Recently, Soldier4Hillary had a powerful piece on this very Bill Ayers Op-Ed, “Quiet Storm.” In it, she decried this domestic terrorist being treated as “Hail, fellow well met” by major media outlets. I could not agree more. We are not alone, thank heavens.

The other day, Paul Greenberg, the head of the editorial board for the Arkansas-Democrat Gazette, had this piece: HE’S B-A-A-ACK! Yes, the one to who he is referring is none other than “Not in prison on a technicality” Weatherman, Bill Ayers:

He lay low during the presidential campaign, and for good reason. His various connections to a neighbor named Barack Obama would have embarrassed both of them.

To hear Sen. Obama tell it during the campaign, this was just somebody he would occasionally pass on the street in Hyde Park, their upscale enclave back in Chicago. No need to go into detail about the various committees and fundraisers they’d put together for their mutual benefit. It wouldn’t do for a presidential candidate to acknowledge the depth or variety of his associations with an unrepentant terrorist out of the literally explosive 1960s.

But now that the campaign is over, Bill Ayers has resurfaced. In the New York Times, of course, where his latest apologia appeared earlier this month. Like so many distinguished old terrorists, he now denies he ever was one. A founder of the Weather Underground, which he once described as “an American Red Army,” he now says it was guilty only of “symbolic acts of extreme vandalism.”

I’m sorry, but “extreme vandalism”?? Seems like he’s still on those ’60’s drugs if this is how he now chooses to frame the terrorist activities of his “posse”:

Euphemism is still the last resort of the violent. The Weathermen, the talented Mr. Ayers explains, were guilty only of “attacks on property, never on people. … But it was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately, spreading fear and suffering for political ends.”

He could have fooled me. In Weatherman’s heyday back in 1969 Chicago, aka the Days of Rage, its members attacked police and civilian targets alike. Is he now saying that they killed and injured people only discriminately?

The rhetorical distance between Bill Ayers’ old memoir, “Fugitive Days,” and the mild persona he’s now adopted on the op-ed page of the New York Times is impressive mainly for its sheer chutzpah. For in his book, which might as well have been a confession in full, he wrote proudly of having “participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972.”

Of the day he bombed the Pentagon, Bill Ayers recalled: “Everything was absolutely ideal. … The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.”

See? Nothing but a little “vandalism” going on there! Who could possibly claim that Ayers and his little gang were actually terrorists?? I mean, c’mon already! Oh, wait, Ayers wasn’t finished:

There’s a lot more of that kind of thing in his rhetoric: “There’s something about a good bomb. … Night after night, day after day, each majestic scene I witnessed was so terrible and so unexpected that no city would ever again stand innocently fixed in my mind. Big buildings and wide streets, cement and steel were no longer permanent. They, too, were fragile and destructible. A torch, a bomb, a strong enough wind, and they, too, would come undone or get knocked down.”

Mr. Ayers’ earlier defense of his terrorist past had appeared, with perfect timing, in an interview in the New York Times published on the morning of September 11, 2001. The events of that day rather took the shine off his remarks. Or were those terrorists just practicing “symbolic acts of extreme vandalism,” too?

Lest we forget, people were killed during the Weatherman’s reign of terror, notably three Weathermen — including Mr. Ayers’ then-girlfriend, Diana Oughton. They blew themselves up accidentally in their Greenwich Village town house while preparing a bomb that had been intended for an Army dance at Fort Dix.

Just because terrorism is incompetent doesn’t make it any the less terrorism. As a more honest Bill Ayers once admitted, that bomb could have done a lot more damage if it hadn’t killed the terrorists themselves, “tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people, too.” Instead, it tore through the terrorists. There is a raw justice in these matters.

I see – so attempted murder doesn’t count, then, right? Because of their own incompetence, the Murtaugh family, particularly NY State Supreme Court Justice Murtaugh, in Manhattan was not killed when they firebombed their house. So, that doesn’t count in the reign of terror – oops – “vandalism.” Oh, of course not. We were all just taking this Weather Undergound thing a little tooseriously, at least according to the BIll Ayers of today:

But the greatest violence Bill Ayers has done, and continues to do, is to the language. He now presents a campaign of terror as just vandalism, and his old speeches as just a lot of posturing. (”Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at.”) Today, thanks to his remarkable forgettery, he can’t even remember saying such things.

Bill Ayers may be willing to twist the simple meaning of words, but he can’t seem to admit their power, and take responsibility for the effect his own might have had on impressionable young minds. Naturally he’s now become a professor of “education” at the University of Illinois. If he couldn’t destroy American society in his youth, maybe he can undermine the next generation in his advancing years.

And that is, in a nutshell, one of the major concerns about Bill Ayers. Not only is he completely unreprentant for his deeds, and is now trying to couch them in far less incendiary language, but it is what he is imparting to this generation (you nkow, Obama), and the next.

And speaking of Obama:

It wouldn’t be quite accurate to say Professor Ayers never made an appearance during the late presidential campaign. Fox News sent a camera crew to waylay him outside his nice home in Hyde Park. The newsmen found him wearing a shirt adorned with, of course, a big red star. And he did not welcome their attention. “This is my property,” he told them, ordering them off the place. Then the old Weatherman and cop-baiter called … the police.

The professor would seem to be all against vestiges of the old, oppressive capitalist order like private property — unless of course it’s his. His guiding philosophy isn’t communism, it’s hypocrisy. Bill Ayers’ politics and maybe life can be summed up simply enough: He’s the personification of the spoiled brat as ideologue.

Now that I’ve written this column, I almost regret it. If I hadn’t spotted his self-righteous little act in the New York Times, I might have spared both you, Gentle Reader, and me this brief review of his miserable career. The man isn’t worth wasting good time and words on. But attention must be paid, a record kept. So some future innocent won’t take his type, and hype, seriously.

Well, amen to that, but the vast majority of the media is far too complacent, even encouraging, of Ayers’ “type and hype.” Yes, vigilance is required to keep an HONEST record of what this man did, of what his group did, and how terrorized people were byt his organization. For Ayers to try to claim now that it was essentially just some spirited hijinks on his part is not only disingenuous, but dangerous. We must remember the truth, and not let him get away with his revisionist history (or that of Obama’s relationship with this man). It is far past time this man was held accountable for his actions, no matter his words.

And they did a substantial amount of damage, over $1 million. What is more, people were actually inside the church at the time the fire was set. Thankfully, they were unharmed.

Now, this is not the first church (or other religious building) that has been targeted, not by a long shot, unfortunately. As many of you know, I am a retired UU minister, and a number of UU churches have been vandalized over the past few years, usually for two reasons: general support of the GLBT community, and for our open-mindedness regarding theology. One church in MD had its Peace Pole from its Meditation Garden ripped down and defecated upon by the vandals, other churches have had windows broken out, burning of leaves in the shape of a cross, and more. The worst was this year, the shooting in Knowxville, TNin which two Unitarian Universalists were killed, six injured, in the sanctuary during a service.

Many of you may recall that back in 1996, there was a rash of African American churches targeted by arsonists, primarily in Alabama, though 8 states in total were affected. By the time it was all over and done, over 30 churches were set on fire. It was a horrible time when racism reared its ugly, cowardly head. Sadly, a decade later, more churches were burned, some completely destroyed, in Alabama.

Synagogues in this country have also vandalized in the 21st century, one in Chicago on behalf of Palestine,two in North Miami had hateful speech written on the walls, and two in Boston had molotov cocktails thrown at them at the start of the Jewish New Year.

Even a Hindu temple in Minnesota was attacked, walls broken, windows shattered, statuary that took two years to receive destroyed. One of the trustees, Kumad Sane, said,

“We have had dreams to have this place for the past 30 years, we have worked so hard. Why would someone come here and do this type of action.”

Sadly, these are just a few examples of this kind of hate crime.

You know, it takes a particular kind of person to attack a religious institution. Check that – a particular kind of COWARD. Not for nothing, but it is missing the point just a bit from what it is SUPPOSED to mean to be a person of faith. Little things like, “Do unto others as you would have done to you,” or “Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me.” (Matthew,25:40). Or, when asked what was the greatest commandment, Jesus said, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:37-40 NIV) Regardless of the motivation, whether it be theological, social, or political, it is unacceptable. And cowardly.

The attack on Sarah Palin’s church was all of these things. With one big difference, though – it was also personal. There is not a doubt in my mind why THAT particular church was targeted for arson. It would seem that Palin is concerned this was a hate motivated action because of her, too, since she apologized to her church for this hate act, in the event she was the cause.

Now let me say, my theology is about as far apart from that of the Wasilla Bible Church as it can be. Heck, I’m not even a Christian. But, there are some places that should be off limits for political hate speech, and churches/synagogues/mosques are just such places. Regardless of one’s theology (and just to be clear, atheism is a belief system, too), to attack a building when there are people IN IT is reprehensible, to say the least.

But here’s the thing. If it is true this church was a target simply because Sarah Palin attends it, and it appears that is the case, this kind of behavior is an extension of the despicable behavior we saw by Obama supporters this entire election season. When The One fails, no, refuses to speak out against sexist, degrading speech, or tee-shirts; when He refuses to speak out against violent action (like burning American flags on top of a $70,000 car, urinating on it, burning it with cigarettes, and scratching “KKK” into it simply because it has a McCain/Palin bumper sticker on it), it gives tacit approval to these kinds of actions. We saw it during the Bush/Cheney years, especially in terms of GLBT people in this country. And those of us in the liberal sector of the country decried it. Now some of the same people who decried it under Bush/Cheney are engaging in that kind of behavior, and worse, under PEBO. They could have KILLED someone in that church. And for what, because Gov. Palin exposed some of Obama’s weaknesses? Because she was popular? What possible deluded reason could someone have for attacking her CHURCH? That is personal, and political (as things so often are), and sacrilegious. Whatever one’s faith, whatever one believes, attacking a place of worship is, simply, unacceptable.

The people who did this are cowards. And criminals. We can only hope that they are brought to justice.

One last thing – the human spirit is resilient. And when it is tested, the vast majority of the time, it comes out all the stronger for it. When targeted with hate speech, or destruction based on hate, yes, there is anxiety, or fear, or anger. But there is also resolve, a banding together of community, and hope. It is this for which I pray for the people of Wasilla Bible Church. I do not need to agree with their theology to stand with them as people of faith who did not deserve to have the place where they pray, where they bare their souls, where they engage in communion and fellowship with one another and their higher power, where they laugh, and cry, where they pass major life milestones, defiled.

I’ll let Rev. Chris Buice, the minister of the UU Church, Tennessee Valley, in Knoxville, someone who has lived through a hate crime perpetrated on his church, have the last word on this:

Yes, Emily Yoffe, the writer, treats us to this informative study about emotions, and how Obama used them to bring in the masses. Now, many of us already knew it was rhetoric over substance, but here she lays it out for us in her Own way:

For researchers of emotions, creating them in the lab can be a problem. Dacher Keltner, a professor of psychology at the University of California-Berkeley, studies the emotions of uplift, and he has tried everything from showing subjects vistas of the Grand Canyon to reading them poetry—with little success. But just this week one of his postdocs came in with a great idea: Hook up the subjects, play Barack Obama’s victory speech, and record as their autonomic nervous systems go into a swoon.

In his forthcoming book, Born To Be Good (which is not a biography of Obama*), Keltner writes that he believes when we experience transcendence, it stimulates our vagus nerve, causing “a feeling of spreading, liquid warmth in the chest and a lump in the throat.” For the 66 million Americans who voted for Obama, that experience was shared on Election Day, producing a collective case of an emotion that has only recently gotten research attention. It’s called “elevation.”

Elevation has always existed but has just moved out of the realm of philosophy and religion and been recognized as a distinct emotional state and a subject for psychological study. Psychology has long focused on what goes wrong, but in the past decade there has been an explosion of interest in “positive psychology”—what makes us feel good and why. University of Virginia moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who coined the term elevation, writes, “Powerful moments of elevation sometimes seem to push a mental ‘reset button,’ wiping out feelings of cynicism and replacing them with feelings of hope, love, and optimism, and a sense of moral inspiration.”

* Oh, isn’t she witty?? And way to keep the bias out of this “scientific” piece.

Ah – so Obama has learned how to hit the reset button so that normally thinking human beings will be transported into La-la land. Everyone has now donned their rose colored glasses, and let all the bad reality just slip away. Oh, see how much happier they are than those of us still stuck in the real world!

This is just the beginning, though. Seems this idea has been around for some time:

Haidt quotes first-century Greek philosopher Longinus on great oratory: “The effect of elevated language upon an audience is not persuasion but transport.” Such feeling was once a part of our public discourse. After hearing Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address, former slave Frederick Douglass said it was a “sacred effort.” But uplifting rhetoric came to sound anachronistic, except as practiced by the occasional master like Martin Luther King Jr. or Ronald Reagan. And now Obama.

We come to elevation, Haidt writes, through observing others—their strength of character, virtue, or “moral beauty.” Elevation evokes in us “a desire to become a better person, or to lead a better life.” The 58 million McCain voters might say that the virtue and moral beauty displayed by Obama at his rallies was an airy promise of future virtue and moral beauty. And that the soaring feeling his voters had of having made the world a better place consisted of the act of placing their index fingers on a touch screen next to the words Barack Obama. They might be on to something. Haidt’s research shows that elevation is good at provoking a desire to make a difference but not so good at motivating real action. But he says the elevation effect is powerful nonetheless. “It does appear to change people cognitively; it opens hearts and minds to new possibilities. This will be crucial for Obama.”

Wait, say what? First we have “moral beauty,” character and virtue being exhibited by Obama in his speeches (or so it seems to his followers), written by the Bozo on the left:

Then we have an acknowledgment that people who voted for McCain are pretty much right that the extent of this “elevation” is pushing a button, concluding with the benefits to OBAMA of the mind control (well, what the hell else is it when it wipes the slate clean, making normally rational people start believing in a hope-y change-y rainbow unicorn??)? Wow – that is some massive movement, all within one paragraph: character not demonstrated but framed in “words, just words” which many did not buy into but good for Obama those who threw away their analytical, rational selves. Check.

There is so much about Obama in this regard, though:

Keltner believes certain people are “vagal superstars”—in the lab he has measured people who have high vagus nerve activity. “They respond to stress with calmness and resilience, they build networks, break up conflicts, they’re more cooperative, they handle bereavement better.” He says being around these people makes other people feel good. “I would guarantee Barack Obama is off the charts. Just bring him to my lab.”

I’m sorry, sir, but you seem to be caught up in the Rainbow Unicorn of Hope yourself. Obama has actually demonstrated he is NOT calm, but rather testy (examples here, here and here), quick to anger, and a bully. You are buying into the MSM definitions of him, not the REALITY of him. Just like when they termed George Bush’s arrogant smugness as “charm.” Despite the attempts by the MSM to paint Obama as the new Buddha, he has shown in debates and unscripted interactions who he really is. Maybe you shouldn’t be watching MSNBC while you do your “research.” Just a suggestion.

I barely know what to say about this next part, so I will just leave it to you:

It was while looking through the letters of Thomas Jefferson that Haidt first found a description of elevation. Jefferson wrote of the physical sensation that comes from witnessing goodness in others: It is to “dilate [the] breast and elevate [the] sentiments … and privately covenant to copy the fair example.” Haidt took this description as a mandate. Since it’s tricky to study the vagus nerve, he and a psychology student conceived of a way to look at it indirectly. The vagus nerve works with oxytocin, the hormone of connection. Since oxytocin is released during breast-feeding, he and the student brought in 42 lactating women and had them watch either an inspiring clip from The Oprah Winfrey Show about a gang member saved from a life of violence by a teacher or an amusing bit from a Jerry Seinfeld routine.

About half the Oprah-watching mothers either leaked milk into nursing pads or nursed their babies following the viewing; none of the Seinfeld watchers felt enough breast dilation to wet a pad, and fewer than 15 percent of them nursed. You could say elevation is Oprah’s opiate of the masses, so it’s fitting that she early on gave Obama her imprimatur. And that for his victory speech was up front in Grant Park, elevation’s moist embodiment, feeling so at one with humankind that she used a stranger as a handkerchief.

Thank heavens Haidt is such a dedicated scientist. Ahem. How else would we know why Oprah was so moved to use someone she didn’t know as her handkerchief?

Are we PAYING for this research, by the way? You know, with our tax dollars?? Just wondering.

Back to the research:

The researchers say elevation is part of a family of self-transcending emotions. Some others are awe, that sense of the vastness of the universe and smallness of self that is often invoked by nature; another is admiration, that goose-bump-making thrill that comes from seeing exceptional skill in action. Keltner says we most powerfully experience these in groups—no wonder people spontaneously ran into the street on election night, hugging strangers. “We had to evolve these emotions to devote ourselves into social collectives,” he says.

When you start thinking about mass movements, all those upturned, glowing faces of true believers—be they the followers of Jim Jones or Adolf Hitler—you don’t always get a warm feeling about mankind. Instead, knowing where some of these “social collectives” end up, the sensation is a cold chill. Haidt acknowledges that in “calling the group to greatness,” elevation can be used for murderous ends. He says: “Anything that takes us out of ourselves and makes us feel we are listening to something larger is part of morality. It’s about pressing the buttons that turn off ‘I’ and turn on ‘we.’ “

Thank heavens someone finally said it. I mean, besides those of us in the reality-based world. It is important for a scientist to be able to step outside him/herself. And with Obama, what we have is massive turning back the clock on women’s rights, race relations, transparency of our “elected” officials (a PEBO who doesn’t have to submit ANY paperwork for the greatest job in the world, but demands that and much, much more from his subordinates. I’d sure like to see this Haidt guy do some research on that. Or anyone in the freakin’ MSM.).

Your patience with this article is about to be rewarded:

Even at its most benign, elevation can seem ridiculous to outsiders. Think of how Obama’s opponents love to mock his effect on people. During the campaign, if your chest was contracting while all about you chests were dilating, you may be a Republican. If you were unmoved by Obama, watching your fellow citizen get all tingly, even fall into a faint (too much vagus stimulation, and you’re going down), was maddening. “Other people’s reverence seems unctuous and sanctimonious,” says Keltner.

Obama himself seemed aware of the dangers that too much elevation might pop his candidacy like a helium balloon hitting a power line. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer described Obama’s canny strategy to make his rhetoric more pedestrian for the final months of the campaign.

Or, one might still have one’s WITS about one, thus not being taken in by this charlatan, this snake oil salesman. But of course, anyone who was not moved to tears or into a faint by this lying, conniving, arrogant, bullying, race-baiting, misogynistic, homophobic unqualified first term senator was just because someone was a “Republican.” Newsflash: those of us who actually prefer qualified, intelligent, candidates who compose their own policy positions rather than steal them from others, and come up with their own words to use, not plagiarizing others, may simply be mature. I’m just sayin’. Despite the MSM’s characterizations of Hillary Clinton’s speeches, I attended two of them, and I am here to tell you she is moving, compelling, funny as hell, and brilliant. But not once did I feel faint. Nor did I ever feel faint when Obama was speaking, even as I watched his 2004 speech which seemed sufficient experience for those “elevated” people who swooned over his “borrowed” words. But that’s just me. And millions others. Whatever.

Oh, but you knew it wasn’t going to stop there. There had to be a way for the author to turn this back to Obama worship:

While there is very little lab work on the elevating emotions, there is quite a bit on its counterpart, disgust. University of Pennsylvania psychologist Paul Rozin has been a leading theorist in the uses of disgust. He says it started as a survival strategy: Early humans needed to figure out when food was spoiled by contact with bacteria or parasites. From there disgust expanded to the social realm—people became repelled by the idea of contact with the defiled or by behaviors that seemed to belong to lower people. “Disgust is probably the most powerful emotion that separates your group from other groups,” says Keltner.

Haidt says disgust is the bottom floor of a vertical continuum of emotion; hit the up button, and you arrive at elevation. This could be why so many Obama supporters complained of being sickened and nauseated by the Republican campaign. Seeing a McCain ad or Palin video clip actually felt like being plunged from their Obama-lofted heights.

Disgust carries with it the notion of contamination, which helps to explain the Republicans’ obsession with Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, and Jeremiah Wright and their frustration that more voters didn’t have a visceral reaction that Obama had unforgivably sullied himself by association with these men. But this time, elevation won. And expect that on Inauguration Day, even if the weather’s frigid, millions will be warmed by that liquid feeling in their chests. (Emily Yoffe is the author of What the Dog Did: Tales From a Formerly Reluctant Dog Owner. You can send your Human Guinea Pig suggestions or comments to emilyyoffe@hotmail.com)

Oh, yes – it was the REPUBLICANS’ problem that they, and all others not in the tank for Obama, were concerned about a CONFIRMED DOMESTIC TERRORIST, a convicted felon, and a racist in whose church Obama sat for over TWENTY years. And of course, it had nothing to do with the MSM downplaying those connections, even dismissing them )like Obama’s speechwriter groping a cut-out of the incoming Secretary of State of the United States), because those inconvenient people/facts did not fit their preconceived narrative of who Obama is. It wasn’t so much Republicans who wanted to highlight the nefarious associations of the PEBO, but AMERICANS who care about the sanctity of the Constitution, who care about with whom the PEBO chooses to associate himself. Unrepentant domestic terrorists, convicted felons (don’t forget Kwame Kilpatrick!), and anti-American racist ministers are not the kinds of people with whom a potential president should surround himself. In my humble opinion, of course.

In conclusion, what this “research” highlights is that Obama followers really did drink the Kool Aide. Vindication for those of us who did not, and managed to keep ourselves in emotional balance. Now we can say, “Told you so!” But, they’ll probably be too busy polishing their rose-colored glasses and looking for the rainbow unicorn to notice…

As a bonus for those of us who used to go to Taylor Marsh, that was another part of the trip down Memory Lane – before she became addicted to the Kool Aide and was actually a reasonable, rational person. Was that really only 8 months ago?? Seems like a lifetime ago, that’s for sure…

Then there is this:

Of course, I don’t understand why Morris, or the “52% of people” (I know, I know – there weren’t really that many given the duplicate fraudulent votes), DON’T think that Voldebama getting his start in Ayers and Dorhn’s living room, or working with him at Woods, wasn’t important! It goes to a pattern, a way of thinking, that is the issue here. That DOES matter, as Sean Hannity points out so succinctly (I know – I’m quoting Hannity, but he is right when he recites these associates. More in the media SHOULD have done so). Morris raises some great questions. Ones that were never answered by the media, that’s for sure. Just one more strike against them, in my humble opinion.

Anywho, I wonder how long it will be before Voldebama announces Bill Ayers as Secretary of Education? I think it will be January 21st. Maybe we should have a pool! Yeah, that’s the ticket!! And then we can watch all of the university professors who supported Voldebama, and others, trying to excuse the ideology of this unrepentant terrorist who wants to “radicalize” our youth. Oh, yeah – that should be some fun. If only it wasn’t so damn problematic. Let’s hope this is one bet that doesn’t come to fruition…

Prairie Fire, published in 1974, is described as Ayers’ communist manifesto.

Dedicating a book to Sirhan Sirhan isn’t radical chic or a youthful indulgence. Dedicating a book to Sirhan Sirhan is tantamount to denying the Holocaust, embracing the screeds of the Aryan Brotherhood, and joining the ranks of those whose celebrated the attacks against America on 9/11.

Equating Sirhan Sirhan with Harriet Tubman and John Brown is stupidity. Bobby Kennedy worked on behalf of the poor and the unrepresented; Sirhan is a killer.

Sirhan Sirhan is a Palestinian sympathizer who murdered Bobby Kennedy because of Kennedy’s pro-Israel position. On the 40th anniversary of the assassination, ABC News reported:

Sirhan claimed he killed Kennedy because he was angry over Kennedy’s support for Israel. Sirhan was born in Jerusalem to Arab Christian parents who had moved to America when Sirhan was 12. The assassination occurred on the first anniversary of the Six Day War in which Israel had humiliated the combined armies of its Arab neighbors.

Yet another red flag about Obama, and this one should send alarms to the Jewish supporters of Obama.

Obama and Ayers, friends and collaborators; Obama endorsed Ayers’ book, Ayers dedicated his book to Sirhan Sirhan, an anti-Israeli terrorist and murderer of Bobby Kennedy.

Rashid Khalidi: Obama’s friend, anti-Israeli pro-PLO activist. The LA Times allegedly has a video of a dinner party in which Obama is toasting Khalidi, with Bill Ayers in attendance.

Sirhan Sirhan, Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Barack Obama

Obama has surrounded himself with violent and hateful anti-American activists, and he lies about that fact. Obama knows Ayers is a liability, but he also knows that he can’t alienate the anti-American Left. Larry Johnson writes:

As we have noted repeatedly at NoQuarter, Barack Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers probably started when Barack was at Columbia University in the late 1980s. That’s why Bill Ayers then turns to Barack Obama and gets him named to head the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers established. That’s why Barack felt so comfortable kicking off his political campaign for the State legislature in Bill Ayers’ living room.

Obama’s friend dedicated his book to the murderer of Bobby Kennedy, his preacher claimed 9/11 was God’s retribution, Obama told Rick Warren that the U.S. could be evil, Ayers bombed the Pentagon, Pfleger said that Hillary Clinton believed she had “white entitlement,” Obama called his ailing grandmother a “typical white person,” and Wright said the U.S had manufactured AIDS to kill African Americans.

The Democratic Party has been infected by an alliance of radical demagogues, the corrupt Chicago machine and the anti-American Left.

Bobby Kennedy:

After funeral services in New York, RFK’s funeral train carried his body to Washington where he was to be buried near his brother. Along the way, on both sides of tracks, Americans of every color and background saluted this great man who brought the disenfranchised together.

See also American Girl in Italy’s post

Medusa contributed to this post.

It seems that others are noticing the rampant sexism/misogyny, and the hypocrisy of the “liberal elite” when it comes to who can be a feminist or not. Victor David Hanson would be one such person in his article,An Instructive Candidacy: What Sarah Palin taught us about ourselves. In his excellent piece, parts of which are excerpted here, Mr. Hanson takes on not just the Feminist Police, but the journalists who have been “reporting” during this campaign season:

Soon this depressing campaign will be over, and we can reflect on what we learned from our two-month introduction to Sarah Palin.

Clearly, it is more than we would have ever wished to know about ourselves.

First, there turns out to be no standard of objectivity in contemporary journalism. Palin’s career as a city councilwoman, mayor, and governor of Alaska was never seen as comparable to, or — indeed, in terms of executive experience — more extensive than, Barack Obama’s own legislative background in Illinois and Washington. Somehow we forgot that a mother of five taking on the Alaskan oil industry and the entrenched male hierarchy was somewhat more challenging than Barack Obama navigating the sympathetic left-wing identity politics of Chicago.

Well, true that. Everyone seems to have convenient amnesia when it comes to the accomplishments of the Governor of Alaska. Far too often, I have seen letters to the editor or comments at blogs claiming she is “just a mother of five.” No, she is that, which is no small thing, by the way, to which my mother can attest, but she is One of FIFTY governors in the entire United States, with the highest approval rating of any governor, as well as one who has taken on her own party, and WON, thank you so much.

But I digress:

So we seem to have forgotten that the standards of censure of her vice-presidential candidacy were not applied equally to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. The media at times seems unaware of this embarrassment, namely that their condemnation of Sarah Palin as inexperienced equally might apply to Barack Obama — and to such a degree that by default we were offered the lame apology (reiterated by Colin Powell himself) that Obama’s current impressive campaigning, not his meager political accomplishments, was already an indication of a successful tenure as president. The result is that we now know more about the Palin pregnancies — both of mother and daughter — that we do the relationships of Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, and Father Pfleger with our possible next president.

No FREAKIN’ KIDDING! Obama hasn’t had a tenth of the vetting in eighteen months that Palin has had in two months – nice that some people are keeping score here. Hanson continues:

Indeed, the media itself — in private, I think — would admit that while (we? they?) have learned almost everything about Tasergate and the Bridge to Nowhere, we assume that at some future date a publicity-starved, megalomaniac Rev. Wright will soon offer his post-election memoirs, detailing just how close he and a President Obama were. Or we will learn Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, as long-time friends, in fact, did communicate via phone and e-mail well after Ayers had told the world, about the time of 9/11, that he, like our present-terrorist enemies, likewise wished he had engaged in more bombing attacks against the United States government. And the media never wondered whether a Palin’s falling out with those who ran Alaska might have been more of a touchstone to character than Obama’s own falling in with those who ran Chicago.

Uh, yeah. For some reason, while still in the Primary season, the MSM were all too happy to do their level best to ignore anything to do with Wright. They downplayed the videos, believed Obama when he claimed he certainly didn’t hold the same beliefs that Wright does even though his butt was in the pew in that church for over twenty years, and even though he called Wright his “uncle.” Oh, no – we must take him at his word that he would NEVER believe in that hate mongering theology. Just like we are supposed to take him at his word about Bill Ayers, Domestic Terrorist-Who-Wishes-He-Had-Been-More-Successful! Never you mind that they have been hanging around with each other for the past 13 years, working together, living near each other, and handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote Ayers’ “unique” ideology to the youth of Chicago, through Wright, of course. Obama is such a straight shooter, naturally we must believe every word that escapes his lips, right?? Evidently.

And now is when we get to the issue of feminism:

Second, there does not seem to be much left of feminism any more. Of course, feminists once gave liberal pro-choice Bill Clinton a pass for his serial womanizing of vulnerable subordinates, and Oval Office antics with a young female intern. But they gave the game away entirely when they went after Gov. Palin for her looks, accent, pregnancies, and religion, culminating in assessments of her from being no real woman at all to an ingrate — piggy-backing on the pioneer work of self-acclaimed mavericks like themselves.

Feminism, it turns out, is no longer about equal opportunity and equal compensation, but, in fact, little more than a strain of contemporary elitist identity politics, and support for unquestioned abortion. Had Gov. Sarah Palin just been a mother of a single child at Vassar rather than of five in Alaska, married to a novelist rather than a snow-machiner, an advocate of pro-choice, who shot pictures of Alaskan ferns rather than shot moose — feminists would have hailed her as a principled kindred soul, and trumpeted her struggles against Alaskan male grandees.

So there was something creepy about droves of irate women, in lock-step blasting Sarah Palin from the corridors of New York and Washington, when most of them were the recipients of the traditional spoils of either family connections, inherited money, or the advantages that accrue from insider power marriages. Indeed, very few of Palin’s critics on their own could have emerged from a small-town in Alaska, with an intact marriage and five children, to run the state of Alaska.

We have come to understand that — for a TV anchorwoman, op-ed columnist, or professor — it would be a nightmare to birth a Down Syndrome child in her mid-forties, or to have had her pregnant unwed teen actually deliver her baby. In the world outside Sarah Palin’s Wasilla, these are career-ending blunders that abort the next job promotion or book tour— or the future career of a prepped young daughter on her way to the Ivy League.

Right? I’ve known people who couldn’t endure the stress of their partner getting a PhD., for cryin’ out loud, much less the stress of moving from one level of government to another with five kids, one of whom is a Special Needs child. Add to that the lack of support from her own party in doing these things, and you got yourself some stress. Which Sarah Palin has handled with seeming ease, a feat that should have been CELEBRATED by feminists, not ridiculed.

Hanson then takes on the whole Biden v. Palin contest:

Third, from the match-up of Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, we discovered that our media does not know anything about the nature of wisdom — how it is found or how it is to be adjudicated. For the last eight weeks, Palin has been demonized as a dunce because she did not, in the fashion of the class toady with his hand constantly up in the first row, impress in flash-card recall, the glasses-on-his-nose Charlie Gibson, or clinched-toothed Katie Couric.

Meanwhile Joe Biden has just been Ol’ Joe Biden — which means not that he can get away with the occasional gaffe, but that can say things so outrageous, so silly, and so empty that, had they come out of the mouth of Sarah Palin, she would have long ago been forced to have stepped aside from the ticket.

Factual knowledge? Biden, in the midst of a financial meltdown on Wall Street, apparently thinks that the last time it happened in 1929, we heard FDR rally us on television. And such made-up nonsense came in the form, as many of Biden’s gaffes do, of a rebuke to the supposedly obtuse George W. Bush…

Amazingly, very, very little is made of either Biden’s OR Obama’s gaffes, though BOTH of them have PLENTY. Had Clinton, or McCain, or Palin, or anyone else made the factual inaccuracies or flat out lies that either of these men have made, they would be running across the bottom of your screen for days on end. But Biden and Obama? Hahaha, they made a mistake, move along, nothing to see here. Sheesh. Here are just a few for you:

Silliness? Imagine the following outbursts, mutatis mutandis, from the mouth of a Sarah Palin — “John McAmerica,” “a Palin-McCain administration,” “Senator George Obama,” “Congressman Joe Biden,” who is both “good looking,” and “drop-dead gorgeous.” Or “I guarantee you, John McCain ain’t taking my shotguns. . . . If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem. I like that little over and under, you know? I’m not bad with it. So give me a break.”

Or “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Or “Mitt Romney is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly he might have been a better pick than me.”

Holy toledo. Reversing the positions helps to highlight just how absurd all of this has been…I agree with the following assessment:

The list could go on ad nauseam. But we got the picture. Biden has devolved from the ridiculous to the unhinged, confident that in-house journalism would understand that the law graduate with 36 years in the Senate was simply being Joe, while a Sarah Palin, who flinched when asked to parse the Bush Doctrine, was a Neanderthal creationist. I thought by now the You-tubed exchange of a Congressional Finance Committee hearing between the pompous Harvard Law School graduate Barney Frank and the conniving Harvard Law School graduate Franklin Raines — at the proverbial moment of conception of the financial meltdown — would have put to rest the notion that graduation from law school was any proof of either wisdom or morality.

I don’t know whether Sarah Palin would make a great vice president. But I did learn that by the standard of John Kerry’s pick of John Edwards, and now Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden, as running mates, she is wise and ethical beyond their measure.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

He’s got a point, don’t you think?

And in conclusion, while looking for videos for something else, I stumbled upon the following video. From this person’s lips to the powers-that-be in the universe:

Aren’t I BENEVOLENT???” Woohoo!!! Where do I sign up? Well, I suppose I could vote for the Authoritarian Socialist in the election and have these dreams (cough, choke) come true! Yes, you, too could have your hard earned dollars go to spread the wealth around, apparently something the Civil Rights Activists didn’t work hard enough to do, according to Obama.

Oh, yeah – surely by now you have seen the video of Obama from 2001. A whole bunch of intrepid writers at No Quarter have dealt with this video and story in a most awesome fashion(Uppity Woman, LisaB, Matthew Weaver, Ani, to name a few), but someone else has weighed in, too. And I don’t mean me.

Well, except to bring you this, someone of whom you have surely heard – Johnny Mac. Yep, there’s a brand new Mac Attack on Obama’s long-held ideology of “spreading the wealth.” I might add, Obama can just feel FREE to share his millions of dollars any ol’ time he wants, though judging from the donations on his released tax returns, like so many other issues, he is ALL TALK and NO ACTION. What the hell else is new?

Anywho, Senator McCain was speaking in Ohio, land of the fraudulent votes by Obama staff (oh, McCain wasn’t talking about the fraudulent votes and ACORN, though I reckon he could have thrown that in there – maybe another day), and focused on the whole “lemme have your money and I’ll dole it out the way I see fit” mindset of Obama:

It’s been a long campaign and we’ve heard a lot of words, and great campaign trail eloquence. The amazing thing is that we’ve learned more about Senator Obama’s real goals for our country over the last two weeks than we learned over the past two years. It is amazing that even at this late hour, we are still learning more about Senator Obama and his agenda. He told Joe the plumber right here in Ohio he wants to quote “spread the wealth around.” It’s always more interesting to hear what people have to say in these unscripted moments, and today we heard another moment like this from Senator Obama.

In a radio interview revealed today, he said that one of the quote — “tragedies” of the civil rights movement is that it didn’t bring about a redistribution of wealth in our society. He said, and I quote, “One of the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.”

Good googly moogly. Did Obama REALLY say that? OUT LOUD?? Whew – “coalitions of power” has GOTTA mean ACORN, right? I mean, really, who else could it mean but the organization for whom he worked, to whom he has given almost a cool million from his own funds, and tons more from all of us. The one working overtime to amass so many voter registrations, legit and not, that they overwhelm election boards so they can’t POSSIBLY find all of the fraudulent ones…Just a guess on my part, though, since he didn’t SAY, “ACORN, the political and community organizers on the ground who can put together actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.” Ahem. Nothing like that. Right.

But since Obama has been a bit unclear on what he actually MEANT by his whole Hope/Change thing, McCain can clear that up for you:

That is what change means for Barack the Redistributor: It means taking your money and giving it to someone else. He believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs. He is more interested in controlling wealth than in creating it, in redistributing money instead of spreading opportunity. I am going to create wealth for all Americans, by creating opportunity for all Americans.

Pretty much! Hey! Guess who else holds these kinds of beliefs? Are you thinking who I’m thinking? Yes! Bill Ayers!!! The Marxist/Anarchist!

McCain then raises the Obama tax plan:

We’ve all heard his campaign trail promise: he says he only wants to tax the rich. But these unscripted moments and his record tell a different story. He supported the Democratic budget plan passed just this year that called for raising taxes on people making just 42,000 dollars per year. And Senator Obama has voted 94 times for tax increases or against tax cuts.

Senator Obama may say he’s trying to soak the rich, but it’s the middle class who are going to get put through the wringer, because even the tax increase he admits to misses the target. To pay for nearly a trillion dollars in new government spending, his tax increase would impact 50 percent of small business income in this country, and the jobs of 16 million middle class Americans who work for those small businesses.

Whether it’s Joe the Plumber here in Ohio or the working men and women across this country, we shouldn’t be taxing our small businesses more as Senator Obama wants to do, we need to be helping them expand their businesses and create jobs. America didn’t become the greatest nation on earth by giving our money to the government to “redistribute.” In this country, we believe in spreading opportunity, for those who need jobs and those who create them. And that is exactly what I intend to do as President of the United States.

According to the Wall Street Journal, when Obama says $250,000, he REALLY means more like $164,500, since that is when the tax hikes will kick in. There’s more:

Mr. Obama’s most dramatic departure from current tax policy is his promise to lift the cap on income on which the Social Security payroll tax is applied. Currently, the employer and employee each pay 6.2% up to $102,000, a level that is raised for inflation each year. The Obama campaign says he’d raise the payroll tax rate on incomes above $250,000 by as much as two to four percentage points — though it’s unclear if that higher rate would apply to the employee, the employer, or both.

In any case, lifting the cap would change the nature of Social Security from an insurance program — which pays out based on how much you paid in — into a wealth-transfer program that is far more progressive.

Huh – that seems to be a theme with Obama. Sharing the wealth. Oh, no, wait – sharing YOUR wealth however he sees fit. There is much more about his tax policy in the WSJ article (h/t to a No Quarter reader – sorry – can’t find your name now!). McCain adds:

My opponent’s massive new tax increase is exactly the wrong approach in an economic slowdown. The answer to a slowing economy is not higher taxes, but that is exactly what is going to happen when the Democrats have total control of Washington. We can’t let that happen. We need pro-growth and pro-jobs economic policies, not pro-government spending programs paid for with higher taxes…

I’m not going to spend $750 billion dollars of your money just bailing out the Wall Street bankers and brokers who got us into this mess. I’m going to make sure we take care of the working people who were devastated by the excesses of Wall Street and Washington.

I have a plan to hold the line on taxes and cut them to make America more competitive and create jobs here at home. We’re going to double the child deduction for working families. We will cut the capital gains tax. And we will cut business taxes to help create jobs, and keep American businesses in America. Raising taxes makes a bad economy much worse. Keeping taxes low creates jobs, keeps money in your hands and strengthens our economy.

Exactly. There is more in Senator McCain’s address to Ohio today, including more on the economy:

If I’m elected President, I won’t spend nearly a trillion dollars more of your money. Senator Obama will. And he can’t do that without raising your taxes or digging us further into debt. I’m going to make government live on a budget just like you do.

I will freeze government spending on all but the most important programs like defense, veterans care, Social Security and health care until we scrub every single government program and get rid of the ones that aren’t working for the American people. And I will veto every single pork barrel bill Congresses passes.

I’m all for keeping an eye on the $700 BILLION bailout, especially with reports coming out today that bankers are planning billions – yes, I said BILLIONS – in bonuses to the very people who helped to get us into this position, as well as raises to employees, and maybe buying some more banks – with YOUR MONEY!!!! Maybe that whole oversight wasn’t such a bad idea after all…

McCain continued, saying:

Let me give you the state of the race today. There’s eight days to go. We’re a few points down. The pundits have written us off, just like they’ve done before. My opponent is working out the details with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid of their plans to raise your taxes, increase spending, and concede defeat in Iraq. He’s measuring the drapes, and he’s planned his first address to the nation for before the election. I guess I’m old fashioned about these things I prefer to let the voters weigh in before presuming the outcome.

What America needs now is someone who will finish the race before the starting the victory lap … someone who will fight to the end, and not for himself but for his country.

Obama has been claiming victory almost from the day he got into this race, if you ask me. For some reason, he refused to be held to the same standard as any other potential nominee EVER, refusing even to be properly vetted (see Larry Johnson’s excellent presentation by a former FBI agent on this very issue). What was more amazing is that he was allowed to get away with it, so we are just now – a WEEK before the election – getting some information that has been available for SEVEN YEARS. Wow.

We do know John McCain, though, and we know he is telling the truth when he says:

I have fought for you most of my life, and in places where defeat meant more than returning to the Senate. There are other ways to love this country, but I’ve never been the kind to back down when the stakes are high.

As a lifelong yellow dog Democrat until 5/31/08 (when the RBC/DNC took votes cast, and certified, from Clinton and GAVE them to Obama making it clear the fix was in, and the DNC was no longer democratic), I knew all about Senator McCain. One may disagree with his policies, but one cannot, with any credibility, challenge his patriotism or his dedication to the country he serves. He concludes:

I know you’re worried. America is a great country, but we are at a moment of national crisis that will determine our future.

Will we continue to lead the world’s economies or will we be overtaken? Will the world become safer or more dangerous? Will our military remain the strongest in the world? Will our children and grandchildren’s future be brighter than ours?

My answer to you is yes. Yes, we will lead. Yes, we will prosper. Yes, we will be safer. Yes, we will pass on to our children a stronger, better country. But we must be prepared to act swiftly, boldly, with courage and wisdom.

I’m an American. And I choose to fight. Don’t give up hope. Be strong. Have courage. And fight.

Fight for a new direction for our country. Fight for what’s right for America.

Fight to clean up the mess of corruption, infighting and selfishness in Washington.

Fight to get our economy out of the ditch and back in the lead.

Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.

Fight for our children’s future.

Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.

Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. America is worth fighting for. Nothing is inevitable here. We never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.

Now, let’s go win this election and get this country moving again.

Could you please add, “Fight for free speech” while you are at it, Senator? That seems to be something the Obama camp would like to curtail. I, for one, think it’s mighty important. Just sayin’. Ahem.

Don’t you feel like McCain is channeling Hillary Clinton? Seems that way to me, anyway. I don’t agree with all of his policies, but I do think he is a man of honor, of integrity, a public servant burning with a passion for this country and her well-being, thus OUR well-being. Obama? Not so much. Obama seems in it for him and him alone, with an eye to imposing his true ideology and beliefs on this country once he has bamboozled and hoodwinked enough people to get him in (one way or the other – see comment regarding ACORN above) for HIM, not us, HIM. McCain seems to see Obama for who he is, and is fighting for this country to not fall into the hands of one who wishes to “redistribute the wealth” of the citizens any more than it already is (think Social Security), or to put our economy at greater risk.

Like I said, Obama – redistribute your OWN wealth, if you want (hey, maybe your buddy Warren Buffet will let you spread HIS around), but leave mine the hell alone.

Hell, Obama ran a very negative campaign against HILLARY (remember those “Harry and Louise” ads? NAFTA ads?). The issue seems to be “robo-calls” connecting Obama to – wait for it – AYERS!!! How DARE the McCain campaign say something that is TRUE about Obama’s history??

Yet, both Biden and Degeneres act as if JOHN MCCAIN, and McCain alone, has changed his entire character. Mr. Hope-y Change-y Unicorn is spreading sweetness and light wherever he goes, apparently, and John McCain has completely morphed into Darth Vader or something. Take a look:

Yeah, okay. I guess he didn’t hear Obama claim that supporters at a Palin rally yelled, “Kill him!”, a claim debunked by none other than the Secret Service. I don’t know about you, but with Obama’s problems with “truthiness,” I’ll take the Secret Service’s word over Obama. I guess Biden hasn’t watched any of Obama’s ads. Or seen the tee shirts worn by the Obama supporters, beginning with the “Bros Before Hos” and escalating to the vulgar Sarah Palin tee shirts. Or his supporters who call a 12 year old girl a racist for wearing a Palin tee shirt. Or the man who had his 2006 Lexus LS 430 scratched with “KKK” on it, and American flag burned on it, and some other damage done to it (just so you know, this model, new, cost close to $70,000. That’s a mighty expensive piece of property to “vandalize.”). Oh, what prompted this attack? The man had the audacity to have a McCain/Palin sticker on it. How DARE he?!? Apparently, that is what the thugs who trashed his car seemed to think, anyway.

Oh wait – here is one that is McCain specific! Yes – one of McCain’s offices, right here in South Cackalacki, was defaced in York County with the claim that “Republican means Slavery.” Well, hell, Biden himself has engaged in race baiting as a manipulative ploy.

But McCain has changed? Are we to infer, then, that Obama has always been an arrogant misogynist and liar whose supporters can act anyway they see fit without fear of repercussion? So it would seem, anyway.

Oh, but it gets better. Here is the second part of the interview:

Did you notice the glaring omission here by Biden when Degeneres asked about Proposition 8? When he said he would vote against it and all of that? Well, here’s a little reminder:

Despite appearances to the contrary, OBAMA DOES NOT SUPPORT SAME SEX MARRIAGE! It was disingenuous at best to frame it the way BOTH of them did. Degeneres asked about an initiative on which Biden would NOT be voting, so he could say whatever he damn well PLEASED, but did NOT ask him where the Obama Camp stands on same sex marriage. I expected better from Degeneres, at least, because she certainly DID ask John McCain about it.

Anyway – this whole thing of painting McCain as being incredibly negative for looking into Obama’s history, and denying the 18 months worth of negative campaigning from the Obama camp, is absurd. I know some of it is just plain politics, but some – a LOT – is how it is reported (or not) in the MSM. Even when reports come out proving Obama is more negative in his campaigning, the MSM turn it around on McCain, and talk CONSTANTLY about his “anger” problem. Wow. So this is the new spin, just to keep you updated – McCain has totally changed his entire character, and Obama is merely trying to do what is best for the country. Got it? You must ignore all facts and evidence to the contrary, and simply accept that Obama will bring a kinder, gentler Administration to the White House. Yeah, right. A little “truthiness” wouldn’t hurt right about now from the Obama camp – oh, wait – that’s right. Joe Biden DID actually speak a little ‘truthiness,” much to The One’s dismay – claiming that Obama will be tested, and tested early by international factions. Oh, goody – that’s JUST what the country needs in the midst of economic hardship – “testing.” Well, thanks, Joe, for finally telling the truth about SOMETHING in this campaign. I reckon there’s a first time for everything! I take that back – you also acknowledged that Hillary Clinton would be a better VP than you, and was definitely qualified to be President, unlike your running mate, so there was that – have to give credit where credit is due! Ahem. Now, if you will only start telling the truth about your race-baiting, and character assassination of John McCain, we’ll be in business…

Wow – I love his description of Father Pfleger as a “whacko” – perfect! His advice is solid, I think – and I agree that McCain SHOULD have been hammering away about Wright and Ayers long ago. Frankly, the MSM should have been as well, but I have given up expecting them to actually do their jobs anymore.

And with the debate coming up, one can expect questions about the economy. Needless to say, it has been BIG in the news of late. For some reason, the majority of people polled believe Obama will do better. Why, I don’t know – he has absolutely no track record on anything anywhere in the neighborhood of dealing with an issue of this magnitude. I think we can chalk that up to the MSM shilling for him shamelessly. But, many of this country’s CEOs do not think so. Out of 751 CEOs polled, 80% think McCain is better for the long term health of the economy, according to Chief Executive Magazine. This assertion was affirmed by the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, Herman Cain this morning. He said, in no uncertain terms, that John McCain is CLEARLY better for the economy. Oh, and since everyone is keeping score these days (thanks so much for that, Barack), Mr. Cain is African American.

Mr. Cain isn’t the only one who thinks McCain would be better. The following is basically a combination of Krauthammer and Cain in one Rudy Guiliani (I know – I cannot believe I am including him either, but I think he is right on this issue):

And while we are talking Economics, last night, a bunch of former Hillary Clinton supporters, led by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothchild, held a major fundraiser for John McCain and Sarah Palin. They raised $10,000,000 in that fundraiser. As to why these people decided to hold this fundraiser, the article contained the answer:

While Mrs. Clinton has implored her former supporters to back Senator Barack Obama, some still harbor ill will towards him, organizers said.

“These people want to give their vote of disapproval,” said Mr. Lausell. “This is a way they’re doing it.”

Well, yeah, that’s sure one way of voicing one’s disapproval – raising a cool $10 mil. Wowie zowie.

Gee willikers, who could not want to support someone as humble, warm, and supportive as these folks (h/t to Paul Villareal)??

Oh, yeah. Add in the “Bros Before Hos” t-shirts, and the more despicable ones Obamabots are wearing these days, and I simply cannot imagine how people like Lady Lynn and others aren’t supporting this guy? Sheesh – what sore losers. (That is major snark, just in case you were confused.)

Hmmm – I wonder if McCain will bring up those t-shirts tonight? That would sure be an interesting debate, wouldn’t it?? Can’t you just SEE Obama trying to WORM his way out of that one??

Anywho, those Hillary-Now-McCain supporters are not the only ones who are resistant to Obama as president. Not by a long shot. There was an interesting comment by Desgans – in French – overnight at No Quarter’s post, “Barack Obama- First President of the World“:

Bonjour je suis Française et je viens de penser à un feuilleton que j’adorai ici en France, les acteurs : Jane Badler, Marc Singer, Faye Grant pour le film Vqui me fait penser à ce qui se passe aux US, PUMA sont les résistants et BHO partisants les lézards !!

Mon Dieu! Basically (according to PA goes Red),those of us who will not support this Selected nominee, the one who espouses the ideologies of William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, whose arrogance, hubris, and just plain condescension, coupled with a dearth of experience, are Freedom Fighters like in the movie, “V.” Or like John Connors and company from “The Terminator,” I’m thinking. Yep, I can buy that. I do feel like I am fighting for my country to not be overtaken by those who do not have her best interests at heart, or at the least, have primarily THEIR interests at heart. The way in which the Obama campaign treats citizens of this country, especially women (and don’t forget Donna Brazile’s concept of the New Democratic Party – none of you bitter, clingy, religious, rural, elderly, and Hispanics need apply) makes that pretty clear. At the very least, our presidents should have the nation’s best interest as their bottom line. Obama is not only unqualified for this position, he does not fulfill that qualification. So, yeah – resistance here I come!

Ya think McCain can work THAT into the debate?!

Before ACORN became a household name, Larry Johnson and Eastan McNeal reported that the Obama campaign has been funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to a shady ACORN shell corporation called Citizens Services, Inc. New information, including the photo above, proves that Obama’s past denials of his relationship with ACORN are not the truth.

According to the Leftist Dissent Magazine, the nebulous term, “community organizing,” has shaped Barack Obama:

Although he didn’t make community organizing a lifetime career—he left Chicago to attend Harvard Law School—Obama often says that his organizing experience has shaped his approach to politics.

~snip~

Since embarking on a political career, Obama hasn’t forgotten the lessons that he learned on the streets of Chicago.

Although Obama claims to never have been associated with ACORN, except when he was retained as their attorney, his community organizing experience is indistinguishable from ACORN’s mission:

In 1985, at age 23, Obama was hired by the Developing Communities Project, a coalition of churches on Chicago’s South Side, to help empower residents to win improved playgrounds, after-school programs, job training, housing, and other concerns affecting a neighborhood hurt by large-scale layoffs from the nearby steel mills and neglect by banks, retail stores, and the local government.

ACORN’s mission is to force governments and businesses, by threat of lawsuits and harassment, to support their agenda of obtaining the maximum services from government, coercing corporations to finance their projects, and forcing banks to approve high-risk loans. Additionally, ACORN works on voter registration issues and is suspected in mass voter fraud. This should be of special concern to the supporters of Hillary Clinton, many of whom witnessed caucus fraud during the primary season.

Stanley Kurtz details that ACORN may be at fault for much of the housing crisis we are now experiencing. Kurtz writes:

While the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act did call on banks to increase lending in poor and minority neighborhoods, its exact requirements were vague, and therefore open to a good deal of regulatory interpretation. Banks merger or expansion plans were rarely held up under CRA until the late 1980s, when ACORN perfected its technique of filing CRA complaints in tandem with the sort of intimidation tactics perfected by that original “community organizer” (and Obama idol), Saul Alinsky.

Kurtz states that Obama, in his position on the board of the Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) — both with domestic terrorist and Obama benefactor Bill Ayers — funneled large sums of money to ACORN:

as a director at Chicago’s Woods Fund, Obama was successfully pushing for a major expansion of assistance to Acorn, and sending still more money Acorn’s way from his post as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Through both funding and personal-leadership training, Obama supported Acorn. And Acorn, far more than we’ve recognized up to now, had a major role in precipitating the subprime crisis.

It’s become apparent that ACORN is serving as Obama’s red-shirted shock troops for voter “outreach,” a euphemism for the mass voter registration fraud witnessed up to this point in the election. ACORN will do for voting integrity what they did for mortgage lending.

According to Obama’s “Fight the Smears” Web Site, he was never an organizer for ACORN:

Regardless of what the Web site says, Obama’s ties to ACORN go much further than simply writing the group large checks from CAC in his role as Bill Ayers’ toady. Although “Fight the Smears” says that Obama was not an organizer for ACORN, he was an attorney for an ACORN’s voter registration project.

However, in May of this year, Stanley Kurtz discovered that Obama and ACORN have a much closer connection:

While most press accounts imply that Obama just happened to be at the sort of public-interest law firm that would take Acorn’s “motor voter” case, Foulkes claims that Acorn specifically sought out Obama’s representation in the motor voter case, remembering Obama from the days when he worked with Talbot. And while many reports speak of Obama’s post-law school role organizing “Project VOTE” in 1992, Foulkes makes it clear that this project was undertaken in direct partnership with Acorn. Foulkes then stresses Obama’s yearly service as a key figure in Acorn’s leadership-training seminars.

Further, John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, elaborates that Obama was an attorney for ACORN, trained ACORN activists, and dispensed funds to ACORN:

In 1995, then GOP Gov. Jim Edgar refused to implement the federal “Motor Voter” law. Allowing voters to register using only a postcard and blocking the state from culling voter rolls, he argued, could invite fraud. Mr. Obama sued on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and won. Acorn later invited Mr. Obama to help train its staff; Mr. Obama would also sit on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago, which frequently gave this group grants.

Kurtz lays the collapse of the mortgage giants squarely at the feet of ACORN:

Up to now, conventional wisdom on the financial meltdown has relegated ACORN and the CRA to bit parts. The real problem, we’ve been told, lay with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, however, ACORN is at the base of the whole mess. ACORN used CRA and Democratic sympathizers to entangle Fannie and Freddie and the entire financial system in a disastrous disregard of the most basic financial standards. And Barack Obama cut his teeth as an organizer and politician backing up ACORN’s economic madness every step of the way.

In a prescient article from 1998, entitled Capitalist Wealth Underwrites Assaults on Middle America’s Values, Robert Holland reports that ACORN received funding from Fannie Mae and other banks and that ACORN then pressured the federal government to force banks to make high-risk loans:

Corporate leaders may be dispensing this aid in the belief it will curry favor with radical groups, or they may calculate that regulation will favor their business’ interests over competitors. Some of the giving, however, just seems spectacularly misguided: For example, Bank America, Chase Manhattan, and Fannie Mae contributed $315,000 to ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), an outfit that threatens financial institutions with federal sanctions if they fail to issue high-risk loans at bargain rates to borrowers of ACORN’s choosing.

Matthew Weaver originally uncovered this photograph of Obama and The Rev. Michael L. Pfleger protesting payday loans in January 2000.

The caption from NBC 5 photograph does not detail who sponsored the protest. It’s striking, however, that one of ACORN’s primary missions is protesting payday loans. And the yellow signs are ubiquitous in nearly all photographs of ACORN from this period:

The caption reads: “ACORN members demand fair lending, not predatory lending! This march was part of ACORN’s National Convention in Philadelphia, Summer 2000.”

The protest in Chicago attended by Obama and The Rev. Pfleger was likely an ACORN-related event, and significant enough for Pfleger to list the protest on his Curriculum Vitae:

What’s interesting about Pfleger’s CV, in addition to the prominence placed on the lending protest, are the other two actions. In a period of one month, Pfleger was actively attempting to ban Indian bidis cigarettes (with Obama) and coordinating efforts with Rev. Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam.

But Obama’s ties with Pfleger did not end with fighting payday loans and exotic cigarettes, Pfleger is close to Farrakhan and Obama attended Farrakhan’s Million Man March:

Obama was apparently at Farrakhan’s Million Man March, although his precise attitude toward the march is in dispute

Regardless of Obama’s proximity to Farrakhan, he continues to embrace the resurgent far-Left.

Dissent reports that Obama employs Marshall Ganz of Harvard to lead “Camp Obama,” a Saul Alinsky-inspired, ACORN-like retreat for the training of Obama organizers:

Obama enlisted Marshall Ganz, a Harvard professor who is one of the country’s leading organizing theorists and practitioners, to help train organizers and volunteers as a key component of his presidential campaign. Ganz was instrumental in shaping the volunteer training experience.

Many Obama campaign volunteers went through several days of intense training sessions called “Camp Obama.” The sessions were led by Ganz and other experienced organizers

Ganz is a respected organizer and academic with long-term associations with ACORN. He was also a member of the Howard Dean campaign.

In an article last year on Talking Points Memo, Ganz notes that recent elections have been remarkably close and that organizing will decide this year’s election. Using Alinsky as his model, he proposes a grass-roots campaign to win in 2008.

Barack Obama, a man we know little truth about, was forced onto the Democratic Party by far-Left activists and obsequious Party elders. ACORN is engaged in fraudulent voter registration on behalf of Obama, and the leader of “Camp Obama” tells us clearly that this election will be about organizing. Obama’s close relationship with ACORN, as documented by Kurtz,

a bit of digging into Obama’s years in the Illinois State Senate indicates strong concern with Acorn’s signature issues, as well as meetings with Acorn and the introduction by Obama of Acorn-friendly legislation on the living wage and banking practices. You begin to wonder whether, in his Springfield days, Obama might have best been characterized as “the Senator from Acorn.”

This is a frightening thought when you consider that ACORN is much to blame for the housing crisis we’re now experiencing. And it’s not surprising that the Obama campaign’s strong-arm tactics, inspired by Alinsky and perfected by ACORN, have made the Democratic Party foreign to so many of its loyal base.

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.

A screenplay about former Weather Underground leader hopes to “at least get people interested.”

Don’t you just want to throw up?? Yes, by all means, let these Hollywood A-holes capitalize on the life of an UNREPENTANT domestic terrorist, who is best buddies with the Democratic presidential nominee who SWEARS he had just NO idea who Bill Ayers was all those many, many years they have been friends. Save it already – such a crock of hooey.

That’s not the worst of it. Read their chosen subtitle in its fuller context:

A new script about the life of former Weather Underground leader William Ayers is making the rounds in Hollywood, and the co-screenwriter hopes that the recent hubbub surrounding Barack Obama’s ties to the Sixties radical will “at least get people interested” in it.

Yes, they want to take advantage of the attempts by people to bring this unsavory relationship to light to get people to come to their movie. Wow. Talk about your moxie, I think these folks have it. And by these folks, I mean Hancock and Ayers:

Director John Hancock finished writing the screenplay titled “Fugitive Days” over the summer with longtime partner Dorothy Tristan, and his agent has just begun sending it to producers and production companies. Adapted from Ayers’ 2001 memoir of the same name, the script has received “nibbles but no bites,” said Hancock, who is hoping to direct the film if it is eventually produced.

Hancock told Politico that he optioned the book about a year and a half ago and spent about 40 hours interviewing Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn in Chicago. The two were founding members of the Weather Underground and together helped plot some of the most violent domestic protests of the Vietnam War, including bombings of the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol.

Near the end of the screenplay, Ayers discusses his political activism in a scene with his father and says, “Yeah we did some foolish things. I can’t quite imagine putting a bomb in a building today, but the way things are in the world, I can’t imagine entirely dismissing the possibility either. What if the government is killing a bunch of innocent people and just won’t listen? And knowing now that trying to make a better life can lead to the guillotine, and the gulag, I still can’t imagine a fully human world without utopian dreams.”

I’m sorry, WHAT did you say, Bill?? I have to see that again:

“Yeah we did some foolish things. I can’t quite imagine putting a bomb in a building today, but the way things are in the world, I can’t imagine entirely dismissing the possibility either…”

Gee, how in the WORLD could any of us think there is something amiss in Obama having a personal relationship with a man like this??? Why would we possibly be bringing up his history as a domestic terrorist when he is clearly such a stand-up,PATRIOTIC, guy? What is wrong with US? Because let me tell you, that is how they are spinning it. No, I’m not kidding:

Hancock, who is 69 and a former Vietnam protestor himself (though not involved with the Weather Underground or affiliated groups), said that Ayers is “trying to ignore and not read about” the recent attempts by conservatives and the GOP to tie him to the Democratic presidential nominee.

Here’s a little newsflash for you, Hancock, it isn’t just conservatives who want to know more about this relationship. It is any thinking American who wants to know how the hell it can be that a major party’s presidential nominee is close friends with a TERRORIST, someone who has tried to do exactly what those from outside the country did on 9/11. That’s why we are asking, no, demanding honest answers from the Man Who Would Be King. Because I’ll tell you, I have never been conservative a day in my life, and I have been in a NUMBER of protests against actions taken by my government, but I never, not once, EVER, dreamed of attacking my government and killing innocent bystanders as a result. Not once. Not ever. And yet this man, Bill Ayers, who is EDUCATING CHILDREN, sees it as a perfectly viable solution.

You’ll be relieved to know that Obama will be spared any scrutiny from Hancock:

Sen. Obama, who acknowledged he has been “friendly” with Ayers since the mid-1990s and worked with him on various Chicago anti-poverty and education projects, is not mentioned in the screenplay since its storyline doesn’t cover the time when they met. Rather, it traces Ayers’ and Dohrn’s entry into radical politics during the 1960s and ends in 1980 when the couple turned themselves in to authorities. Hancock said he may add a reference to Obama as a coda to his script, due to the recently revived interest in Ayers as a result of the presidential campaign.

Ah, yes. The land of opportunity.

Now, there was something else in this article I found a bit curious, and I’ll tell you why (like you thought I wouldn’t). See, Obama claims that he didn’t really know about Ayers’ history. Yes he did. I know, BS. But that’s what Obama’s minions are pedaling on the news shows (H/T to Hot Air for highlighting this video):

Here’s just one of the reasons why I don’t buy this load of crapola:

A handful of movies have been made about Ayers and the Weather Underground, including a 2002 Oscar-nominated documentary, a 1975 TV movie starring Sissy Spacek, and the 1988 feature film “Running on Empty,” which co-starred Judd Hirsch and Christine Lahti as a fugitive couple loosely based on the two antiwar bombers, with the late River Phoenix as their GenX teenage son.

Now, if you knew your friend, boss, and neighbor had some movies made about him, are you telling me you would not have rented the damn things and watched them? Really??? Spare me.

Even more than that, as Erick Erickson pointed out (again, H/T to Hot Air), the Democratic National Convention was in Chicago in 1996. And in the run-up to deciding on that locale in 1994, Bill Ayers was certainly a topic of conversation. So, apparently, Obama didn’t bother with any news whatsoever, especially newspapers. And, he certainly didn’t think anything of it when Ayers had him come work FOR HIM in 1995. Not to mention the little fundraiser Ayers threw for him. But Obama had no idea about Ayers history, none at all. Again I say, what a crock of hooey. Check out Erickson’s article for more. Suffice it to say, like me, Erickson ain’t buying what Obama, Axelrod, and the rest of his lapdogs claim about Ayers. Not buying that Obama didn’t know him, and that talk about Ayers is simply a distraction from the issues. He IS an issue, and his relationship with Obama speaks directly to Obama’s character, his judgment, and his mindset. I think those are some mighty important questions to be asked, myself.

But Hancock doesn’t seem bothered by any of those questions. He’s just hoping you’ll part with your hard-earned dollars to see his desire to capitalize on interest in the truth about Ayers up on the big screen. I don’t know about you, but he won’t be getting mine.