis. Y’ALL are the ones who crafted this document WITH NO OVERSIGHT IN SIGHT. And you’re going to come back NOW and pretend outrage that these companies, who owe MILLIONS of taxes, are getting OUR tax money??? Seems to me the Congress just helped them STEAL money. Our money.

And if they had to sign a statement stating they didn’t owe taxes and took BILLIONS anyway, then why aren’t they being brought up on CRIMINAL charges? And WHY WON’T YOU REVEAL THEIR NAMES???? So much for transparency, eh, Rep. Lewis??

Oh, and get this hilarious joke:

“The I.R.S. recognizes that those entities that receive taxpayer support have a special obligation to pay their taxes,” an agency spokesman, Frank Keith, said in a statement. “And these taxpayer accounts will remain closely monitored by the I.R.S. to ensure that the full amount of taxes due are paid.”

Mr. Keith said there could be many reasons for an unpaid balance, including the possibility that a bill was being challenged.

Yeah, sure, okay – because the IRS has proved to be so competent in retrieving these high dollar taxes. Just spare me already. Now the rest of us know what Geithner and Daschle have known for a while – the IRS isn’t exactly Johnny-On-The-Spot in securing taxes from the high rollers!

And while I am talking about Tim Geithner, my favorite economist, Paul Krugman, had this piece in the NY Times, Despair Over Financial Policy. Krugman writes:

The Geithner plan has now been leaked in detail. It’s exactly the plan that was widely analyzed — and found wanting — a couple of weeks ago. The zombie ideas have won.

The Obama administration is now completely wedded to the idea that there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the financial system — that what we’re facing is the equivalent of a run on an essentially sound bank. As Tim Duy put it, there are no bad assets, only misunderstood assets. And if we get investors to understand that toxic waste is really, truly worth much more than anyone is willing to pay for it, all our problems will be solved.

To this end the plan proposes to create funds in which private investors put in a small amount of their own money, and in return get large, non-recourse loans from the taxpayer, with which to buy bad — I mean misunderstood — assets. This is supposed to lead to fair prices because the funds will engage in competitive bidding.

But it’s immediately obvious, if you think about it, that these funds will have skewed incentives. In effect, Treasury will be creating — deliberately! — the functional equivalent of Texas S&Ls in the 1980s: financial operations with very little capital but lots of government-guaranteed liabilities. For the private investors, this is an open invitation to play heads I win, tails the taxpayers lose. So sure, these investors will be ready to pay high prices for toxic waste. After all, the stuff might be worth something; and if it isn’t, that’s someone else’s problem.

Or to put it another way, Treasury has decided that what we have is nothing but a confidence problem, which it proposes to cure by creating massive moral hazard.

This plan will produce big gains for banks that didn’t actually need any help; it will, however, do little to reassure the public about banks that are seriously undercapitalized. And I fear that when the plan fails, as it almost surely will, the administration will have shot its bolt: it won’t be able to come back to Congress for a plan that might actually work.

What an awful mess.

Well, that’s the understatement of the 21st century.

I could be wrong, but didn’t people actually go to JAIL for the Texas S&L scandal??? Now Obama and Co. are actively PURSUING that strategy? What the hell is wrong with this picture???

Yes, this IS an “awful mess.” When are the grown ups going to come along and put a stop to it, I wonder? Oh, wait – WE are the grown ups, and we have to tell them enough, no more, stop giving our tax dollars to companies that can’t be bothered to pay THEIR taxes. Stop setting up plans that are identical to illegal strategies for which people have served time. Stop enabling this inept president who claims he didn’t even know what was in the Stimulus bill he signed into law, which included a provision his chief of staff and his Treasury Secretary set in place. Stop the freakin’ faux outrage, too, while you’re at it, because we aren’t buying the crap you are selling. And what you are selling is us down the river. Enough already!

1)The NYPost talks about Joe the Plumber today. It calls Obama’s “economic plan” a wealth redistribution scheme.

Obama’s plan isn’t about sinking hooks into Wall Street CEOs and other fat cats, as he usually says. Fact is, there’s not enough of them to raise the cash necessary to finance his other grand plans.

No, to do that, he’ll have to go after ambitious working-class guys like Wurzelbacher – who’s been a plumber for 15 years and is looking to better himself and his family while just maybe creating a few jobs.
————–
Heretofore, Obama has sought to paint himself as a tax-cutter – claiming he’ll slash taxes for 95 percent of Americans.

As we noted yesterday, that’s a flat-out lie – not least because nearly half of all tax filers pay no income tax at all. So how can he “cut” their taxes if they don’t pay any to begin with?

Answer: tax “credits.”
To wit, in part:
* A $1,000 “make work pay” credit.
* A $4,000 college-tuition credit.
* A $6,000 child-care credit.
* A $1,100 bump in the earned-income tax credit.

These aren’t to be income-tax deductions – which would be worthless to those who pay no income taxes.

These are to be checks from Washington – with the subsidies expected to grow to more than $1 trillion in 10 years.

That’s a massive transfer of wealth.

How does Obama justify it?

“Fairness,” he says.

But that’s an absurdly radical view of what’s “fair.”

Read the rest ->

“Fair” has nothing to do with it. But, luckily or not, depending on how you look at it (gallows humor there), our economic situation may make this “plan” go the way of Obama’s principled stands on NAFTA, FISA, etc. etc.

2)Today’s IBD has an article about Iran and a potential natural gas cartel – featuring Iran and Russia – to function somewhat like OPEC. Except a forward thinking elected official is taking steps to nullify any effect of such a gas carte. Sarah Palin.

Energy: Iran resurrected its idea of a “gas cartel” to control gas markets like oil. But even if it succeeds, the U.S. won’t be vulnerable. If you wonder why, look to the governor of Alaska.

That’s right, Gov. Sarah Palin took a powerful preemptive step in August to shield the U.S. from a coming gas cartel. Palin’s effort to create the Trans-Canada Alaska gas line — which would provide a vast new trove of natural gas each day to the U.S. — effectively nullifies the emerging gas cartel’s potential impact on America.

If OPEC strikes you as a bad group, the new cartel for natural gas, led by Russia and Iran, will be even worse.

Russia has made standoffish statements about the plan, but won’t repudiate it. “A gas OPEC is an interesting idea,” then-President Vladimir Putin declared last year. Based on Russia’s moves since, the Heritage Foundation’s Ariel Cohen believes it’s a stealth move from the Kremlin to keep buyers unperturbed as the cartel slowly forms.

He’s right. This week in Tehran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quietly drew up the organization’s charter and will take it to Moscow next week.
—————–
. . . The market is changing fast. Global trade in liquified natural gas, or LNG, which requires no pipelines, will grow sharply. The U.S. will see a 58% increase in LNG imports in just two years, according to the Energy Department.

As the U.S. uses more natural gas, Iran’s Gas Exporting Countries Forum is taking off. Instead of the tough task of controlling prices right away, the group will first gain control of reserves through state firms in 14 countries, including hostile states such as Venezuela and Bolivia.

The next step will be “cooperative” ventures to strengthen the network. The final goal is to control production.

It’s nothing but a scheme to carve up monopoly spheres of influence that can tell customers whom they can buy from. That will kill competition and create incentives for meddling. Russia, which readily cuts off gas to neighbors over political disputes, has signaled that it will keep using gas as a political weapon.
—————–
As for U.S., already fairly self-sufficient in natural gas, we will be in a more solid position to defy the coercion. Palin’s pre-emptive step to foil Ahmadinejad’s scheme is in the Alaska gas line. In an Amazonian move, Palin effectively beat back the ambitious petrotyrants 10 years early with her $40 billion, 1,715-mile gas pipeline across Canada that will bring 4.5 trillion cubic feet of gas a day — nearly one-fifth projected needs — to the lower 48 within a decade.

Almost entirely off the news radar, Palin mowed down 30 years of legislative squabbling in the Alaska statehouse and then triumphantly signed off on the pipeline in August, stating her aim was energy independence.

“Alaska should be the leader of an energy policy that gets us there,” she told IBD over the summer.

————–

Her gas line shows . . . foresight, this time aimed at neutralizing enemies that will otherwise grow in strength. Palin’s pipeline will be a critical strike for energy security against petrotyrants intent on extending their influence. It will come online at precisely the moment the gas cartel could develop into a power.

This isn’t to say petrotyrants will go away, that the U.S. won’t be in the crossfire. U.S. self-sufficiency in natural gas will be roughly equivalent to Brazil’s in oil. The South American country which sees few problems from petrotyrants in the wake of its oil independence based on its willingness to drill. The U.S. likely will have the same strength in natural gas.

Energy security is a peculiar concept. Conventional wisdom holds that the U.S. has too few resources to bother drilling. But a nation need not have massive oil reserves for independence; all it needs are competitive alternatives — such as natural gas. Heading off the gas cartel is an important move, and Palin deserves recognition.

Palin’s foresight is a major contribution to U.S. energy security that will reverberate well beyond the election, no matter how it turns out.

In a couple of years when it is clear how the economic mess will fall out and whether or not the US works to change its energy use patterns, this pipeline will probably be one of very few examples of foresight. And hopefully I’ll be around to remind MSM idiots this is the official they said couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time. That’s our press – always fighting the last war.

3)The San Diego Union-Tribune has an op-ed saying Obama’s truthfulness should be questioned.

Any day now, I expect Barack Obama to call a news conference, wag his finger to the cameras, and announce with all the sincerity he can muster: “I did not have a substantive relationship with that Weatherman, Mr. Ayers.”

Of course, the way things are going, Obama may not have to lift a finger, let alone wag one. He might be able to run out the clock and avoid comment on continuing questions involving his involvement with a Hyde Park neighbor and unrepentant domestic terrorist, William Ayers.
————–

. . . here is what the voters should care about: Obama’s truthfulness, which is now in question. Over the last few months, we’ve learned that Obama and Ayers had more than just a “flimsy” relationship that included Ayers hosting a political gathering at his home for Obama when he was running for the Illinois Senate and the two serving together on various panels and boards. Ayers was also a founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school-reform group. Obama served as chairman of its board from 1995 to ‘99, using the position to launch his political career.

Recently, Obama pulled back the curtain an inch. He told reporters that, during his association with Ayers, he had heard about the English professor’s radical past but assumed Ayers had been rehabilitated. Ayers’ ghoulish comments about not setting enough bombs suggest otherwise.

I put no stock in the politics of guilt by association. And even associating with ghouls should not hurt someone’s bid for the presidency. But lying about it is another story. It could be a warning of things to come.

Yeah. Kinda late, dude. Wish you had been there earlier. Then your op-ed might have been meaningful.

4)At the Boston Globe, another op-ed saying something quite similar. It begins by talking about other public figures who have been “guilty by association” such as Ronald Reagan (using the phrase “states’ rights” in MS). Then he goes here:

In none of these cases was there anything like the long relationship that Barack Obama had for so many years with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the incendiary, America-damning pastor he described for years as his mentor, his sounding board, and his friend. In none of them was there anything comparable to Obama’s significant involvement with William Ayers, the domestic-terrorist-turned-extremist-professor with whom Obama worked closely at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, channeling more than $100 million into radical education projects.

Nor was anything in the Reagan, Bush, or Alito episodes akin to Obama’s highly profitable relationship with Tony Rezko, the crooked Chicago businessman and political fixer who was convicted in June on multiple counts of fraud, corrupt solicitation, and money laundering. In the course of their 17-year relationship, Rezko directed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama’s political war chests; he also facilitated the Obamas’ purchase of a $1.6 million mansion by agreeing to buy the adjoining lot from the same seller.
————

But it isn’t ridiculous to question the values of a candidate whose political career got its start in the Chicago living room of violent traitors like Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, who have never expressed remorse for the brutal crimes they committed in the Weather Underground. There is nothing unfair about wondering how Obama could have worshipped for 20 years in Wright’s church, yet never objected to the fanatic pastor’s virulent messages: that AIDS was created by the US government as an instrument of genocide, that America is the “US of KKKA,” that the 9/11 slaughter was “America’s chickens coming home to roost.”

Guilt by association? Not when the associations have such deep roots or raise such troubling questions about Obama’s character and judgment. It was only in the heat of a presidential campaign that Obama finally repudiated his alliances with Ayers, Wright, and Rezko. It isn’t irresponsible to ask what those associations tell us about a man poised to be the next president of the United States. It would be irresponsible not to.

What two of these editorials now? Think some MSM are issuing these “just in case” or what? Yeah, thanks for this insight dude. Should have been around, what, oh – months ago.

5)Fox had a roundtable on the John Lewis spew and how race-baiting has worked this election cycle. Charles Krauthammer explained how it works – just as we’ve been talking about here at NQ all along.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: When John McCain runs an ad with a white woman, Paris Hilton in it, he is accused of racism. He runs an ad with Franklin Raines, the former head of Fannie Mae in it, who is African-American, and that’s racist. And then he runs an ad with William Ayers, who is a white male in it, and that’s racist.

If it weren’t so comical, these promiscuous accusations of racism, it would be tragic.

The Obama campaign has been playing the race card over and over again. Look, this is a campaign that in the primaries succeeded in painting Bill Clinton as a racist.

Now, Clinton, with all of his flaws, this is a man who throughout his career from Governor of Arkansas to president of the United States and beyond, has been a great and sincere friend of African-Americans who shared and tried to advance their aspirations. So if you can pull off a trick like that on Bill Clinton, you can pull it off on Republicans.

And look what Obama has said. He’s the one who raised the Barack Hussein Obama a year or two ago in which he said the Hussein is actually an asset and would be an asset in dealing with Muslims abroad.

He’s the one who openly said that the Republicans will say I’m black, they will say he’s scary. They will say he’s different. They will say he doesn’t look like the guy on the dollar bill.

That is Obama preemptively accusing McCain of racism, which is a scurrilous charge. Racism is a serious charge in our country, and a false accusation is doubly serious. As we saw in the Duke lacrosse case, it can destroy lives. Given our history, it ought to be used with great care.

And to accuse preemptively McCain of racism even before there is any evidence of it, and there has not been any evidence of it before or since, is scurrilous.
They say patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Accusations of racism is the last refuge of the liberal scoundrel, and it has been used again and again on the part of the Obama campaign.

You’ve got to admit, it’s been a neat trick to race-bait an entire race from start to finish AND get away with it too. Of course, Jesse Jackson already warned that electing an “AA” president (Obama’s not REALLY AA – he’s white, African and Arab) won’t come close to shutting down the “race question.” So sorry if you think this will show that America has “come a long way.” I think the Obama campaign just naturally assumed race would be his “problem” because, you know, ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACIST and so they devised a way to make it “work for him.” Cynical and not at all hopey changey. Think this will continue into an Obama admin? Stay tuned. I kind of think not.

6)Commentary has an opinion piece that reminds us of what we used to say about “questionable associations” before it became a racist thing if used to question Obama. “If you lie down with dogs, you’re going to get fleas.”

Still, in our wiser moments, we have always understood that character, broadly defined, is important to possess for those in high public office, in part because it tells us whether our leaders warrant our trust, whether their word is dependable, and whether they are responsible. And one of the best indicators of character is the people with whom you associate. This is basic, elementary-school level common sense. The odds are your parents wanted you to hang around with the “right” crowd instead of the wrong crowd because if you hung around with the latter it meant its members would be a bad influence on you, it would reflect poorly on you, and you’d probably end up getting into trouble.

What applies to 10-year-olds also applies to presidential candidates.
Over the years, Barack Obama hung around with some pretty disturbing characters, and what we’re talking about aren’t isolated incidents. It has happened with a slew of people on a range of issues. He has connected himself with domestic terrorists (William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn), with an anti-American and racist minister (Jeremiah Wright), and with corrupt people (Antoin “Tony” Rezko) and organizations (ACORN). What we see, then, is a pattern.
—————-

For those who say that these associations don’t matter, that they’re “distractions” from the more urgent problems of our time and an example of “Swift-boating,” consider this: if John McCain had sat in the pew of a pastor who was a white supremacist and launched his political career at the home of, and developed a working relationship with, a man who bombed abortion clinics or black churches and, for good measure, was unrepentant about it, McCain’s political career would be (rightly) over, and he would be (rightly) ostracized.

A political reference point may be helpful here. Senator Trent Lott was hounded out of his post as Majority Leader because of a few inappropriate comments — made in bad taste but in jest — at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party. Much of the media and the political class were outraged. Yet we have a case in which Obama has had close, intimate relations with some really unsavory folks, and we’re told it doesn’t matter one bit.

This is the crux of the “associations” argument. Obama has, throughout his life, chosen to work with, pal around with and otherwise promote and be promoted by people whose background is unsavory at best. And this pattern of behavior is not apparently relevant to people. That says a lot about him as a person, but it says more about his supporters. The bar has been lowered for him.

7)And lastly today, don’t expect to see THIS story anywhere but here today.

The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Oabama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him.”

News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.

Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.
————
He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton

So, a reporter claims he heard someone in the crowd say this. The Secret Service, no slouches when it comes to protecting US Presidents and wanna-bes, conducts an investigation and finds nada, zip, zero and nothing at all.

But the reporter “stands by his story.” Yep. That’s our media these days. And don’t look for any retractions or revisions from the national lapdogs either. Think that “reporter” was Jayson Blair?

Months ago, for the sake of my own sanity, I tried to view him with compassion and find some justification for his behavior. Perhaps his deep abandonment issues regarding both parents, coupled with having to choose between a black or white identity indicate that he has never really felt he belonged anywhere. And perhaps that is what makes him determined to fit in everywhere.

Didn’t he himself say that he is a blank slate onto whom others project their hopes or dreams? Quite the survival skill, eh?

He appears to be a man without a center, the ultimate people pleaser – charismatic, flirtatious, telling everyone what they want to hear. I have not witnessed him get upset about anything or any principle, nor has he ever been attached to any policy enough to expend any political capital on it. Unless, of course, he is being attacked, then it’s full steam ahead.

To protect his own name he will employ any and all means necessary – fair or foul. That is why his campaign has seen fit to play the race card constantly, and if that vile strategy works to deter all comers, so much the better. If it does harm to the electorate by stirring up divisiveness, racial tension or harms innocent people in the process, no matter. The ends justify the means.

For the life of me I cannot smell an underlying allegiance to any particular philosophy. How else could he meet with Israelis one day and Palestinians the next and tell each group exactly the opposite of the other – and get away with it. I still cannot figure out if he is the most radical lefty liberal or a closet Republican.

Some are under the impression he is not very smart. I disagree. I think it takes a great deal of energy and at least some intellect to so obfuscate every issue and every phrase so that we are all left scratching our heads at the end of the paragraph.

I have come to the conclusion that his halting, meandering verbal style (sans teleprompter) is a slick trick: his statements don’t come out not making sense because he is stupid. They come out not making sense because he wants it that way – so you can never define him on any issue. No, I never said that, what I really meant was…

That is why it never sounds like he is telling the truth. If you are making a true statement you don’t require fifty ers ahs ums aahs aaaaaaaaannnnd ands. What we are seeing is a man constantly trying to evade capture. If he just runs fast enough, you will never be able to pin him down.

That reeks of fear to me. As if he made one wrong decision, he would be irrevocably harmed. As Candy Crowley of CNN just reported, he will go nowhere without his teleprompter – not one mistake, Senator, not one organic or spontaneous phrase. Heaven forefend we see the real you.

Aside from his tactics, his disingenuousness, or his lack of a coherent, believable political philosophy or plan, there is an even more worrisome aspect to his persona that I find the greatest reason to not vote for him. The most dangerous thing about Senator Obama may not be that he believes in the crooked, divisive, radical people with whom he has allied himself in the past – but rather that he is just using them all just as he is using us.

But whether you believe he is driven by arrogance and ambition or a very specific endgame that yet remains hidden, I am not sure which is the more dangerous: to have a President of no philosophy or a President with a radical one? We require leadership, not someone who can be blown about with the prevailing winds. And if indeed he does have a more radical agenda, how would we ever determine it?

If he sat in Reverend Wright’s church for 20 years and never believed one horrid word that came out of Wright’s mouth, what was he doing there? You either believe the divisive rhetoric or you are just there for 20 years for political ‘street cred.’ There is no positive way he can spin himself out of that one.

Actually, he does have one overriding philosophy – and it is a through thread that holds true at all times – idol worship. He is very clear on the way he expects us to treat him. But how he is going to treat us – that’s where the waters get muddy.

Senator Obama ran to the left of Hillary to endear himself to the MoveOn.Org crowd, and once he had their votes in the primary, threw them under the bus along with his prior stances on FISA, NAFTA and public financing. He dumped them all without as much as a backward glance and then said blithely ‘I understand if it’s a deal breaker, but where else are you gonna go?’

Amidst this horrid financial crisis, Senator McCain made a bold move by offering up a mortgage restructuring plan, modeled after Hillary’s, which he gave her credit for. First Obama tried to pretend it was his. When that didn’t work, he trashed it, saying the plan will not work. Did he offer a plan of his own? No. He seems to have no concern for the good of the American people, just what gets him his own way.

In Pennsylvania, he just indicated that reforming health care and education are now in jeopardy because of the economic crisis and rescue bill. Just what he was waiting for – ‘gee, guys, I can’t do any of the other stuff I’ve been promising you either.’

When a man has no allegiance to the truth and or even to the ardent supporters who put him on the map, how can we trust that he will ever do anything he promises? The DNC doesn’t appear to have any need to hold his feet to the fire either but instead line up to be kicked in the pants and keep stumping for him.

Just ask Rep. John Lewis, who most unjustifiably played the race card on Senator Obama’s behalf even though he had previously been threatened with primary challenges by the Obama campaign, and was pressured into changing his support from Senator Clinton. Just ask General Wesley Clark who was unceremoniously thrown under the bus after taking on John McCain’s qualifications on Face the Nation. Yet Clark, too, is still out there, good soldier that he is, campaigning for this callous man.

The press treats Obama to a double standard unlike any I have ever seen. He flip flops on core Democratic principles with no consequences even from his own party in this ‘no-lose’ year for Democrats. What are they so afraid of, I wonder, that they indulge him like an angry child throwing a tantrum? Complete adulation is all he will accept. Anything else is tantamount to treason.

But live by the sword, die by the sword. If you pretend you stand for everything, ultimately you stand for nothing. His reluctance to stand for a tough vote and make a decision, his arrogance, coupled with the elusiveness that has propelled him so far in his career are precisely the things that will derail him in the end, either in November or down the road. It is impossible to look at a man for some 21 months and still have no idea who he is, unless he doesn’t want you to know.

That is not leadership I can believe in. I need to believe in more than the glory of a name. I need to believe in the person who is under it.

I ran across an interesting and entertaining item prepared by Albert J. Bernstein, Ph.D. called the Narcissistic Vampire Checklist and in closing, I thought I’d share it with you:

The smartest, most talented, all-around best person in the world test:

1. This person has achieved more than most people his or her age.

2. This person is firmly convinced that he or she is better, smarter, or more talented than other people.

3. This person loves competition, but is a poor loser.

4. This person has fantasies of doing something great or being famous, and often expects to be treated as if these fantasies had already come true.

5. This person has very little interest in what other people are thinking or feeling, unless he or she wants something from them.

6. This person is a name dropper.

7. To this person it is very important to live in the right place and associate with the right people.

8. This person takes advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals.

9. This person usually manages to be in a category by him or herself.

10. This person often feels put upon when asked to take care of his or her responsibilities to family, friends, or work group.

11. This person regularly disregards rules or expects them to be changed because he or she is in some way special.

12. This person becomes irritated when other people don’t automatically do what he or she wants them to do, even when they have a good reason for not complying.

13. This person reviews sports, art, and literature by telling you what he or she would have done instead.

14. This person thinks most criticisms of him or her are motivated by jealousy.

15. This person regards anything short of worship to be rejection.

16. This person suffers from a congenital inability to recognize his or her own mistakes. On the rare occasions that this person does recognize a mistake, even the slightest error can precipitate a major depression.

17. This person often explains why people who are better known than he or she is not really all that great.

18. This person often complains of being mistreated or misunderstood.

19. People either love or hate this person.

20. Despite this person’s overly high opinion of him or herself, he or she is really quite intelligent and talented.

SCORING: Five or more true answers qualifies the person as a narcissistic emotional vampire, though not necessarily for a diagnosis of narcissistic personality. If the person scores higher than ten, and is not a member of the royal family, be careful that you aren’t mistaken for one of the servants.

Please tell me if this reminds you of anyone?

Four events this weekend militate against this narrative, however. Indeed, two isolated events reveal that it is in fact the Obama campaign and not John McCain that is inciting violence, arson, vandalism and larceny.

I. Violent Obamabots throw fire bombs in Portland, Oregon

PORTLAND, Ore. – Authorities have arrested two men after a Molotov cocktail was thrown at a 4-foot by 8-foot campaign sign for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in a southeast Portland yard….

Witnesses said the suspects threw a Molotov cocktail at the sign and used another as a torch.

The Scruttons worried that their home could have caught on fire.

Taking their cues from the Obama campaign, Obamabots Leslie Brockette Leudtke and Kevin Carl Robinson are following in the footsteps of Bill Ayers, the terrorist who said the following on 911:

“I don’t regret setting bombs,” and added, “I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Or perhaps these fabricators of booze bombs are simply following Obama’s exhortation to his supporters to “get in the face” of those who will vote for John McCain. And what better way to do that than to emulate the terrorist who helped launch Obama’s political career in his living room in inner city Chicago?

II. Obamabots vandalize Republican headquarters in Rock Hill, South Carolina

Obama surrogate John Lewis stated the following this weekend:

“What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history,” Lewis said in a statement issued today for Politico’s Arena forum. “Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse.”

Lewis didn’t accuse McCain of imitating Wallace, but suggested there were similarities.

“George Wallace never threw a bomb,” Lewis noted. “He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.”

How did Obamabots in South Carolina respond to Lewis’s comparison of John McCain and Sarah Palin to segregationist George Wallace? I quote the Rock Hill Herald:

Vandals spray-painted the words “Republican means slavery” on the door of the York County GOP campaign headquarters overnight Friday.

Party volunteers called police after discovering the message when they arrived at the office on Rock Hill’s Oakland Avenue. The vandals also stole about 45 candidate signs from the front yard and spray-painted over a banner that carried a picture of Republican presidential nominee John McCain. Their messages included lettering and symbols sometimes used by gangs.

While Obamabots in South Carolina did not throw a bomb, they did vandalize and steal private property from those whose politics they liken to “slavery.” And this occurred just days after John Lewis compared McCain and Palin to a notorious segregationist. I guess words really do have discursive effects.

III. Obama supporter Madonna exhorts the crowd to kick Sarah Palin’s ass; a male blogger follows her command

And a misogynistic Obamabot online who clearly harbors fantasies of extreme violence against women publishes this cartoon at his blog:

IV. These fantasies of violence are also promoted by the Obama campaign. Just view these photographs from the Obamabot protest of Sarah Palin outside of the Park Hyatt Hotel in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, yesterday:

According to Michelle Obama, this race is about “role modeling.”

And she is right, for Obama’s campaign continues to incite violence and crime across the country. Larceny, vandalism, Molotov cocktails, violence against women: I guess this is change in which everyone, especially criminals, can believe.

Yesterday, we were insulted by another typical Obama Race Card ad nauseum move – a remark that nobody believed for a second didn’t originate directly from Barack Obama’s campaign.

Rep. John Lewis, a former fervent Hillary Supporter who was bulldozed by Obama to switch his loyalties as a superdelegate, did for Obama what has been done repeatedly to The One’s opposition, including Hillary Clinton: He intimidated by referring to John McCain, of all people, as George Wallace. Although he stopped short of exactly saying it, his words were unmistakably riddled with the Race Card that is so frequent whenever Barack Obama is being vetted or exposed. Because that’s really what this is about. Deflect. Reroute. Change the subject. The transparency of this intent is very obvious in Obama’s campaign response to the incident.

After the accusation was lobbed, John McCain personally responded:

McCain shot back his longstanding admiration of civil rights pioneer Lewis but said it was ridiculous to equate legitimate criticism of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and his policies with Wallace and constituted “a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events.”

John McCain also called upon Obama to personally repudiate these remarks.

But of course, The One didn’t lower himself to respond to McCain personally. Instead, his campaign sat around to allow the fire to be stoked by their threatening and hate-mongering sycophants, and responded later in the day with the following Stop revealing things I am hiding and I will stop pulling the Same Race Card I have Used Throughout My Entire Campaign to Shut People up remarks:

“Sen. Obama does not believe that John McCain or his policy criticism is in any way comparable to George Wallace or his segregationist policies,” said the campaign statement.

Sounds almost sincere, right? Right on the subject. But Obama’s real reason for turning yet another surrogate loose with the Race Card yet again becomes apparent in the rest of the typical smarmy, threatening Obama-Thug “statement”.

But John Lewis was right to condemn some of the hateful rhetoric that John McCain himself personally rebuked just last night, as well as the baseless and profoundly irresponsible charges from his own running mate that the Democratic nominee for president of the United States ‘pals around with terrorists.’

As Barack Obama has said himself, the last thing we need from either party is the kind of angry, divisive rhetoric that tears us apart at a time of crisis when we desperately need to come together. That is the kind of campaign Sen. Obama will continue to run in the weeks ahead.

Translation: Barack Obama controls the information about himself that he wants the public to know. You are treading on territory Barack Obama does not want you near. While Barack Obama deliberately keeps America divided, he will pretend we “desperately need to come together” while blocking any attempt to expose his affiliations with people who hate America, his contributions from and payouts to unsavory people which are kept from the FEC, his deliberately locked-up history, gaping holes in his life, his relationship to the current voter registration fraud, and his borderline-communist agenda–which includes quelling any dissent or attempt to expose his life or who he is. Stop turning over those rocks and we will stop using the Race Card against you. Otherwise, expect more Race-Baiting which we are so experienced at doing. In the meantime, my supporters will continue to be as angry, divisive, threatening and rude as ever– and will continue to imply there will be street riots with pitchforks and torches if we lose this election. Because…….Yes have and Yes We Can!

Yes, Barack, we truly Know about the “Kind of campaign” you have “continued” to run since Day One.

A New Campaign Charge: You Supported Clinton

In Georgia, Representative John Lewis, a prominent civil rights leader, is facing primary challenges from two black candidates who have been critical of him for backing Mrs. Clinton for months before shifting to Mr. Obama. To underscore the point, one of the challengers set up his headquarters in the same building that served as Mr. Obama’s office for the primary.

So when Jesse Jackson Jr. threatened to find someone to run against him if he didn’t endorse Obama what he really meant was that he was going to find someone to run against him because he took too long to endorse Obama. Typical thuggish behavior. These folks are into command and control. Big time.

Another New Yorker, Representative Gregory W. Meeks of Queens, faces a primary opponent who has sought to make an issue of Mr. Meeks’s support of the Clinton campaign in a district, New York’s 6th, where Mr. Obama drew nearly 56 percent of the vote.

The man seeking Mr. Meeks’s seat is Ruben Wills, 36, a former chief of staff for State Senator Shirley L. Huntley and an organizer for Mr. Obama in southeast Queens. “I was on board with Obama from Day 1,” Mr. Wills said. “Meeks had to be dragged across the line.”

Some take their thuggery to new heights. Or perhaps lows would be a more correct description. And they are concentrating that hate on one particular Congressman, Edolphus Towns of Brooklyn. They claim that black people supported Hillary because they were ashamed of being black.

To her, the reason black leaders like Mr. Towns stuck with Mrs. Clinton was obvious. “Racial self-hatred,” said Ms. Queen, who is black. “It was as if they were saying: ‘We people of color are not ready yet. We’re not ready to be in the White House.’ Self-hatred does that to you.”

For his part, Towns made his decision to support Hillary based upon normal rational thinking and a little something called loyalty. A moral quality that these Obama thugs care nothing about. They would have to have morals to appreciate it.

“I serve in the Congressional Black Caucus, and he is a member,” he said. “But Hillary Clinton represents New York State, and I’ve worked together with her on many projects.”

So where will this lead? I cannot begin to guess. Because every single day something new surfaces about these thugs and their Chicago style of politics. But one thing is for certain. They will find more creative ways to intimidate people that do not share their views. Because that is just the way they roll.

UPDATE x2: From a friend, “It just occurred to me that today is the day that the Rezko trial is supposed to start [must check that -- today IS the day, but I think it may have been delayed, also interesting]. It’s at least likely that their campaign put that out, and threw a huge tantrum to a) distract from Hillary [and her major foreign policy address today] and the issues of healthcare and trade, b) distract cables from covering Rezko. Because, you know, if it’s a slow news day, they may run a lot of Rezko. But now, the beast has been fed, and is happy.” – SusanUnPC x2

25/2008
Statement by Maggie Williams, Campaign Manager

“Enough.

“If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him [BELOW THE FOLD] wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

“This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

“We will not be distracted.”

Right on, Maggie. Do you remember this photo in the New York Times following Bhutto’s tragic assassination? And remember the reprehensible attack from Obama/Deval Patrick media/messager provider David Axelrod following Bhutto’s murder?

Obama Campaign In Disarray? Making Political Hay Out of Bhutto Assassination?
By SusanUnPC on December 27, 2007 at 4:28 PM in Clinton, Obama, Pakistan

It’s hard to believe that Barack Obama’s campaign could be in such disarray that its campaign manager, David Axelrod, would use the tragic, horrific assassination of Benazir Bhutto to take, as CNN’s anchor just said, a “swipe” at Sen. Clinton. Writes Taylor Marsh, “The Obama campaign is in a panic. Mr. Axelrod’s reprehensible statement is meant to deflect the spotlight and rescue his candidate, because as people think about the implications of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination one thing comes to mind and it isn’t the leadership experience of Barack Obama.”

Taylor quotes The Page, which reports, “David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s top strategist, told reporters after the speech that Clinton will not benefit from a renewed conversation about foreign policy in the wake of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination in Pakistan.” Clinton will not benefit? Is Axelrod so desperate he’d make a swipe like that right after Bhutto’s assassination?

In stark and relievingly somber contrast, the New York Times blog posted this new story at 1pm ET, “Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Bhutto” … READ ALL.

Then there’s what Obama goons are doing to civil rights hero John Lewis for his support of Hillary Clinton and for, so far, refusing to switch despite undue pressure:

John Lewis no longer groovy? Hutchins to oppose him
Wednesday, February 20, 2008, 02:54 PM
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The Rev. Markel Hutchins will announce today that he’s going to oppose Rep. John Lewis of Atlanta in the Democratic primary this July, saying the civil rights icon who has represented the city in Congress for two decades is un-hip.

Hutchins, who calls himself the “next generation civil rights activist,” will make his announcement at 5:30 p.m. …

Hutchins, 30, is pitching his campaign as a generational changing of the guard and himself as the youthful face of the Hip-Hop generation, with which, he said, Lewis is out of touch. The race, he said, is a choice between “the generation that started the movement to the one poised to continue it.” …

Repug-nant behavior.

Oh, and that photo that’s causing the dust-up? Drudge, who else, has it:

NOTE that Drudge constantly links to pro-Obama stories, and to anti-Clinton stories. He got the memo from Karl et al. that they want to face Obama in the fall, and he’s only too happy to oblige — including the false smear that this came from the Clinton campaign.

NOT A SINGLE pro-Hillary blogger I know would EVER post this. It is unfair to Obama, and meritless. As Maggie Williams pointed out, this is what politicians do when they visit other countries.

Even Politico.com has now admitted that they just “assumed” it came from Clinton’s campaign. If Politico had BOTHERED to check, they’d know that this was circulating all over the rightwing blogs all weekend. Memeorandum.com had a link to all the blog stories on it — all of them rightwing blogs / none of them Clinton blogs.

And please remember that it is Obama’s campaign that tried to make political hay out of attacking Hillary Clinton on the Bhutto assassination.

And it is Obama’s campaign that is strong-arming Black Caucus members, including the civil rights hero John Lewis.

1. Obama Co-Chair Jesse Jackson Jr. is THREATENING superdelegates (”Jesse Jackson Jr. Threatens Colleagues as Pandemonium Breaks Out Over Lewis“). Rep. Jackson is threatening to harm their own reelections!

   “Many of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position” in the future, he added. … (A.P./Google News)

2. Obama is buying superdelegates with his “big money reach.” A comparison:

         Obama: $694,000 (40% of his superdelegates)
         Clinton: $194,000 (12% of her superdelegates)

3. Although Obama’s campaign and the MSM have pushed the story that Rep. John Lewis, the legendary Civil Rights hero, has switched from Clinton to Obama, his staff says that that is not true. But Lewis is under unbelievable pressure, and he is the victim of vicious robo-calls (and Missouri’s Rep. Cleaver is also getting nasty pressure):
   

   [Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus] says some — such as John Lewis — have become the victims of “robo-calls.” In Lewis’ case, the calls said “very, very derogatory things about him.”

   [Cleaver says] “I had a person in my district send out a newsletter, for which I know he didn’t pay, distributed primarily in the African-American community, in which he suggested that I had been paid by Sen. Clinton to support her. I don’t know if there’s anyone who [is African American] who hasn’t taken some grief for supporting Sen. Clinton.”

For more, see Taylor’s story, in which she astutely observes:

Vote for Barack Obama, or you just might “find some young primary challenger” stepping in to take your job. It’s hard to know where to start, but considering Jesse Jackson Jr. has done this sort of race baiting before for the Obama campaign, I cannot say that I’m surprised. There is, however, something so offensive about his threat that it smacks of the same type of hierarchical control African Americans, especially John Lewis, have always fought against, only this time it’s a black man in the position of power telling people how they must use their vote or else.

Here’s more from National Public Radio, via Taylor Marsh’s “Clyburn, Superdelegates and Robo-Call Threats” — and Taylor rightfully calls this “swiftboating” (particularly the last quote below):

Cleaver says he hasn’t faced lobbying from other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, but that he and colleagues in the group, such as Jesse Jackson Jr., joke about his support of Clinton.

“We’ll go back and forth and back and forth. He says to me, ‘Cleaver, let’s say we’re at the convention in Denver and everything is all tied up and it all boils down to you, you have the last superdelegate vote. Do you want to go down in history as denying the first African American a seat in the Oval Office?’ And it’s a powerful question.

“I always answer the question by saying, ‘Loyalty trumps everything,’” including race, Cleaver says.

Cleaver notes that some members of Congress who support Clinton are experiencing threats — not from fellow members but when they return home.

They have been told that they would face opposition in their next election if they do not support Obama, and Cleaver says some — such as John Lewis — have become the victims of “robo-calls.” In Lewis’ case, the calls said “very, very derogatory things about him.”

Cleaver, too, has experienced some troubles.

“I had a person in my district send out a newsletter, for which I know he didn’t pay, distributed primarily in the African-American community, in which he suggested that I had been paid by Sen. Clinton to support her. I don’t know if there’s anyone who [is African American]

Taylor Marsh nails it:

Seeing Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri pressured by Jackson, with Cleaver’s response: “There’s nothing going on right now that would cause me to” change his support from Clinton, brought me back to growing up in Missouri. This is a state with quite a bit of history regarding race. It’s a troubled past, like much of the country. The veiled threat coming from Jackson hits that dangerous strain in Missouri politics, which few native Missourians will miss. Others beyond the Show Me state will sense it too.

Never in a million years would I vote for Hillary Clinton only because she’s a woman. She happens to be the most competent person in the field of candidates. Jackson’s suggestion that his colleagues switch their votes to vote for the African American, or face the threat of a primary challenge, is not only anti-democratic, but racist. It’s not the first time the race card has been played by the Obama campaign. They sent out a memo in South Carolina pushing it. But not until things got tight did they overtly threaten African American lawmakers directly.

It’s understandable that a lawmaker vote his constituents’ will. However, what the Obama campaign has done through Jesse Jackson Jr.’s audacious threat is make race the reason to do so. It’s a deadly decision.

Be sure to read all of Taylor’s well-vetted, highly detailed article, “Clyburn, Superdelegates and Robo-Call Threats.”

And here’s a poignant story that Rep. Cleaver tells to illustrate his point about loyalty to his chosen candidate, Sen. Clinton — for which he is being chided by many Black Caucus members — in the midst of the unbelievable pressure on him to fold and support Obama, via NPR:

Cleaver relates a story to illustrate his point.

During this year’s State of the Union speech, Cleaver was sitting with his friend and colleague, Congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee.

Cooper got up to leave temporarily and asked Cleaver to hold his seat. An African diplomat saw the empty seat and asked Cleaver if he could sit in it. Cleaver responded that he was holding the seat for someone.

When Cooper — who is white — returned, Cleaver told him, “I was holding a seat for you, but a black man came along, and I didn’t know him well, didn’t know him at all. … Should I give this seat to a black man because he’s black? Or should I hold the seat for my friend, someone who lives down the hall from me, who I work with every day?”

Cooper responded: “I get the point.’”

“For me, that’s the way life is. You don’t abandon your friends,” Cleaver says.