And that is why I took particular delight in Andy Borowitz’s most recent piece, “Obama Quits While Ahead; Prez Resigns After Hundred Days: “It’s All Downhill From Here.” Oh, if only:

In a move that stunned both political allies and foes alike, President Barack Obama resigned today after serving 100 days in office, telling the White House press corps, “It’s all downhill from here.”

The reporters seemed stunned by the President’s decision in light of the fawning media coverage he received during his first 100 days, but the hyperbolic nature of that reportage, ironically, may have been the prime motivator behind Mr. Obama’s shocking move.

“Let’s face it, I’m not going to get better coverage than I have to date,” he said. “The only guy with a higher approval rating is that dude who landed the plane on the Hudson - or maybe that other dude who escaped from those pirates.”

Click HERE to read the rest - it is pretty funny, especially to see who has higher poll numbers than Obama!

Sigh. I guess it is easy for him to have slightly better than half approval ratings when liberals and progressives ignore: expanded faith-based initiatives, a program we detested under Bush; keeping No Child Left Behind intact, a program we have all widely decried, especially teachers; and Obama’s EXPANSION of warrantless wire-tapping on American citizens. For added irony, here is a video from Keith Olbermann, of all people, on this very thing:

Then there is the attempt to nationalize our banks, firing the CEO of a private company, and the list goes on and on. These are just off the top of my head. I am sure there are more - feel free to add them!

The point is, someone who was inexperienced and unqualified was elected president as the result of the best marketing ploy I have ever seen. His connections to: Tony Rezko; Jeremiah Wright; Bill Ayers; Khalid Rashidi; Kwame Kilpatrick; Louis Farrakhan; and James Meeks, to mention a few, all ignored. Also ignored was his massive contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as was his his dearth of a record, both as an IL state senator and a US senator (or how he got to either one of those positions - getting the qualified people kicked off with the very thinnest of reasons). His sexist behavior, and his homophobic associates, all ignored by the MSM and his followers, people who ordinarily would never give quarter to such a person (and about which I have written extensively here. To find those posts, and other related articles by fellow No Quarter writers on those issues, and Obama’s associates, feel free to do a Search at No Quarter.).

Oh, what might have been. Below are a few very good videos on Hillary Clinton, the one who received the most votes in a Primary EVER, despite being outspent at every turn, and having the MSM expose its Clinton Derangement Syndrome at every turn. Still, STILL, she received the most votes of anyone EVER. That says something, both about her, and about the DNC’s choice to pick Obama over her, for all of their concocted reasons and unethical machinations to make it so. In recognition, then, of Obama’s 100 Days in the White House, I hope these will bring a smile to your face (though they also brought tears to my eyes):

Ironic that on Inauguration Day, when President Barack Obama told Americans it was time to take personal responsibility and “grow up” as a country, some of his supporters behaved like spoiled children in booing George W. Bush.

And, sadly, neither Obama nor any leader in the public spotlight that day seized the moment to admonish the boorish behavior.

It would have been nice had Obama had the presence of mind in his inaugural speech to not only allude to scripture in saying it’s time to put away “childish things” but to also have told the boo-birds that their behavior was inappropriate and the embodiment of those “childish things.”

He might have said: “Isn’t it enough to be just happy for me? When you boo the former president, you fail to understand what this solemn event is all about — the peaceful transition of power. This is not a football game. Nor is it a Third World bloodless coup. This is American democracy at work. If you can’t respect that, then leave. Now.”

Like I said, why the hell would Obama start now? He hasn’t bothered to say anything to any one of his minions at any point during the entire primary or election season, so why would he speak out for Mr. Bush?

And here is another little problem I have - him saying Obama should have said, “Isn’t it enough to be just happy for me?” Um, what? Yes, we should all be happy for The Boy Who Would Be Dictator because this has nothing to do with our actual country. Wowie.

Mr. Frederick’s shock continues:

But no one mustered the courage to say that. While I thought Obama’s speech was otherwise thought-provoking and worthy, he missed an opportunity to call out these boors and chastise their behavior. By not doing so, I am afraid that Obama essentially condoned this kind of mob intolerance. There is already a hateful mean streak among some Obamamaniacs. Left unchecked, it can fester into something quite un-American and un-democratic.

In case you missed it, when President George W. Bush was announced to the crowd, some booed loudly, shocking even the commentators on the official Obama network, MSNBC. One section of onlookers sang, “Nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, goodbye.” And, finally, as Bush left the White House, one deep thinker took the opportunity to give the “one-finger salute,” thus saying more about himself than anything else.

This from a movement that fancies itself all about peace, love and global karma.

Where in the HELL Has this man been? Clearly, he cannot distinguish between the mantras of the Obama Party and the REALITY of the Obama Party. How many, many times have we written about this, the cruel, aggressive, demeaning, sexist, even misogynistic behavior of Obama’s followers, and that is just toward Secretary of State Hillary Clinton!! It would seem Mr. Frederick’s blindfold and earplugs served him well if he was unaware of these, um, “shenanigans.” The “one-finger salute? Like the one Obama gave to Clinton detailed in THIS article?

He continues:

Now look, it would be a mistake to paint all Democrats and Obama supporters with the actions of these few on Inauguration Day. And, according to news reports, some in the crowd tried hard to shush the boo-birds. That is a hopeful sign.

But let’s also not ignore the obvious. There is a growing faction of the American left that seeks revenge more than righteousness.

Intolerant of dissenting views, this faction thinks as comedian Janeane Garofalo does that some members of the opposing political party should be “jailed.” Terrorist acts (such as mailing envelopes of white power to Mormon temples because the gay marriage vote in California went the church’s way) are seen by this faction as understandable and acts of legitimate political expression.

But of course. Target the Mormons, thus the Senate Majority Leader (why does everyone always forget that Harry Reid is a MORMON, and ANTI-Choice? I just don’t get that.) So, yes, Janeane, let us completely deny that even before the election, the NY Times was predicting that it would be OBAMA’S supporters that would vote IN Prop. 8. That, in fact, was the reality. It was the African American community coming out in droves that tipped the scales, as detailed HERE and HERE.

Mr. Frederick does touch on the issue of race, too:

There is also an ugly racial component to it. We first saw it with Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who said, among other things, that white America had deliberately inflicted black Africa with AIDS.

When the Rev. Wright first hit the national stage, we hardly knew what to make of his irrational and separatist statements. Consequently, we pretty much ignored the substance of Wright’s racially divisive rhetoric and focused on it as a day-to-day political story. It made us more comfortable, I think.

But in light of the things we saw at the inauguration, it may be time to revisit the dangers of intolerance and hate — no matter the color of the person who makes them — and nip this ugly mean streak in the bud.

As our president said, it is time to grow up. (Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@reviewjournal.com) is publisher of the Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.

Well, that is just laughable - to expect the most juvenile, petulant, arrogant, immature, empty-suit to tell his minions to grow up. HAHAHAHAHA!! Yeah, maybe when he does.

Beside that, though, is the convenient amnesia of Mr. Frederick regarding what the Rev. Lowery said at the inauguration (h/t to LisaB), highlighted in Pat Racimora’s article, “A Profound Prayer Until..>Wrong Turn!.” To recap, he said this:

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around … when yellow will be mellow … when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.

Holy cow. Yeah, I think that qualifies as having a racial component.

But it also begs the question WHY Rev. Wright’s incendiary, separatist comments were not addressed more fully? And why his connection, as well as Louis Farrakhan’s, to Obama was continually glossed over by the majority of those in the MSM? Because they were afraid of being called racists? Or because they knew it would be real trouble for Obama if they actually did their job and exposed the belief system in which Obama was a willing participant? Some of us were paying attention, though. Do a “search at: NoQuarter on Rev. Wright, and you will get page after page after page of articles that at least have some mention of him, if not dealing with him directly (far too many to link to here), beginning with this one in March.

Same goes for the “boorish” behavior of Obama’s supporters. The Palin (and Clinton) t-shirts? The intimidation/bullying at the caucuses? “Iron My Shirt” buffoons? Obama turning away from Clinton without greeting her at the SOTU? Obviously, I could go on and on with examples, all of which have been well documented at NQ and other sites. Which raises this question: where in the hell has this guy been, expecting Obama to change his stripes NOW? Just because it was Bush being booed? Because at no time has Obama acted like a “grown up” when his crowds have gone off on his competition - not once. He has been their role model for boorish behavior from debates to rallies. So for anyone to expect anything different now just because he was sworn in a few times is nothing short of delusional.

So to recap, it is way past time to take off the blindfold and take out the earplugs. The booing? Typical. Comments like Garofalo’s? Typical. Intimidation of dissenters? Typical. (Don’t believe me? Just ask the Justice Department since they are suing the Black Panthers.) Racial division by clergy? Typical.

This is who Obama is. To expect him to challenge behavior in which he himself engages is nuts.

Richard Cohen’s sister is canceling her inauguration party because of President-elect Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to bless Mr. Obama’s taking the office of the Presidency of the United State.

According to her brother’s column in the Washington Post, what made her do this is the way in which Mr. Obama’s choice to pick this pastor for this occasion serves as a special sort of condoning of Mr. Warren’s views about gays and lesbians.

I agree with Richard Cohen, and apparently his sister, that these views should be regarded as totally unacceptable by anybody who has any sense of the importance of civil rights and indeed of human rights. I also agree with Richard Cohen’s view that as a somebody running for the office of President and who was at the time a U.S. Senator, Mr. Obama had a particular responsibility for denouncing his then-pastor’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ, for giving the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan a special award during the primary season.

I find it troubling that neither Mr. Cohen nor apparently his sister have not been, as far as I can tell, overly concerned by President-Elect Obama’s equally eloquent silence and inaction regarding the sexism and misogyny directed at Senator Clinton and her supporters, particularly the sophomoric expression of these attitudes by Jon Favreau, the man writing President-elect Obama’s inaugural address. (I shudder to think what the reaction of the Cohen family would have been if Favreau had been found on YouTube horsing around calling somebody a “homo” - maybe then Richard Cohen’s sister would join us in our demand that the President-Elect fire this sophomoric bigot as his chief speech-writer. Whether a bigot is slick (Warren) or juvenile (Favreau), he is still a bigot.)

It is tempting to forget in this sort of dynamic who the real problem is. As is clear from what I have written so far, I wish Richard Cohen and his sister would be, respectively, writing about and canceling inauguration parties as much over Mr. Obama’s inaction in the face of sexism and misogyny as they are in the face of anti-Semitism and gay-bashing. And yes, I wish that Richard Cohen’s sister had paid attention to and given greater weight to the fact that she had the option to work to elect somebody who, both as a Senator and as a Presidential candidate, repeatedly marched in Pride parades and met with editors of gay newspapers across the country rather than working for somebody who would not even have his photograph taken with Gavin Newsome.

But I am not falling into the trap that lies that way. Just because people got it wrong before does not mean they cannot help matters now. People can learn. So despite the bit of complaining above, I am not going to point a finger at Richard Cohen’s sister (or, for that matter, at Katha Pollitt for decrying the misogyny involved in the Warren choice when Pollitt, like Richard Cohen’s sister, opted to support Mr. Obama for the presidency when it was already obvious that he was complacent, to say the least, about sexism and misogyny). I am just pleased that they are starting to pay attention now and apparently coming to understand better who they voted for. To quote Richard Cohen: “The real problem has nothing to do with ministers and everything to do with Obama’s inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader. Sooner or later, he just might have to stand for something.”

Aye, there’s the rub. During the primary season and the general election a friend of mine who spent some considerable amount of time listening to me lament the Democratic Party’s poor judgment in making then-Senator Obama their poster-child, kept saying to me that the real problem with Mr. Obama is that he is an “empty suit”.

That term seemed to me too tepid back then. But I have come to see it as the essential problem behind the problem of Mr. Obama’s inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader, and possibly any kind of leader. To be a moral leader, to stand for something means that you have to fill out your suit, your office, your position. To be an “empty suit” is to be a person who cannot draw a line in the sand, precisely because you do not have an arm and hand within that suit to use to reach out and draw that line. To be an “empty suit” is to be devoid of the weightiness that real leadership requires, including the gravitas to admit to a mistake and change one’s position (drop the bigoted minister and lose the bigoted speechwriter; say you have been wrong to dig in your heels rather than listen to the concerns of so many of the people who worked so hard to elect you). To be an “empty suit” is to be a moral vacuum.

I refused to vote for John McCain for a number of reasons but among them was the fact that while I knew he had the capacity for moral leadership, I did not care for the directions toward which his moral commitments would lead my country. I refused to vote for Barack Obama because I knew he came up empty on the capacity for moral leadership.

In some ways, moral emptiness, especially in a President, is worse than moral wrong-headedness. The morally wrong-headed leader takes a stand, e.g. George W. Bush’s legitimization of torture, and one can rally people against the stand she or he takes. The morally empty leader takes no stand. Under these circumstances, her or his silences often allow people to forget that the blank that exists in lieu of a leader is the appropriate target of criticism. After all, it seems easier to go after people who actually do take stands (Rick Warren, for example) rather than the person who silently enables wrong-headed person to gain in stature. But this is sleight of hand. The real problem is the enabler, the person who allows the sophomoric sexist to put words in his mouth, the person who lets bigoted clerics and their churches affiliate with him.

So, to Richard Cohen’s sister and to Katha Pollitt, I say welcome to my party - the one that got lost in 2008, the one that expected moral leadership of a certain kind from a Democratic president. Now that you are here, I hope you can help me figure out what we are going to do with the empty suit about to occupy the Oval Office. If that empty suit thinks he can pick up sufficient evangelical money and votes in 2012, he is not going to listen to bloggers and op-ed columnists whose votes and followers he thinks he can replace with the support of the evangelicals, regardless of the detestable content of many of their views and some of their conduct. Personally, I do not think we can give the empty suit the sort of backbone necessary to resist the lure of that support. If we cannot give this empty suit some backbone, we need, as I have written before, to start figuring out how we can have a better candidate on offer in 2012. So to the people who are canceling their celebrations, may I suggest that they use the time and effort saved to start solving that problem. We need to coalesce now around somebody who can fight for a nomination by a major Party - probably the the Party formerly recognizable as the Democratic one - who is what Obama’s supporters hoped he would be and what I fear he is not.

Turns out that Ayers was not just a guy in the neighborhood. Nor is Minister Louis Farrakhan. Obama has direct and indirect ties to Minister Farrakhan that date back over the past 20 years.

It is no surprise that Minister Farrakhan has spoken so highly of his friend Barack Obama:

First, the circle of friends and associates that Obama joined in Chicago since the early 1980s includes Minister Farrakhan. The staff on their organizations often overlap, their goals are often the same, and their techniques are as well. And, yes, they are neighbors.

Obama spent three weeks in Pakistan in the early 1980s around the same time that Minister Farrakhan and Reverend Wright were making their own trek to visit Moammar Gadhafi in Libya.

Obama likely first met Minister Farrakhan in the mid-1980s after to Chicago. It’d be hard to imagine that he didn’t, considering their shared community interests, Obama’s past with communist and black nationalist Frank Marshall Davis, and his new friend Reverend Wright. Obama doesn’t say much except that he worked with all the local religious leaders because that was the focus of his community organizing. Reverend Jesse Jackson, PUSH, and Rainbow Coalition also fit into the picture. Reverend Jackson and Minister Farrakhan, themselves, made a trip to Syria together in 1986.

Barack Obama would go on to call Reverend Wright his spiritual advisor, mentor, and friend. He married Barack and Michelle Obama in late 1992 then baptized their children. Obama sat in the pews of Reverend Wright’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ, for nearly 20 years.

In scattered comments throughout the current presidential campaign and in past years, it is clear that Barack Obama also sought out Father Michael Pfleger and Reverend James Meeks as spiritual advisors, mentors, and colleagues on numerous projects. While little is mentioned of Minister Farrakhan, former Farrakhan deputy, Dr. Vibert White, Jr., once known as Brother Vibert L.X., and later as Minister V.L. Muhammad, says they “run deep, and that for many years the two men have had ‘an open line between them’ to discuss policy and strategy, either directly or through intermediaries.” (Obama-Farrakhan Ties Are Close, Ex-Farrakhan Aide Says).

“Remember that for years, if you were a politician in Chicago, you had to have some type of relationship with Louis Farrakhan. You had to. If you didn’t, you would be ostracized out of black Chicago,” said Dr. Vibert White Jr., who spent most of his adult life as a member and ultimately top officer of the Nation of Islam.

In 1995, Reverend Wright and Barack Obama helped their mutual friend, Minister Farrakhan, organize the Nation of Islam’s Million Man March that they all then attended together. In later talking about his black nationalism, Barack explained in a Chicago Reader interview:

“These are mean, cruel times, exemplified by a ‘lock ’em up, take no prisoners’ mentality that dominates the Republican-led Congress. Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and towards black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us, and that white Americans couldn’t care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing.”

Kenneth Timmerman writes, as have others, that Obama’s involvement with the black nationalism of Minister Farrakhan and Reverend Wright, among others, is a connection to Khalid al-Mansour, who helped pay for Barack’s tuition at Harvard Law School:

“Black nationalism” is a current of thought and political action in the African-American community that has been championed by the likes of Farrakhan, Wright, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and Khalid al-Mansour. Obama discussed his attraction to black nationalism at length in his 1995 memoir “Dreams of My Father.”

In interviews, Khalid al-Mansour, lawyer and friend of the Saudi ruling family, has refused to discuss his relationship with Obama and Obama’s law school funding. As he explains to Kenneth Timmerman:

“In respect to Mr. Obama, I have told him, because so many people are running after him, and when stories get printed they usually get distorted and then he has to spend a lot of time trying to unravel them – and then after the experience of Rev. (Jeremiah) Wright whom I’ve never met, but I’ve followed the media coverage – I was determined that I was never going to be in that situation. I never discuss Barack Obama,” al-Mansour said.

The media frenzy surrounding Barack Obama is quite justified in many respects and in others is a bit intrusive.

Dr. Vibert White, Jr., observes and explains in a recent interview that Barack has learned well from Minister Farrakhan:

“If you listen to the rhetoric and you take away Obama’s political jargon, you hear a religious tenor to it that is very much Nation of Islam-like. I don’t know if anyone has ever touched on it, but Obama’s speaking style is very Malcolm-like, very Farrakhan-like.”

….

“I don’t know who was training Obama. But that style is not a ministerial style like in the Christian church. It’s a Nation of Islam style.”

….

“If the Nation of Islam can’t do anything else, it can train people how to speak. And nobody can outspeak a Muslim minister,” he said.

Even Michelle Obama plays a role in this, and very likely an even bigger one than is currently publicly known. Back in June, Larry Johnson at NoQuarterUSA, noted the “role that Louis Farrakhan and his wife, Mother Khadijah Farrakhan, have played in the POLITICAL RISE of Barack and Michelle Obama.”

One happy family: Minister Louis Farrakhan, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Father Michael Pleger, Reverend James Meeks, and, yes, Barack Obama.

First up, we have ACORN. Yes, ACORN has been in the news a good bit recently. Seems the organization Obama has paid $800,000 to register voters has been, um, shall we say, enthusiastic in fulfilling its task? Apparently, this alleged non-partisan organization has been overly zealous in registering voters, so that areas like Indianapolis now have 105% voter registration! Whoopie! One guy registered 72 times! This is not new for ACORN - they have been under investigation before for voter registration fraud, but the SCOPE of it this year is mighty telling, as the 2-part video below highlights. And bear this in mind: ACORN receives YOUR tax paying dollars. AND they are one of three organizations to which the Democrats, led by Chris Dodd, tried to get 20% of the $700 billion dollar bailout repayment funneled. Again, YOUR tax paying dollars going to fund this organization. And if you believe for one second they are non-partisan, just watch these videos from their meeting this summer (h/t to Katy, alert NQ reader). Again, YOUR taxpaying dollars:

Thomas Jefferson said:

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Amen to that.

While we are on the subject of voter fraud, there is the wife of Chuck Hagel, Lilibet Hagel. Guess who she is endorsing? Uh, yeah - Barack Obama. Yes, the wife of the man who is an owner of the Company-Formerly-Known-As-Diebold is endorsing Barack Obama. See, in Nebraska, the electoral votes are actually split up between 5 areas. Obama’s plan is to win Omaha, so he is actually campaigning there. But hey - when the wife of the man who owns the voting machines telegraphs for all to see who she wants to win, don’t be too surprised when it comes to pass. I am sure ACORN can help with that if there are any doubts by registering some dead people or re-registering people who can send in absentee ballots AND vote in person.

Last night, the “bipartisan” panel (which included a prominent Obama supporter. Larry Johnson had a great post on the makeup of the Committee HERE.) investigating Governor Palin on “Troopergate” declared she had abused her power in wanting her former brother-in-law removed from the State Troopers. The media is playing this off as if it is just bad blood because he and her sister were getting divorced. Apparently, so is this commission, which is framing this whole thing as her pushing a personal agenda. Here’s why this is NUTS: Trooper Wooten (who still has his job, by the way) ADMITTED to tasering his 10 yr old stepson. He was found GUILTY of “judgment failures,” like drinking and driving in a STATE TROOPER patrol car. This doesn’t sound like a PERSONAL issue. It sounds like a PERSONNEL issue. That the board completely overlooked these documented issues is very telling. Oh, they didn’t find anything unlawful in her behavior, in case you are keeping score (and you should be). This is just pathetic. And pathetic the way the media is now trying to play up Trooper Wooten’s behavior. Is this the kind of person YOU would want as a state trooper? Yeah, me neither.

And to finish up, I give a big H/T to Matthew Weaver at No Quarter for finding this extremely disturbing video of Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam (and if you don’t know about the Nation of Islam, I’ll give you some tips after you watch this), who is closely associated with Obama’s church, TUCC:

Yes, he did just call Barack Obama The MESSIAH. Now for some information regarding the Nation of Islam, and Minister Louis Farrakhan from Islam Today:

Racist ideology also at odds with universal Islam
A third area of non-compliance with Islam, and the one which receives by far the greatest attention in the secular media, is the issue of race. The present “Nation of Islam” leader, Louis Farrakhan, is on record as having made objectionable anti-Jewish (as distinct from anti-Zionist) remarks. Among other unfortunate utterances, he is alleged to have referred to Judaism as a “gutter religion”.

Moreover, the NOI is a segregationalist organization exclusively for black people descended from slaves. Proper Islam is a universal religion open to people of every race. Muslims are supposed to differentiate between people on the basis not of ethnic origin but of piety and upright behavior. As the Quran makes clear:

“And mankind is naught but a single nation.” Holy Quran 2:213

“O Mankind! Most certainly, it is We (God almighty) who have Created you all from a single (pair) of a male and a female, And it is We who have made you into nations and tribes, that ye may recognize each other. Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you.” Holy Quran 49:13

And in his final sermon, Prophet Mohammed made clear that racism has no place in Islam:

“O people! Verily your Lord is one and your father is one. All of you belong to one ancestry of Adam and Adam was created out of clay. There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab and for a non-Arab over an Arab; nor for white over the black nor for the black over the white except in piety. Verily the noblest among you is he who is the most pious.”

In contrast, the NOI has a pronounced anti-white bias. They refer to blacks as God’s chosen people and Caucasians as white devils. They call for a separate homeland for American blacks, for racially segregated education and for a ban on interracial marriage. To quote again from their website:

* We believe we are the people of God’s choice.

* WE BELIEVE this is the time in history for the separation of the so-called Negroes and the so-called white Americans.

* We want our people in America whose parents or grandparents were descendants from slaves, to be allowed to establish a separate state or territory of their own–either on this continent or elsewhere.

* We want all black children educated, taught and trained by their own teachers.

* We believe that intermarriage or race mixing should be prohibited.

Uh, yeah. I guess they don’t know about Obama’s mixed heritage. No matter - he is The One - Minister Louis Farrakhan has spoken. So glad my friends and family have found their Messiah. If only he wasn’t so flawed, so propped up by the media, so enmeshed with nefarious characters like, oh, I dunno, FARRAKHAN! But hey - as long as they can go to their happy Kool Aide drinking place following The One, as far away from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as we can get them, that’s their choice. I don’t have to understand it, but I’ll have to learn to accept it. I sure don’t want this “Messiah” in the White House myself. I am an adamant supporter of the Separation of Church and State, so someone a little less celestial is my choice for president, but that’s just me.

Caution: Put down any sharp instruments and hot liquids. Sit down before watching and have a barf bag handy.

This horrendous video needs no further explanation.

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.

Part 5 of 6

Part 6 of 6

Please share your comments about all six parts here.

::::::::::::

Note: Here are links to the important comments posted by our readers in open threads last night, during and after the show: first thread, second thread, and third thread. (Readers continued to comment throughout the night.)

“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

There is discussion that by moving the Democratic National headquarters to Chicago, he is not only increasing revenue for these characters, he is setting up Chicago as a site for the Olympics. Knowing Obama’s associations in the Windy City suggests that this move is not altruistic.

Now we are hearing that Obama will once again break with tradition during the Democratic National Convention to give his acceptance speech at a huge rally in the stadium of the Denver Broncos, known as Invesco Field. (See NewHampster’s post for some financial information on Invesco.)

The New York Times describes it this way:

The Democratic National Convention Committee and the Obama campaign announced on Monday that they would break with tradition and move the final day of convention activities, including the acceptance speech, from the Pepsi Center in Denver to Invesco Field… which can hold more than 75,000. A sea of 75,000 people swarmed around Senator Barack Obama at a rally in Portland, Ore. in May ..and Mr. Obama is planning a repeat performance at the Democratic National Convention in August..

Wanting an auspicious event, Obama will deliver his speech on August 28th, the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. And if that is not propitious enough, Obama’s campaign is broadcasting that the last person to give such a speech to such a large crowd was in 1960, when John F. Kennedy addressed a similarly sized audience at Memorial Stadium in Los Angeles. Not everyone is convinced that bigger is better. Matt Burns of the RNC stated:

Not surprisingly, Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats are more focused on stagecraft and theatrics than providing real solutions to the challenges facing our nation.

Nor does everyone see the double omens of King and Kennedy as a positive reflection of Obama. Conservative commentator, Michael Barone said:

No one has done it since Kennedy because no one thought he could fill a stadium since Kennedy. Evidently Obama feels he can and feels he can stop it raining too.

Of course Howard Dean is excited about the decision. Dean said of moving the speech:

This is very much in keeping with Senator Obama’s philosophy and, I might add, my philosophy as well. I think it’s very fitting, especially the way Sen. Obama got here with his enourmous grassroots operation.

One thing we can be sure is part of Dean’s “philosophy” is that the Obama campaign has turned the change of venue into a fund raising event, something absolutely necessary for the impoverished Democratic Party. As the Washington Post put it:

And how did the campaign break the news to supporters? How else? Through an Internet fund-raising appeal.”I wanted you to be the first to hear the news,” campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in an e-mail to Obama’s millions of contributors. “…Barack has made it clear that this is your convention, not his.”

Prior to the August convention, during his trip to Europe this month Obama’s campaign wants him to give a speech at the Brandenburg Gates in Berlin. By doing so, Obama will accomplish an ancestral hat trick and evoke Ronald Reagan who addressed West Berliners there in 1987.

I understand that for Barack Obama, attempting to emulate powerful and famous people is essential. Obama himself has no record of achievement. He is now known as Backtrack Obama for all his flip flopping, and no doubt he feels he must persuade people by imitating his successful forebears.

But it’s creepy that he’s using the propaganda strategy of rallying huge crowds to hear him, while calling it an event for the people. It’s creepy because this tactic of using an energized mob has been utilized by tyrants throughout history. One doesn’t have to go back to ancient Greece, where the word tyrant comes from, to understand my use of the term as it is defined in Wikipedia:

In ancient Greece, tyrants were influential opportunists that came to power by securing the support of different factions. The word “tyrant” then carried no ethical censure; it simply referred to anyone who illegally seized executive power to engage in autocratic, though perhaps benevolent, government, or leadership. Support for the tyrants came from the growing class of business people and from the peasants who had no land or were in debt to the wealthy land owners.

As Heidi Li Feldman of The Denver Group said in her interview with Bud White for NQ, “you can’t legitimize something that is not legitimate.”In fact, at his request, Leni Riefenstahl made an amazing documentary about the rise of Adolph Hitler. The film, Triumph of the Will, is a beautiful and moving account of the early days of the Third Reich, of a time when Hitler brought hope and promise to a suffering nation. It is a haunting reminder that the faith and enthusiasm of German people gave rise to arguably the most horrendous deeds in the modern world . But the film itself portrays ordinary people coming together because they heard the charismatic and powerful rhetoric of a leader who promised to improve the lives of all German people. Here is the description from Wikipedia:

The primary aspect of the Nuremberg Rallies was to strengthen the personality cult of Adolf Hitler, portraying Hitler as Germany’s saviour, chosen by providence. The gathered masses listened to the Führer’s speeches, swore loyalty…the rallies served to demonstrate the might of the German people. The visitors of the rallies by their own free will were subordinate to the discipline and order in which they should be reborn as a new people.

I’m not suggesting that Barack Obama is Adolph Hitler. I am suggesting a cautionary tale of tyranny from recent history that has many eerie similarities.

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.

Which church is the PAC referring to? “God damn Amerikkka,” anyone? And what about those radical, racist religious leaders he hung out with, regularly, in Chicago for over 20 years — from Father Michael Pfleger to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, both of whom are close to Minister Louis Farrakhan?

And will any evangelical buy into Obama’s all-out campaign to prove he’s a devout Christian? Especially with his strong voting record on abortion and long association with Planned Parenthood (which, it is claimed, instructed him how to vote)?

Or that he voted “present” on two Illinois senate bills on teaching “respect” in schools and on prohibiting sex shops near schools and places of worship?

From my December story, quoting a New York Times article:

Mr. Obama was also the sole present vote on a bill that easily passed the Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. He also voted present on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship. It passed the Senate.

In both of those cases, his campaign said, he was trying to avoid mandates on local authorities.

In “Barack Obama Radio Spot Hits Christian Radio,” CBN Network’s Brody File column reports that the PAC is running this radio ad on James Dobson’s home turf in Colorado Springs, Colorado (!).

Now playing on Christian radio: Barack Obama!

The Brody File has learned that the Matthew 25 Network which is a religious political action committee supporting Obama has put together a radio ad in which Obama’s faith is highlighted. And get this….they are airing it on Christian radio in Colorado Springs, the home to James Dobson and Focus on the Family.

Part of their release, sent to The Brody File, is below:

The Matthew 25 Network today launched an initial radio ad campaign to reach Christian voters with Obama’s positive message of how faith informs his life and enhances dialogue in the public square.

The ad entitled “From his Heart,” comes on the heels of Senator Obama’s historic speech earlier today about the instrumental role faith communities play in caring for the “least of these” in our society and the importance of public partnerships with faith-based programs that have proven track records.

The Matthew 25 Network ad will first run in Colorado Springs, CO, home of James Dobson who garnered much media attention last week for attacking Senator Obama’s faith. The group will run run ads in Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, and other swing states.

Here is the script version of the radio ad:

Narrator: You know it’s an election year when certain people start grabbing headlines by attacking the faith of Presidential candidates. With all these stones being cast at Senator Obama, it can be hard to know what to believe. But in Luke, Jesus taught us that we must listen to what a man says because “out of the overflow of his heart, his mouth speaks.” So here are words from Senator Obama’s heart:

Obama: “I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people’s lives” “kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.”

Narrator: Paid for by Matthew 25 Network, Matthew 25.org is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. Matthew 25 Network is responsible for the content of this ad because we think it’s time for a better Christian witness in politics.

Dr. Richard Land, Chairman of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Association, was a guest on Just In with Laura Ingraham, her new Fox News show that airs weekdays at 5 p.m. ET.

Dr. Land pointed out that, no matter how much Obama pounds on the point that he’s a good Christian, his pro-abortion stand will be a certain deal breaker for evangelicals.

:::::::::

There’s something else that bothers me. Obama, by hammering on his insistence that he is a Christian, is also insulting Muslims. As I wrote recently:

To be clear: We at No Quarter have no concerns about Barack Obama having had a Muslim background; given the circumstances of his childhood, living with a stepfather in Indonesia who was Muslim as well as having relatives in Africa who are Muslim, it is simply a part of his background, and probably a plus to be exposed to the faith, although he was for the most part rather young to assess it.

Our issue is with Obama’s failure to be frank about his life history and — worst of all — his appearance of running from any past associations with Muslims, as if being evasive would protect him from voter concerns in an age of the Internet and 24/7 news. Instead — by insisting repeatedly that he is solely a “committed Christian” and has “never been a Muslim” — Obama may be insulting Muslims worldwide who are surely puzzled why he hides this past. Further, his obfuscations lose him credibility among voters who seek honesty and forthrightness in their presidential candidates.

Obama seems unable to grasp what most mature people understand: That hiding the simple truth damages one’s reputation far more than the fact that is being hidden.

We get it, Barack. We do. You’re desperate to kill the rampant rumors that you were or are a Muslim, or ever had any associations with any Muslims. But, the saying, “He doth protest too much,” applies here.

But this is going to backfire, I predict, because Obama’s positions on abortion and his astonishing voting record in the Illinois senate are going to come out, and NO devout Christian will vote for him.

Okay - let’s just stop right there. I hate to digress, but what does it say that the people he pursues the MOST are young, inexperienced people? I mean, really - the part of the brain that helps make good decisions isn’t even fully set until one is into adulthood. I’m not kidding! (Here is but one article on the topic of Decision-Making - there are TONS available online.) That is why, so often, you will hear someone exclaim, “I can’t believe SO-and-So drank and drove (or lied, or stole, whatever) - this seems so out of character for him/her,” and they are in their late teens or twenties. It is that part of the brain that isn’t fully formed that allows the Straight A, straight-laced student to go joy-riding, out of the clear blue sky, for example. Or to support a candidate because he seems “cool,” not paying attention to what he actually says, or has done. I think you know what I mean. Anyway, it is VERY telling that he constantly pursues YOUNG people. Just sayin’.

And this is the problem with people like McCaskill and Caroline Kennedy, among others, allowing thier CHILDREN to convince them to vote for Obama! Their children’s reasoning facilities are not yet physically or neuroogically set, and they are listening to THEM?? That is problematic on all sorts of levels, like why adults are acquiescing to their kids, for starters. I think we can all look back on our youth and remember how we were CERTAIN we were SO right about everything, and adults didn’t know anything. We knew so much more, were so much more with it, and our arguments were better. As we look back, we realize we didn’t know squat, cerainly not on the level we do now. And now there is scientific evidence that at least as far as reasoning is concerned, adults have better ability neuorlogically. So, yes, Claire and Caroline, by all means - let your KIDS tell you who to support! That’s the most reasonable thing to do - not.

Anywho - to get back to the topic, Obama is trying to woo Evangelical Christians. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, had some criticims of Obama, particularly his biblical interpretation. Dobson said (quote from the article mentioned below), “I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” Dobson said.”

I think we all know how well Obama deals with criticism. Ahem. He is not fond of it, and tends to lash out. Bear in mind that Dobson’s responses to him are based on a speech Obama gave in which he said, “that people of faith, like himself, “try to translate some of our concerns in a universal language so that we can have an open and vigorous debate rather than having religion divide us.” Hang on a moment - I am so busy having my head explode at OBAMA talking about not having religion “divide us,” that I can’t type…Whew. OK. I think I am better. Can I just say, Obama attends a church that is INCREDIBLY DIVISIVE and he has the “audacity” to say this?! After attending TUCC, the Nation of Islam supporting church for TWENTY years, he says this??? Wow. Just freakin’ wow. He added in his speech, “People aren’t reading their Bibles.”

Well, sure enough, he had THIS to say on Tuesday about Dobson’s criticism in an AP article, “Obama Dismisses Dobson Criticism About Bible“: “”I think you’ll see that he was just making stuff up, maybe for his own purposes.” Dobson is “making stuff up”? Gosh, he really IS eloquent, isn’t he?!? And this: “Asked about Dobson’s assessment, Obama said “somebody would be pretty hard-pressed to make that argument” that he was distorting the Bible.” Way to go about winning the hearts and minds of the Evangelical Christians, Obama! Insult one of their foremost leaders! That oughta do the trick! (And may I say - again - I have absolutely NO love lost for Dobson, and completely disagree with HIS interpretation of the Bible, but I am not trying to get any of his people to vote for me, either! Just to be clear - not a fan of Dobson’s.)

Honestly, I think Obama is unclear on the concept of bringing people into the fold, or has really internalized the hype about himself. He does seem to think he can say whatever derogatory comments he wants about leaders who represent millions of people, then get their people to fall in line behind him. That sure takes some nerve. Or something like that. Fill in your own word (hubris? Delusion?). I suppose this should come as no surprise to Hillary supporters, though - he pretty much reamed her time and time again, disparaging her character, making ad hominem attacks constantly, demeaning her, and women in general, with his sexist remarks, and overall responding with great arrogance - why WOULDN’T we just jump on board?!? Now he is trying it with James Dobson and Evangelical Christians! Let’s just see how well this works out for him, even with the help of people like The Reverend Kirbyjon Caldwell, a former Bush supporter. I daresay, more people have heard of Dobson…Like I said, this Obama sure has a unique way to try and win the hearts and minds…

Oh, wait! Speaking of Obama’s incredibly divisive church, and his claim that religions shouldn’t divide us, Father Michael Pfleger said on “Good Morning America” recently that he stands by the message he preached against Senator Clinton, her whole “entitlement” thing, as he is now calling it. As if Senator Clinton EVER claimed she was entitled to anything, especially in the racist way he depicted. That was ALL Pfleger, and near as I can tell, he broke one of the Big Ten by “bearing false witness against his neighbor” with that one. Here’s the link, in case you want to read it for yourself: Priest Who Mocked Clinton… What a piece of work, and how unfortunate that ABC is giving him any air time at all…Sheesh.

From “Priest who mocked Clinton stands by message,” in the Chicago Tribune today:

The Roman Catholic priest who mocked Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s former church says he regrets that his passionate delivery may have detracted from his message. But he stands by the message.

So Father Pfleger sees that the problem was his delivery, not his message. Really? This message? This “sermon” on May 25th at Barack Obama’s church for over two decades (until he threw the entire church, ministers and congregation under the bus too)?

For a detailed background on Father Pfleger’s longtime close collaborations with Barack Obama — as well as Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and Obama’s campaign strategist David Axelrod — see “Father Pfleger, Obama’s Longtime Confidante and Adviser, Is Back at St. Sabina.”

Check out the video of Father Pfleger on ABC’s Good Morning America today.

It’s amusing to see the “other Father Pfleger.”

I assume this is the Father Pfleger who shows up when he is called on the carpet by Cardinal George.

But, man oh man, what a yawner he is, sort of like his pal Barack when he’s being P.C.:

First, here is video of Father Michael Pfleger on June 22, 2008, at St. Sabina in Chicago:

Despite the “Statement of Cardinal Francis George” on May 30, 2008 — “concerning remarks of Fr. Michael Pfleger about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton during an address at Trinity United Church of Christ on Sunday May 25, 2008″ — Father Michael Pfleger, a radical activist priest, was permitted to return yesterday, after a three-week suspension, to his St. Sabina parish in Chicago.

Always the self-aggrandizing showman, Fr. Pfleger made a grand entrance — invoking the image of legendary boxing champion Muhammad Ali.

St. Sabina’s ushers distributed “light-blue fliers with a silhouette of boxing great Muhammad Ali in fighting stance that read: ‘Ain’t nothing like a comeback’.” The congregation rose to its feet, cheering Fr. Pfleger on as if he were entering a Las Vegas boxing arena for the championship fight of his life.

So what, you ask. Here’s why it matters: Fr. Michael Pfleger is a decades-long intimate confidante and associate of Barack Obama — as well as Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, Mother Khadijah Farrakhan (Farrakhan’s wife, seen here with Michelle Obama), the homophobic Rev. James Meeks, Trinity’s new minister Otis Moss, and more.

Exhibit One attesting to the Obama/Pfleger closeness:

In April and May, when Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama became estranged, it was Father Pfleger who spoke directly with and counseled both men, frequently. (It is astonishing, to me, that a presumptive presidential nominee would take regular phone calls from Fr. Pfleger, but it is true, according to Chicago media.)

Exhibit Two attesting to Pfleger’s involvement in the Rev. Wright/Obama saga:

Fox News’s Greta Van Susteran reported, on several shows, that she ran into Father Pfleger at Washington, D.C.’s National Press Club, during Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s now infamous Q&A, after which Obama finally severed ties publicly with the Reverend who “is like a father to me.” (At whose behest did Father Pfleger fly to Washington, D.C. for the press club appearance? And why?)

Further, Father Pfleger created quite a group for St. Sabina’s fundraising committee, including Chicago mayor Richard Daley, Illinois state treasurer Alexei Giannoulias, and — get this — Obama’s chief strategist David Axelrod.

From Truthteller’s “Saint Sabina Raises the Roof on Obama’s Den of Political Tricks and Corruption [Update]“:

[V]iew some of the names on this list of fundraisers:

• Richard Daley, the corrupt Obama backer behind the Hired Truck Scandal, an elaborate network of cronyism and corruption that rocked Chicago City Hall in 2004, 2005 and 2006;
• David Axelrod, Lead Strategist of the Obama campaign and Political Consultant to Richard “Hired Truck” Daley who also served as Consultant for Exelon, the Illinois nuclear giant whose lobbyists convinced Obama not to regulate companies that contaminated groundwater with radioactive toxic waste; and
• Illinois state Treasurer Alexei Giannoulias, whose bank, the Broadway Bank, granted loans to known mobsters and to indicted political fixer and Obama patron Antoin “Tony” Rezko.

Father Michael Pfleger used to be featured on Barack Obama’s official Web site section for “Faith Testimonials.” Larry Johnson displayed the screenshot of Pfleger’s endorsement — now removed, of course, from Obama’s site — in his April story, “What Would Tip O’Neill Do About Barack’s Pastors? [Updated].”

Fr. Pfleger’s endorsement of Barack Obama is on Obama’s official Web site:

(Click on the image to see the full-sized screenshot of Pfleger’s endorsement [formerly] proudly displayed by Barack Obama.)

Barack Obama’s campaign staff hurriedly removed Father Pfleger’s testimonial after Larry Johnson’s story appeared.

Just as they’ve removed numerous other sections of their Web site when the material was exposed and became embarrassing to the Obama campaign.

These “now you see it, now you don’t” stunts ought to concern every voter.

Why on earth would the Obama campaign post the testimonial of a known radical priest who hangs out regularly — and constantly praises — Minister Louis Farrakhan, a known anti-Semite and black separationist?

What kind of judgment does that show about Obama? And his staff?

Why did Obama and his staff ever post this extremist’s photograph and words in the first place?

Surely Barack Obama himself saw the Father Pfleger testimonial and personally approved its appearance on his official campaign site.

We know that the two men are longtime close friends and fellow collaborators — for at least two decades — so perhaps Obama okayed the testimonial in honor of their friendship. But any politician with even minimal common sense would know better than to put this radical’s photograph and words on prominent display on his official campaign site.

By the way, Larry Johnson wrote in his must-read April story that his own former pastor told him about a conversation he once had with Tip O’Neill. The great Speaker of the House told Larry’s pastor this:

Politicians need to learn an important skill. If you are hearing things that go against your values you get up and walk out.

The troubling problem is that we do not know what Barack Obama’s true “values” are. Are they those of his longtime extremist friends Father Pfleger, Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers? Or did Obama betray his own true “values” for over two decades by continuing to associate with these radicals and extremists?

In either case, Obama’s judgment is in serious doubt.

::::::

Thanks to V for the video, now up at NoQuarter’s channel at YouTube.

I have spent the past six months actively supporting Hillary Clinton by setting up a network of bloggers to ensure that Senator Clinton’s positions were understood by the electorate. My family and I campaigned on her behalf in the primaries. I supported Hillary Clinton because of her experience, knowledge of the issues, and her practical approach and commitment to the bread-and-butter issues facing this country.

During the campaign, I have become increasingly alarmed by the refusal of the media to properly scrutinize Senator Obama’s actions and associations. I have also been appalled by the political maneuverings of the DNC to ensure that their chosen candidate was selected—including, just as one example, breaking their own rules to ensure that the two states that supported Hillary were stripped of their delegates even though five states broke the rules.

Lastly, I have been aghast at the vitriol and name-calling being spewed by Obama supporters against anyone who has an honest disagreement with them.

As documented throughout by the “attack timeline” formerly found on the HRC website—the Obama campaign employed a concerted strategy of constantly questioning the likability, honesty, experience, and integrity of Clinton. While the candidate portrayed himself as ‘above it all’—his campaign relentlessly faxed pages and pages of material designed to stoke the fires of false controversies.

I do not believe that Barack Obama would make a good president of the United States. Frankly, I think there is a minimum standard of accomplishment and experience we should expect from a candidate for the toughest job in the world. By any metric Obama falls short. Kirk Watson couldn’t name Senator Obama’s legislative accomplishments. I can– two bills: to promote democracy in the African Congo and to name a post office. Certainly, Senator Obama’s 130 “present” votes in the Illinois legislature when asked to take a stand on controversial issues do not inspire confidence.

Many of the people that supported Hillary Clinton have similar reservations about Senator Obama’s fitness to lead. Thus, on Saturday, I helped organize an informational meeting and teleconference with John McCain for supporters of Hillary Clinton who were trying to decide whether to support Barack Obama or John McCain.

Less than 48 hours later, I was attacked, called “deeply racist”, a “lunatic”, “rabid” and with “a history of jobs, statements, actions and practice that leave her very vulnerable to accusations that she is a ‘racist’”. One site even claimed: “keeping black people out of the party has been a lifelong ambition of hers.” The basis of the attack was a controversy involving my husband’s ancestor, Thomas Jefferson.

As many of you have probably heard, some descendants of Sally Hemings, a slave in the household of Thomas Jefferson, have claimed that they are descendants of Thomas Jefferson. Sally Hemings had three sons: Thomas Woodson, Madison Hemings, and Eston Hemings. Descendants of Thomas Woodson had their DNA tested 7 times—each time there was no match. Descendants of Madison Hemings declined to be tested. The white descendants of Eston Hemings had their DNA tested and were a match to a Jefferson, but the DNA tests could not determine if the Jefferson genes were from Thomas Jefferson or one of the 27 other Jefferson males that lived in the area at the time and visited frequently. Additionally, since Thomas Jefferson was 64 at the time of Eston’s birth and was suffering from prostate cancer, which often caused impotency, it is less likely that Eston was a son of Thomas Jefferson. A 2001 Scholars Commission of 13 prominent Jefferson historians (including the former chair of Harvard’s Department of Government), examined all the evidence for a year, and issued a 500-page report that concluded that the allegations of a relationship between Hemings and Thomas Jefferson were not true, and that was not enough evidence to determine Eston Hemings’ paternity.

During 2003, a member of the Jefferson family set up a Yahoo chat room for family members and Hemings descendants to discuss the issues. Unfortunately, discussions became strained and many individuals who disagreed that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings were barred from the site. Bloggers from both sides used assumed names to try to get information from the other side. When the moderator discovered me, a Washington Post reporter asked me if I was on the chat room under a pseudonym—and I—foolishly perhaps—answered honestly.

However, it was never a racial issue. Eston Hemings’ descendents (the only Hemings that applied) are, by any calculus, white. No doubt passions at the time were overheated, and honorable people can disagree. Part of the consideration was that as DNA typing becomes more sophisticated, a definitive analysis could prove the issue in the future.

This is the sum and total of the activities for which I have been vilified. I am a private citizen who has never held a position with either the Clinton or McCain campaign.

But, there is a curious double standard at work here.

Barack Obama, the presumptive nominee of our party and possible President of the United States participated in a racist church for twenty years. A church whose “Black Liberation Theology” is the apotheosis of hate. In one year alone, Senator Obama contributed $22,000 to support the church. He has allied himself with other racists: namely Rev. James Meeks and Father Pfleger.

The National Review reported that in a single year, Senator Obama appeared on the cover of the church magazine four times. Three of those times, Senator Obama shared the cover with Louis Farrakhan. How is this double standard rational?

I am a mother of two small children living in a diverse community who has seen my life turned upside down by half-truths and vicious attacks. Some have printed my address and phone number. I have been harassed and threatened.

But, as far as I can tell, that has been the Obama campaign’s strategy all along—to isolate, to discredit, to destroy. But, Clinton supporters have seen this game before. You will not frighten us anymore. Even when four of our member networks were disrupted by mysterious viruses—with barely 24-hour notice—we managed to turn out thousands of HRC supporters on a conference call with John McCain. Supporters that will not, under any circumstances vote for a “democratic” party that disenfranchised us—not because we are racists, or ‘closet republicans,’ but because we are Americans.

And that must have you very worried.

============

View the videos of my appearances on television:

“Paula Abeles on the Obama Thugs’ Attacks” - posted the evening of June 20, 2008

“Paula Abeles on Neil Cavuto Today” - posted the morning of June 20, 2008

……………………………………………………………

Oh. Dear. Goddess (hey - whaddya expect - I am a UU after all!).

This video, like so many that feature Father Pfleger, is interesting on OH-So-Many levels. As you watch it, pay attention to the people in the congregation. They are all hooting and hollering, cheering Father Pfleger on. You may recall, this is the SAME response he got from the congregation at Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC). People in Chicago really seem to like this guy. I mean, really like him. Their response to him is OVERWHELMINGLY positive.

Frankly, it is beyond me. Not for nothing, but the man is from Chicago, and he has a Southern accent! How is that? Now, being a Southerner myself, I have to say, I take umbrage at this. I have lived in New York City, Chicago, and Boston, and took crap for my Southern accent constantly (oh, for heavens sake, no, don’t think “Deliverance,” or even “Dukes of Hazard.” It is more along the lines of Andy Griffith in Mayberry - I’m from Charlotte, big city, so not TOO heavy. OK. Now that we’re clear…).

Now, being from the South Side of Chicago does not qualify someone as SOUTHERN, I am here to tell ya. Just sayin’. So, it makes you wonder about him from the get-go - why is he talking like that?? What is he trying to accomplish with that faux Southern accent? Hmmm - probably the same thing Obama is when HE does it - just one of the people, you know - and “folksy”. Oh, yeah.

Then, and more importantly, are the things this guy SAYS!!!! Now, I went to a progressive seminary, Union in NYC, and it was DEFINITELY big on social justice issues. It is, after all, the seminary of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and, well, James Cone. And to be sure, the Roman Catholic Church has a history of social activism, both here and abroad. But, c’mon - to say this guy is a TAD over the top would be on the par of saying Obama always tells the truth. I mean, really - his “sermon” in which he goes off on Hillary?

Wow - don’t know where HE learned preaching, but TYPICALLY, one has a text, does a little exegesis, and has a message that is spiritually enlightening - that can include “afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted” - but demeaning and parodying a major presidential candidate from the PULPIT?!?!? Holy Freakin’ Cow. That takes some, well, um, HUBRIS, to be kind.

But even more than all of that is the guest preacher Father Pfleger introduces in this video. It is clear that these two men have a relationship, even a CLOSE relationship. The, “I love Father Pfleger” kinda drives that point home. So, Barack Obama’s intermediary, his confidante, his good friend, Father Pfleger, the one who helped smooth those troubled water with Reverend Wright when Reverend Wright got his feelings hurt when he was thrown under the bus (after being assured he wouldn’t be by Barry himself). So, let’s recap: Obama is good buddies with Rev. Wright. Obama is close with Father Pfleger. Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger are VERY good friends with Minister Louis Farrakhan, who, as we know, endorsed Obama. Then Obama threw HIM under the bus, too - “renouncing” his endorsement.

So - what’s the point? That Obama has been a little disingenuous about his relationship to the leader of the Nation of Islam. How can it POSSIBLY be that Obama is close to Pfleger, AND Wright, who are BOTH close to Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, and he doesn’t know this guy?? Yeah. Okay. If you believe THAT, well, then you believe that Obama’s parents really DID meet in Selma!! Ahem.

And, just to be clear - this is not an indictment of Islam, the religion, at ALL. It is about Louis Farrakhan and the NATION of Islam - two very different things.

Anywho - here’s the video - judge for yourself. Do a search here at No Quarter for more about Father Pfleger. He’s a piece of work, and he’s in Obama’s inner circle. And get this - he returns to his home parish, St. Sabina, tomorrow. If THAT isn’t a kick in the head! So, watch, and draw your own conclusions.

I will “use all of my present and future resources to benefit [the Black]community first and foremost

Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites…it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first

there is a distinctive Black culture different from White culture.

[A] Black person may have all White friends and prefer these friends and their activities to those with Blacks without the individual believing that he/she is White

Are these the long-awaited excerpts from Michelle Obama’s “whitey” rant? No, these gems of racial “tolerance” come from her Princeton thesis. As the Obama campaign unleashes its Orcs to stifle dissent and cover-up Michelle’s greatest hits, we believe an analysis of Michelle Obama’s public statements and writings offer plenty of material to understand her views on race, with or without the audio tape.

Like archaeologists uncovering artifacts to decipher a culture, we view Michelle’s extant words as a crystallization of a worldview which can be examined to understand her views on race in America. Michelle Obama wrote the quotes above in her Princeton thesis on race and in it acknowledges that that she is influenced by and utilizes the definition of black “separationism” offered by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1967 screed Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. She writes:Stokely Carmichael guided Michelle Obama’s thesis on race? This is very important. Carmichael was not a mainstream academic source in his times. He was not the Henry Louis Gates, Jr. of the 1960s, writing scholarly, brilliant works on black America. In fact, Carmichael, the Honorary Prime Minister of the Black Panther Party, espoused a violent black separatist philosophy which was diametrically opposed to Dr. King’s and the Civil Rights Movement’s struggle for integration and equality.

In his 1966 article entitled What We Want, in the New York Review of Books, Stokely Carmichael wrote, “about plots to ‘get Whitey‘” saying that “Black people don’t want to ‘get whitey,’” and in a 1969 article entitled Toward Black Liberation, Carmichael talks about racial incidents as “Git Whitey” “sensationalism.” Christopher Hitchens writes:

I remember poor Stokely Carmichael quite well. After a hideous series of political and personal fiascos, he fled to Africa, renamed himself Kwame Toure after two of West Africa’s most repellently failed dictators, and then came briefly back to the United States before electing to die in exile. I last saw him as the warm-up speaker for Louis Farrakhan in Madison Square Garden in 1985, on the evening when Farrakhan made himself famous by warning Jews, “You can’t say ‘Never Again’ to God, because when he puts you in the ovens, you’re there forever.”

Consider for a moment that Michelle Obama built her thesis on the philosophy of a man who believed that “Before a group can enter the open society, it must first close ranks.”

Next consider her statement that she will “use all of my present and future resources to benefit [the Black] community first and foremost.” [Emphasis added]

Lastly, remember that the Obamas spent 20 years as active students of Jeremiah Wright’s odious racist rants. Think about that in mathematical terms. If they attended church for two hours weekly, that’s 2,000 hours of Jeremiah Wright, or one full year of working at a job 40 hours a week. That’s a lot of “United States of KKK-A.” The Obamas were, until recently, members of a church which describes itself in explicitly racial language:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. [emphasis added]

In other words, the Obamas were active participants in a black separatist church, a church which explicitly emphasized skin color over salvation, heritage over faith, one group of people instead of the universality of spiritual needs.The ideology espoused from this church may sound innocuous to Obama’s supporters. But it’s an important question, in a diverse nation of 300 million. Do we want a couple in the White House whose stated influences include Stokely Carmichael and Jeremiah Wright instead of Martin Luther King? Or someone who said:

For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country

Really, Michelle? Is it because Barack is so wonderful that only now you’re proud of your country or is there another reason you’re proud for the first time? Please tell us the reason. Or as Christopher Hitchens asks about Obama:

If there is a reason why the potential nominee has been keeping what he himself now admits to be very bad company—and if the rest of his character seems to make this improbable—then either he is hiding something and/or it is legitimate to ask him about his partner.

I knew at once that Barack Obama was seizing the DNC by the hair, and dragging it into his lair where he can seize control of the Democratic party’s monies, its employees, and any access to its power brokers. The party is no longer, in any way, the party of the Democratic voter. It is now Barack Obama’s party, to do with as he wishes.

The Obama-controlled Chicago machine will hold sway over all Superdelegates running for reelection this year — including their access to money, support, and endorsements.

Those freshman House members will be kneeling and kissing Obama’s ring in no time and, for their sakes, they’d better not have supported Hillary.

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

Smith writes:

The move reflects Obama’s desire to maintain an unusually streamlined campaign, as well as his swift and complete takeover of a Democratic Party that isn’t always known for its unity.

To which Riverdaughter replies, about this “complete and utter takeover of the DNC by the Obama campaign”:

I’m guessing that “streamlined” means “pared to the bone for cost reasons”. “Consolidate” means “have Obama hire the staff because the DNC can’t pay them”. Is it that Obama has highjacked the DNC or is it that the DNC is forced to go this route because the fundraising machine has dried up over the outrageous treatment of Hillary Clinton? And if it is the latter, how long will it take before it cries “Uncle” and ceases to exist as a party apparatus at all?

What it means most of all is that if Obama loses in November — as we predict because the GOP has every intention to expose Mr. Obama’s shady dealings and longtime extremist associates including, reports McClatchy, questioning “Obama’s judgment and character” in choosing allies like Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers — the Democratic party will be left in a shambles, cut off from its roots and Congressional allies in Washington, D.C., bereft of leadership, broke and in staggering debt.

Hot Air blog predicts the Republicans will have great fun with the Chicago location since the just-completed “Rezko trial [showed] massive corruption in state politics” — and involves many of Obama’s longtime allies.

Howard Dean may think it’s great that Democrats are nervous about Obama’s prospects.

But, if I were a yellow dog Democrat, I’d be ill right about now.

Thankfully, I’ve never been a one-party person. Never seen the sense in it. And I’m keeping my options open.

Would that the DNC were more cautious and protective of its future, rather than betting the farm on an inexperienced and unqualified candidate with shady and extremist characters for close allies.

Chicago is a city so colorfully corrupt, it inspired this creative video by the great Flineo:

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?