Hold the phone, let me back up here.

The other night when my partner and I were at the airport, we had dinner at Chili’s while we waited for our next flight. All of a sudden, my partner said, “Ohmygosh, that’s James Carville!” Sure enough, it was. And he was sitting right beside us, presumably with his wife. They didn’t say a word to each other the whole time, so I’m pretty sure it was Mary (teehee). Anywho - they were both reading, and I wasn’t going to bother them, though I WANTED to ask, “So, James - why DID you stab Hillary in the back? Just wondering!” Ahem.

Then, we were making our way down the concourse to our next flight. My partner very kindly was getting me a beverage (iced latte with an extra shot, if you must know - yes, I am one of those who are addicted to fancy coffee drinks. I prefer cappuccinos, myself, and have my very own espresso machine which I use daily. A lot. And Peet’s is my brand, but they don’t have those here on the East Coast, so Starbucks it was. Aren’t you glad I shared?). I noticed these two men walking past me, and as the light dawned, I realized one of them was my old seminary professor, Cornel West (his companion looked like someone with whom I went to seminary). Yep, there he went, one of the premier philosophers of our time. Okey dokey, a trip down Memory Lane for me, but so what? I’ll get to that soon.

First, just a little background on Cornel West. Some of you may know him from one of his books, Race Matters, which propelled him into the national spotlight. That book was followed by Democracy Matters. He taught at Union Theological Seminary for a while, and is now at Princeton. This excellent article, Imagining Social Justice: Cornel West’s Prophectic Public Intellectualism, by Gary Darrien, also a professor at Union, is a great resource on Cornel West, and includes much of his history, in terms of his upbringing, his intellectual pursuits (he attended Harvard for his undergrad, and was admitted to the doctoral program in Philosophy at Princeton at the age of TWENTY), and how he came to be at Union:

By the mid-1970s West was already acquiring a reputation as an intellectual spellbinder. The first time that I saw him, in 1975, he had attracted a sidewalk crowd of a dozen people at Harvard Divinity School and was expounding exuberantly on the varieties of black nationalism. The crowd got larger as passersby judged, as I had, “That must be Cornel West.” Two years later he began his teaching career at Union Theological Seminary, which seemed to him the perfect home for his broad intellectual and activist interests.

“You know, my aim was always to teach at Union Seminary,” he later recalled. “Union Seminary, for me, was the real institutional site that brought together all of my interests. It was a Christian seminary, it was deeply shaped by progressive politics, Marxism, feminism, antihomophobic thought and black liberation theology.”

West continued about his decision to teach at Union:

“I decided to teach at Union Seminary for three reasons: It was (and still is) the center of liberation theology in the country; it was one of the best places for black theological education in the country; and it allowed me to teach and read widely in philosophy, social theory, history, literary criticism and cultural thought. Union was the perfect place to become a broadly engaged cultural critic with a strong grounding in the history of philosophy and criticism.”

That’s my alma mater! I took several classes with Professor West, and remember well an exchange that happened in one of his classes. But to set the stage, I was the Student Senate Rep from the Lesbian/Gay Caucus all three years of the M.Div. program, and was completely out. At some point in the classroom discussion the topic of which I cannot recall, I said, “Oh, for God’s sake,” to which one of the African American students in the class looked at me, and said, “for whose sake?” in such a way, and in context with the discussion that clearly implied I was not in a position to call on God given my sexual orientation. That pissed me off, needless to say. I got up and walked out. Another student, and African American woman, came after me to talk about it. We were sitting in the Student Union when class let out, and Cornel West came over to see why I had left class. After I explained to him what happened (he couldn’t hear it where he was), he just lowered his head, shook it, and said, “We have such a long way to go.” He didn’t just talk the talk about “antihomophobic thought,” he walked it, too.

Imagine my surprise then, when I read this:

(West) replied that it should be possible to defend the progressive possibilities of heterosexual marriage from a feminist and egalitarian standpoint without being accused of bigotry against gays, lesbians, and single parents. Repeating a central argument of his book on the family, West contended that children did best when raised by two biological parents that were married to each other. The empirical evidence on this point was terribly clear, and important, he urged. To set progressivism against it was disastrous for progressivism and for children: “We make it clear that this does not stigmatize single mothers and fathers, disqualify loving gay or lesbian parents, or preclude successful adoption of children.” He took no interest in bolstering discrimination against gay or lesbian parents. Progressivism had to be against that, just as it had to “put a premium on the well-being of children.”

Huh - that sounds a whole lot like McCain’s response to the Washington Blade the other day in response to a question on adoption. I admit I was a little surprised by West’s response. It is hard to reconcile his statement with the man who was upset by how I was treated in his classroom. Just goes to show that McCain’s position is not all that unique, even in progressive circles.

As I mentioned above, this is not just a trip down Memory Lane for me. You may recall that Larry Johnson had an excellent piece in No Quarter entitled, “Barack Obama’s Revolutionary Buddies,” in which he mentioned “Progressives for Obama.” Wanna take a guess who one of those Progressives are? Yep, you got it, Cornel West. He was one of those listed from this organization.

Now I should add, and the article from which I have been quoting is quite clear, that West is a socialist. Here is more from Prof. Dorrien’s excellent piece (bear with the introduction of two other socialists - it helps for the context):

Harrington was eloquent about the structural injustices of capitalism, but he passed over its equally devastating operations on the cultural level.

That was never true of West, who emphasized cultural criticism, writing about popular music, television, sexuality, identity politics, black culture, white supremacism, the culture of nihilism, and the cultural limitations of progressive organizations dominated by whites. West’s pamphlet for DSA, “Toward a Socialist Theory of Racism,” was a signature statement for him and the organization. (Emphasis mine.) Stressing the Marxist bias of most American socialist theorizing about racism, West delineated four main types. The first viewed racism as an epiphenomenon of the class struggle, subsuming racial injustice under the general rubric of working class exploitation. Eugene Debs, an icon of this approach, had a simple answer to the question of what socialism offered blacks: “Nothing, except socialism.” Debs took for granted that racism was a divide-and-conquer ruse of the ruling class. To him, a socialist revolution was the only solution to racial injustice and all other social evils; any solution outside the labor framework was racism in reverse. West acknowledged that Debs, having fought racism bravely, was an honorable example of the color-blind strategy; nonetheless, socialist reductionism was not the answer, since it ignored the complexity of the problem.

And this ties into Matthew Weaver’s outstanding piece, “Obama Is Hiding A Radical Past,” in which he details Barack Obama’s membership in the DSA, and its implications for this election. If you have not read it, I highly recommend it to you.

I have to say, though, in full disclosure, that Professor West originally supported Hillary Clinton. Check out this video from the State of Black America and his challenges to Obama’s ability (major H/T to WasLn, etc., for leading me to the New Zealand site, another one at which real investigation into Obama’s Socialist ties is taking place):

Too bad he didn’t leave it at that. Check out this video and how he introduces Obama (again, H/T to the New Zealand site):

Oh, dear. “Comrade”? Um, yeah. The evidence is quickly mounting that, indeed, Obama is a Socialist, and a card-carrying one at that. Now, I freely admit that I have socialistic tendencies insofar as I am a firm believer in sharing the wealth with those who are less fortunate - I think that is a biblical mandate. And, you would most likely win a game of Monopoly with me (”oh, you need some money? Here, take some of mine!”), but I am not running for president, nor am I a card-carrying member of an official Socialist movement with a capital “S.” There is a difference after all. But, Obama is. And many of his associates are.

I wonder when the MSM is going to pick up THIS story?? So far, it’s looking like NEVER. So the DNC has selected (and I am using that word intentionally) a card-carrying Socialist as the Democratic Presidential Nominee. I wonder how THAT’S gonna play in Kansas? I can tell you that I don’t think it would go over too well here in SC. And that is just the point - the majority of people have no idea that this is the case. Add to that his ties to Black Nationalism as expressed through the rantings of Rev. Jeremiah Wright (and really - since when is a millionnaire considered to be “poor”?), the connection of his church to the Nation of Islam in general, and Louis Farrakhan in particular (not to mention the proximity of Farrakan’s complex to both Ayers’ and Obama’s houses), and it is painting a picture of a man who, at the very LEAST, does not represent the majority of Americans. At most, it has the very real potential of putting a tremendous amount of power in the hands of a man whose mindset would lead us down a dangerous road.

The bottom line is this: Obama continues to be an unknown quantity, with less than a month to go before the election. The vast majority of Americans have NO idea who this man really is, and it seems his handlers have worked very hard to ensure that is the case. But thanks to the efforts of people like Matthew Weaver, Larry Johnson, and New Zeal Research Associates, we are finally learning more. I hope it is not too late…

UPDATE: Alert reader, hadenough, provided documentation that contradicts my claim that Cornel West had been a Clinton supporter before he became an Obama supporter. The information I had was erroneous, and hadenough was correct. It does not change the fundamental issues regarding Obama and his “comrades,” but in the interest of accuracy, I feel it is important to note this change. Here is the LINK to the documentation regarding West’s support of Obama.

Obama has a friend or associate that is questionable.

Video or articles surface of Obama thanking them, supporting them, writing a blurb for their book, organizing events for them, campaigning for them, campaigning with them, playing poker with them, serving on boards with them, buying homes with them, dining with them, praising them, using them to prove his christian faith, or hiring them.

Obama then denies their tight relationship - brushes the association off as *a guy in the ‘hood*, claims they are someone who doesn’t advise him, minimizes the actual number of times he attended church, says he can’t vet his vetters, or flat out lies.

Obama THEN completely denies any knowledge of who they really are, denies ever knowing who they were, what they said, what they did, how corrupt they were, any fraud they were up to, and what they were preaching.

People - this isn’t a coincidence. One or two nefarious associations can be examined and written off. But there is a looooooooong list of people that Obama is close to - whether they be family members, business partners, friends or co-workers who are either radicals, criminals, racist, or anti-American.

This list, compiled by The Daily Antikos, is great, but forgot a few people/organizations (that I added at the end):

Jeremiah Wright - Obama’s Pastor for 20 years. Obama did not distance himself until it was political.

Father Pflager - Speaks at Obama’s former Church (only after embarrassment) and Obama gave him money & here they are in 2000.

Bill Ayers - Terrorist. Member of the Weather Underground. Killed Americans. Launched Obama’s Political Career.

Tony Rezko - bought land and sold it to Obama at a discount. Oh yeah, and he is a convicted felon.

Raila Odinga - Defeated in his bid for the Kenyan Presidency. Led Supporters in a Violent Uprising. Obama Campaigned for him in 2006. (at tax payer expense)

Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al-Mansour - I can’t even get started. This is Obama’s Political Grand-father, and his intentions do not seem to be too honorable.

Franklin Raines - Cooked the Books at Fannie Mae. Obama hired him as an advisor on Housing and Urban Affairs.

Frank Marshall David - Communist Obama Mentor.

Emil Jones, Jr. - Ugh… Just Read It.

Rev James Meeks - Spiritual Mentor

Rashid Khalidi - PLO Terrorist.

Here are a few more:

Larry Walsh is the Will County (IL) County Executive, good buddy, political confidante, and frequent poker player with Barack Obama. He is currently being investigated by the FBI.

Kwame Kilpatrick, former mayor of Detroit, convicted felon, has been charged with 10 felonies including perjury, obstruction of justice and assaulting a public safety officer. He will be sentenced October 28th. In June, Kwame Kilpatrick gave Barack Obama his endorsement as a Democratic Party Superdelegate.

Gov. Blagojevich, who is under investigation.

Marilyn Katz, a former member of the ’60’s anti-war group SDS, led protestors against the police outside the Democratic Convention in 1968. Protestors threw nails in the street to impede the police and clashed with police on this occasion and others. Katz has said of her activities that she wanted the U.S. to become a socialist paradise. She is a close friend of Barack Obama. Katz is a member of Obama’s national finance committee.

James Johnson, Former Fannie Mae executive who was vetting candidates for Obama for his VP but had to resign. Johnson is drawing fire over his jumbo home loans from Countrywide Financial, a major actor in the subprime mortgage mess, that may have been below market rates.

Louis Farrakhan, leader of the NOI. Obama helped to organize his Million Man March in ‘95, and he is tight with Reverend Wright and Phleger.

Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac - Obama has recieved the most donations, second only to Dodd, from these companies, and also was thanked, in part with the Congressional Black Caucus, for *being like family* with Fannie and Freddi.

ACORN - Obama is the former Director of Illinois Project Vote, and they have been raided and charged for fraudulent voter registration practices. They are also linked to some of the above associations of Obama’s.

Michelle Obama. *First time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.* Nuff said.

How does someone hang out with that many people, who are, as I said, criminals, radicals, racists or just plain anti-American, and not share some of those characteristics?

And the best excuse Obama can ever come up with is *they aren’t the person I thought I knew* or *I never heard them say those things* or *I did not know they were a domestic terrorist when I was having my first fundraiser in their living room*.

Are we to believe that he truly didn’t know, that he is that uninformed, that naive, that, dare I say, stupid? Or is he just lying?

Why would someone who associates with all those people WANT to be President? And more importantly, why would anyone WANT him to be President?

I just don’t get it.

My oldest brother sent me the piece Gloria Steinem wrote on Gov. Palin, an elitist, patronizing piece in which she diminishes people who hunt (not understanding, I guess, that many people hunt to put FOOD on the table, especially in these difficult economic times), among other smears. So, I felt compelled to write him back. A lot of this is information those who have been paying attention already know:

I am not an apologist for Sarah Palin, but I find the argument that SHE is inexperienced as Steinem said to be laughable. The DNC selected the least experienced candidate ever, one who refuses to make available ANY paper trail at all - no college or law school transcripts, no medical records, no passports, no birth certificates, and claims he had NOT ONE PAPER or DATE BOOK available from his time in the IL Senate (which is part-time service, btw). One who has no legislative accomplishments of note to his name. Never mind the LONG list of his sordid associates which throw his whole “good judgment” stance out the window.

Or his lack of chairing ONE meeting of the European Affairs Subcommittee, which oversees Afghanistan, and now claims that we need to do more abt Afghanistan,and who wants to return to the foreign policy of DONALD RUMSFELD…If this was BUSH, the Progressives would be going batshit crazy screaming our fool heads off.


But for some reason, this is all fine and dandy. Never mind all of the university professors who are now shrugging off his constant plagiarizing (and his picking a running mate who is also a plagiarizer), an act that can get students thrown OUT of universities. Why? I really don’t get this infatuation with this man! Without a teleprompter, he can barely even talk!! But he is “eloquent,” and has “good judgm ent.” Um, no. And he is sexist as all hell, to boot.

And for some reason, Obama is constantly comparing himself to the VP pick, not the presidential nominee. Much easier for him to pick on a woman than a man, as he demonstrated time and again during this campaign. Flipping Hillary off, brushing her off his shoulder and his shoe, having “99 Problems BUt a Bitch Ain’t One” playing when he won Iowa. Class act this guy. Oh, and for what it’s worth - he lives 1 1/2 blocks away from Bill Ayers, who lives right down the street from the Farrakhan Compound. What a coincidence.

Oh - is now when I tell you that my brother has a PhD., and developed some major software, whose clients include NASA? Yeah. He’s supposed to be smart (my younger brother and his wife - both PhDs - also are big Obama supporters, at least my brother is. My sis-in-law is a “Vote Democrat” no matter what more than anything.). Just goes to show that there is a difference between being educated and having common sense. I can say that because I have BOTH!!! Ahem.

Here’s what he wrote back:

These are interesting accusations. Do you know these things for a fact? What is your source of information? Is there some doubt about the fact that Obama was elected president of the Harvard Law Review? You don’t get to that place by being a flaky biscuit. Is there any doubt about the fact that McCain was at the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy?

I don’t follow you with the Donald Rumsfield foreign policy thing. What do you mean?

One thing I can say for sure. I have seen Obama in many interviews and town hall type conversations, besides the podium speeches. He has always impressed me with his speaking ability in off the cuff situations. This is a sharp dude.

I also like Joe Biden very much. He is a solid, decent, knowledgeable person.

At the end of the day, this is about policies, not personalities. Who do you think is going to best implement the objectives of Hillary Clinton? If you say McCain-Palin, then I don’t see how you get there.

Oh, boy. Evidently, he does not have the same desire for sources when others are “accused,” but whatever. And yes, he DID go there about the personalities. Here’s my response:

Yes, I know these things for a fact. This is what I do every day, all day long.

I don’t know if I will even vote this year, so don’t assume I am voting for McCain/Palin. I can say that McCain is an honorable man, and has given his entire life i n service to this country. That means something. He is also moderate, and a reformer, something Obama will NEVER be (oh - today’s BIG report is about Obama raging on Palin, particularly about the Bridge to Nowhere, which she did get rid of afterall - and which HE VOTED FOR TWICE!!! He claimed, “Palin Can’t Just Make Stuff Up!” No, that purview belongs to Obama alone.). But Obama will never get my vote. He should never have assumed he would.

So that’s how my morning started - not at ALL about what I was going to write today. But you never know what is going to come up, I reckon. And I know there is evern more about Obama, but I figured I was pushing my luck with him actually reading it this far.

Ah, families…

“This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense…”

The very next day, the Obama campaign posted on its Web site under the title “Fact Check on Obama and Ayers” the following, each prefaced with “Reality” and backed up with one or media reports:

• Obama was eight years old when the Weathermen were active
• Ayers connection is “phony,” “tenuous,” “a stretch”
• Ayers comments were published on September 11; the interview occurred prior to publication
• Ayers is a tenured professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and was a “respected adviser” to Mayor Daley on school reform.
• Charges against Ayers were dropped and he served no time

Obama continued his lies about Ayers when he appeared on Fox News Sunday, April 27. Barack repeated the claim that, “Mr. Ayres (sic) is a 60 plus year old individual who lives in my neighborhood…” (Fox News, April 27, 2008).

The campaign to persuade the public that Barack barely knew Ayers got a boost on August 21, 2008 from TruthFightsBack.com (John Kerry’s Web site for the Obama campaign). The site trumpeted, “Barack Obama Barely Knows William Ayers” and wrote that “The Republicans, desperate to smear Barack and try to build on their lies about his religion, insinuate that Barack Obama has a deep relationship with William Ayers. William Ayers was once a member of a radical group in the 1960s.” TruthFightsBack.com calls this lie “The Truth” under the title Barack Obama Barely Knows William Ayers:

“Barack Obama lived in the same area of Chicago as Ayers, and Ayers has been a politically active member of that community for years. Considering that, it’s actually remarkable how little the two have to do with each other. Early in Barack Obama’s career, he attended one reception in his honor at Ayers’s house. They also were separately asked by a charitable organization to serve on that organization’s board. And that’s it. There’s no friendship between the two, no relationship, no history of working together.”

The Obama team’s effort to cover up Barack’s ties to Ayers included an organized campaign to intimidate a Chicago radio station (WGN) that planned to interview Stanley Kurtz, who had succeeded in examining documents from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC). The campaign emailed an Obama Action Wire to its supporters encouraging them to call in to the show and use following talking points (as found on the report form for supporters to log their call):

• William Ayers was involved with the Weather Underground when Barack Obama was eight years old, and Barack has roundly condemned their actions.
• Last night on Fox News, Kurtz tried to radicalize an education reform program in Chicago called the Annenberg Challenge. The Challenge was funded by Republican Walter Annenberg, introduced by Mayor Daley and Republican Governor Jim Edgar, and one of its initiatives was even praised by John McCain.
• Kurtz claimed on Fox News that William Ayers recruited Obama to the Annenberg Challenge — a flat out lie. Ayers did not serve on the board of the Challenge, and he had nothing to do with Barack’s recruitment.

Lies, big lies, and damned lies. The Obama team offers a disingenuous blend of fact and fiction in trying to cover up the true relationship between Obama and Ayers. The devil is in the detials and details do matter:

Ayers is just a guy who lives in my neighborhood, a tenured professor, and adviser to the local mayor

Ayers does live in Barack’s neighborhood (or vice versa). In fact, Barack and Bill currently live about two blocks apart on Greenwood Avenue and 50^th Street. And before Barack’s “boneheaded” deal with convicted felon Rezko to purchase the Greenwood mansion, Obama lived about 1-1/4 miles from Bill. But the dismissive “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood” is a lie because Ayers was not just some fellow Barack bumped into at the corner market. They have a relationship that goes back nearly 20 years. Ayers was Barack’s friend, employer, colleague, and political supporter.

Ayers also is a tenured professor and multiple reports indicate he also is a buddy of Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley. In fact, Mayor Daley has defended him during the campaign saying they’ve worked together, that Bill Ayers is a respected educator, and valued member of the Chicago community (Chicago Tribune, April 17, 2008).

It is unfair to say that Ayers’ actions 40 years ago when I was only eight should reflect upon me; anyway, charges against him where dropped and he did not serve any jail time. Plus, I’ve condemned the group’s actions

False. It is entirely fair to judge Barack by the people he surrounds himself with. Bill Ayer’s may have beat the terrorism charges but he has remained resolutely unrepentant about his actions. In 1981 David Horowitz quotes him bragging “Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country.” In 2001 he is quoted saying “I don’t regret settings bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” (New York Times, September 11, 2001). Bill’s wife, Bernadine Dohrn went to jail rather than aid the government after the deadly Brinks armored car robbery. I like the comment at Hot Air (February 24, 2008) where See-Dubya expresses concern about Barack’s “…frightening tone-deafness toward terrorism, and a blithe ignorance of the evil and chaos these radicals represent.”

Any connection to Ayers is phony, tenuous, or a stretch. It is ridiculous to suggest any tie with Ayers

False. Everything discovered to date undeniably document that Barack Obama and Bill Ayers have personal, professional, and political ties that span nearly 20 years. Steve Diamond believes they likely first met in 1988 following Chicago’s teacher’s strike. Barack was hired into a Woods Fund sponsored position with Developing Communities Project that was a member of Bill Ayers’ Alliance for Better Chicago Schools (ABCs) (Global Labor and Politics, June 7, 2008).

Consider as well:

• In November 20, 1997. Michelle Obama, then Associate Dean of Student Services and Director of the University of Chicago Community Service Center, organized and participated in a panel that included Barack and Bill, Should a child ever be called a “super predator?” at the University of Chicago. See also, Chicago Tribune.
• In 1997 Barack wrote a review of Bill’s book “A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court”. Chicago Tribune published a blurb from Obama about books he was reading. See also USA Today.
• April 19-20, 2002, Barack, Bill, and Bernadine participated in a conference and panel “Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?“. See also, Chicago Tribune.
• February 2005. Barack and Bill participated in a conference and dinner for Rashid Khalidi at Columbia wherein they offered testimonials to Khalidi. Mayor Daley also attended this hate-fest. (See The Sun and Campus Watch for some commentary. Khalidi subsequently lost his position at Columbia because of his comments, see New York Times.)

Ayers did not help launch my career

False. Back in 1995 after Barack Obama had returned to Chicago upon graduating from Harvard Law School, Bill Ayers hired the young Barack, then a third year associate at Davis, miner, Barnhill & Gallad. Together they spent upwards to $160 million dollars over the next seven years. As well, Bill and his wife Bernadine Dohrn feted him to the community as then-State Senator Palmer’s successor.

Early in Barack Obama’s career, he attended one reception in his honor at Ayers’ house

Not the whole truth. This was not a meet and greet reception. And Barack had more than one isolated sit down with Ayers and Dohrn. The Ayers/Dohrn home is where Barack Obama launched his campaign to oust then-State Senator Alice Palmer. This reception is reported in numerous articles including Ben Smith in Politico (February 22). Maria Warren writes about this gathering in her blog Musings & Migraines on January 27, 2005, “When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him–introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.” Ari Berman also reports in The Nation (May 1) that Bill hosted a fundraiser for Barack in 1996. (Possibly an error on Berman’s part as this might be the 1995 event since there is no other mention of a 1996 fundraiser.)

Ayers had nothing to do with my joining Annenberg Challenge. He did not recruit me, nor did he serve on its board

False. Bill Ayers founded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, secured the initial $50 million from Annenberg Challenge, and claims to have co-chaired the Collaborative it with Barack Obama. While there is nothing to explicitly prove that Bill recruited Barack, it is simply not credible to say that Bill Ayers had nothing to do with Barack Obama joining the organization.

I do not exchange ideas with Ayers

Really? Can you say the same thing about your communications director, David Axelrod? According to a source who attended the Democratic National convention in Denver, an old friend of Ayer’s bragged that Axelrod and Ayers are in regular contact and coordinating on how to respond to the claims about the Ayers/Obama relationship.

Ayers has not ‘officially’ endorsed me

Really? So he’s backing McCain? The issue is not who Ayers has endorsed. The issue remains–why did Barack hang out for so many years with a guy like Ayers. Endorsement or not, it is a question that matter.

Ayers has been a politically active member of that community for years

True. First, as a home-grown domestic terrorist, then since around 1987 as a community activist, organizer, and financier. As Lynn Sweet wrote in the Chicago Sun-Times (March 3), “Hyde Park welcomed William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn to the neighborhood after they resurfaced as local civic leaders following their years on the lam as members of the Weather Underground.” She notes Ben Smith observing in Politico (February 22), “While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement.”

Considering that, it’s actually remarkable how little the two have to do with each other

Oh yeah?! Now this is where the lying really begins. As is increasingly clear, they worked together and shared the same circle of friends and families, same business associates, and same political associates.

They also were separately asked by a charitable organization to serve on that organization’s board

Not true. They were involved in at least three different “charitable” organizations. There was the Woods Fund of Chicago, which Barack joined 1993 and Bill Ayers joined in 1997. But what about the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers founded and worked on with Barack Obama from 1995 through 1999. While Barack chaired the Challenge, Bill co-chaired its Collaborative arm. This was actually three connected organizations: Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC, the Board), Chicago School Reform Collaborative (the Collaborative, and Consortium of Chicago Schools Research (CCSR).

And that’s it. There’s no friendship between the two…

Ben Smith in Politico (February 22) writes that Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician, told him that they were “friends”. At the time Smith dismissed this for lack of supporting information and the denial by Barack Obama. (I wonder if Smith has since reconsidered?). Mayor Daley now says they are friends. Even Bill Burton acknowledges that they were friends.

…no relationship

False. They have family, community, business, and political ties. The only tie they appear to not share regards religion.

…no history of working together

False. Why is the media so reluctant to explore the CAC relationship?

At the risk of being redundant, sometime in 1987 Bill and Bernadine returned home to Chicago, where both had family. Michelle likely already knew both through her Robinson family ties and then in her 1988 work at Sidley Austin, where Bernardine was also employed. It is likely that Barack at least knew of Bill Ayers because he was already involving himself among with the Ayers family and their players in the community. Bill Ayers operated in relative obscurity until February 2008 when his ties to Barack and Michelle Obama became a matter of discussion in Barack’s presidential aspirations.

As a community organizer in Chicago from 1985 to 1988 Barack Obama received funding from and worked with numerous groups, such as Developing Communities Project. Bill Ayers joined in this arena upon his return in 1987 through his own group, Alliance for Better Chicago Schools (ABCs). They both surely crossed paths as Ayer’s father, Tom, provided funding to Barack and Bill through Chicago United, a group of businessmen concerned about race and education issues in Chicago. Tom Ayers was once CEO of Commonwealth Edison (now Exelon) (Steve Diamond, Global Labor and Politics, June 18, 2008). Michelle, the Robinson daughter, continued her own involvement but details are murky at best. Barack Obama shows up again in Chicago after graduating from Harvard Law School, ends up at Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, and joins the Woods Fund board, 1993, as a freshly minted 32 year old law school graduate, where he remained through 2002 and continued association with until gaining a seat in the U.S. Senate. Bill Ayers formally joined the board in 1999 but had ties throughout the earlier years, including receiving funds from the group.

Anyway, in 1993 Bill began organizing the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Despite his unrepentant terrorist past he succeeded in securing nearly $50 million from Annenberg Challenge and immediately named Barack as his co-chair. Together over the next five years they spent at least $110 million for “radical” school reform in Chicago (Steve Diamond, Global Labor and Politics, June 18, 2008 and August 18, 2008). Then, or shortly afterward, the remains of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was handed over to Chicago Public Education Fund.

This was a small circle of people, families, and businesses. They were figuratively partners in crime, Chicago’s political mafia enriching themselves through their political position, through federal, local, and state funding, and through their positions and funds given from private organizations, especially, of immediately focus here, from the Woods Fund and Annenberg Challenge. It is likely that there are other organizations and people involved and this needs to be explored further. Stanley Kurtz, Steve Diamond, and others are now beginning to look into what Annenberg Challenge did with its more than $160 million in private and federal dollars.

But first, let’s get back to Barack, Bill, and Bernadine. Again, Michelle plays at least a bit role in this but to what extent is still unclear. Over the years Barack, Bill, Bernadine, and Michelle show up together, along with other Chicago figures that include Rev. Wright, Minister Farrakhan, Rev. Meeks, Rev. Pfleger, Sen. Jones, and many, many more. Throughout this Barack also had his early ties with friend, businessman, and political financier Tony Rezko and Rezko’s partners and associates. And finally, let’s also not forget organizations that received funding from Barack and Bill, such as:

• Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)
• Arab American Action Network (AAAN) founded by husband and wife Rashid and Mona Khalidi.
• Maoist Mike Klonsky, another terrorist member of the Weatherman
• Children and Family Justice Center, Bernardine’s organization.
• Trinity Unity Church and Rev. Wright.

Finally, what role did Barack’s position as a sitting state senator play in all of this?

Summary

Fairly or not, Chicago has a long reputation as a corrupt political city. It is increasingly clear that Barack joined and became a willing partner in this corruption. The families, organizations, and businesses involved enriched themselves off of the private and public funds that Barack controlled. That Barack Obama lied and continues to lie about his relationship with Bill Ayers is a smokescreen and the tip-of-the-iceberg about the depth of his involvement in what are, or may be, corrupt practices among these people and their organizations.

A Bit of Background and Unresolved Items

As long as this post is, it is still embarrassingly incomplete. In writing this I have read every post at Larry Johnson’s NoQuarterUSA and Steve Diamond’s Global Labor and Politics blogs involving terrorist William Ayers. I also dug through scores of articles and posts at various media sites and blogs. While some matters are consistently reported, others vary significantly. I’m sure I’ve missed many salient points.

It is especially dramatic to read earlier compared to newer posts. Consider Ben Smith’s “Obama once visited ’60s radicals” from February 22, 2008. The title alone shows the naivety of Ben and everyone about the level of Obama’s involvement with Bill and Bernadine. That Obama let such false picture spread without correction, including then and now on his campaign Web sites, further reflects his clear intent to deceive voters.

Four unresolved items in an incomplete list of questions are:

• What is Michelle’s involvement in all of this?
• How did Barack’s role in the Illinois Senate affect or was a part of all of this?
• What are Barack’s other board and organization memberships?
• Where did the money go? E.g., to friends, family, personal and professional associates, and political cronies?

Suggested Readings

The body of evidence and discussion on the relationship among and between Barack and Michelle Obama, William Ayers, and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn is growing daily. As we get beyond the lies and begin to follow the money I recommend reading the following:

• Larry Johnson at his Web site NoQuarterUSA and as I have summarized here.
• Steve Diamond at Global Labor and Politics and as often published at NoQuarterUSA.
• Stanley Kurtz at National Review has made a start and it will be worth watching to see what he develops as he researches the Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers he’s now gained access to.
• Selected articles from multiple sources are summarized here.
• My posts at The Problem With Obama and The Independent View.

Matthew Weaver
Reprinted from It’s Not Just a Lie, It’s a Matter of Character

In case anyone missed it, this is what Larry Johnson wrote to him at No Quarter after Andrew started the rumors about Bristol Palin being the mother of Trig:

Fuck You Andrew Sullivan

You piece of human scum. Pick the time and date. I will kick your ass. You are despicable. There is one indisputable fact–Sarah Palin gave life to a baby boy who has Down’s Syndrome. And you dare to suggest that this was an illegitimate birth by her daughter. You have no sense of decency or honor. You deserve to be beaten in every manner conceivable. You and your cohorts spread this vicious lie. You are a spineless coward. There is only one truth. Sarah Palin’s Down’s Syndrome baby has more humanity and intelligence than you will ever achieve in your pathetic life. You are a synonym for asshole. I will fight you with one arm tied behind my back and destroy you. Please, accept the challenge.

In other words, Sullivan’s a tool.

Here’s the thing - by spreading rumors, and posting unsubstantiated “comments” of Palin’s time in Wasilla (I have seen other comments that were more favorable by the people who lived there, as well as in a BIG article about her in Time.com), it weakens the argument against her. The amount of time she was governor is a slippery slope for Democrats since Obama has spent very little time in the Senate - he has missed almost HALF of the Senate votes, and started campaigning almost as soon as he got in. So, Democrats need to be mighty careful on that one - especially since she is not at the top of the ticket and Obama is. It just sets them up, is my point. I have tried to find independent, reliable verification of this story, but have not been able to do so. Huffington Post is the main source for this story, and they are notoriously slanted. Oh, and Palin has the highest approval rating of any governor in the COUNTRY. Which is why I say those who want to slam her must have documentation to support their claims against her.

Along those lines - NO ONE in the Obama camp should follow up on Palin allegedly “biting the hand” that got her where she is given what he did to Alice Palmer, and the NUMEROUS people he has now thrown under the bus. (By the way, did you know that Bill Ayers lives about 1 1/2 blocks away from Obama? And the Farrakhan compound is right up the street from Ayers? H/T to Truthteller for this info! Coincidence?? Hahahahaha.) So, yeah - I’d let that one lie if I was him…

Even more than that,though, the Obama people should NEVER chastise anyone else for not being “vetted.” Obama has NEVER been fully vetted, certainly not by the MSM. Had he, he would not be the nominee now. He has too many shady associates (add Kilpatrick to that list), too few legislative accomplishments, too little experience, and no paper trail at ALL. NONE. (How can that be? Hell, I have a paper trail, and I’m not running for president! I have old date books - I even know where they are! I have files, for cryin’ out loud!! With papers in them! Really! And Obama doesn’t?? Uh, sure.)

Frankly, this is the kind of thing Bush supporters did to Al Gore and John Kerry. It is disturbing to me that the Left Wing has started acting so much like the Right Wing in its actions. Perhaps it learned too well from the Bushits. But this is not the Democratic Party I knew - maybe I was/am naive, but I expect my Party to act ethically and with integrity. It has lost out on both counts in a major way this year. I don’t recognize it any more - well, not as Democratic anyway. And bear in mind, I was clinging to the far left corner of the DNC before this. Not a centrist am I. The sexism and misogyny ALONE this year has been nothing but shocking and unprecedented. Women are the BACKBONE of the DNC, and it has treated us like pure shit. Now, it is starting on Palin. I never thought I’d see this day. I am truly dismayed by this. McCain came out FORCEFULLY against the media and DEMOCRATS attacking Palin for not staying home and taking care of her babies! What is this - 1958??? The DEMOCRATS are saying this, and the REPUBLICANS are the ones standing up for women! I feel like I am living in upside-down world. Bush and Obama claim to be Uniters, and both have divided this country more than anyone else I can remember. Friends end friendships, families are fighting - what the hell is going ON???? I guess “Uniter” is supposed to be defined as “divider” now…

Bottom line is this - go after Palin’s POLICY positions, and there are certainly ones that are 180 degrees from many Progressives. But the Swift-Boating will backfire, I think. It infuriated us when it happened to our candidate because it was based on lies and innuendo. I hardly think we should be using the same tactics now.

Sigh. I am passionate about this, as you see. I am sad, sad that the DNC has acted so immorally, so unethically, and engaged in flat out fraud. Maybe this kind of thing has been going on for years and I just didn’t see it or know it, but if so, it sure wasn’t this blatant. Not by half. I cannot stand to see the Democrats engaging in such sleazy politics. And I am furious at the way they are treating women. What does it say when the RNC and McCain come out guns BLAZING about the sexist treatment of Sarah Palin, when Obama ENGAGED in sexist treatment of Clinton, and the DNC supported it, said nothing, and its leaders engaged in it. Now they are turning it on Palin. That is simply unacceptable to me. Completely, and utterly unacceptable. I will not condone that kind of treatment of women. And let me say this - if this is how Obama is treating Clinton and Palin now, you cannot claim he will watch out for women if president. If he treats women like this, over half the population, what hope do members of the GLBT community have? And so it goes down the line. How incredibly, disturbingly, sad…

I have zero compassion for them. Anyone who supported Obama after March 2008 is clearly either a delusional Obama cultist or a head in the sand idiot. This one is on you.

You had better more experienced choices, say Senator Joe Biden. You had better more principled candidates who live their convictions, say Representative Dennis Kucinich. You had a reform-minded committed populist, say former Senator John Edwards. And then you had Hillary Clinton who despite some flaws encompassed all the best qualities of the aforementioned. You dug the Democratic Party’s grave, now wallow in it for all I care.

For months, countless voices of reason have pointed out time and again, Obama is an empty suit (the above cartoon is from March 2007 so don’t act surprise that Obama is devoid of substance). Obama is a fraud. He lacks experience. He has no relevant qualifications. He has no conviction other than his own political welfare.

His past behaviour is troublesome. He threw Alice Palmer and four others off the ballot. His rise through the labyrinth of Chicago politics took him down some worrisome alleys and forged alliances with a cast of characters include Louis Farrahkan, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the Reverend James Meeks, Antonin Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, William Ayers, and Bernardine Dohrn. Now he pals around with Donnie McClurkin, Father Michael Pfleger, and Jodie Evans.

For months committed liberals like Paul Krugman, in column after column, demonstrated how his proposals weren’t that progressive or even centrist. I’ve grown hoarse pointing out Obama’s lobbyist connections and his ties to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries.

At every opportunity I get, I bring up the fact Senator Obama voted for the Bush-Cheney Energy Policy. The Washington Post called it “a piñata of perks for energy industries.” John McCain did not vote with his party. Hillary Clinton did not cross the aisle.

But you would not listen. You were mired in a speech that Obama gave in 2002. I hope that speech keeps you warm the next four years because that’s is the extent of his progressive record, a speech. His real record is far more centrist (that reach out across the aisle and ream someone kind of record), or perhaps corporatist is a better choice of words. Six billion dollars in subsidies to the oil & gas industry and $12 billion in subsidies to nuclear power industry.

One has to wonder if he photocopied his energy plan from Dick Cheney and Charles Grassley. His health care plan is a misnomer, it’s an insurance plan. The beneficiary is the insurance industry.

His votes in the Senate were more pro-Bush than Hillary’s, than Biden’s, than Dodd’s, than Edwards’. Progressive Punch ranked Obama the 42nd most progressive member of the Senate. There are 49 Democrats and one Socialist and one “Independent” in the Democratic Caucus. Forty-second out of 51. Funny how that is. Laughing yet?

Now, you are upset that he is backtracking. News flash: he says what he thinks will please his audience at the moment and then he does whatever he thinks will advance his career the most. And what a career it is. Zero legislative accomplishments. Zip. Name one. He has missed 42% of the votes in the Senate this year. Over the comparable period, Hillary missed 30%. That’s over a quarter more votes missed. Not trivial and by design. He and his handlers don’t want him to have a record to run on.

You think his vote on FISA was shocking. Really? He is the candidate of corporate interests, the candidate of the anti-Clinton Democratic establishment. You’re voting for Obama but getting Tom Dashcle. There’s a winner for you. You’re voting for Obama and getting Jesse Jackson, Jr. Another soulless Chicago politician. As a bonus, tack on Dick Durbin. But wait there’s more. Act now and we’ll throw in out-of-touch effete liberals– John Kerry and a gasbag to boot — Bill Richardson. But wait, there’s more you also get master advertising guru David Alexrod. Think of it as the DNC’s special gift to to you.

Obama is the designated one, the annointed one, but you satistified yourselves with silly speeches and satiated yourselves with empty platitudes galore. You went for the hip and the flash, a no-hit wonder who hasn’t even come to bat yet. He moves from one on deck circle to another never fully entering the game.

Instead you left the ace of the Democratic Party in the dugout. You fools. Stop your crying and either attempt to salvage the situation or prepare yourselves for a McCain Presidency which from my point of view is preferable to an Obama one. Better the devil that I know than the devil that I don’t. I know what to expect from McCain.

But how can I trust that shiftless soulless hypocrite who with each passing day changes yet another of his positions? It’s backtracking with Barack. So far he’s trampled on the Fourth Amendment, a women’s right to choose, the health care of all Americans and now the cornerstone of what brung him to the dance in the first place, that magical speech in 2002 that had to be re-recorded so it could be replayed again and again and use your opposition to a fruitless war as his springboard to power.

So it is with incredulity that I read this silliest of wanking posts by Ian Welsh on Firedoglake entitled “Turning Obama Into A Punchline: How Democrats Can Lose.” He was mockable from the start and his supporters perhaps even more.

I still can’t forget that kid in Ohio who thinks Obama is infallible. Papa Obama the First. News flash — Obama is a joke. He isn’t just a punchline, he is one of those clown punch bags. He may come back up but he just gets walloped down again. The funnier part is that it is largely self-inflicted so far. The GOP has yet to get its licks in.

His post and selected comments below the fold.

Once upon a time there was a candidate who was 17 points ahead of his foe. The election, it seemed, was his.

His name was Dukakis, and he lost that election to George Bush, Sr.

Or, more accurately, he lost it to Lee Atwater, Rove’s mentor. By the time Atwater got through with him, Dukakis wasn’t even a respected politician anymore, he was a punchline.

In 2000 Rove ran Bush as a “compassionate conservative” and smeared Gore as a liar, the man who’d “invented” the internet. The fact that Gore had never said that didn’t matter. In 2004 Kerry, an actual war hero, was smeared as a coward by the Swift Boat Veterans for “Truth” and by the time they got through with him, the man who’d taught Swift Boaters that the way to respond to an attack was to turn into it, was branded a coward, not a hero.

Republicans try and run elections based on “character” and when they manage it they generally win. When the election turns on something else, such as hope, the economy and health care in ‘92, they lose.

Today McCain promoted a new campaign manager, Steve Schmidt. Schmidt has been pushed, hard, by Karl Rove. He worked for the Governator’s reelection, and he also worked for Bush’s reelection in 04. Schmidt understands both parts of the Republican two-step — how to take away the scary parts of Republicanism, which he did for the Governator, who ran on a number of rather liberal policy plans; and how to destroy the opponent.

McCain isn’t going to win this election by playing nice. The natural momentum of the time favors Obama, because the Republican brand is badly damaged. The appointment of a Rovian disciple shows that the Republicans get this, and they’re ready to intensify their strategy.

Folks act as if negative campaigning doesn’t work, but this is a myth. It works, and it works well. All it is is reverse branding — branding your opponent for him. Schmidt will be looking for the opportunity to brand Obama as effete, weak and unprincipled. Obama’s actions of the past couple weeks, his “run to the center” in which he has suddenly realized he didn’t mean what he said in the primaries is playing into this narrative.

As with almost all Democrats Obama doesn’t seem to get that strength isn’t about what you vote for (national “security”), it’s about how you act. Stand strong on a principle and people will admire that even if they disagree with it. Be seen to flip like a weathervane and even if people wind up agreeing with you, they’ll despise you. Being strong, appearing strong, is about having principles, about taking a stand, not about talking tough.

Now, certainly McCain has no principles to speak of, having thrown his few remaining scruples out the door over the last couple years to court the conservative base, as when he voted for torture.

But, as we all know, the media prefers Republicans on character issues. The Swift Boaters were liars, their lies were proved at the time, but they were never effectively rebutted by the press. In 2000 the press likewise repeatedly failed to call Bush out on his many lies, indeed Paul Krugman, who tried, was expressly forbidden to use the word “lie” by his editors.

So the McCain campaign is going to try and define Obama. Republicans defined Dukakis, they defined Gore, they defined Kerry. Only with Clinton did they fail. At the same time, I expect Schmidt to push the McCain maverick brand more seriously and start backing away from the right wing base on a couple of key issues. (Torture, for example, is a place where McCain appears to be attempting to claim he is different from Bush, despite his vote for it.)

Muddle the difference on some key stands, define your opponent, make the election about character and not about policy. Obama has made this easier. It can’t really be about health care since Obama is not for universal care, and it’s harder to make it about the economy after changing his position on NAFTA.

So what Obama’s got left is “I’m not George Bush. And I am change.” If he can define McCain as Bush, he can still win it. But remember, historically elections that have come down to being about character have favored Republicans. And as Obama decides to be all things to all people, and nothing to anyone, I hope he isn’t walking into a trap whereby in simply defining himself as “hope” and “change” and “not Bush” he’s leaning on some slender reeds, easily broken by the avalanche of mud soon to come his way.

Lee Atwater is dead, but the style of politics he perfected hasn’t changed.

And sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same.

You’re deluding yourselves by thinking that McCain is defining Obama. Obama is doing it all on his own. Obama is defining himself with every word he utters on FISA, capital punishment, on Iraq, on abortion, on his own naivete. His own backtracking is blazing a fiery trail as if it were naplam.

His candidacy is, as we speak, failing to gain traction. So far his own saving grace has been that McCain too has failed to gain traction. It’s a comedy of errors or perhaps a Greek tragedy. Either way, there is plenty to mock but not much to laugh at.

But you will see McCain run as some cross between a Ford Republican and Reagan Republican. You are beginning that change now. McCain is taking energy policy, Obama is talking flag pins. And when Obama does try to talk policy, he ends up “revising” earlier statements. Not too clever this very junior Senator from Illinois. Obama is on his way being defined as well, let’s just say he is part Carter, part Dukakis and part Kerry and all Barack and not one iota of Clinton.

He is unelectable even before the 527s get started. Those will point to the Reverend Wright. How does he run from a twenty year association with Reverend Wright? The Wright of 1991 is no different than the Wright of 2001 or 2008. He’s the same man and the tapes are ready to go. Twenty years of Barack at Trinity ready to hit your television screens.

How does he run from William Ayers, an unrepentant terrrorist? How does he run from Jodie Evans, a wealthy divorcee who thinks it’s funny to sabotage Army recruiting centers?

How does he run from that Bush-Cheney Energy Policy vote? Or his countless oil and gas connections? He is in the uneviable position of being attacked from both the left and the right and some of the center to boot. He has his cult and his handlers. That may be all he has in the end. Don’t look now but Ralph Nader has been polling since June in the 4% to 6% range. If he gets up to 10%, he is in the debates.

Now for the plight of the Obama Crowd, a few select comments from Firedoglake:

I like your thinking. Maybe I’ll send a check to HRC and JE. Keep the options open.

Sending a cheque to JE is pointless. Sending a cheque to HRC is nice because we need to retire her debt but the real problem is the DNC. You need to act to stop the coronation in Denver. Talk to a PUMA.

Do’h! We cudda hadda John Edwards!

Yeah. But you let a stupid $400 haircut story in the media undo him.

I’ve given up on aristocrats, and I’ve quit donating as a general policy.

Though I will seriously consider giving funds to a good effort to primary any Blue Dog-type.

Yeah, well Clinton was the working class Democrat. So was Edwards. So was Kucinich. And Biden wasn’t bad either. Choices you had. Even as late as May.

And thereby hangs the tale. Because I expected integrity from Barack Obama. I expected at the very least that he would be a fierce defender of the Constitution. Remember the “taught constitutional law” meme? He had my loyalty (okay, trickle down loyalty from Gore and then Edwards) and he has some of my money. There will be no more money (he doesn’t need it — he can afford to cover Hillary’s losses) and the loyalty thing is in limbo. And I’m a staunch Dem.

This is not looking good.

You wouldn’t listen to reason. Anyone who would throw five people off the ballot, as he did in his first state senate race, cannot be expected to be a Defender of the Constitution, can he? Anyone who arranges to get pundits thrown off CNN because he didn’t like their coverage cannot exactly be called a civil libertarian, can he? Integrity? From Barack Obama? Based on what? The way he handled the Reverend Wright? The racist card he has played throughout this campaign? His misogynistic remarks? His complete disrespect fof the success of the Clinton Administration? And yet he praised Ronald Reagan? Integrity?

And as Obama decides to be all things to all people, and nothing to anyone.

Nail on the head. We have a winner, ladies and gentleman. I have been saying this since January. It was evident then and it has been parcel post part of his campaign throughout. Did you just wake up from a six month hibernation?

I wrote to the Obama camp that I will not donate to someone who does not fight for the Constitution of the United States of America. (FISA, supporting church charity.) Not that I think letters, e-mails, faxes or phone calls are having any impact on any of the Dems. I don’t see Pelosi/Reid/et al. taking any notice of their base, and I don’t see Obama wising up. I despair, but I think McCain will slip through. Sad for all of us.

Sad. Yeah, that’s the word. Sad. You’re despairing? Despair if he becomes President. That’s truly what must be avoided. When we have reached the point that John McCain is the sane choice, I am afraid despair is pointless. That line was crossed long ago.

FISA anyone?

Obama’s new rush to destroy the Separation of Church and State isn’t going to help much either. If there is a plausible challenge to him in 2012, he might be a one-termer. Historic, but a single.

He’s getting the 3P’s down…Pander, Prevaricate and Pirouette.

He’s your man, not mine. I have opposed him from day one and will continue to do so because he’s dangerous. Obama is nothing but duplicitous.

Be seen to flip like a weathervane and even if people wind up agreeing with you, they’ll despise you. Being strong, appearing strong, is about having principles, about taking a stand, not about talking tough.

Let’s see now, who had principles? What was her name? Experienced too. Tough as nails. Wouldn’t quit until the DNC told her to shut up and get on board. Now, what was her name again?

Obama wasn’t my first choice, but as the primary campaign progressed, he grew on me (mostly by treating the electorate as grown-ups instead of fearful children).

Now, I want a do-over. The FISA capitulation was bad enough, but now he’s walking back his commitment to get out of Iraq? What is wrong with him? Did someone kidnap David Plouffe and replace him with Mark Penn?

Treating the electorate as grown-ups? What, by telling fairy tales in the land of hope and change? By telling you that you were the ones you had been waiting for. That was shameless flattery. Also out of Lenin’s playbook.

Clinton treated you as an adult. Edwards treated you as an adult. Obama treated you as a toy, a piece of silly putty that he could mold into his own legion of toy soldiers marching onto Washington to defeat the evil lobbyists who form his very own shock troops. It’s like watching an episode of Star Wars.

You have been deceived. You have been lied to. Wake up and doing something about it.

What’s wrong with Obama? How long have you got? I have written volumes. So have others far more learned than I. But you preferred to believe that a speech by an Illinois State Senator mattered more than the hard work of US Senators who faced tough decisions or who actually realized that telling the American people we can just waltz out of Iraq and leave it in a vacuum would be to mislead them.

Senator Biden, who is likely the most knowledgeable US Senator on both sides of the aisle on Iraq, told us that Obama didn’t have a plan, he had a dream.

Senator Clinton had the endorsement of nearly 40 retired top members of the US Armed Forces, including two former Chief of Staffs because they knew she understood what it would take to do the groundwork so we can exit Iraq.

Ambassador Joe Wilson wrote op-ed after op-ed praising Clinton for her approach. In return, you vilified him. And he broke the goods on Cheney.

There are no words that can describe the utter disgust I feel towards many of Obama supporters. Those that engage in tactics that aim to suppress dissent by shutting down websites nefariously or spreading misinformation about the membership of PUMA are nothing but vile worms living off their own manure.

I have long recognized that my political views put me in a minority- and that no candidate will win by espousing what I believe- so I try to support the person who will do the least harm.

Well unless you are willing to consider Nader, you’re likely talking about McCain at this point as the person who will do the least damage. Obama can not be trusted and then he lacks all relevant experience and that in and of itself is eminently dangerous.

His comments on Jerusalem at AIPAC would have set off riots in the Middle East and put both American lives and interests across the globe in jeopardy had he been President at the time. Words matter. Nuance matters. Precision is important and now he’s puzzled by how the media reads his every word. Unless you want to be the Hugo Chavez of the United States who spouts like some uncontrollable geyser, words need to be measured. But Obama is such a panderer that off the cuff he will fly and into the abyss we will go.

All the people who are disappointed in Obama need to remember on thing - if you remember nothing else about him. He is a student of George Lakoff.

For those of you who don’t know what that means, it is simply, George Lakoff is a specialist in the cognitive science of linguistics. In English, he studies ’framing’ and how it works.

In the instance being worried about today (faith-based initiatives), everyone (including me) has heard this term over and over for the past 7 or so years, and have become very familiar with the Bush version of this. It is a failed policy whereby the Rethugs dismantle a government program that was doing an adequate job, in favor of some crony religious program that is marginal at best, and outright corrupt at its heart at worst.

Along with this, the Rethugs dismantled social safety net programs leaving these so-called faith-based organizations to pick up the entire load, something they were never qualified for, nor were capable of doing on the scale of need. So we hear the words - faith-based initiative - and immediately all this crap comes to mind. Along with the erosion in the line of separation between church and state.

Let me propose a ”Lakoff transformation”. First, listen to Obama’s speech. And I mean REALLY listen. Don’t just read the headlines, here or anywhere else because they all have as a subtext the Bush definition.

Second, let’s lose the descriptor - faith-based initiative. What Obama is proposing is a PARTNERSHIP between the government and private institutions to get a job done. He is proposing that the government will keep its ongoing programs and work to make them better. And will work as a PARTNER with other organizations to help address needs that may be better suited to these particular organizations or for which these organizations may have a better track record of success. He proposes to LEARN from these organizations and figure out ways to help the government agency do a better job so that all persons needs are met. Yes, some of these organizations are religious - but the appropriate guidelines are in place - they just need oversight, accountability and enforcement, something that has also been completely missing under Bushco, and which Obama says he will make the Office in charge do its job.

I think that we are all too quick to dismiss and feel bad about Obama’s supposed policy direction changes, when they may not be that at all. Or they may be policy direction changes that are going in an entirely new direction than the one we are thinking about. Lakoff says this is the trouble with our language - we tend to develop a ’frame’ around a word or phrase when we first encounter it. That frame gets imprinted on our brains, and then we have to work really hard to actually think ”outside the frame” for a new and better context.

Next time you hear that Obama did XYZ using language that feels/seems bad - try this exercise. Replace the objectionable frame with another word that describes the action being taken - as I did using the word ’partnership’, and then look at the issue again. We may all be surprised - in a good way.

What Obama is proposing is a PARTNERSHIP between the government and private institutions to get a job done? What Obama is propsoing is a giveaway of taxpayer money to private institutions that proselytize. Government is in the business of assisting people in their lives. Churches are in the business of saving souls. The two are not complimentary. There is a Constitutional separation between Church and State. Your framing is blind acceptance of utter folly.

The kool-aid is strong in this one. Anyone who supports him now is blind to the dangers that Obama poses to civil liberties and human progress. And blind men are at their blindest when they suddenly think that they can see.

See you in 2012, if we get there.

__________

From my blog, By The Fault.

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.

While researching the source of Michelle Obama’s alleged “whitey” rant, we discovered direct connections between the Nation of Islam (NOI), Stokely Carmichael, Jeremiah Wright’s Black Liberation Theology and, most prominently, Louis Farrakhan.

According to Larry Johnson’s sources, the Michelle Obama tape captures her in sordid company:

The sources who have seen the tape report that Michelle says
disparaging things about “whites” and that Louis Farrakhan is visible.
There is no identifying information on the segment they have seen to
identify the location or time when this was recorded. [emphasis added]

Those who are following this matter will recall that Michelle Obama, when asked about these allegations, is reported to have said that “whitey” is not a word used by African Americans today. However, we documented that Mrs. Obama’s primary text for her Princeton thesis was Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton’s 1967 book Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America, and we showed how Carmichael used the term “whitey” repeatedly, thereby establishing an epistemological connection between Carmichael and Mrs. Obama. In other words, Michelle Obama is the intellectual offspring of Stokely Carmichael.

Before going further, it should be noted that Reverend Jeremiah Wright was once a member of the Nation of Islam, though it’s not clear when he was involved with NOI. Ryan Lizza of the New Republic first reported that:

Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had
studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity’s guiding principles–what the church calls the “Black Value System”[Emphasis added]

But back to Stokely Carmichael. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Bureau of Investigations has released hundreds of pages from their files on Stokely Carmichael. It’s a treasure trove for those interested in the history of the civil rights movement. What we found most interesting, however, were the large number of documents connecting Carmichael with the NOI. For instance, the document below is an Airtel sent to Director Hoover on July 29, 1966, from Chicago. The subject is Stokely Carmichael and it concerns NOI leader Elijah Muhammed’s “CALL FOR SUMMIT MEETING, MAJOR CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS.”

There are three areas of interest for us: first, the Airtel came from the city of Chicago; second, the year 1966 (more on that later), and third, that the Nation of Islam — in the manner of the infamous mob meeting in Apalachin in 1957 — was organizing all of the major civil rights groups.

It has been widely reported, and documented here, that Carmichael was an “Honorary Prime Minister” of the Black Panther Party, and that he was the leader of the innocuous sounding Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). The following document, however, shows that Carmichael was open to violence as a political tool–see the highlighted sentence below–”This nonviolence bit is just a philanthropic hang-up,” and that he was indeed a founder of the Black Panther Party:

In the following document we initially noticed Carmichael’s willingness to use violence. He is paraphrased as saying that “in his opinion, the black man is justified in using any means at his command to obtain what he believes is due him,” indicating an acceptance of violence as seen through a racial frame. What’s more interesting, however, is the next paragraph. “Louis Walcott, Minister of the New York City Muslim Mosque, Nation of Islam, also participated in this conference.” See the second paragraph below:

The name Louis, of course, was glaring. Could it be he? A quick Google search linked to a 1996 Morning Edition transcription of a Bob Edwards piece on Farrakhan:

The early life of Louis Farrakhan, who grew up as Louis Eugene Walcott, was heavily influenced by his loving but demanding mother and his poor but safe neighborhood of Roxbury, Boston, in the late 1940s.

Over the last decade, Louis Farrakhan has emerged as one of the most visible and formidable black political leaders in America

Let’s add up what we have so far: Stokely Carmichael, Michelle Obama’s primary source and intellectual ancestor, shared the stage with Louis Farrakhan, the same man who she allegedly shared a stage with when she said “whitey.”

Carmichael and Farrakhan may have shared more than a stage. The document below indicates but doesn’t conclude that Carmichael may have been a Muslim himself. Although heavily redacted, the FBI’s source said that “Stokely Carmichael, [redacted] as ‘one of us’ which this source interpreted as meaning a member of the Muslims.”

Whether or not Carmichael was a Muslim is unclear. What is clear is that at sometime in the summer of 1966 there was a meeting of the minds between some civil rights groups, black radicals, and the Nation of Islam. These groups organized into a force promoting and preaching a racist form of black nationalism. The document below describes a meeting that clearly shows this union of forces: Carmichael and Minister Louis “made it clear they wanted to unite with all Negro groups regardless of philosophy.” Note the date of August 18, 1966:

This takes us back to Jeremiah Wright and the question of when Wright was a Muslim. According to Wright’s Wikipedia entry:

In 1963, after two years of service, Wright joined the United States Navy and entered the Corpsman School at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center. Wright was then trained as a cardiopulmonary technician at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.

“In 1966, as a U.S. Navy Hospital Corpsman,” the Wikipeida entry continues, Wright assisted with the care of President Johnson. Extrapolating from these dates, it appears that Wright was in Maryland between 1964 and 1966, and this may have been the time when he was a member of NOI. Wright didn’t start at Trinity until 1972, and evidently received spiritual training after receiving a master’s degree in English in 1969.

Also in Maryland in 1964 was Stokely Carmichael, where he was arrested “as a result of demonstrations in that city.” This doesn’t mean that Wright knew Carmichael, but surely Wright was cognizant of Carmichael’s work and of NOI as well. This is likely the time when he was a “Muslim and black nationalist.”

However Wright was radicalized, it is clear that he consciously appropriated the language and tenor of the Nation of Islam.

Wright’s statement that 9/11 was deserved retribution (“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans…America’s chickens are coming home to roost”) is a perfect echo of Malcolm X’s statement that “The assassination of Kennedy is a result of that way of life and thinking. The chickens came home to roost.”

Although it appears that Wright began his focus on Black Liberation Theology sometime after 1966, his racial attitudes and rhetoric have imitated that of NOI since at least 1970. Wright’s blaming the United States for creating AIDS to kill minorities is but just one example of his thinking being in lockstep with NOI.

Black Liberation Theology was first formed in 1966. According to NPR:

Black liberation theology originated on July 31, 1966, when 51 black pastors bought a full page ad in the New York Times and demanded a more aggressive approach to eradicating racism. They echoed the demands of the black power movement, but the new crusade found its source of inspiration in the Bible.

Keep in mind that NOI’s Elijah Mohammad called for a summit of black leaders on July 11, 1966, only 20 days prior to the official formation of Black Liberation Theology. If the dates don’t convince you of a synergy between NOI and Black Liberation Theology, please note Wright’s mentor — and Black Liberation Theology founder — James Cone’s words about NOI’s Malcolm X:

Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’ The false Christianity of the white-devil oppressor must be replaced by an authentic Christianity fully identified with the poor and oppressed.

The black intellectual’s goal, says Cone, is to “aid in the destruction of America as he knows it.”

Couple these words with Wright’s own view that:

There will be no peace in America until whites begin to hate their whiteness, asking from the depths of their being: ‘How can we become black?’

In 1998, Louis A. De-Caro, Jr. published a book titled Malcolm and the Cross: The Nation of Islam, Malcolm X, and Christianity. De-Caro’s book underscores the racial nature and revolutionary intent of the NOI’s promotion of a black “Christianity”:

Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam based their religious orthodoxy more on the Bible than on the Qur’an. In part, this was because they sought to convert black Christians. More- over, Elijah Muhammad taught that the Bible, actually the story of “dark people,” had been distorted by the white man in order to enslave and oppress black people in the United States.

PaganPower succinctly captures Michelle Obama’s thesis and shows how it dovetails with the thinking of Cone and Wright:

A logical expansion of this would be to say that white people, because of the color of their skin, have a separate innate belief system and have their separate innate set of morals too. In other words, it’s all in the melanin.

The Nation of Islam and Black Liberation Theology are two doors to the same room. Black Liberation Theology is a “palatable” form of “Christian” black nationalism. The fiery anti-American, race-baiting words of Wright, Meeks, Pfleger, and Moss are from the same philosophical cauldron as the Nation of Islam. It’s obvious now why Wright’s Trumpet Magazine featured Farrakhan on the cover:

Some have said that Michelle Obama’s thesis proves nothing because it was written more than 20 years ago. We suggest that it was no accident that the Obamas sought out Wright a mere 2-3 years after she wrote her thesis and stayed with him for nearly 20 years, even while he preached the vilest and most hateful sermons that our nation has been forced to hear. TexasDarlin writes:

It’s no wonder that the Obamas joined Trinity United, grew close to Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger, and actively defended the church. And there is no doubt in this alert reader’s mind that Michelle Obama clung to Trinity as long as possible politically and, unfortunately for her husband, perhaps many years too long for most voters’ palates.

But the Obamas’ connections to the Nation of Islam go deeper than Rev. Wright. Louis Farrakhan’s political connections extend to the Obamas directly through Chicago politics and Tony Rezko. Larry Johnson writes that:

Before Barack came on the scene, THE MAN in his political district was Louis Farrakhan. No one could take Alice Palmer’s seat without Farrakhan’s blessing. No one. I do not fault Barack Obama for seeking out the blessing of Farrakhan, but the story of what was done behind the scenes to get rid of Barack’s predecessor—Alice Palmer—has not been told. A knowledgeable source tells me that Tony Rezko played a direct role in this feat. And Rezko has been tight with Farrakhan.

At some point, probably between 1964-66, Jeremiah Wright was a member of the Nation of Islam and was indoctrinated into its odious brand of racist theology. And make no mistake, Wright’s race-baiting is not indicative of the vast majority of black churches. A pastor at LivePrayer writes:

Please hear me very clear. Black liberation theology is a perverse view of the Scriptures and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a radical view held by a very small minority of black pastors. This is NOT representative of the black church or the overwhelming majority of black pastors who preach and teach the true Gospel of Jesus Christ without looking at it thru the lens of color. Every black pastor I know condemns Dr. Wright and this perverse racist theology.

In 1966, a group of “Christian” ministers, at the behest of Elijah Mohammad, began to preach the same teachings as NOI. Stokely Carmichael and Louis Farrakhan actively worked to bridge the gap between these two groups, and Carmichael would soon publish a book espousing much the same separatist ideas. Carmichael’s book “guided” Michelle Obama’s thesis and soon she and Barack would join Trinity United Church of Christ.

The continuity of the teachings of Carmichael, Farrakhan, Cone, and Wright is incontrovertible.

Christopher Hitchens asks:

how is it that the loathsome Wright married him, baptized his children, and received donations from him? Could it possibly have anything, I wonder, to do with Mrs. Obama?

And of course there is this picture of Michelle and Mrs. Farrakhan, a picture which speaks more than a thousand words:

It is no coincidence that both Obamas have an affinity for this black separatist mentality. Just consider one of the more radical statements from Jeremiah Wright. The one where he blames the US government of creating AIDS to kill black folk. Now look at what Carmichael stated:

His last words !

In 1967, U.S. imperialism was seriously planning to assassinate me. It still is, this time by an FBI induced cancer, the latest in the white man’s arsenal of chemical and biological warfare, as I am more determined to destroy it today than in 1967.

One should note that this belief of institutionalized oppression predates the work of Cone and his Black Liberation Theology. In other words, it was from The Nation of Islam that Black Liberation Theology had it’s real roots, not from Cone as some would have you believe. Witness this praise from Carmichael to the Nation of Islam.

In 1966, when I had just been elected Chairperson of the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee, my first official act, was to visit the Honorable Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam. It is then that he ordered all members of the Fruit of Islam to protect me wherever I traveled, anywhere in the world. I am still under that umbrella of protection today, here in Africa, in Guinea. I could never be ungrateful to the Nation of Islam, to the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, nor to his incarnation - Minister Louis Farrakhan.

Carmichael was not a real civil rights leader as some proclaim. He wasn’t interested in reconciliation and integration. He was into separation and revolution. Very pro black and anti-white.

Stokely Carmichael, Rights Leader Who Coined ‘Black Power,’ Dies at 57

”When you talk of black power, you talk of building a movement that will smash everything Western civilization has created,” he told black audiences.

~snip~

”We are preparing groups of urban guerrillas for our defense in the cities,” he said. ”It is going to be a fight to the death.”

In 1967 Carmichael became the honorary Prime Minister of the Black Panthers. But after a short time Carmichael renounced the Black Panthers because they weren’t radical enough for him.

Most troubling, and perhaps in Michelle Obama’s eyes most alluring, was his shift away from any alliance whatsoever with anyone white. In a public letter of resignation from the Black Panthers, Carmichael stated as one of his reasons for leaving:

”its dogmatic party line favoring alliances with white radicals.”

Here is a little video about the Black Panthers from a 1968 film called “Off The Pig.” This is what Carmichael didn’t think was radical enough. Pay attention to the chant: “The revolution has come. Off the Pig! Time to pick up the gun. Off the Pig!”

And as aside, isn’t it scary how similar Huey Newton and Markos Moulitsas sound. I mean, they could have been separated at birth.

Maybe this formation of the New Black Panther Party is radical enough for Carmichael and Michelle Obama?

Just take a look at one of the precepts of the New Black Panther Party and remember that they have endorsed Barack Obama for President.

10 Point Platform

We want all Black Men and Black Women to be exempt from military service. We believe that Black People should not be forced to fight in the military service to defend a racist government that holds us captive and does not protect us. We will not fight and kill other people of color in the world who, like Black People, are being victimized by the white racist government of America. We will protect ourselves from the force and violence of the racist police and the racist military, “by any means necessary.”

By All Means Necessary. Right out of Malcolm X. To quote Fleaflicker:

Will Obama Deny Knowing the New Black Panthers?

By any means necessary? Have you read the Autobiography of Malcolm X? Do these words reflect the intent of peaceable people intent on working together to solve problems? Oh, and who was it that said his favorite book during his formative years was The Autobiography of Malcolm X? Give up? I’ll give you a clue. His initials are Barack Obama.

When one takes a look at Michelle Obama’s college thesis this all comes into very clear view. Because she wondered if it was possible to be around white people without losing her blackness. Again, back to Carmichael:

He was popular in high school, he said, and remembered dating white classmates and visiting Park Avenue apartments. ”Now that I realize how phony they all were, how I hate myself for it.” he said in the 1967 interview. ”Being liberal was an intellectual game with these cats. They were still white, and I was black.”

Now contrast this with Michelle Obama’s thesis.

Michelle Obama thesis was on racial divide

“My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my ‘blackness’ than ever before,” the future Mrs. Obama wrote in her thesis introduction. “I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong.

So hanging out with white folks made Michelle feel unaccepted. She always had issues with white folk, believing in her words as if:

Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second.

Is this a clue to why she chose to be such an active participant in a black separatist white hating and blaming church for 20 years? Or was it her belief that whites and blacks could never fully integrate so that both respected the other?

Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would likely lead to her “further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.”

But what Obama’s thesis does not settle is whether her feeling outside was based upon actual events inside Princeton or rather her own belief system that would of course make her feel on the periphery because Princeton was largely a white majority school.

“In defining the concept of identification or the ability to identify with the black community,” the Princeton student wrote, “I based my definition on the premise that there is a distinctive black culture very different from white culture.”

So in Michelle’s eyes, one’s race determines one’s culture. It is simply a matter of the color of one’s skin that determines the manner in which one is brought up, their belief systems and their morals.

A logical expansion of this would be to say that white people, because of the color of their skin, have a separate innate belief system and have their separate innate set of morals too. In other words, it’s all in the melanin.

What seems most troubling to me is that Michelle Obama doesn’t believe in equality between the races. She seems obsessed with their being separate value systems, not necessarily equal. In fact she seems to believe that they aren’t equal at all.

Perhaps one of the most germane subjects approached in the thesis is a section in which she conveyed views about political relations between black and white communities. She quotes the work of sociologists James Conyers and Walter Wallace, who discussed “integration of black official(s) into various aspects of politics” and notes “problems which face these black officials who must persuade the white community that they are above issues of race and that they are representing all people and not just black people,” as opposed to creating “two separate social structures.”

But aren’t white politician’s held to this same standard? Don’t whites have to account for their support of all races and classes in society? Is it somehow degrading or insulting to demand that black politicians do the same?

Imagine poor Michelle’s horror when her research gave her results that she didn’t expect. But science doesn’t lie.

To research her thesis, the future Mrs. Obama sent an 18-question survey to a sampling of 400 black Princeton graduates, requesting the respondents define the amount of time and “comfort” level spent interacting with blacks and whites before they attended the school, as well as during and after their University years. Other questions dealt with their individual religious beliefs, living arrangements, careers, role models, economic status, and thoughts about lower class blacks. In addition, those surveyed were asked to choose whether they were more in line with a “separationist and/or pluralist” viewpoint or an “integrationist and/or assimilationist” ideology.

Just under 90 alums responded to the questionnaires (for a response rate of approximately 22 percent) and the conclusions were not what she expected. “I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility.”

She hoped one thing and found out another. I imagine she was very disappointed. But rather than learn from what her experiment taught her, she decided to take the opposite track and join up with those espousing a:

“separationist and/or pluralist” viewpoint

Thus her embrace of the Stokley Carmichael, Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright theology.

Black Power

Now we maintain that we cannot have white people working in the black community, and we mean it on a psychological ground. The fact is that all black people often question whether or not they are equal to whites, because every time they start to do something, white people are around showing them how to do it. If we are going to eliminate that for the generation that comes after us, then black people must be seen in positions of power, doing and articulating for themselves, for themselves.

But alas, poor Michelle misses the boat here. Because she is of the mind that her life is one of hardship. And since she is entitled, white folks should give her something.

1. When did you first meet unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, one of your early key political fundraisers? As the co-founder of the Annenberg Chicago Challenge wasn’t he instrumental in your appointment as its chairman in 1995? Why haven’t you acknowledged this before? What is your full relationship with Ayers and his influential family?

2. What is your relationship with radical Palestinian Rashid Khalidi, another of your early political fundraisers? Explain why you voted, along with Bill Ayers, on the board of the non-profit foundation, the Woods Fund, to give a series of grants to the Arab-American Action Network, run by Khalidi’s wife, a former PLO official, that featured events propagandizing that Israel is a “catastrophe”?

3. Have you ever met or communicated with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan? According to a report, citing a former close aide of yours, you depended upon Farrakhan’s support in your political campaigns and hired members of the Nation of Islam for your US Senate campaign staff and still maintain a member on your US Senate staff on the federal payroll.

The Nation of Islam, of course, is listed by the Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith as a racist and anti-Semitic hate group. Have you employed Nation of Islam members? Do you still?

We’re waiting.

And while you’re answering those questions, how about an update on Tony Rezko. You asked Tony for help buying your new home even though he was facing a Federal investigation for corruption. We know that Tony played a critical role in your fund raising machine in Chicago. And now, if Tony is telling the truth, Federal prosecutors want Tony to dish the dirt on your activities with him. ppm103_060908_rezko_lett_to_st_eve.pdf. Can you come clean on your relationship with Tony?

According to campaign officials, what finally launched Obama into a full rumor counteroffensive was a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson. Quoting “someone in touch with a senior Republican,” Johnson claimed that there was a video of Michelle Obama “blasting ‘whitey’ during a rant at Jeremiah Wright’s church.” (Later versions of the rumor had Michelle’s “rant” happening at a Rainbow/push Coalition conference.) No such videotape has surfaced.

Now, are you ready for the shocker? Look at the next paragraph of Karen’s piece:

When the Obama campaign got wind of the rumor in April, Michelle’s close friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett asked Michelle if there could be anything to it; the candidate’s wife dismissed it out of hand.

I did not hear about the tape until MAY. REPEAT. I DID NOT HEAR ABOUT THE TAPE UNTIL MAY. Yet, the Obama campaign knew about the tape in April. Got it? And I am the one responsible for the so called rumor?

Au contraire. What is really fascinating is that the Obama campaign continues to issue a non-denial denial. They are fighting so-called smears, but not challenging the very facts that underlie the charges.

There is a recording of Michelle Obama using a racial slur about white people. I have not seen the tape but I am certain that the people who have told my sources they have seen such a tape are telling the truth. What is really interesting is that the Obama folks knew about this long before I did.

And you know what else? One of my sources told me last week that the Obama camp knew about the tape. So the Obamas have confirmed what one of my sources about the existence of the tape has told me.

I am happy to take credit for being the one who has put the Obama campaign on edge. But it looks like they themselves knew there was a problem.

My sources tell me the Republicans who have the tape are hanging on to it and do not (I REPEAT FOR YOU OBAMA CLOWNS) DO NOT want it released now. They want to use it against Barky in the fall. They fear that releasing it now will kill Obama’s political support and open the door for Hillary. The tape, I am told, appears to have been made in June 2004. It was not part of a pulpit service at Trinity. It was a conference. I am waiting for confirmation of the specific conference.

And now we have Beckel and Fund claiming a tape exists and is coming out tomorrow. Would be nice but I don’t know. What I do know for a fact is that the folks who control the tape want to keep it on ice until after the Democratic convention in Denver. Whether they will achieve this is outside my knowledge.

Who is next? Louis Farrakhan? Within the last three weeks Barack Obama has distanced himself from Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger for intemperate remarks they have made. At least Obama had the common sense not to list Farrakhan as one of his spiritual advisors. But not so with Wright and Pfleger. Both appeared on Barack’s campaign site as “official spiritual advisors.” Barack has scrubbed the site of their images, but they were listed and the screenshots are readily available. But Barack cannot erase the past. Here is Pfleger talking to the Chicago Sun Times in 2004 about his young brother:

Friends and advisers, such as the Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church in the Auburn- Gresham community on the South Side, who has known Obama for the better part of 20 years, help him keep that compass set, he says.

“I always have felt in him this consciousness that, at the end of the day, with all of us, you’ve got to face God,” Pfleger says of Obama. “Faith is key to his life, no question about it. It is central to who he is, and not just in his work in the political field, but as a man, as a black man, as a husband, as a father…. I don’t think he could easily divorce his faith from who he is.”

Oh, and white America. You know who you are–Barack referred to you as bitter folks clinging to guns and God. Father Pfleger says you like to rape black people. Listen up:

Barack’s comment about angry, bitter white people did not come out of nowhere. He learned this from Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger and Louis Farrakhan. Barack talks smooth and mellow when the cameras are on, but as we saw in San Francisco, a glimpse of the real man was revealed. The hate of Wright and Pfleger–as Pfleger himself acknowledges–has been drummed into Barack for 20 years.

Here is Pfleger shilling for both Farrakahn and Wright.

And Howard Dean and Donna Brazille want to unleash this freak show on America? No thanks.

Here is the reality:

1. A significant portion of the Democratic establishment reject Hillary Clinton. It does not matter that she is a stronger candidate than Barack Obama. It does not matter that she has won more votes in states that have had votes. It does not matter that she has demonstrated she can win the key swing states Dems will need to carry to win the November election. And, it does not matter that Barack cannot win those states.

2. Barack’s loss in West Virginia is unprecedented in a presidential primary. A 47 point spread? Are you kidding me. That’s not even close. And what do the reality based Democratic leaders do? They scramble to do everything in their power to distract public attention from that fact and move on to other things like sending out John Edwards and Naral to endorse Barack. If Hillary had lost in West Virginia, Indiana, and Pennsylvania I could understand such endorsements. But she smoked Barack in West Virginia. And that encourages folks to endorse Barack?

3. Hillary will decisively win in Kentucky and will pull close in Oregon. She will win in Puerto Rico. South Dakota and Montana do not matter. They’ll vote Republican in November regardless. Whether Hillary or Barack wins in those states is totally irrelevant. So we will end the primary season with Hillary having won more votes. And what do the Democratic leaders want to do? Pretend that Barack won most of the votes.

4. Neither Barack nor Hillary can win the nomination without Super Delegate votes. If Super Delegates cast ballots based on the percentage of votes each candidate won in the states that have had primary votes than Hillary has garnered the majority. How about if Super Delegates votes according to who has the best chance of beating John Mccain? Well, Hillary wins that one as well. So what are the Supers doing? They are turning to Obama. So much for reality.

But Barack has problems and the problems will get worse. The media and the blogosphere are not going to sit on their hands the next three months. And the ammunition is plentiful. Barack himself resurrected Reverend Jeremiah Wright today. Sending out a ridiculous flier claiming he is a Christian who attends church simply begs the question–does he accept the theology of black supremacy preached and taught by Jeremiah Wright?

Barack’s contacts with Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam will be exposed. He will try to run but you cannot run away from this group. And Malik Shabazz and Louis Farrakhan are solidly in his corner. Commenting on Obama, Farrakhan said:

“What are you trying to do to our brother?… I love that brother. I want that brother to be successful… I have to be very careful in what I say… Where’s God in this? And why now?… What’s going on? Who is this young man?… This young man is the hope of the entire world.”

And listen to Farrakhan’s own words (doesn’t this guy understand the concept of video cameras?):

Barack’s ignorance of critical foreign policy issues will be exploited. His latest Obamaism claiming that “Arabic” translators are needed in Afghanistan is inexcusable for someone who wants to be Commander-in-Chief in the war on terror. The languages of Afghanistan are Pashto and Dari Persian. I guess this puts to bed, once and for all, the rumor that Obama is a secret muslim. Surely a true muslim would understand this nuance.

And then there is the allegation of closet homosexual activity. I do not know if these charges are true or not. But republican surrogates, with Drudge in the lead, are starting to circulate the allegations of Larry Sinclair and others claiming that Barack is on the “down low.” (Please note, I am not linking to any of these stories. I am focused on the fact that the matter is being aired.) These charges made FOX tonight and are being reported in the Globe. Folks standing in grocery lines perusing the tabloids are going to get an eyeful of this stuff. And do not think for a minute that sex don’t sell. Just ask Bill Clinton.

Barack’s dissembling on his relationship with the Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers has helped create an impression that he is covering up things from his past. I suspect he is hiding things other than sexual shenanigans but his tap dancing on the past has planted the seed of doubt. Some are asking, “what else is he lying about?” That will be one of the other story lines. Elites in the media and Democratic party circles will howl in rage and decry the “smear.” My point–regardless of the ground truth, the allegations will be repeated and replayed and Barack will ultimately have to address these in one fashion or another. I do not know how the debate over such allegations helps Barack build support in middle America.

Hillary needs to stay in the campaign till the end because by the time August rolls around the damage to Barack will be so significant that rational folks will realize he is unelectable notwithstanding the mess Republicans have made of things.

My advice? Patience. Let Barack have his codpiece, “Mission Accomplished” moment. Like George Bush, he will rue his strutting and preening and declaring premature victory. Reality will intrude.