Oh boy, here we go. The name-calling and fear-inducing tactics used by Obama’s campaign team against anyone at odds with its lock-step ideas are at it again. This time it’s much, much worse.

It was bad enough being called a “racist” for supporting Hillary Clinton. And one who has problems with the current hastily-thought out health care plan is now referred to as a “deather” or part of a “right-wing, organized conspiracy” or a “lobbyist for the insurance companies.” But the next perilous step has just been taken—each of us is supposed to report anything “fishy” about what people are saying about health care directly to the White House.

The term “fishy” was not explicitly defined, but it can be reasonably assumed that it means anything that opposed the Obama/Congressional health care plan. See for yourselves here.

The most frightening book I ever read was George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (first published in 1949). This best-seller portrayed the oppressiveness of a regime defined by constant surveillance and consistent withdrawal of individuals’ rights. I had nightmares about “Big Brother” watching, hovering over my every move, pressing down on my daily life, forcing me to become a cog in a wheel not of my own design or influence. This book more than any other–even more so than Brave New World or We or Fahrenheit 451—haunted me.

When the year 1984 came and went, I felt relief. We were safe. It was just a book of fiction. I didn’t then realize that a time would come when technology could make this all readily possible, that privacy would be something I only used to experience, and that we are now supposed to turn in those who do not agree with The One.

We do need health care reform. We need to bring the insurance companies and Big Pharma into the realm of compassion for sick people. But, remember, I have read every page of this monstrosity now under consideration. This proposed bill is a mess—and I worry more about the devil I don’t know, especially when it wants my email address.

End Note: As this story spreads, I expect the White House will be scared back behind its dark curtain and change the message. But just know it IS true.

Good news for Michigan and Florida Democrats. You might not get cut out of the party’s messy primary voting process again in 2012.

Of course, with an incumbent Barack Obama, the Democrats’ presidential-candidate-picking process may be moot:

Assuming the rookie Great Change Agent quickly fills five dozen empty slots at Treasury, fixes the nation’s economy, creates multiple millions of jobs, reforms the country’s entire education system, makes it affordable to ever Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskilly American, creates a thriving green economy, reduces dependence on foreign oil, solves the housing crisis, keeps interest rates low, prevents inflation, avoids an Afghan quagmire, cuts taxes for 95% of Americans, screws over the other 5% and halves the national debt.

Oh, and cleanses the culture of greed and entitlement on every U.S. street including the one named Wall.

Last year’s Democratic primaries were hardfought even bitter affairs, not helped by the initial banning of the results of those important twin states, which denied Hillary Clinton two crucial albeit sneaky victories.

What the hell does THAT mean?? The only one who was SNEAKY in this process was OBAMA!! He’s the one who took his name taken off the ballot, and encouraged others to do so as well, to try and embarrass Clinton out of the win! He’s the ONLY one who campaigned in Florida, and Clinton still won in a landslide. And SHE’S the one who is sneaky? Okay - I see how they are revising history on this one. Because we can’t have anyone better than Precious, can we? Ah, yes, because EVERYONE wanted Obama, apparently - except for the majority who voted for Clinton, but let’s not allow facts to influence the storyline. Ahem.

Back to the article:

And all presided over by another former unsuccessful Democratic presidential candidate, Howard Dean.

Dean is gone now, unceremoniously dumped and denied a Cabinet job by the Obama camp, in favor of parttime chair, Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia. He”ll take over fulltime next year to earn his D.C. chops and, come 2012, probably replace aging Joe Biden as Obama’s VP who, you may remember, was a senator way back when Obama was a sixth grader. (Although keep your eyes on Missouri’s most Twittering senator.)

But watch out. CNBC announced today that Dean has signed on there as a commentator. Now, all that cable channel needs is some viewers and Dean can be heard to get even on-air.

Oh, yippee. But this is where is gets good:

The 37-member Democratic Change Commission will be headed by Sen. Claire McCaskill (who likes to Twitter) and Rep. James Clyburn, both ardent Obama backers. And Obama’s ex-campaign manager David Plouffe is also on.

The goal, Kaine says, is “to put voters first and ensure that as many people as possible can participate.” A complete list of commission members is below; scroll down or click on the “Read more” line.

The commission, which grows from a convention resolution by Obama last August, will have three goals: chop the number of superdelegates, reform the caucus system and change “the window of time” for caucuses and primaries. Should Iowa and New Hampshire be worried?

The commission’s report is due by next New Years Day.

I’m sorry, but how are the same people who created the problems we had this past Primary going to REFORM it?? You have my back-stabbing, lying, conniving representative, James Clyburn in there, the one who pushed the meme that the Clinton’s were racist. And DAVID PLOUFFE!!!! The man who orchestrated Obama’s campaign, the one in which he engaged massive caucus fraud, and the above mentioned shenanigans.

This is just great. I wonder how they are going to reform it, exactly? Abolish it completely so Precious can forever on out be the Democratic Nominee?? Having these folks on this committee is a whole lot like having the foxes guard the chicken coop. I am not expecting a whole lot of protecting our votes here since this was the tack Plouffe took during the vote controversy: What we’re interested in is a fair resolution; we don’t think it’s fair to seat them fully,” Plouffe said.

“We’re not going to support something that gives her too many delegates. We all last year played by the rules. It was only after the fact when they needed the delegates that they tried to change the rules. I don’t think you can at the 11th hour change the rules that you try to live by because it benefits you.” But Obama’s stance on the issue, like his opponent’s, has just as much to do with politics as principle; the Obama campaign clearly doesn’t want Clinton to close the delegate gap enough that she can possibly convince enough superdelegates to throw their support her way, or give her a chance to claim a victory in the popular vote.

The One was the one who was trying to change things, but the key statement is the first one, “We’re not going to support something that gives her too many delegates.” Never mind that she WON those delegates with OUR votes. And taking lawfully cast and certified votes from one candidate to give to another is so far from any sense of fairness and decency, that I cannot imagine how someone like David Plouffe is going to “reform” the nominating process. All primaries will now be caucuses with ACORN running them? All voting precincts will be staffed with ACORN members, or Obama Army personnel? Only people whose last name beings with “O” and end in “a” can run? Whatever it it, I think they just may have to remove that pesky word from title - you know the one, “Democratic.”

Here’s the rest of the gang:

Membership of the 2009 Democratic Party Commission on Change:

Co-Chairs: Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri, and Rep. James Clyburn, South Carolina.

Members: Jeremy Alters, Florida; Jeff Berman, Washington, D.C; Ashley Bliss, Georgia; State Rep. Dan Blue, North Carolina; Bill Carrick, Los Angeles; Mayor Michael Coleman, Columbus, Ohio; Jeff Forbes, Washington; Joan Garry, New Jersey; Kansas state chairman Larry Gates; Adelita Grijalva, Arizona; Rob Hampshire, Pennsylvania; Ned Helms, New Hampshire.

Also on the commission: Alexis Herman, Virginia; Tribal Chairman Ron His Horse Is Thunder, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe; Teamsters Pres. James Hoffa, Michigan; Roseanne Hope, Minnesota; Nevada state senator Steven Horsford; Suzie LeVine, Seattle; UAW CAP Director Dick Long, Michigan; Andres Lopez, Puerto Rico; Patricia Madrid, New Mexico; Debbie Marquez, Colorado; Illinois state senator Iris Martinez; Jennifer McClellan, Virginia; Montana secretary of State Linda McCulloch.

Also: Iowa attorney general Tim Miller; Minyon Moore, Washington; Sunah Park, Pennsylvania; Plouffe, Washington; Rebecca Prozan, California; James Roosevelt, Jr., Massachusetts; Rep. Linda Sanchez, California; Randi Weingarten, New York; Oregon state chair Meredith Wood Smith; Martin Yeung, South Dakota.

“(T)his is the moment that the world is waiting for.”

And Obama’s OWN claim that:

“I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.”

Wowie zowie. So, since it is pertinent, and I am sick as a dog, as we say down here in the South, I am reprinting the majority of that piece from back in July with a few slight changes. It is below.

So, YEAH, Obama is “what the world has been waiting for,” and what represents America returning to its “best Traditions” if that means an arrogant, narcissistic, sexist, thuggish, unethical, pandering, coercing, power-hungry Messiah-wannabe, then, yes - Obama is our guy!!! I must be some kind of heathen, though, because I just don’t buy it. Obama has made the classic mistake - he now believes his own Axelrovian hype. He really DOES think he is The One For Whom We Have Been Waiting!

Not long ago, I was reading a book by Kathy Reichs, a professor at UNC-Charlotte. Her books are the basis for the show, “Bones.” In this particular book, Death Du Jour, the question of cults comes up. Now her main character, Tempe Brennan, is also a professor art UNCC, a forensic anthropologist. Because of a case on which she is working, she goes to a sociology professor at UNCC (and the information in this books on cults is legitimate - it comes from another UNCC professor of Religious Studies, James Tabor). Once you read it, you will see why. Dr. Brennan’s comments will be in italics. Red, the Sociology professor’s, will be in regular typeface. Okey dokey - ready? Here we go:

“All right. What’s a cult?”

“Cults are not just groups of crazies who follow weird leaders. At least the way I use the term, they are organizations with a set of common features.” (On age 295, Red makes the point that cults can also be political parties.)

“Yes.” I leaned back in my chair.

“A cult forms around a charismatic individual who promises something. This individual professes some special knowledge. Sometimes the claim is access to ancient secrets, sometimes it’s an entirely new discovery to which he or she alone is privy. Sometimes it’s a combination of both. The leader offers to share the information with those who follow. Some leaders offer utopia. Or a way out. Just come along, follow me. I’ll make the decisions. All will be fine.”

“How does that differ from a priest or rabbi?”

“In a cult it’s this charismatic leader who eventually becomes the object of devotion; in some cases he’s actually deified. And as that happens, the leader comes to hold extraordinary control over the lives of his followers.

“Cults are totalistic, authoritarian. The leader is supreme and delegates power to very few. The leader’s morality becomes the only acceptable theology. The only acceptable behavior. And, as I said, veneration is eventually centered on him, not on supreme beings or abstract principles.

“And often there is a double set of ethics. Members are urged to be honest and loving to each other but to deceive and shun outsiders. (Emphasis mine.) Established religions tend to follow one set of rules for everybody.”

“How does a leader gain such control?”

“That’s another important element. Thought reform. Cult leaders use a variety of psychological processes to manipulate their members. Some leaders are fairly benign, but others are not and really exploit the idealism of their followers.

“The way I see it, there are two broad types of cults, both of which use thought reform. The commercially packaged ‘awareness programs’” - he gestured quotation marks - “use very intense persuasion techniques. These groups keep members by getting them to buy more and more courses.

“Then there are the cults that recruit followers for life. These groups use organized psychological and social persuasion to produce extreme attitudinal changes. As a result they come to exert enormous control over the lives of their members. They are manipulative, deceptive, and highly exploitative.”

Amy here - hmmm, let’s just guess which one I think Obama is?!?! Ahem. The discussion continues, but I thought this was significant:

“I still don’t see why anyone but a nutcase would fall for such crap.”

“Not at all.” He shook his head. “It’s not just marginal people who get sucked in. In some studies approximately two thirds of the respondents come from normal families and were demonstrating age-appropriate behavior when they entered a cult.”

“Has your research shed light on why people seek out these movements?”

“Often they don’t. These groups seek you. And as I’ve said, these leaders can be incredibly charming and persuasive.”

AMY here - the discussion continues, and then this question: “I just don’t get it, Red. How can people be so gullible?”

“It’s seductive to think that you’re elite. Chosen. Most cults teach their members that only they are enlightened and everyone else in the world is left out. Lesser in some way. It’s powerful stuff.” (Kathy Reichs, Death Du Jour, 1999, pp 295 - 300)

See what I mean?? Do you see it?!? To me it has been crystal clear. Obama has been engaging in “thought reform,” as discussed in this book, and has taken it to a massive level. For him to go to the House of Representatives as The Anointed One, elevating himself to a height neither deserved or REAL, says a lot. And it says just as much about all of the House members who clapped themselves silly. They wanted to bask in the glow of The One, they wanted to show they, too, are in his employ.

This is frightening stuff. I thought Bush was bad, but I fear Obama more. He has demonstrated time and time again that he is beholden to no person, and no position. He can dismiss even relatives with seeming ease, and change positions as quickly as the wind blows. He is a dangerous man, and his followers likewise. Not all of them, mind you, but enough of them seem to have this mentality, which is mighty scary, indeed.

What next? The Empire State Building renamed, “The Barack Obama Building?” The Rocky Mountains renamed, like they want to do in Antigua (see article about schools changing their names)? All because this man is half-African? When this becomes the standard by which we elevate people, we are starting a dangerous, dangerous precedent indeed. After the election, I wrote a piece entitled, “Judging A Man” on this very issue (I was not alone - many better writers had pieces on this topic, too). But when you have mayors claiming that Obama’s singular achievement is being bi-racial, you know we are losing the edge as a nation. Add that to the rampant level of cheating and general dishonesty by our young people, sanctioned by their parents and, too often, their teachers (the latter often take a great deal of abuse if they try to maintain standards of decency), and I despair for this country and what we are becoming.

A number of videos and comments on Youtube and elsewhere have compared the personality cult surrounding Barack Obama with Adolph Hitler, drawing parallels among other things with the way that thuggish supporters have tried to silence Obama’s opponents, the way people like the Black Panthers - in a manner similar to Hitler’s Brownshirts - tried to stop people voting, and the way the media has been manipulated in his favor, just as it was in Hitler’s day.

There have been further parallels drawn with the way Obama has got support from leading businessmen like George Soros, Warren Buffett, the owners of Google and Youtube among others, while Hitler too had support from top industrialists - like steel tycoons Alfred Krupp and Fritz Thyssen - who contributed huge amounts to Hitler’s funds and mistakenly believed that they could make Hitler dance to their tune.

Some have also drawn parallels between Obama and other charismatic leaders who led their followers to oblivion, including David Koresh of the Branch Davidian and Jim Jones of the Jonestown mass suicide. Saddam Hussein is another that springs to mind.

One thing that all these people had in common, apart from being the center of charismatic personality cults, was that they all became recklessly suicidal when things began to go wrong, and took as many people down with them as they could.

This is a prospect that I find even more disturbing than talk of Obama’s socialist leanings and his connection with unsavory people like Jeremiah Wright and terrorists like Bill Ayres.

What led to the downfall of these charismatic leaders and their followers was the idolatry surrounding them and the huge weight of expectations that rested on them.

The pressures of such idolatry and expectations can unhinge even the most well balanced and well-intentioned people. But most if not all of these people were not exactly well balanced, however persuasive they might have been with their followers.

Most if not all suffered problems of self esteem following traumatic childhoods, like Obama’s father abandoning his family, and being moved around from place to place as a child and not being able to settle.

A common result of such childhood trauma and the low self esteem it generates is a deep-seated need for approval and acclamation, and in this Obama has probably exceeded his wildest dreams. He has become an idol to millions and millions.

One of the big dangers is that the objects of such idolatry begin to believe their own hype. Even if they don’t, they almost inevitably begin to lose touch with reality.

It’s what killed Elvis Presley in the end. He became an object of worship and he couldn’t cope with it. He was after all just a simple country boy and this idolatry pushed him increasingly into a world in which he no longer had any idea of where reality began or ended.

Nobody can cope with the pressure of such idolatry, and nobody can cope with the kind of expectations Obama’s followers have heaped upon his shoulders. Like the expectations of the woman who expected Obama to pay her mortgage and her gas bills.

Now she was not alone in this. It is obvious that there are many, many people who believe that Obama is going to be the answer to all their problems. And the sad, the tragic thing is, he is not.

In a way the whole situation reminds me of the time in 1960 when the Congo region of Africa gained its independence from Belgium. The people of the Congo thought this was going to be the end of hunger and the start of prosperity for all. People teemed into the city from the countryside carrying buckets and baskets and anything else they could find to hold all the good things they expected to be given as a result of national independence. And of course they were sadly disappointed.

The totally unrealistic expectations surrounding Obama are not too far removed from the expectations ifrom the the Congo during that time, and it these unrealistic expectations that have led to some vomit-inducing hymns of praise for a man who has proved nothing so far except that he is a very skillful talker and a great manipulator of people, just as Hitler was.

Now one can understand and sympathize to some extent with the fact that to many people he represents a triumph over racism, even though some might argue that there has been reverse racism with the vast majority of black Americans voting for him even though he was the least qualified of all the candidates.

But the feelings of many Obama supporters have gone far beyond the realms of sanity or reality. For many people Obama has become a cult figure, and the history of cult figures shows they are extremely vulnerable to self-destruction.

In the past, when expectations have exceeded the reality of what is possible, the tendency has been for those in power to take reckless measures, and this is one of the dangers we face with Obama. Added to this is the fact that with no experience of government, he has no solid foundation on which to base any decisions.

I suspect that Obama may already be increasingly disturbed by the idolatry and expectations surrounding him. I wouldn’t be surprised if he holds many of his followers in contempt for the impossible things they expect of him, a man with no real training or experience to govern the most powerful nation in the world.

But there are many signs that Obama actually believes in his own hype, and that is the most frightening thing of all.

Don’t think for a moment that just because the election is over, that President-elect Obama’s Kool-Aid drunk hordes of internet volunteer/bots/thugs are going to fade away and go back to playing Doom, Sims, Dungeons and Dragons or trolling for dates on Facebook.

In fact, one of the netroots’ great gurus, none other than Joe Trippi believes the Community Organizer in Chief will harness the power of his millions of devoted on-line minions to create one of the most powerful lobbying forces ever. Frank Greve of the McClatchy newspapers writes about that here.

Oppose the President at your own peril.

Joe Trippi, the Internet politics guru whose computer geeks made Howard Dean a contender in 2004 and who went on to design Obama’s socially networked campaign machine, offers a provocative and educated guess.

Trippi predicted that Obama would use his forces, first and foremost, to intimidate congressional foes of his agenda, rally his allies and forge “one of the most powerful presidencies in American history.”

Certainly, Obama reaches the White House with the biggest, best organized, fastest-acting grass-roots army in the history of presidential campaigning.

Moreover, because his Internet operation was miles ahead of Republican John McCain’s, Obama’s liberal-to-libertarian electronic activists are in a position to dominate the new political medium much as conservative Republicans dominate talk radio.

As for political utility, many thousands of volunteers such as Hood will be deployable within hours, with great precision and at almost no cost, thanks to the campaign’s state-of-the-art information-management systems.

The president-elect’s political operatives know, for example, the ZIP codes and hence the congressional districts of each of Obama’s million most active campaigners, those who volunteered via his Web site mybarackobama.com. It’s a social network that the campaign set up to communicate needs, events and assignments to volunteers.

We have already witnessed the power of his online intimidation network. Pro-Hillary websites shut down after thousands of false spam reports from Obots, personal e-mails of bloggers reported for spam and turned off as well and of course those lovely trolls who invade every site to hijack any discussion that deviates from the Obama party line.

Several media outlets were bombarded with harassing phone calls, e-mails and protestors minutes after the devoted received “Obama action alerts” letting them know that opposition voices were soon to appear on certain programs.

Those who read here are already well aware that the candidate who promised a new kind of politics also approves of a new kind of political dissent. That is of course, no dissent at all.

It really is scary to think of how he might use that power to pursue his agenda. All the more reason that we at No Quarter must begin to organize ourselves and grow our ranks. It will be the only way to combat the power of the mob.

It’s clear to many Democrats that a radical clique has taken control of the Party. Democratic ideals once held to be sacrosanct, including freedom of speech, one person one vote, and an intolerance of sexism have been violently pushed aside for the benefit of Obama. The media drumbeat for Obama is incessant; the media has even stopped pretending to be neutral. We’re seeing the country through Alice’s Looking Glass now and everything is upside-down and backwards. In an effort to save our Party and country, many Democrats are actively working to defeat Obama.

In 1980, the last Japanese soldier of World War Two, Captain Fumio Nakahira, was discovered on Mt. Halcon, Mindoro Island, Philippines. During the previous 35 years, Captain Nakahira had survived alone, serving his Emperor and believing that the War had not yet ended. (This was 15 years after the Gilligan’s Island episode).

Captain Nakahira comes to mind when I think about the thousands of disaffected and disillusioned Democrats across the country who will not be voting for Obama. If Obama is elected despite our efforts to defeat him, it will codify for a generation the Chicago corruption, race-baiting, and misogyny practiced by Obama and his minions; tactics which caused many of to leave the Party. And Obama’s race-baiting, misogynistic thugs will say: Good riddance!

Camping out on our own private Mt. Halcons, many thousands of men and women will remain committed to the causes which brought us to the Democratic Party in the first place. We won’t stop being concerned about sexism, race relations, economic opportunity, and national security.

It’s now dawning on Republicans and independents that a creeping totalitarianism is sweeping the country. Obama’s Truth Squads use the power of the state to stifle free expression, McCain supporters are jeered in public, and Obama’s shock troops — in a form of hate speech so ugly that it can only be described as a pogrom against women — wear clothing which declares that the Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, is a “cunt.” Sexual terrorism is the new form of Left-wing Kristallnacht.

Where did this come from?

The ecstatic mania of Obama’s supporters comes from many places, and I don’t pretend to understand all of the sources. Many who support Obama are low-information liberals, do-good progressives, proud African Americans, and fed-up independents. I can’t blame these groups; the Bush Administration has been a disaster. There is, however, a core group of Obama supporters who believe that the Senator from Illinois will bring revolutionary change. And their desire for the revolution is all-consuming and any tactic is considered fair game: caucus fraud, sexism, race-baiting, voter intimidation, online smear campaigns, sexual terrorism, and voter fraud. Anything to win.

I hold Obama accountable for the tone of this campaign and the actions of his supporters. From “hoodwink and bamboozled” to his “lipstick on a pig,” Obama’s sexist double-speak and race-baiting innuendos have unleashed something very ugly into the ether. Obama has given his supporters the tacit encouragement to cross lines of acceptable discourse in order to destroy his political opponents. In the Obama world, Bill Clinton is a racist, Hillary is a bitch, Sarah Palin is a cunt, and John McCain is erratic and senile. I fully expect that an Obama Administration, like all recent Administrations, will continue in campaign mode and I expect these tactics to continue. This was the reason, to borrow a phrase, that we sought to fumigate our Party.

Like many of you, I won’t have anything to do with Obama or his party. Obama’s tactics go against the reason I was a Democrat and no pleas and no threats will force me to give up my principles. Above my computer I have postcards with the images of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy; my Hillary poster is in the corner and remains unframed.

I stole this brilliant image from Not Your Sweetie blog, illustrating a story on the smear campaign currently being waged against Palin by the Stupid Media, Obama’s surrogates, the so-called “progressives,” the Bots, and the regressive morons who compose the political party formerly known as Democrats.

They first launched baby-gate, a carnival of misogyny celebrated by world-class misogynists accusing Sarah Palin of being her son, Trig’s, grandmother. Then they trotted out Dan Quayle-gate, Barbie-gate, go go boots-gate, trooper-gate, polar bear-gate, pipeline-gate, vindictive bitch-gate, book banning-gate, racist-gate and on and on it goes. And now the Obamacans are using faux personal emails to smear Palin. Here’s the beginning of one that I received from a friend, who received it from a friend, who also received it from a friend:

This is from a Bryn Mawr college grad to her fellow alums

Dear classmates -

As an Alaskan, I am writing to give all of you some information on Sarah Palin, Senator McCain’s choice for VP. As an Alaska voter, I now more than most of you about her and, frankly, I am horrified that he picked her. The most accurate description of her is red neck….

This email is allegedly from a former Bryn Mawr graduate (read, she’s no one’s fool) sent as a heads-up to her fellow alums. In the many paragraphs that follow, the email leaves no stone unturned in its attack against Palin. The biggest giveaway that it’s a fake, besides the relentless savaging of Palin, is the claim that Biden will make a much better VP, followed by the assertion that anyone who supported Hillary should now support Barky. But this is line that cracks me up:

Palin isn’t “squeaky clean” and causes me to think there may be more issues that could come to light.

I have a few names for that light:

William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Khalid al-Mansour, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jesse Jackson Jr.

This email was followed by another:

Books Sarah Palin wanted banned in Wasilla

This was the subject line of an email from my worried sister-in-law. Based on a Time Magazine article, the email includes a list of dozens of books that Palin is said to have wanted banned from the Wasilla library:

[Former Wasilla mayor] Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. “She asked the library how she could go about banning books,” he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. “The librarian was aghast.” The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn’t be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving “full support” to the mayor.” Mary Ellen Baker resigned from her library director job in 1999.

I found a rebuttal to this smear from the comments to Conflucian garychapelhill’s very fine post “Sometimes They Write (Fake) Letters.

SimoFish, on September 5th, 2008 at 12:41 pm Said:

BTW —- the smear campaign is saying the Gov Palin wanted to ban books — but my girlfriend did all the research and guess what — IT’s NOT TRUE.

HERE’S THE RESEARCH AND e-mail she sent back to her friend.

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/09/03/republican-vp-choice-sarah-palin-tried-ban-books

http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136

hey, so i researched the link you sent me about banning books. i researched this further since I am skeptic about Time.
Time mag had BO on several covers, more than any other candidate. almost monthly. i subscribed to Time and then cancelled after seeing BO on the cover for the 10th time. and was sick of the biased reporting.

check out the first link: i found the article on gamepolitics that reports the story a whole less explosive. no details on books were ever discussed.

i went on line to the Frontiersman and other local papers in Wasilla and Alaska — no such story is depicted. I researched archives 1995- 1999. nothing in the four local and state papers.

which took me to the local board, city council post their records on their local website.
Apparently there are many inquiries, and you will see the link from the City of Wasilla, who has received several inquiries and the Mayor herself says there was no banning.

If she ever made the comment, she didn’t do anything, didn’t pursue, and not a matter of public record. if she ever made more than one comment, it would have made the papers, an ‘letter to the editor’, something. NOTHING is there.

So i don’t buy much into this story line. these are the stories that I call the “sound bites” that feed fear into people who wont’ do the research.

footnote: she is not in support of same sex marriage YET, her first Gubernatorial veto supported securing benefits for same sex partnerships for state employees

I really appreciate SimoFish’s corrective to this smear but, like me, you probably don’t have time to research and debunk each and every attack. As I was writing this, I received two more emails: one citing all the damage Palin will do to women and including the full text of Gloria Steinem’s article in the LATimes. Funny how the same people sending this email called Steinem an old hag when she wrote in favor of Hillary. And the second email contains an article by Charley James entitled “Alaskans Speak (In A Frightened Whisper): Palin Is “Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean.” Damn she’s scary! No doubt these emails will worsen and continue until Obama’s surrogates have filled every inbox in America. So, I’ve come up with the following response. Feel free to copy it and use it as your own and please include your additions in your comments:

BTW: This looks like a good clearing house on Palin rumors.

Dear friend,

I received your email with the attachment about Sarah Palin. While this report might be scary and threatening to some, to me it sounds like the same the kind of trash written about Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and even Barack Obama. However, since the Clintons are no longer in the race we can leave them out. But what I wonder is why it’s okay to say that Palin is a fundamentalist Christian but not okay to ask why Obama spent twenty years in the pews of Jeremiah Wright’s intolerant church? And why is it okay to allege that Palin wants to destroy Alaska’s wildlife but not okay to ask if Obama plans to support Hamas instead of Israel? And people can can accuse Palin of racism based on rumor and hearsay but not hold Obama accountable for playing the race card, quoting Malcolm X and accusing good people, particularly the Clintons, of racism. While I may not agree with Palin’s politics, I am unmoved by the smear campaign launched against her. Please do not send me any more political emails. While this e-mail goes to great lengths to appear to be politically correct and to be doing me a favor, it’s actually savaging someone’s reputation based on shoddy evidence or outright lies. After forty years of voting for the Democratic candidate for president, I want you to know that these sexist and hateful lies against Sarah Palin you forwarded go against the reason I am a Democrat. Therefore, under no circumstance will I be voting for Obama.

Best Regards,

So now comes this disturbing piece of news:

The Austin American-Statesman caved to pressure from the Daily Kos-Netroots Nation and pulled an article from the newspaper’s website that poked fun at the liberal convention being held in Austin last weekend.

The article, entitled Gore’s Surprise Visit Highlights Netroots Conference was published on the front page of Sunday’s paper.

It was written by feature writer, Patrick Beach–meaning the article was not a straight news piece (think Dana Milbank.)

Greg Mitchell, a writer for Editor & Publisher who blogs at the Daily Kos, attended the conference as a panel speaker.

He brought attention to the article by posting about it at Daily Kos. Mitchell says that Austin Kossacks, who claimed to know people at the American-Statesman, promised to “work their magic” on the paper.

By Monday the article was pulled from the American-Statesman’s website, with the message: “The page you’ve requested is not available.”

An editor’s note by Editor Fred Zipp was posted to the American-Statesman’s website Tuesday:

“Readers expect front-page stories to speak directly and clearly about events and issues. Eliminating the possibility of misunderstanding from our work is a critical part of our daily newsroom routine. When we communicate in a way that could be misinterpreted, we fail to meet our standards.

“Our front-page story Sunday about the Netroots Nation convention included doses of irony and exaggeration. It made assertions (that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might find herself at home politically in Beijing, for example) and characterizations (”marauding liberals” was one) meant to amuse. For many readers, we failed.

“In trying for a humorous take on the Netroots phenomenon without labeling it something other than a straightforward news story, we compromised our standards.”

Rather than re-label the story on the web version, the cowards at the American-Statesman gave in to the Kossacks and pulled the article entirely. So much for liberals’ respect for the First Amendment.

Here’s the article from the cache at the Austin American-Statesman that the DailyKos tried to quash.

Gore’s surprise visit highlights Netroots conference
Former vice president speaks at Austin convention for liberal bloggers.
By Patrick Beach

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Name-dropping Al Gore and his call for a switch to clean, renewable energy within 10 years was enough to pull whoops of approval from the 2,000 or 3,000 marauding liberals gathered for Netroots Nation at the Austin Convention Center on Saturday morning.

So when the former vice president and Nobel Prize co-winner made a surprise — and cleverly scripted — appearance during U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s talk, it looked like the conference might turn into a faint-in.

Talk that Pelosi (who is arguably so left-leaning that her parenthetical should be D-Beijing) would have a Very Special Guest had been buzzing about the conference of liberal bloggers, pols and media types since it began Thursday (it concludes today). But it wasn’t clear to attendees that something was afoot until a schedule change handed out Saturday morning indicated the speaker’s talk would last 45 minutes longer than previously indicated.

Not that Gore’s appearance was necessary to whip up the troops.

From the beginning, it was clear these people were convinced the electoral map would be repainted with a brush sopping with blue paint come November.

The believers will tell you it’s morning, that they smell the napalm. And it smells like, oh, yes, victory.

It didn’t seem to matter that the conservative and much smaller Defending the American Dream Summit — featuring syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin and Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr — was going on in Austin at the same time. That was miles from downtown, so there was little chance for a rumble.

With the current administration’s low approval rating, a charismatic presumptive Democratic nominee and a Republican opponent some in the GOP have been reluctant to even air-kiss, the energy was palpable and, like the political blogosphere, terribly self-confirming.

They went to panels about how the presidential election would be won house by house, block by block. They staged mock media interviews and critiqued themselves, and showed films (”Crawford”) and Internet videos (”Harry Potter and Dark Lord Waldemart”). They attended panels on the war, health care, online social networks, volunteer organizing and expanding the networking power of something called an “Internet.”

There was even one panel Friday featuring Princeton economics professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman (wearing, as if to galvanize stereotype, what appeared to be Birkenstocks) that was essentially about how the media weren’t liberal enough.

As they say, only in Austin.

Filmmaker Paul Stekler, who teaches film production and politics at the University of Texas, said:”As you have greater democratization (through the use of technology to distribute one’s message), you also have a greater degree of what’s called confirmation bias. We live in a very different and weird world in terms of dissemination of information right now.”

Indeed, you couldn’t find anybody who disagreed that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were “two ignoramuses,” a label hurled by Parag Mehta, the Democratic National Committee’s director of training.

Big names? Got ‘em. There was Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder of the Daily Kos political blog, who hatched the idea a few years ago to get his like-minded pals together and who, in a Friday lunchtime keynote with Harold Ford Jr., chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, seemed amazed at what the notion had unleashed.

“We’re going to keep growing; we’re going to keep pushing for an unapologetic Democratic Party,” Moulitsas said.

Then there was John Dean, the former Nixon White House counsel who has made a second career of railing against what he considers right-wing excesses the way recovering alcoholics preach against strong drink.

“I have deep fear of my former tribe, and what they might do particularly in the law,” Dean said, before going on to refer to former Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani as “Richard Nixon on crystal meth.”

It’s plinking bass in a barrel to paint liberals as overly intellectual types incapable of having fun unless reading Noam Chomsky counts, and it sure does for them. And there were a handful of colorful characters, including some men from Cedar Creek who looked like bikers and represented the Warrior Wolf Society, which they described as “a group of pagan warriors with wolf totem spirit,” and a guy in a Bush mask and clothing with prison stripes.

But for the most part, these were serious-minded people, and decorum prevailed.

When a few people had the temerity to shout at Pelosi and Gore, they got shushed as mercilessly as they would have at a Nanci Griffith concert.

The no fun thing? Maybe it’s because, as Democrats, they’re not used to having it.

The incredible imploding presidential campaigns of Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry were used as textbook examples of what not to do. As political ad man John Rowley put it, he’s been in the business for 15 years and only the last two have been good in terms of the political tide. Still, he said, “We’ve got to get ready for the day when we’re not swimming downstream.”

In other words, what a pendulum does is swing. But technology is power, and the left has been quicker to adopt it. As Gore put it Saturday morning:

“You are at the cutting edge of a new era of history. You will look back many years from now and tell your grandchildren about coming here to Austin, Texas, and about the first two meetings of Netroots Nation, and you will tell them that this was the beginning of an effort that was the start to reclaim the integrity of American democracy.”

That is exactly what Joe Trippi had in mind. It was the one-time Howard Dean campaign aide who saw, perhaps a little too early and a little too enthusiastically, the transformative power of the Web. As he walked from one place to another Friday afternoon, he got stopped every 20 feet or so by people who knew him or at least knew of his ideas. And this is what they had wrought; this is what he had predicted.

“It’s amazing,” Trippi said. “I knew it was going to happen, but I’m still blown away that it happened.”

The article is clearly over the top. It was written by a feature writer, not a political beat reporter. If complaints should take the form of a letter to the editor. That’s normal civic discourse. This is tantamount to censorship. These people at the DailyKos are a danger and a threat to dissent. They are no better than the right that they claim to abhor. Who are these people? The short answer, they are the Obama mob, his orange shirts. They are an enemy of the democratic process.

From my blog, By The Fault.

CNN’s Friday, July 11, latest masterpiece in manipulation, indicates the degree to which the obama (I refuse to ever capitalize his name) campaign is worried. Giving Hillary more continuous air coverage, in this 60 minute special, than it ever did during the vote-getting season, the network hinted that Hillary deserves some credit, after all. While they pointed out (in their version) that, although she ran a terrible campaign which got off on a failing footing - due to her “arrogant” presumption of entitlement to office (a perspective the MSM, not Senator Clinton, generated) - it’s now come to light that the Clintons hold sway with millions of voters.  

Now, isn’t that an extraordinary insight we needed ‘the world’s largest news network‘ to make clear? And that being the case, it’s time to give this she-devil her due - for, without her, it appears their Golden Boy might fall short of their mutual aims. While the same evidently illiterate geniuses at work continue to blur all distinctions between Hillary’s platforms and Barack’s, they and obama’s conjoined Corporate cause has begun, at last, to realize his polling results are shakier, week by week, and that will not serve. A strategic new spin is, thus, demanded. 

And this one, as demonstrated by Andersen Cooper and friends, requires due deference to the more qualified Clinton, her unswerving supporters and even (however demeaning to acknowledge) her husband, with his record of salvaging our Republic from the ravages of the first Bush. We really should give MSM credit due. It musn’t be easy to stoop to inviting back two genuine, intelligent Hillary supporters (not the backstabbers they usually prefer to include). Next, think of the editing gymnastics involved in juxtaposing these candid commentaries on the Clintons’ undying merits with enough punctuating invalidations by network anti-Clintons to convey their  real message. It goes something like this: 

“What’s wrong with you people! We’ve been carefully applying our favorite technique- namely, to mesmerize all viewers with hourly repetitions of the same contrived ‘facts’ we want the public to believe- against their own best interests. How many times do we have to tell you that this campaign is over?! This is getting taxing (not on corporations, of course.)” 

“Time for the ole bait and switch sales pitch. Hillary is soooo great, she ought to be a lifetime achievement leader in the Senate. (After all, somebody’s got to actually work on the issues.) Or, just imagine - she could be Governor of the great state of New York. Just picture her, even, on the Supreme Court in one of those cool black robes. And, if there are any out there who don’t think Hillary deserves such authority (since we’ve been saying otherwise for months on end), for you, here’s our stylish twenty-something female AA probama ‘expert’ who even agrees any of the above should do nicely.  Finally, we’ll throw in our standard line-up of patriarchal women haters to remind you all - if you’re not over your emotional outburst yet, we guarantee by November, you won’t even remember what brought it on!” 

“Lastly, if we must, (and this segment issued, no doubt, ondirective of Axelrod/Hitler himself) we will cast her gaze and your own toward the Vice Presidency. Think of what a Hillary Vice Presidency could do for the country. Breathe a sigh of relief knowing, that if she can only follow him around closely, twenty-four/seven, our nation and the world might stand a better chance of surviving his lack of leadership skills. However, as spokemen for obama’s campaign (even as grossly overpaid as we are) we aren’t in a position of being held to this offer. If it comes, it could only be bestowed by the Messiah himself. And we’re sure you understand, he won’t even offer unless he is certain of an acceptance. Not by Hillary, for that’s a given, but by her voters. We now extend the possibility of this time-limited offer and highly recommend you accept it, before it is off the table. Should you refuse, we will naturally never acknowledge any commitment was given nor implied. In the meantime, we’ll dangle it as the latest worm on our hook and see what impact it has on the next set of polls before deciding whether to pursue it further. .  . . . and now back to our commercials for other useless, shoddy products you don’t really need or want.” 

The momentuously multiplying Just Say No Deal members,who just raised millions in a few weeks, may be asking:Won’t they ever get it? We are not buying. Free shipping, vote pandering, issue-switching and globally expanding publicity aside. This is not a product we want in our White House. Not even with the finest of window dressing. Not even with internationally televised speeches, given in historic settings after weeks of plagiarized compilation and rehearsal. Not even if mobama learns to speak French in a whisper and wear Jackie Kennedy costumes day and night for eight years running. Not even if secret new technologies send night-long near-silent subliminal signals, via our sleeping computers: “It’s over, it’s over, buy now or be sorry later.”   

Our answer will remain the same (in paraphrase of the wonderful witch from “Wicked”)  “Whose to say we’ve been changed for the better? We only know we’ve been changed for good!”  We are and shall  remain . . . in one voice . . .nobama, noway, nohow.  

Ain’t it funny how Will Bower can say more worth saying in a matter of moments on Fox than all Humpty Dumpty’s men can manage in a full hour on CNN?!    

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3Cv8CVjQTc[/youtube] 

Published at Unity in Diversity. 

I’ve been touched by the “bluesman from Chicago.” I’ve been inspired by the “new synthetic mythology for a new kind of knowledge culture” which, the author writes, “may be the most powerful remobilization of historical and contemporary perspectives since the Popular Front movement of the 1930’s.”

Deeds and accomplishments — like hard work — are so yesterday. It is time to believe. Because, these great minds tell us, that is all we NEED TO DO!

You see, before tonight, I did not know this:

In many ways, [Obama's] language recalls that of Walt Whitman whose Leaves of Grass sought to develop a synthetic construction of what America was like as a nation, linking together a range of individual experiences, memories, perspectives, sense impressions, to create a vision of the nation as one big organism. . .

A GIANT ORGANISM! That’s what I’ve really been yearning for! And that was written by an M.I.T. professor (and that’s his photo, and he looks very intellectual!), so it must be true.

Today, I discovered all of this:

… followers willing to wait for hours on end to hear him speak have been crowding out huge concert halls and sports arenas to get a glimpse of their new progressive avatar and drive long distances to obtain the Obama darshan or to simply be in his presence. One can just imagine what the peace and flower-power concerts in the 60’s might have been like. Many even see in Obama a messiah-like figure, a great soul, and some affectionately call him Mahatma Obama. Clearly, people are hungry for a change and want an inspirational leader who can serve up some hearty ‘chicken soup for the soul’. …

Like the Mahatma [Gandhi], Obama is becoming a global symbol of the ‘hopes and dreams’ of millions around the world. Those who look up to the American ideals, consume American media, and dream American dreams are tuned into this historic election. While Gandhi marked the end of the colonial era, Obama with his multicultural background and upbringing represents the age of globalization. Obama is in an unprecedented historical position to not only be the first African American president, but the first ‘global president’ of America. Obama’s images on T-shirts, magazine covers, and TV screens around the world may be a harbinger of the next American century, if the American people are willing and able to lead it.

Obama’s Satyagraha: Or, Did Obama Swallow the Mahatma?. June 27, 2008. (Dinesh Sharma is a marketing science consultant with a PhD in Psychology from Harvard).

::::::::

There was much more that I discovered on the night of February 21st, preserved in the original, “The Choice (But I’ve Been Touched),” including more from MIT professor Jenkins’ “Obama and the ‘We’ Generation.”

Cynics might say the youthful hordes are actually part of the “‘Me’ Generation.”

Then I quoted writer and jazz expert Stanley Crouch:

“Out of One, Many Rise to Believe Again”

Opponents want to dismiss that optimism as “false hope” because they think - or pretend to think - that Barack Obama represents no more than a charismatic political slogan that has even less value than one of the worthless products brilliantly hawked around the clock throughout our media.

Barack Obama is actually a bluesman from Chicago whose big stage is not in a nightclub or a concert hall but the huge national podium on which politics are argued. Obama knows that the blues always present the unvarnished problem and provide a solution through the rhythms and tones of engagement. It is, as the writer Albert Murray has observed, a music of confrontation, and it is presented in what amounts to a purification ritual.

Stanley Crouch, NY Daily News February 18, 2008

Obama is a bluesman! He’s creating a “music of confrontation.” And that’s a “purification ritual.”

I get it now!

Don’t you???

Eric Hoffer’s book The True Believer, which was on the summer reading list sent out by my university before my freshman year, and which we discussed in seminars during our first week at the university, had a powerful influence on me and left me wary the rest of my life of any mass movement.

I believe that, if Hoffer were alive today, he would be alarmed by the “authoritarian leftists” described so brilliantly by Steve Diamond, the Santa Clara law professor who writes for No Quarter. Professor Diamond has identified several “authoritarian leftists” who have been longtime associates of Barack Obama and have influenced his politics.

Beyond Professor Diamond’s examples of Bill Ayers and Mike Klonsky as “authoritarian leftists” are many of Obama’s followers — whose cult-like, thuggish behavior was witnessed by thousands at caucuses and rallies — and on the Internet at blogs such as Daily Kos. Amusingly, both the Obama followers and the “Kossacks” fancy themselves as protectors of free speech and civil liberties, and decry the conservatives and Republicans as “authoritarian.” Yet it is they who march in lockstep just as rigidly as any rightwinger ever has.

And it is these “authoritarian leftists” who approved of the most undemocratic behavior: swarming caucuses and overwhelming Democratic party staffers who were unable to or simply didn’t bother to verify that the Obama followers were registered voters in the precinct caucuses in which they were voting.

Beneath the rapturous adulation and self-righteousness of Barack Obama’s typical follower is an insecure human being who seeks rigid adherence to a group. The Wikipedia entry on Eric Hoffer’s views offers this interesting summary:

A core principle in the book is Hoffer’s insight that mass movements are interchangeable; he notes fanatical Nazis later becoming fanatical Communists, fanatical Communists later becoming fanatical anti-Communists, and Saul, persecutor of Christians, becoming Paul, a fanatical Christian himself. For the true believer the substance of the mass movement isn’t so important as that he or she is part of that movement.

This description helps to explain why so many Kossacks attacked the blog founder Markos (”Kos”) Moulitsas when he announced he was withholding his $2,300 donation to Obama’s presidential campaign because of his dismay with Obama’s backpedaling on FISA, public financing, and more. Kos titled his essay, “Rewarding good behavior.”

it is an oddity that a somewhat independently-minded person has attracted an audience that is drawn to cult-like adoration of certain politicians such as Barack Obama.

But, as any supporter of Hillary Clinton who dared write at Daily Kos can tell you, one was met with the most vicious attacks for questioning support for “The One.”

It is criminal — to my mind — that professors at MIT and others educated at elite educational institutions are promoting this mindless adulation with rhapsodic prose that, frankly, leaves me in a fit of giggles because it’s so over the top and nonsensical.

Thankfully, most Americans are not so easily enraptured by any politician, at least for long.

Let us hope that, before the end of August, enough Democratic party delegates to the national convention come to their senses and realize that the Obama mania is on the wane, and that a truly qualified and experienced candidate is required in order to defeat John McCain in November.

I’m a little confused. And it’s starting to bother me. Just when I think I am beginning to understand who Obama is the guy just up and changes. As easy as putting on a new pair of socks. But forgetting that your feet still stink. So I’ve been wondering if it is possible that Obama stands for anything at all. Or if he wasn’t kidding about all that change stuff. Maybe that is why the rest of us need hope so bad. Because we sure as hell can’t count on him to show any backbone. But worms are like that.

I mean you gotta figure that a politician will change from time to time. Especially when they talk about working across the aisle. The art of compromise requires a little give and take. And call me silly, but I actually think that people willing to evolve their perspectives are the kind of folks we need in politics. If someone is incapable of learning and growing then they sure as hell don’t need their hands around the reigns of power.

But that doesn’t appear to be what is happening with Barky Obama. No, I think he has a bad case of the I have no core values syndrome. AKA I will be whatever people want me to be as long as it allows me to gain power over them. And what gets me is that he has the audacity to call this a new kind of politics. It’s such a shame that a Harvard graduate wouldn’t know that slimeball I’ll pretend to be on your side politics has been around for ages. Hardly a new phenomenon.

And I am not the only one scratching their head over these sudden transformations. Even some on the fringe left are starting to question Obama’s positions. Or should I say the lack of them. But most are making excuses for him. WORMs for the Worm. An army of them.

One such WORM is Stephen Ducat who writes for the Huff and Puff Huffington Post. The dude is a true believer. That’s for sure. But at least he has accepted that Obama is not divine. One of the fortunate few. So maybe there is hope after all.

Understanding Obama’s Recent Right Turn

To see Barack Obama behave like any other invertebrate Democrat is an especially painful blow.

You see what I mean? Ducat actually realizes that Obama is a Worm. And he sees clearly that this talk of a new politics is just a ruse, a fancy slogan that sounds good and people hope is true.

Obama’s resort to the triangulation of the old politics is an admission of a much more serious limitation. It tells us that he does not believe in his own ability to reframe certain key issues in a way that makes a progressive stance the one that is obviously the most moral. It shows that he does not feel up to the task of rendering some liberal principles intellectually clear and emotionally compelling.

Ducat recognizes that Obama is not a real leader after all. Which is actually kind of comforting. Maybe he has been laying off the Cult-Aide for a few days.

His limited ability to exercise moral leadership leaves him with no choice other than to accept Republican frames on issues. So, on the FISA bill, for example, loss of privacy and immunity for criminal telecom companies become a trivial price to pay for protection from unfathomable and pervasive Evil.

But just when I thought I had some hope Ducat goes ahead and spoils it for me. Because even though he realizes that Obama is all hype and doesn’t even believe his own bullshit, he can’t help himself but to come to Obama’s defense. He has a game plan. A strategy that he believes will make everything all better. And if it wasn’t so absolutely ridiculous it might be funny.

Ducat is of the mind that all Obama needs to do is create a commercial. He can make the fallout from his nasty little flip flops go away by adopting that tried and true strategy: Divert attention away from yourself by blaming the other guys for the things you support.

The 30-second ad opens on a scene in a middle class suburban kitchen. A mother is speaking on the phone. Her voice is muffled and is drowned out by an intermittent electronic beep, along with the sounds of someone frenetically striking a computer keyboard. The screen quickly splits in half to reveal the woman’s nine-year-old daughter speaking by cell phone to inform her mother that she is ready to be picked up from the school bus stop. The screen is then split in thirds to reveal a man wearing headphones sitting in front of a computer typing notes, obviously monitoring the mother-daughter conversation. Behind him is a massive warehouse filled with computers and scurrying NSA technicians. This image then takes up the entire screen. The voiceover says, “Republicans, like George Bush and John McCain, have taken away our freedoms, invaded our private lives, and made us less safe.” We then quickly see a succession of images — a scene from Iraq that features a burning American tank, a scene of grenade launchers being placed into a packing crate, a scene of an unguarded American port where uninspected shipping containers are being off loaded, and finally a scene of a car with blacked out windows slowing down in front of an unsecured nuclear power plant. A window rolls down. A hand holding a camera reaches out to snap photos. Then the car speeds away. The voice over then concludes, “Protecting America means preserving our rights [cut to an image of the Constitution in which the camera scrolls down the Bill of Rights section], along with defeating terrorists.” The last image is a scene of Barack Obama standing up and pointing toward a large map of some unidentifiable part of the world. Below him is a large conference table of twenty or so advisors who are listening with rapt attention. (Emphasis mine)

And the sad part is that this strategy might just work. Because it focuses on fear. The very thing that Obama claims is the old politics. We are to ignore the irony that this is being presented as a “progressive” plan. Obama’s lack of moral principles extends down to his followers. Worms all.

It appears that anyone who blogs with Google supported BLOGSPOT is vulnerable to being shutdown unilaterally if they are targeted by a group of bloggers who claim the site is responsible for spam. All you have to do is click on this link and start your complaint.

Just paste that blog url in there a couple of hundred times. You have the time! You know that if Blogger gets enough of these that Blogger will shut down the site until they get around to reviewing the site.

People complaining do not have to identify themselves. In fact, a small group of thugs can do a lot of damage, at least in the short run.

What would the Obama folks think if we tried to employ the same tactics on them? We could use the same link to shut all Obama blogs down. But that’s the difference between us and them. We are not afraid to debate our ideas. Shutting down discourse is not our thing. Also, we believe that every vote should be counted. Unlike the Obama folks, who disenfranchise 50% of the voters in Michigan and Florida, we say, “count them all.”

BLOGSPOT is putting itself out of business if it keeps this up. Shutting blogs down for no good reason, in fact, for false reasons, tends to piss bloggers off. Folks are starting to vote with their feet. They will go elsewhere and set up shop. A temporary inconvenience but one designed to ensure that the blogger is free to write and speak what he or she believes to be true.

Take a look at the list attack by the Obama thugs.

http://help.blogger.com/?page=troubleshooter.cs&problem=&ItemType=spam&contact_type=Spam&Submit=Continue

A list of Anti-Obama blogs locked up as spam in the past 36 hours

Locked Out:

Old location: http://bluelyon.blogspot.com/

New Location: http://bluelyon.wordpress.com/

Locked Out:

Old Location: http://nobamablog.blogspot.com/

New location: http://nobamablog.wordpress.com/

Locked Out:

http://politicallizard.blogspot.com/ (no alternate blog listed as yet)

Locked Out:

Old Location: http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com/

This blogger has moved to her own domain at Hillary Or Bust.com

The Hillary or Bust site also lists the following additional blogs have been unfairly locked:

Locked Out:

http://reflections-in-tyme.blogspot.com/ (Native Americans Against Obama)

New Site: http://nativeamericansagainstobama.wordpress.com/

Locked Out:

Old Site: http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com/

New Site:http://mccaindemocrats.wordpress.com/

Locked out:

Old Site:
http://politicallizard.blogspot.com/

New Site:
http://thelizardannex.blogspot.com/

Locked Out:

Old Site:

http://comealongway.blogspot.com/

New Site:

http://comealongway.wordpress.com/

Neither the main stream media nor the Democratic Party nor even the Obama campaign itself has come to terms with the damage Obama’s tactics have done to our Party. The damage was facilitated by the media and the big blogs.

Obama’s first task was controlling the media. Politicalcenter writes:

Taking their cue from totalitarian regimes, Obama developed his own propaganda arm which spewed facts and figures to the media and made false claims designed to keep controversial issues dealing with the candidate off of the main stream media. At the same time, Obama attacked in merciless ways those who voiced opposition on various Internet systems and sources, including the media who dared to question him, and has now stopped debates in favor of tuning his message against McCain again with the help of completely compliant media.

Consider that there’s a growing movement of determined progressives who are committed to Obama’s defeat. Our swelling numbers and strength of purpose are actually pretty shocking when you stop and think about it. The PUMA movement isn’t bitter or small; it’s radical and revolutionary: This is how parties are born and die. You are living history. SusanUnPC writes:

Hundreds of thousands of Hillary Clinton supporters will NEVER vote for Barack Obama. And a great many will vote for John McCain simply because they believe he is qualified to be president, and that Barack Obama is NOT qualified or experienced enough — and we’re worried sick about such a teleprompter-dependent neophyte being handed the toughest job in the world.

In addition to Obama’s race-baiting and thuggish tactics, Anglachel suggests that Obama’s problem is the illegitimacy of his nomination:

The increasing rejection of Obama by voters is a measure of his declining legitimacy. People who once thought they would gladly vote for him, like me, are now implacably opposed to him. He is no longer legitimate in our eyes…Participating in and profiting from the media hatred of the Clintons, throwing out accusations of racism to try to forestall criticism and inflate AA vote counts, encouraging people to be “Obamacans” not Democrats, the “Democrat for a Day” strategy, engaging in intimidation and threats to extract caucus votes, aggressively trying to monopolize money specifically to silence alternative voices, and treating voters who do not choose him first with contempt.

As Anglachel writes, there are several million of us who feel that Obama’s nomination is illegitimate, that his tactics are counter to our values as progressives, and that he is not the unity figure he claims to be. Indeed, Obama wears two masks: at one moment he gives high-minded speeches, at the next he is accusing Bill Clinton, a beloved former president, of racism.

As progressives, we are repulsed by the totalitarian nature of Obama’s candidacy — creating a cult of personality, the venom espoused by his adherents, the delegate stealing — tactics that are repugnant to the many who have spent a lifetime working for democracy and social justice.

Almost four years ago at DailyKos, DemFromCT wrote about Bush in ways which seem even more fitting for Obama today:

I was intrigued to hear some of the theories on the talking heads shows; it’s culture issues, not class economic issues. Kerry’s reality-based, Bush is not. Bush has run for four years to select and indoctrinate those who believe him and everyone else is against him.

During this primary season, Obama’s campaign used the big blogs as instruments to indoctrinate progressives and silence the opposition. Take the strike of DailyKos, for example. Imagine that this had happened at a progressive company: a group of women and men complain to management about rampant sexism and abuse. The manager, Kos in this case, regardless of his own agenda, would investigate and set limits on abusive language and behavior. Instead Kos, the proprietor of the biggest liberal blog, in a moment of unbelievable arrogance, calls their strike “laughable.” Feminism, justice, and respect are thrown out in favor of one candidate.

Politicalcenter continues:

The propaganda process was carefully managed turning everything damaging to Obama into racist or irrelevant issues. These included blatant refusals to print or to discuss clearly relevant issues to claims that any discussion was racism. Obama did not care about the truth. Only the message.

From this vantage point, Obama’s continual attacks on Hillary Clinton supporters were continually repeated through numerous MSM channels with little or no questioning and constant support for the Obama view of the truth. Obama thereby created the most one-sided message system ever developed in US politics.

The PUMA movement is the classic liberal fight against injustice. The ancestors to Just Say No Deal PUMAs are the abolitionists, the suffragettes, the labor movement, and the civil rights movement. We’re not bound to a particular party or a candidate. We’re joined together by our values. John Kennedy famously defined liberalism as:

not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man’s ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

Based on our progressive values, we reject Obama’s use of race-baiting and sexism as political tools — although ignored by the press and perpetuated by bloggers — we have documented it and are emboldened by these injustices:

Indeed, to this day, the Democrats have continued to use racism wherever they turn. From the Wright controversy, where Dean called the coverage racist, to the war against Geraldine Ferraro claiming that she is a racist, Obama has turned the tables dramatically against free speech and toward some other place that we dare not go or discuss.

Our movement faces ridicule and obstacles but is born out of our principles, and we will not be silenced. We believe that Obama’s defeat will strengthen the progressive cause long-term, we vote our conscience and we will not be bullied into supporting a candidate and movement who consistently violates the progressive tenets that include free thought and expression.

Riverdaughter perfectly expresses the progressive’s rational to reject to Obama. She writes:

Time is not going to heal this wound. Oh, I take that back. If I wake up on Nov. 5 to find that Barack Obama, the inexperienced, untested, unvetted, lightweight candidate who we counted on you to stop, if I find that he is NOT my president, I will finally be over it. If the man who called me a racist because I thought he was unready does not take the oath in January, I will be satisfied. If all the people he threw under the bus, the old, poor, working class, Appalachians, woman, latinos, asians, gay and Muslims find that the Democratic Party is now genuinely shocked and chastened for screwing us over as well as any Republican would have done, then we will have exercised our power.

We witnessed the beginnings of this when Tavis Smiley was threatened because he spoke out against Obama. Hell, they even threatened his family. People like John Lewis were likewise threatened and intimidated. And during the caucuses it is no big secret that the Obama people intimidated Hillary supporters. In some cases they even resorted to violence.

So just what is it that drives seemingly otherwise reasonable people to have such little regard for the rights and opinions of others? Are they under some magic spell and just can’t help themselves? Because it sure seems that way. Is it any wonder that many of us refer to Obama followers as Cultists? Because that is the way they act, swarming like a mob at anyone and anything in their path.

How else to you explain the personal threats that Paula Abeles received to both herself and her family merely because she helped to organize a meeting with John McCain? Anonymous people call you up and say that they know where you live and that they know you have children. And they call you at every hour of the day and night. What should you believe?

Just who are these sick bastards that think that threatening little children is within the realm of acceptable political behavior? And given that these incidents are public news why is Obama so strangely silent? And Howard Dean? Where are these folks that claim to desire unity? Do they think they can threaten us into it?

The answer to many of these questions is unfortunately dead silence. Because you certainly don’t see Obama or any Democratic leader calling for civility. It’s exactly the same response we heard when we complained so loudly about the obvious misogyny.

What we do hear is that we should just get over our angst. And they seem to believe that that is enough to quell the masses. But what they refuse to see, or they are intentionally ignoring, is the seething hatred that is growing among their own ranks. Most of us on the other side have already moved on and we are doing something constructive with our dissatisfaction.

While trying to come up with a reasonable answer as to why all of this is happening I am reminded of Obama’s upbringing. And especially of the central characters closest to him, the ones that helped him formulate his sense of self. And when I look at people like Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger and Louis Farrakhan and Bill Ayers it is very easy to see why Obama has turned a deaf ear to these many despicable transgressions.

Because his closest associates know nothing but hate. And they ALL seek revenge. So it is very easy to see why Obama’s Cultists emulate the same thuggish type behavior. Because the truth is that beneath the glamor and the charm is a man full of hate. And he wants to take it out on the rest of us. Those of us that don’t adore and praise him.

Let’s be very clear here. The people that are making these threats are nothing more than terrorists. Because that is the path they have chosen. They have a political agenda. And if the rest of us stand in the way of it we are disposable. That is what this is all about. And that is why we must defeat them. Regardless of the cost.

In spite of her scathing accounts of Obama’s behavior and the party’s disregard for its constituents throughout the primary, Taylor Marsh is an example of someone who seems to think that Hillary’s supporters are simply disgruntled and stubborn in their resistance to the presumptive nominee.

But that’s not it. We believe that not only is Obama inexperienced, unqualified and potentially a danger to our country, we also believe that he gained the nomination in an undemocratic coup of the party, aided and abetted by the powers that be. Not only do people believe that the primary was fixed, that is, that the nomination of Obama was preordained and the entire process of the primary, from corrupt caucuses to accusations of race-baiting, and the final blow by the RBC giving Obama Hillary’s Michigan delegates, was orchestrated by the DNC itself. These are not bitter grapes. This is not disappointment.This is revolutionary, as Charles Lemos described in his brilliant post on NQ. The Democratic party doesn’t need us. They are no longer democratic.

But that’s only the beginning of the shock and distrust now apparent in millions of (former) Democrats, the infamous 18 million Hillary-supporters. Among the great majority, there seems to be a consensus that the entire Democratic Party itself has been seized in a hostile takeover.

When Ben Smith broke the news that the DNC was moving to Chicago only days after Hillary suspended her campaign, our worst fears about a collusion between Obama’s campaign and the Democratic party leaders were confirmed. Hillary supporters spent the months prior to that fateful week watching in disbelief as it became clearer and clearer that Dean, Pelosi, Leahy, Brazile and others were in the tank for Obama. As Smith puts it:

The move reflects Obama’s desire to maintain an unusually streamlined campaign, as well as his swift and complete takeover of a Democratic Party…    

SusanUNPC articulated what many of us feared: that the Democratic party takeover by the Obama campaign is motivated by his relationships with the corrupt Chicago machine.

Chicago is the home of Obama’s longtime extremist mentors, associates, advisers and benefactors — both before and immediately after his law school years — including Reverends Jeremiah Wright, Otis Moss and James Meeks; Minister Louis Farrakhan; Father Michael Pfleger; Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn; marketing guru David Axelrod who created the mix-and-match Obama and Deval Patrick personae; the convicted Antoin “Tony” Rezko who only two years ago enabled a “sweetheart deal” that allowed Barack and Michelle Obama to buy a historic mansion they could ill afford; the Illinois state senator power broker Emil Jones who “[f]or almost a year … used his position as leader of the state senate to block anticorruption legislation passed unanimously by the state’s lower house.”    

Hillary’s supporters may not have been a movement when the kool aid was first being dispensed, but now we have consolidated, even if it appears to outsiders that our groupings are random and chaotic. We may not all worship at the feet of a candidate, but we are united in our horror at and alienation from the party that left us behind. In a telling exchange between bloggers on The Confluence, a blogger called hwddog writes:

The idea that the DNC is moving so soon after they’ve completed their fix of the election, only shows that it’s been in the works for some time, and those in the party behind this weren’t going to have the people’s votes get in the way.    

This post received many responses indicating that voters had been doing their research in an attempt to understand the party’s bait-and-switch. Blogger plukasiak responds to the post above:

The date to be looking at is April 25, when it was announced that the Obama campaign and the DNC has set up joint fundrasing operations….and had “not reached an agreement with the Clinton campaign”    

DownListen responded with “I think the fix was in before the primary.” And Carol, another blogger boldly states:

I have asked repeatedly on other sites, “Do we have the right to see all of the communications between Dean, DNC and Obama camp?” I believe the fix has always been in from the beginning.   

About the merging of the DNC with Obama’s campaign headquarters in Chicago, the ever-insightful Anglachel makes clear that the enormity of such a project takes time to plan and even more time to initiate. She writes:

This merger cannot have been considered, agreed to and implemented in a single week’s time. This is something that requires logistics, not to mention money and legal sign-offs. This points to two key issues: first, the party leaders have been intending to do this for some time (how far back is yet to be established), which casts their behavior towards *all* candidates in an uncertain light; second, it means that they have subsumed the party to the political objectives of a particular person who has been shown through his campaigning to be divisive and antagonistic to a significant portion of the party    

The power behind these DNC’s improprieties is not yet clear. But there’s much speculation. Some think billionaire George Soros is responsible. He donated millions of dollars to defeating Bush in 2004, which failed, and has recently included Moveon, and the Obama campaign in his donations. And as seen in the linked post, his participation in American politics has not always been legal. Others, as described by Pat Racimora, wonder if it’s not the Chicago Combine.   

In any case, many people would like to see an investigation into the party leaders, the caucuses, and the RBC as well as the DNC’s move to Chicago.The revelation that Patti Solis Doyle has joined the Obama campaign, that she is an old friend of David Axelrod and that her brothers are connected to the Chicago machine has only added to the disparity between transparency and corruption. As Texas Darlin puts it:

There is nothing that is unifying about this latest hostile act involving Mole Doyle. This is the Politics of Division. The Politics of Destruction. The Politics of Disrespect. The Politics of Barack Obama. And if this is now the Politics of the Democratic Party, I have just one 4-letter word for the Unity Team and your stinky Losing Ticket, and that includes you, Al “lost-your-own-state” Gore. PUMA.     

What’s important here is that half of the Democratic Party are now in exile. And if the other half think that we’re going to get over it, they think that what we’re mad about is that Hillary is not the candidate. That is no longer our issue.What we are mad about is that both the nomination and the party have been stolen. And about that we will not get over. Garychapelhill sums it up best for those of us who are now exiled from the so-called Democratic party:

Barack Obama is a dirty politician. He wins elections through fraud. When we get to a point that elections are meaningless then our democracy is finished. If this is the change that we’ve been waiting for, count me out.    

Obama’s support for the FISA “compromise”

What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good.

My friends, this is exactly the definition of a cult. People do and say things that if they were using their reasoning faculties they would know that what they were doing was wrong. But instead they “believe” in the superior will of the Master and follow along like so many lemmings. Taking their will and good sense off the cliff.

Otherwise reasonable people did a massive 180 as if no one was looking. They even went so far as to redefine what they were supporting so that it wouldn’t sound so bad.

Numerous individuals stepped forward to assure us that there was only one small bad part of this bill — the part which immunizes lawbreaking telecoms — and since Obama says that he opposes that part, there is no basis for criticizing him for what he did. Besides, even if Obama decided to support an imperfect bill, it’s our duty to refrain from voicing any criticism of him, because the Only Thing That Matters is that Barack Obama be put in the Oval Office, and we must do anything and everything — including remain silent when he embraces a full-scale assault on the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law — because every goal is now subordinate to electing Barack Obama our new Leader.

Notice that? The most important thing is to put Obama in the White House. Our Constitutional protections wane in comparison to this importance. All those folks that fought and died or were maimed for life defending the Constitution, their lives mean nothing compared with the one life that is Obama. He is a lot more important that the principles that make us a great democracy. No wonder he has his own Presidential Seal.

A single example of what this bill does to harm us is worth pointing out. For several years now the Democratic party has stated time after time that certain powers claimed by Bush were unconstitutional and thus illegal. But not any longer. Thanks to Obama and his Cult.

The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.

Quite frankly this action is much worse than anything Bush did. With the thuggish behavior of the Obama campaign and his hordes of Cult followers the potential for intimidation, violation and abuse are far greater than anything we have ever seen before. Even worse than Nixon.

Word to the wise: NObama!

Just Say No Deal

Washington DC, June 21 — Tonight political prisoner Larry Sinclair is spending his fourth night in the DC Jail, the victim of a Gestapo-style enemies’ list operation carried out just three blocks from the White House last Wednesday afternoon.

Sinclair had come to the National Press Club to detail his charges that the self-proclaimed Democratic presidential nominee Barack Hussein Obama had indulged in two homosexual encounters complete with crack cocaine in early November 1999, that Obama was complicit in the December 2007 assassination of Donald Young, the gay choirmaster of Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, and that’s Obama’s resident perception monger, David Axelrod, had paid the pornographic website Whitehouse.com $750,000 to organize a campaign of character assassination against Sinclair, culminating in a faked polygraph test. At the close of the press conference, Sinclair was arrested inside the press club by US Marshals and DC police, apparently based on an old Delaware warrant.

GESTAPO TACTICS IN THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB, THE TEMPLE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

Where are the civil libertarians? Where are the paladins of the ACLU? Where is the outcry and the indignation? Is no one concerned about threats to lynch a gay man for political reasons in the heart of the nation’s capital? Where are the left liberals who have been ostensibly so concerned about civil rights and civil liberties from Nixon to Bush-Cheney? Perhaps they are sleeping, or perhaps they have drunk the Obama Kool-Aid and have become morally insane.

Or perhaps they are so obsessed with the reform of the FISA law and the danger that Bush might be listening in to their telephone calls that they do not notice when a prominent critic of a presidential candidate who is infamously a darling of the establishment media is actually arrested, taken into custody and led away, the target of Gestapo tactics in the National Press Club, the sanctum sanctorum of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the First Amendment generally.

Surely the weak sisters who have joined Obama’s fifth column are morally insane when they joke about how Barky’s Myrmidons were able to arrest Sinclair. If the First Amendment does not apply to speech which is not popular with the establishment and the mob, then the First Amendment does not exist at all, for anybody. Any journalist or writer should be able to see that they themselves may be next, now that the US Marshals are serving as the “Fight the Smears” enforcement arm of the Obama campaign. Selective and vindictive prosecution, anyone?

The mere fact that Larry Sinclair had been able to hold such a successful press conference was already a serious defeat for the corrupt and brutal Obama machine.

Sinclair had appeared in the Holeman Lounge before more than a hundred journalists, with 10 cameras set up on tripods in the back of the room. The number of handheld cameras, camcorders, and tape recorders was beyond counting. The press conference was dignified, businesslike, factual. There was no screaming, no disruption, no threats or insults.

Every journalist who wanted to ask a question was given ample opportunity to do so, and about three dozen questions were asked. Reasonable follow-ups were allowed.

There were journalists from Britain, from Germany, from India, from China. Most of the questions represented honest attempts to pin down the facts of what was being alleged.

Sinclair’s honesty compared favorably to most politicians today. He started his presentation with a detailed admission of his criminal record, jail time served, his pending court motion to dismiss an old Colorado warrant, and a statement that his troubles with the law date back more than 20 years to 1980-1986.

In the question-and-answer segment, Sinclair gave a straight answer to every question he was asked. He did not dodge questions, he did not prevaricate, he did not refuse to answer questions, and he did not bungle his answers. Sinclair has made serious mistakes in life, as he readily concedes. But Sinclair is not a candidate, not a person who has to be evaluated by the public and then accepted or rejected.

Sinclair comes forward as a witness with a series of allegations to make and a story to tell. It is up to public opinion and most emphatically the news media to evaluate those allegations and those facts, including through the efforts of enterprising investigative journalists anxious to make a name for themselves by finding out the truth about what is potentially the biggest political scandal of the century. Obama, after all, is the candidate of whom we know little and who needs urgently to be evaluated.

The issue posed is not what you think about Larry Sinclair. The overriding issue is the presidency in a time of military defeat, institutional crisis, and economic breakdown.

HOMOPHOBIC DEATH THREATS AGAINST SINCLAIR

Obama’s lemming legions, and especially his notorious mercenary squadristi of the Internet, had done everything possible to sabotage and disrupt Sinclair’s press conference. One Obama backer had issued a categorical death threat against Sinclair in terms that made it abundantly clear that a homophobic hate murder might be in the offing. The FBI and the District of Columbia police had shown zero interest in offering Sinclair protection against a possible hit by one of Obama’s fanatics.

Once it is accepted that police agencies can intervene in political campaigns, it is possible to a rest or detain almost anyone if the interest is great enough. The old warrant used to incarcerate Sinclair most probably refers to events already covered by the statute of limitations.

If nothing can be found at this level, there are always old parking tickets and library fines that can be ginned up. Any political candidate who has had dealings with the Federal Elections Commission can be hauled in on some minor technical violation. The precedent established by last Wednesday’s events at the National Press Club is exceedingly ominous for the public life of this country.

The irony is that repression is now being carried out not to help the Republicans but under ultra-left cover, to help the radical subversive Obama.

Since the warrant used as the pretext to arrest Sinclair apparently came from Delaware, our attention naturally turns to Senator Joe Biden, the incorrigible blowhard and defeated presidential candidate who is now known to be angling for the post of vice president or Secretary of State in a future Obama regime.

We also note that Biden’s son, the nepotist Beau Biden, is the current Attorney General of Delaware. As the cops would say, the Biden machine, anxious to ingratiate themselves with Obama, had the means, motive, and opportunity to arrange this outrageous arrest. For those gullible enough to believe that civil liberties might improve under an Obama regime, this ought to provide a reality shock.

Do not assume that civil liberties will get better under Obama; the evidence is now that they will get worse. Obama’s National Press Club caper is as blatant as anything seen under Bush – and Barky is not even in the White House.

At the end of his detailed indictment of Obama, Sinclair demanded information on four points. The first involves Obama as phone records for November 3, 1999 through November 8, 1999 — the time frame of the two allegedly encounters between Obama and Sinclair, mediated by Paramjit Multani of Five Star Limo at O’Hare Airport. The second involves Obama’s phone records for September 2007 — December 23, 2007, when Sinclair was receiving probing phone calls from Donald Young about how much Sinclair had revealed concerning Obama — calls that ended when Young was found dead from multiple gunshot wounds just before Christmas 2007.

Sinclair’s third demand for clarification touches communications from Obama, Axelrod, and campaign manager David Plouffe to Whitehouse.com in January and February 2008. Sinclair’s fourth point regards possible payments by Obama, Obama’s campaign, Axelrod, Plouffe, and Axelrod’s AKP Message and Media to Whitehouse.com in that same time frame of January-February 2008.

OBAMA MUST ANSWER, NOT EVADE

It is now up to Obama to answer these charges. It is imperative that this be done now, without further delay. No responsible citizen wants a president who can be blackmailed and thus turned into a puppet because he is hiding secrets about bisexual activities, crack cocaine, political murder, and character assassination campaigns.

It is also up to the great news organizations, including ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, and the Washington Post, to carry out their responsibility to the public. These news organizations should not play the role of kept courtesans of those in political power. As Sinclair pointed out, he has told his story and has thus done everything he can.

It is now up to the great media concerns to locate and interview the limo driver Paramjit Multani, to investigate the relevant telephone records, and above all to question Obama himself about this very serious matter. It is not up to the corporate media to sit back and sniff about whether a Sinclair has conclusively proven his own case to their satisfaction or not; the proving or disproving is the responsibility of the media, and let them make damn sure that they get it right.

By today’s journalistic standards, Sinclair’s allegations are extraordinarily substantive already, especially when compared with some other major scandal allegations heard during the primaries. Sinclair has filed a federal civil suit against Obama and Axelrod, complete with sworn affidavits and court papers.

This means that he is willingly risking Rule 11 penalties for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

He has also made statements to the Chicago police about his contacts with murder victim Donald Young. These steps represent a very high degree of public commitment by Sinclair to the truth of what he is saying.

Compare this to the shoddy standards of the New York Times which, on February 21, 2008 published and prominently displayed on its front page an innuendo about a supposed sex affair between Senator McCain and a certain Vicki Iseman, a Washington lobbyist. Not one single solitary named source was cited to support this innuendo. Or, take the case of Vanity Fair magazine, the house organ of decadent left liberalism, which included a slander piece entitled “The Comeback Id” by Todd Purdom in its July 2008 issue. Here again, there was not one single named source who was willing to have his or her name publicly associated with Purdom’s sleazy allegations.

It is painfully obvious that there is one set of journalistic standards for the Perfect Master Obama, and another and much laxer set for the competition. This is intolerable.

NO PRIVACY FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO ACCESS THE NUCLEAR BUTTON

It is fair to say that the idea of a private sphere for US presidential candidates about which the general public is not entitled to know anything became obsolete at the same time that intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads became available around 1960 to 1965. Since then, every presidential candidate has in effect appeared before the public asking to get his or her hands on the thermonuclear button that can start World War III.

At this point, the notion of a private sphere for presidential candidates becomes wholly untenable. In this day and age, we have the right to know everything but everything about presidential nominees who are asking for our votes.

We have a right to know their full personal histories, with no exceptions, no omissions, and no withheld documents.

We have a right to know if they are HIV-positive and whether they ever registered for the draft.

We want to know if they have received electroshock, psychopharmaca, and whether they have been treated by a psychiatrist.

We have a right to see their birth certificate, their college transcript, their senior thesis if they wrote one, their law school transcript, their passport, papers from earlier times in public office, and all other relevant documents.

We have a right to know about their mother, their father, their sister, their brother, their Aunt Tilly, their best friends at all stages of life, their boyfriends, their girlfriends, their pets, their backers, their sponsors, their gurus, their controllers, and their associates of every kind.

More than a right to know these things, we have an imperative duty to find them out.

For they are asking to get their hands on the thermonuclear button, the misuse of which can unleash a thermonuclear fireball that will not respect any aspect of the privacy of ourselves and our family.

Naturally, candidates are free to make their own choices in life just like everybody else: they can choose their religion, their personal associations, their forms of recreation, and all the rest in any way that they like.

But none of this — absolutely nothing — can be claimed as a secret off limits to the attention of the public. All of it must be thoroughly investigated, aired, and published when the presidency is at stake.

An Air Force crewman at a missile silo in the Dakotas goes through a background check which leaves scant room for privacy. We must demand nothing less from presidential candidates.

OBAMA’S COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT AND ALLEGED COCAINE USE

Larry Sinclair alleges that Obama has indulged in crack cocaine. Those familiar with the public literature about the current tenant of the White House know very well that there are many indications that his extraordinarily low level of performance may derive from cognitive impairment brought on by habitual cocaine use. How many more coke fiends in the White House are compatible with the further national survival of the United States?

Ronald Reagan notoriously suffered from cognitive impairment and constantly made his remarks off index cards which he kept hidden in his hands. Those index cards were a low-tech version of the glass plates of the Teleprompter upon which Obama relies.

As soon as he cannot read his words off those glass plates, Obama begins to stutter, to stammer and babble, to hem and to haw, repeatedly losing his syntax and constantly interjecting “um” and “you know.” What if Obama’s cocaine use really did extend beyond 1981, as he suggests in his memoir, and continued all the way to late 1999 at the very least, as Sinclair is alleging?

That might suggest that Obama suffers from greater cognitive impairment than Bush, as Obama’s incredible series of gaffes at the end of the primaries also indicates. Larry Sinclair stressed during his press conference that he has been a gay man all his life, and that he regarded the crack cocaine issue as the central one, at least until the time of the Donald Young murder.

During the press conference, Sinclair announced that he was willing to make his own personal medical records, including mental health records, available to responsible representatives of accredited news organizations, at their own expense.

That means that Sinclair is much more forthcoming about his medical history than Obama, who has withheld his medical records and offered a single meaningless page of advertising copy signed by his personal physician. And remember that Sinclair is not running for any office, while Obama wants to be president.

TWO MONTHS TO THE ROLL CALL OF THE STATES, AUGUST 27

The Democratic Party still has more than two months in which these very serious, substantive, and detailed allegations against its presumptive candidate can be thoroughly investigated.

It is unthinkable that any responsible political leader would be willing to see Obama receive the nomination while this sword of Damocles hangs over his head. Larry Sinclair’s videotape has been on the Internet since mid-January, and it has at various times been the object of discussion on something approaching a million websites.

The issues are Obama’s crack cocaine use, his bisexuality, his possible involvement in the Donald Young assassination, and the allegations of character assassination and harassment against Sinclair funded by the Obama campaign.

Karl Rove knows all about each one of these points, and there is no way to deter Karl Rove and his cohorts.

So, although it may seem incomprehensible to Obama’s drooling acolytes, the interest of the Democratic Party is best served by thorough airing of these allegations to before the roll call of the states is held on August 27, 2008 — and this is exactly what Sinclair has been trying to do since mid-January.

If Sinclair had been a GOP deployment, he would simply have waited for September or October to come forward.

There are of course those who lament and regret that it is necessary to dredge up the sordid details of a figure like Obama. They say that it is better to use political campaigns to talk about issues.

This document may sound plausible, but it is totally wrong, and the fault rests with Obama.

First, Obama does not campaign on issues in any systematic way. He presents himself as the Perfect Master, the Anointed One, the Savior, the Messiah, the Mahdi. His hysterical followers are obsessed, not with a political program or a set of issues, but with the personality cult of Obama. This means that any attempt to engage Obama on the issues is by definition an impotent and self-defeating tactic.

The only useful objections that can be made to Obama are ad hominem biographical revelations designed to show that he is not so anointed after all, and that his ability to walk on water has been overestimated.

Then there is also the matter of Obama’s notorious duplicity and flip-flops even where he does have specific positions on certain issues. First Obama wanted a fixed schedule for getting out of Iraq, but Samantha Power revealed that this was not the case at all. Barky said he wanted a different kind of foreign policy, and then he pandered to AIPAC, probably lying through his teeth in the process. First, Obama wanted to help the lower income brackets, but now he is talking about cutting the corporate income tax. Obama attacked free trade in Ohio and Pennsylvania, even as his top economic controller, Austan Goolsbee of the Friedmanite Chicago school reassured the Canadians that this was just election posturing; now Obama has told Fortune magazine that he likes free trade and is devoted to “free markets.”

First, Obama was going to be tough on FISA; now he is going along with the Democratic congressional leaders as they attempt to appease Bush.

Obama had built his career on ethics in government and reducing the role of political contributions; now he has turned his back on the only meager legislative achievements by becoming the first presidential candidate in modern times to repudiate matching funds in the general election.

On all these points, to attempt a substantive debate with Obama is a fool’s errand. The only way to pin Barky down is through pointed reference to crucial facts in his own background, biography, and associations which cannot be changed or swept under the rug. Any other approach is deliberate impotence and capitulation.

FREE LARRY SINCLAIR!

In the meantime, Larry Sinclair is still sitting in the DC jail. He could be extradited to Delaware at any time.

What kind of a presidential campaign are we going to have when critics of the most radical subversive to ever get this close to the presidency have to worry about a knock on the door in the middle of the night? It is time to put massive public pressure on the Obama campaign to drop their enemies’ list operation against Larry Sinclair, and to release him from jail at once.

Webster G. Tarpley is the author of Obama - The Postmodern Coup: Making of a Manchurian Candidate.

Today’s lesson is: How To Counter The Claims By Obama Cultists That You Are A Racist Because You Don’t Support Obama. Listen carefully and learn well. This gentleman speaks the truth wisely. We all owe him a debt of gratitude.

Just Say No Deal

GO PAULA, GO!

View Paula’s appearance on television yesterday.

These videos are up at our No Quarter channel at YouTube, thanks to V.

SEE ALSO: “We’re Bigger Than You Think, Mr. Obama.”