Barack Obama’s sudden rise through the Chicago political machine to national prominence, and now the White House, leaves many skeptics scratching their heads as to just how involved Obama may or may not have been in the sleazy dealings of the Chicago political underworld.

Illinois Senator Paul Simon and Governor Adlai Stevenson are two examples of squeaky-clean, 20th century politicians who managed to scrape their way through the machine to the national level without so much as buggering up their bow-ties, so to automatically assume that such a venture is not possible for Obama is a terrible disservice to those gentlemen.

The general consensus is that Obama did just that.

Yet, when Patrick Fitzgerald arrested Governor Rod Blagojevich in the early hours of Tuesday the 9th, many who initially hailed the zealous prosecutor for disrupting the notorious Chicago machine “in the middle of a crime spree,” soon began to set their sights on Obama and Company.

The initial knee-jerk reaction is common in journalism, and in no way implies any wrongdoing on the part of the Obama administration. For a fleeting moment, it appeared that reporters were finally willing to do their jobs and ask the President-elect some tough questions.

The response? Like shining a searchlight in an abandoned tenement kitchen.

Obama immediately stated that he had had no contact with Blagojevich concerning the Senate seat he leaves vacant, despite the fact that no such conversation would be considered unethical in any way. As a result, David Axelrod was forced to rescind his earlier statement claiming that Obama in fact had spoken with the governor. Rahm Emanuel suddenly made himself unavailable for questioning as it became widely understood he was the one doing all the communicating.

So why all the retracted statements? Why the guilty consciences?

The press has been all too eager to paint Blagojevich as a raving lunatic, but it merely underscores their willingness to throw him under the bus in order to protect Barack Obama. This should be expected from liberal media outlets, such as The New York Times, intent on reducing the governor’s credibility to that of a syphilis-ridden prostitute suffering the latter stages of dementia. But it only raises questions as to why the president-elect would need such protection if he is as squeaky clean as we are being lead to believe.

On October 17, 2008, the Chicago Tribune had this to say in their endorsement of Barack Obama for president:

On Dec. 6, 2006, this page encouraged Obama to join the presidential campaign. We wrote that he would celebrate our common values instead of exaggerate our differences. We said he would raise the tone of the campaign. We said his intellectual depth would sharpen the policy debate. In the ensuing 22 months he has done just that.

Many Americans say they’re uneasy about Obama. He’s pretty new to them.

We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party’s nominee for president.

On December 14, 2008, The Wall Street Journal wrote this about the Blagojevich investigation:

Conventional wisdom holds that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald ordered the FBI to arrest Rod Blagojevich before sunrise Tuesday in order to stop a crime from being committed. That would have been the sale of the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

But the opposite is true: Members of Fitzgerald’s team are livid the scheme didn’t advance, at least for a little longer, according to some people close to Fitzgerald’s office. Why? Because had the plot unfolded, they might have had an opportunity most feds can only dream of: A chance to catch the sale of a Senate seat on tape, including the sellers and the buyers.

The precise timing of Tuesday’s dramatic, pre-dawn arrest was not dictated by Fitzgerald, nor was it dictated by the pace of Blagojevich’s alleged “crime spree”. It was dictated by the Chicago Tribune, according to people close to the investigation and a careful reading of the FBI’s affidavit in the case.

Today, The New York Times reports:

When Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago, announced the arrest of the Illinois governor, Rod R. Blagojevich, Mr. Fitzgerald said he had acted to halt a political crime spree that included what he called an “appalling” effort to sell off the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

But now some lawyers are beginning to suggest that the juiciest part of the case against Mr. Blagojevich, the part involving the Senate seat, may be less than airtight. There is no evidence, at least none that has been disclosed, that the governor actually received anything of value — and the Senate appointment has yet to be made.

In dealing with The Chicago Tribune, it seems Fitzgerald’s entire hand had been exposed to a newspaper whose connections within the machine remain unknown. Afterall, somebody tipped off Obama, who withdrew his preferred candidate, Valerie Jarrett, before the Tribune took it upon themselves to bust the investigation wide open on December 5th.

One suggestion for Fitzgerald the next time he deals with the Chicago Tribune in an investigation surrounding the presidential candidate they have endorsed: bug their offices first.

Current political score and predicted outcome: Chicago Machine, 1 — Justice, 0

Forget It, Fitz…….. It’s Chi-Town.

ADD sufferers: Fast forward to about 4:00 and don’t forget to turn your volume down…

Ronald Kessler at Newsmax assures us:

The truth is that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii, by law, does not make original birth certificates public, and this has enabled conspiracy theorists to claim that there is something nefarious about the circumstances of Obama’s birth.

As claims of a cover-up mounted on the Internet prior to the election, Obama posted a digitally scanned image of his original birth certificate. But that enabled conspiracy theorists to say the image had been created by Photoshop.

Obama then let FactCheck.org, a nonprofit project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, view, handle, and photograph the birth original certificate at Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago.

That led to claims by conspiracy theorists that the document shown to FactCheck.org was fake. However, on Oct. 31, the Hawaii Department of Health issued a press release saying that Chiyome Fukino, director of Hawaii’s Department of Health, along with Alvin Onaka, the registrar of vital statistics, had “personally seen and verified that Hawaii’s State Department of Public Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

(For the record, Kessler uses the term “conspiracy theorists” no less than five times in his article when referring to anyone who dares to challenge Obama’s American birth.)

Yet, there is nothing conspiratorial about tens of thousands of people wondering why Obama doesn’t simply put all of this to rest with a single press conference. It would take maybe five minutes.

Why does he let it drag on like this?

To his credit, Kessler makes some valid points by challenging the integrity of both Philip Berg and Jerome Corsi, but this still does not explain Obama’s continued silence.

Factcheck.org states:

“The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino of the Hawaii State Department of Health as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate”.

The following pictures posted at Factcheck.org (combined with the Hawaii State Health Department statements) are the most compelling evidence I have seen in Obama’s favor. But it does not address the forgery issue, which is not before the Supreme Court. That may explain their reluctance to hear the case.

On the flip side of the controversy, J.B. Williams at Canada Free Press has doubts:

Despite numerous cases filed in numerous courts across the country, some of which include sworn affidavits from Obama family members who swear he was born in Kenya, the fact that numerous well respected forgery experts have claimed that the COLB posted on Obama’s web-site is a fraud, the fact that Obama by his own accounts, was a citizen of Indonesia under the name Barry Soetoro and traveled on an Indonesian passport until the age of 21, while at Occidental College, the high court sees no reason to doubt his eligibility for the highest office in the land…

Apparently, the court read the “investigative report” issued by FactCheck.org without noting that FactCheck.org is a surrogate mouthpiece for the Obama campaign, owned by the same liberal Annenberg Foundation that groomed the young Obama through his ACORN community rabble-rousing days in Chicago, and funded his failed education venture, the Annenberg Challenge, with Obama partner William Ayers.

If FactCheck.org is good enough for the MSM and the Supreme Court, why isn’t it good enough for the average red blooded American who foolishly still thinks we are a nation of Constitutional Law?

Unfortunately, it is the timing of all this that is suspicious. Obama has been a presidential candidate since early 2007. As the system stands, any serious claims of his ineligibility should have been made nearly two years ago. At the very latest, in January, after he won Iowa.

The real problem is that a major flaw in the system of electing our president has been revealed: there is no automatic judicial or Congressional review of a candidate’s eligibility before an election. Without that, we are simply trusting a candidate’s honesty until some ambitious lawyer has the audacity to challenge it.

Individual Secretaries of States have an obligation to verify the integrity of their ballots, the electors are allowed the opportunity to vote their conscience, and finally Congress has the authority to approve or nullify the winner — but this is all local responsibility before it gets to Congress, and Congress doesn’t have a role until after the election. What State secretary would challenge the integrity of a national candidate without seeming rogue? What elector or member of Congress would challenge the integrity of a candidate after an election?

Final Analysis: We are a nation that believes one is innocent until proven guilty. When it comes to electing a president, a candidate should be unqualified until proven otherwise. If we must pass a test before we are qualified to drive a car, certainly it is not out of the question to test a presidential candidate — whether by Congress, lower courts, or the Supreme Court itself.

Something needs to be done to strengthen the eligibility issue of a presidential candidate, but it is not the Supreme Court’s duty at this time. This is something Congress needs to address for next time.

PYROmeter: 5.0

5 — Classic
4 — Excellent
3 — Good
2 — Fair
1 — Poor

This was a Rush Limbaugh recommendation. Had I paid attention a few years ago, I would have noticed this was the movie that denied “Pan’s Labyrinth” the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. That says a lot. Once you get past the fact you are reading a movie (3 minutes into the film), you will discover the long-forgotten Hell of living in Communist East Germany.

“The Lives of Others” (2006)

Rotten Tomatoes:

Tomatometer: 93 %
Reviews Counted: 145
Fresh: 135
Rotten:10
Average Rating: 8.2/10

Consensus: Unlike more traditional spy films, “The Lives of Others” doesn’t sacrifice character for cloak and dagger chases, and the performances (notably that by the late Ulrich Muhe) stay with you.

By Roger Ebert:

He sits like a man taking a hearing test, big headphones clamped over his ears, his body and face frozen, listening for a faraway sound. His name is Gerd Wiesler, and he is a captain in the Stasi, the notorious secret police of East Germany. The year is, appropriately, 1984, and he is Big Brother, watching. He sits in an attic day after day, night after night, spying on the people in the flat below.

The flat is occupied by a playwright named Dreyman (Sebastian Koch) and his mistress, the actress Christa-Maria Sieland (Martina Gedeck). Wiesler (Ulrich Muehe) first saw Dreyman at the opening of one of his plays, where he was informed by a colleague that Dreyman was a valuable man: “One of our only writers who is read in the West and is loyal to our government.” How can that be? Wiesler wonders. Dreyman is good-looking, successful, with a beautiful lover; he must be getting away with something. Driven by suspicion, or perhaps by envy or simple curiosity, Wiesler has Dreyman’s flat wired and begins an official eavesdropping inquiry.

He doesn’t find a shred of evidence that Dreyman is disloyal. Not even in whispers. Not even in guarded allusions. Not even during pillow talk. The man obviously believes in the East German version of socialism, and the implication is that not even the Stasi can believe that. They are looking for dissent and subversion because, in a way, they think a man like Dreyman should be guilty of them. Perhaps they do not believe in East Germany themselves, but have simply chosen to play for the winning team.

Wiesler is a fascinating character. His face is a mask, trained by his life to reflect no emotion. Sometimes not even his eyes move. As played in Muehe’s performance of infinite subtlety, he watches Dreyman as a cat awaits a mouse. And he begins to internalize their lives — easy, because he has no life of his own, no lover, no hobby, no distraction from his single-minded job.

Although the movie won the best foreign-language film Oscar of 2006, you may not have seen it, so I will repress certain developments. I will say that Wiesler arrives at a choice, when his piggish superior officer, the government minister Bruno Hempf (Thomas Thieme), develops a lust for Christa-Maria and orders Wiesler to pin something, anything, on Dreyman so that his rival will be eliminated. But there is nothing to pin on him. A loyal spy must be true to his trade, and now Wiesler is asked to be false to prove his loyalty.

The thing is, Wiesler has no one he can really talk to. He lives in a world of such paranoia that the slightest slip can be disastrous. Consider a scene in the Stasi cafeteria when a young officer unwisely cracks an anti-government joke; Wiesler goes through the motions of laughter, and then coldly asks for the man’s name. The same could happen to Wiesler. So as he proceeds through his crisis, he has no one to confide in, and there is no interior monologue to inform us of his thoughts. There is only that blank face, and the smallest indications of what he might be thinking. And then instinctive decisions that choose his course for him.

The Berlin Wall falls in 1989 (the event is seen here), and the story continues for few more years to an ironic and surprisingly satisfactory conclusion. But the movie is relevant today, as our government ignores habeas corpus, practices secret torture, and asks for the right to wiretap and eavesdrop on its citizens. Such tactics did not save East Germany; they destroyed it, by making it a country its most loyal citizens could no longer believe in. Driven by the specter of aggression from without, it countered it with aggression from within, as sort of an anti-toxin. Fearing that its citizens were disloyal, it inspired them to be. True, its enemies were real. But the West never dropped the bomb, and East Germany and the other Soviet republics imploded after essentially bombing themselves.

“The Lives of Others” is a powerful but quiet film, constructed of hidden thoughts and secret desires. It begins with Wiesler teaching a class in the theory and practice of interrogation; one chilling detail is that suspects are forced to sit on their hands, so that the chair cushion can be saved for possible use by bloodhounds. It shows how the Wall finally fell, not with a bang, but because of whispers.

Note: In the movie, one lover is a government informer. In real life, the actor Muehe discovered that his own wife was a Stasi informant.

Cast & Credits

Capt. Gerd Wiesler: Ulrich Muehe
Georg Dreyman: Sebastian Koch
Christa-Maria: Martina Gedeck
Lt. Col. Grubitz: Ulrich Tukur
Bruno Hempf: Thomas Thieme
Paul Hauser: Hans Uwe Bauer

Sony Pictures Classics presents a film written and directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck. In German with English subtitles. Running time: 137 minutes. Rated R (some sexuality and nudity).

The following chart provides statistics available online from The Heritage Foundation, The CIA’s World Factbook, and the Human Development Reports. Take the Free Market vs. Socialism Challenge.

Singapore, rated the second freest economy in the world, represents the direction most conservatives believe this country should be headed. Germany, the twenty-third freest, is a classic example of European Socialism and the preferred direction of the newly elected administration.

I encourage any Obama supporter or Progressive Democrat to explain how a high tax, big government economy is in any way superior to free market conservatism…

As you can see, the individual tax rates in Germany are more than double the rates of Singapore. It would seem the Germans are interested in spreading the wealth like Obama, yet their poverty rate is still twice as high as Singapore’s, and their unemployment rate is nearly four times higher.

The World Health Organization’s healthcare ranking places Singapore at #6 in the world despite the fact that government spending amounts to only 1.3% of their GDP. In contrast, Germany spends 8.2% of their GDP on their healthcare, yet manages to place at only #25 on the list.

In every instance, Singapore outshines both Germany and the United States with a successful free market economy that neither punishes success nor allows the development of a welfare state.

According to statistics — in every instance — when government simply gets out of the way, the people will prosper.

Disagree? Show me where I went wrong…….

This is very interesting and thought provoking. It will illuminate some of the things happening in America right now. This election is a watershed event in America and its future. Vote carefully, as it will effect you and your children for a long time in the future. –Val

Yuri Bezmenov, expert on Soviet propaganda and disinformation, escaped to the United States in 1970.

This entire sixteen minute interview, recorded twenty-four years ago, is an alarming prophesy of the Communist infiltration rapidly taking root even during the Reagan years.

For those of you with Attention Deficit Disorder, fast forward to (10:50) for a chilling account of the Four Stages of Ideological Subversion.

(Hat tip to Paul)

The following is a partial transcript of the interview highlights:

(2:04)

Ideological Subversion, or Active Measures, or Psychological Warfare:

To change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.

It’s a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages. The first one being demoralization, it takes from fifteen to twenty years to demoralize a nation.

Why that many years? Because this the minimum number of years which requires to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy.

In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students without being challenged or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism, American patriotism.

(10:50)

The Four Stages of Ideological Subversion

Stage 1 — Demoralization

The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already, for the last twenty-five years, actually it’s over-fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where previously not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success, most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to lack of moral standards.

As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to access true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I showered him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures — even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him a concentration camp — he will refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom. When a military boot crashes his butt, then he will understand, but not before that. That’s the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.

Stage 2 — Destabilization

The next stage is destabilization. This time the subverter does not care about your ideas and the patterns of your consumption, whether you eat junk food and get fat and flabby doesn’t matter anymore. This time — and it takes only from two to five years to destabilize a nation — what matters is essentials. Economy, foreign relations, defense systems. And you can see quite clearly that in some areas, in such sensitive areas as defense and economy, the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideas in the United States is absolutely fantastic. I could never believe it fourteen years ago when I landed in this part of the world that the process would go that fast.

Stage 3 — Crisis

The next stage of course is crisis, it may take only up to six weeks to bring a country to the verge of crisis, you can see it in Central America now. And after crisis, with a violent change of power, structure, and economy, you have a so-called period of normalization. It may last indefinitely.

Stage 4 — Normalization

Normalization is a cynical expression, borrowed from Soviet propaganda, when the Soviet tanks moved into Czechoslovakia in 1968, Comrade Brezhnev said, “Now the situation in brotherly Czechoslovakia is normalized.”

This is what will happen in the United States if you allow all the schmucks to bring the country to crisis. To promise people all kinds of goodies and a paradise on Earth. To destabilize your economy. To eliminate the principle of free market competition and to put a Big Brother government in Washington DC with benevolent dictators like Walter Mondale who will promise lots of things, never mind whether the promises are fulfilled or not. He will go to Moscow to kiss the bottoms of a new generation of Soviet assassins, never mind, he will create false illusions that the situation is under control. The situation is not under control. The situation is disgustingly out of control.

Most of the American politicians, media, and educational system, trains another generation of people who think they are living at the peace time. False. The United States is in a state of war. Undeclared total war against the basic principles and the foundations of this system. And the initiator of this war is not Comrade Andropov of course, it’s the system — however ridiculous it may sound — the world Communist system, or the world Communist conspiracy. Whether I scare some people or not I don’t give a hoot. If you are not scared by now, nothing can scare you.

But you don’t have to be paranoid about it. What actually happens now, that unlike myself, you have literally several years to limp on unless the United States wakes up. The time bomb is ticking, with every second the disaster is coming closer and closer, unlike myself you will have no where to defect to. Unless you want to live in Antarctica with penguins. This is it, this is the last country of freedom and possibility.

Below was added by Val last night by email and posted today 24 October 2008.

With a filibuster proof congress led by Reid and Pelosi. What is to stop Obama from pulling a Hugo Chavez. A closed mind is like a locked door, unless the right key is found, nothing enters. Unfortunately for many the key will be hindsight. Frank Marshal Davis, Ayers, Rezko, Wright, Dohrn, Odinga, ACORN, The New Party.

All Radical Marxist/Socialist links in Obama’s chain that launched his political career, and
unlike the theory of evolution, there are no missing links. Davis, a known, avowed Communist Mentored Obama as a teenager shaping his social views, and fostered his hate for whites. The rest of the Radical Associations reinforced Davis’s teachings, and the Socialist NEW PARTY launched Obama’s career.

Obama, selected, tutored, groomed, scripted, and financed by Radical Marxist/Socialists to become the puppet leader of the UNITED SOCIALIST STATES OF AMERICA If you do not believe associations shape the character and judgment of a person, why do you NOT let your child hang out with the local street gangs and crack heads. All of the people I listed are linked together, all share the same values, all are long term and continuous.

#1 – The best time for a bold, new kind of politician to run for the presidency is after eight long years of the opposing party running the show. John F. Kennedy understood this, as did Barack Obama. In each instance, the new guy won…

#2 – Eight years of a successful presidency yields a “third term” for the incumbent. George H. W. Bush benefited from this, and both Nixon 1960 and Gore 2000 were counting on it, yet both Nixon and Gore succumbed to Simple Truth #1.

#3 – The best time to oppose the incumbent of your own party is after four years of failure. Ronald Reagan understood this when he challenged Gerald Ford in 1976, as did Ted Kennedy when he challenged Jimmy Carter in 1980. Yet, in both instances, the challenger failed to clinch the nomination from the sitting president.

#4 – When two candidates engage in a historic slugfest, neither they nor the public will have the stomach to go through it again. Al Gore understood this when he decided not to run against George W. Bush in 2004.

#5 – No candidate stands a chance when the media is working against them. Of course, we expect the left-wing mainstream media to side with the Democratic candidate and right-wing talk radio and bloggers to side with the Republican candidate, but when both sides are against you — you are doomed.

With Hillary Clinton set to accept the position of Secretary of State, many pundits are asking why she would want to surrender her “independent power” to be subordinate to Barack Obama.

The answer is simple. What the pundits fail to realize is that the Secretary of State is no more subordinate to the president than a senator is subordinate to the party.

Just ask Joe Lieberman. As an Independent who chooses to caucus with the Democrats, Lieberman’s chairmanship was on the line just a few short days ago because he had the audacity to support his good friend John McCain for president. The only reason he was absolved of any wrongdoing is because the party is closing in on the magic number 60. In short, they still need him. Had the election produced 61 Democratic senators, Lieberman would have been toast.

Most pundits believe everything the Clinton’s do is a cold calculation that serves merely as a template to get her elected to the presidency. This is probably true. Yet undermining the Obama administration — whether from the Senate floor or from the State Department — is not in Hillary’s best interest, regardless of what anyone says.

The problem with their conspiracy theory is that it works against the grain of Simple Truths #3, #4, and #5.

First of all, the mainstream media has no intention of letting their Golden Boy fail even if we’re all standing in soup lines for the next four years — everything will be George W. Bush’s fault. Anyone who attempts to undermine Obama’s legacy will fail.

Second, a failed Obama presidency will bolster Sarah Palin — not Hillary. Despite character assassination attempts by the mainstream media, Palin has four years to sharpen her claws for a 2012 run. Surely by now, Hillary recognizes Palin as a larger threat than Obama. She will not want to undermine Obama and risk empowering Palin.

Finally, with Hillary’s pet healthcare project going to Ted Kennedy, there is no good reason to stick around, and certainly a Secretary of State working in harmony with Obama — helping to grow his legacy — gets more favorable media attention than a junior senator with a grudge.

Hillary’s best chance to become the first female president was lost this year when she squandered Simple Truth #1 on poorly organized caucuses, over-confidence, and a formidable Obama machine. Her second (and final) chance is in 2016 — Simple truth #2 — with the assistance of two former presidents and an adoring left-wing media. If she uses her considerable talents to help Obama over the next eight years rather than try to undermine him — then at 68, Hillary will win.

Unless another young hotshot comes out of nowhere. Then it’s deja-vu all over again…..

Click this link to World Net Daily who has written about an online petition demanding the truth.

The accusations must have some merit:

— Alan Keyes has filed suit to prevent California’s electorate from certifying Obama’s votes.

— Leo C. Donofrio has filed suit in New Jersey.

— Philip Berg filed suit in Pennsylvania.

— RCP keeps pulling down any article discussing this issue.

— The mainstream media is silent.

— and Barack Obama has yet to produce his Hawaiian birth certificate.

UPDATE — 12/07/08: Silence.

The Guardian says it’s official. Hillary Clinton will be the next Secretary of State.

Chris Matthews is annoyed and Henry Kissinger is thrilled at the idea of Hillary Clinton becoming the next Secretary of State. That’s good enough for me.

Had Hillary Clinton won the presidency, I would have happily given up watching the nightly news — wondering who was screwing up what — in foreign and domestic affairs.

Since the living dead have instead chosen Chicago Thug Obama to be Commander-in-Chief, I have been wondering daily which door will be breached first: the front door (Russia, Iran, al-Qaeda) or the back door (Constitutional rights obliterated, socialized economy, domestic security force).

With Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State — half my worries are gone.

First, there is something powerful about listening to the voice of the people. Collective opinion must always outweigh the individual. For this, I will always humbly concede defeat.

Second, John McCain is no more a remedy to the ills of the Republican Party than George W. Bush was. In fact, he is part of what is wrong with it. Having your picture taken with Ronald Reagan twenty-eight years ago in the Oval Office is no substitute for ‘The Gipper’ himself.

Undoubtedly, that is the same conclusion many Republicans came to in red states like Indiana and North Carolina as they fell on their swords for the most liberal Senator in Washington.

As a former Hillary Clinton supporter, I have no qualms about cannibalizing the man I voted for. I still believe he would have been a better president than this Stalin-like egocentric cult of personality figure we have elected.

Comrade Obama’s campaign of lies and mass deception for the benefit of his own wretched glory is on track to break the hearts and shatter the dreams of millions of naive voters — who honestly believe we’ll all be frolicking around in Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory.

At least John McCain didn’t stoop to that level. John McCain is truly a great American and I mean to imply nothing negative about his character, but now that his political coffin has been sealed — let’s count a few of the nails.

1. Carbon Tax — Any politician caught up in the global warming myth is undoubtedly lining up to inflict us with some type of inane Carbon Tax. Brilliant Liberal thinkers have already stripped us of our property rights through Kelo v. New London, soon they will monitor our driving. This has no place in the Republican Party.

2. ANWR — McCain’s refusal to reconsider his stance on drilling in ANWR, even when his running mate was the Governor of Alaska explaining that Alaskans actually favor responsible drilling, only served to highlight his ridiculously stubborn leftward tendencies. Red states took notice.

3. Amnesty for Illegals — When Rush Limbaugh calls one of your best political friends in the Senate, “Lindsey Grahamnesty”, you’ve got problems. This was not an immediate campaign issue, but it is one that is lingers in the minds of conservative voters every day.

4. Suspending the Campaign — Which genius thought of this colossal blunder? Actions speak louder than words, Senator McCain. In fact, announcing your intentions merely provides the enemy with a desire to sabotage your efforts. Had McCain simply flown back to D.C. rather than dramatically halting all ads and broadcasting his flight plans, this act of “country first” might have succeeded. But by turning off all ads, McCain put himself in the uncomfortable position of having to turn them back on. Unbearable. And with the world showing up at the first presidential debate with or without him, the message that came across was that while the family was sitting down for Thanksgiving dinner… grandpa was wandering around in the woods picking berries. Luckily, he made it home in time to watch Obama carve the turkey. This was fatal.

5. Jeremiah Wright — Obama explaining that he had never heard the bile coming out of the mouth of his pastor of twenty years is on par with, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” and “Read my lips, no new taxes,” as the biggest load of bullshit ever to come out of a politician’s mouth. For John McCain to take the moral high ground by refusing to allow Wright to be an issue — in the face of such a blatant lie — lead many to wonder if he had lost his will to win. Or better yet, if he even deserved to.

6. Sarah McPalin — Along with Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin is the new face of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, what we saw was John McCain’s “Mini Me”. They bottled her up in silence for days, building national suspicion and doubt, only to release her to….. Charlie Gibson??? Katie Couric??? Edited???

The only “real” interview Obama ever gave was toward the end of the campaign when he sat down with Bill O’Reilly. (Hats off to Axelrod for that nice little cocoon.) This kind of loving protection hasn’t been witnessed since ‘Buffalo Bill’ kissed his moths.

For Team McCain to instantly throw Sarah into the lions’ den when they knew they had only weeks to shape public opinion (they also had Axelrod’s example of protecting the candidate already in place) was the final nail in the coffin. They Dan Quayled her in record time.

Fortunately for Sarah and the New Republican Party for 2012, McCain’s campaign didn’t succeed in destroying her — she’s back on her own terms now, with four years to spare — they merely succeeded in destroying themselves.

This is the original comment left on HillBuzz and brought to national attention by Rush Limbaugh during his Thursday show…

# sarah p Says:
October 27, 2008 at 5:04 am

Ok, I want to clear my conscious a little. Hopefully you could make a blog post to help some fellow clinton supporters out.

I work for a campaign and can’t wait for this week to be over.

I was doing it for a job. I was not a fan of any candidate but over time grew to love HRC.

The internal campaign idea is to twist, distort, humiliate and finally dispirit you.

We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and “play the part of a clinton or mccain supporter who just switched our support for obama”

We do this to stifle your motivation and to destroy your confidence.

We did this the whole primary and it worked.

Sprinkle in mass vote confusion and it becomes bewildering. Most people lose patience and just give up on their support of a candidate and decide to just block out tv, news, websites, etc.

This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement and vote turnout issues.

Next, we infiltrate all the blogs and all the youtube videos and overwhelm the voting, the comments, etc. All to continue this appearance of overwhelming world support.

People makes posts to the effect that the world has “gone mad”

Thats the intention. To make you feel stressed and crazy and feel like the world is ending.

We have also had quite a hand in skewing many many polls, some we couldn’t control as much as we would have liked. But many we have spoiled over. Just enough to make real clear politics look scarey to a mccain supporter. Its worked, alough the goal was to appear 13-15 points ahead.

see, the results have been working. People tend to support a winner, go with the flow, become “sheeple”

The polls are roughly 3-5 points in favor of Barack. Thats due to our inflation of the polls and pulling in the sheeple.

Our donors, are the same people who finance the MSM. Their interests are tied, Barack then tends to come across as teflon. Nothing sticks. And trust, there were meetings with Fox news. The goal was to blunt them as much as possible. Watch Bill Oreilly he has become much more diplomatic and “fair and balanced” and soft. Its because he wants to retain the #1 spot on cable news and to do that he has to have access to the Obama campaign and we worked hard at stringing him a long and keeping him soft for an interview swap. It worked and now he is anticipating more access. So he is playing it still soft.

This is why nothing sticks.

The operation is massive, the goal is to paint a picture that is that of a winner, regardless of the results.

There is no true inauguration draft or true grant park construction going on. There will be a party, but we are boasting beyond the truth to make it seem like the election is wrapped up.

Our goal is to continue to make you lose your moral. We worked hard at persuasion and paying off and timing and playing the right political numbers to get key republican endorsements to make it seem even more like it was over and the world was coming to an end for you all.

There is a huge staff of people working around the clock, watching every site, blogs, etc. We flood these sites. We have had a goal to overwhelm.

The truth is here. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

I am saying this because I know HRC was better for the country, and now realize this. I was too late by the time I connected to her. To me Barack was just a cool young dude that seemed like a star. I didn’t know him or his policies, but now I understand more than I care to and I realize his interests are more for him, and the DNC and all working like puppets with dean. I always thought a president wanted the better good for the country. The end result I see is everyone dependent on the government, this means more and more people voting for the DNC. This means the future is forever altered. I don’t see this as america, so I am now supporting John Mccain.

Sarah Palin is a huge threat, and our campaign has feared her like you can’t imagine. If it seems unfair how she has been treated, well its because she has had a team working round the clock to make her look like a fool.

this is a big conspiracy and I am so shocked that its not realized.

We released a little blurb the other day that the Obama campaign was already working on reelection and now putting our efforts towards 2012. This was to make it seem like it was above us to continue caring about 2008. Trust me, its a lie. David is very smart, but its a sticky ugly not very truthful kind of intelligence.

Its not over yet, but I think the machine is working. And its a hill to climb.

I will be quitting my post on nov 5th and my vote will be for John Mccain. Fortunately, my position has been a marketing position and I don’t feel I had any part of anything I would feel guilty for. But I look forward to getting out of this as the negativity and environment upsets me.

I wish you all well, and goodluck.

PS my name is not really sarah. but I am a female and I understand your plight.

Regardless of some questioning the authenticity, the words ring true.

Now, with a little insider information to boost the ole moral, this site will reject all negative commentary until polls close November 4th. We suggest you do the same for your blog. Better late than never…

The first is Business Week, September 24, 2008:

Bill Clinton on the Banking Crisis, McCain, and Hillary

In this article, Bill Clinton explains that Obama’s deregulation myth has nothing to do with the current financial crisis. Here is an excerpt:

Maria Bartiromo: Mr. President, in 1999 you signed a bill essentially rolling back Glass-Steagall and deregulating banking. In light of what has gone on, do you regret that decision?

Bill Clinton: No, because it wasn’t a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter. But I have really thought about this a lot. I don’t see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn’t signed that bill…

…You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can’t possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I’d be glad to look at the evidence. But I can’t blame [the Republicans]. This wasn’t something they forced me into.

The second is from the Wall Street Journal, October 1, 2008:

Bill v. Barack on Banks

In case you missed the first article, this one covers it, then adds some interesting commentary:

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed the Senate on a 90-8 vote, including 38 Democrats and such notable Obama supporters as Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dick Durbin, Tom Daschle — oh, and Joe Biden. Mr. Schumer was especially fulsome in his endorsement.

As for the sins of “deregulation” more broadly, this is a political fairy tale. The least regulated of our financial institutions — hedge funds — have posed the least systemic risks in the current panic.

Mr. Obama’s “deregulation” trope may be good politics, but it’s bad history and is dangerous if he really believes it. The U.S. is going to need a stable, innovative financial system after this panic ends, and we won’t get that if Mr. Obama and his media chorus think the answer is to return to Depression-era rules amid global financial competition. Perhaps the Senator should ask the former President for a briefing.

From Atlas Shrugs:

Raila Odinga has, in his own words, a ‘close personal friendship’ with Barack Hussein Obama Jr. When Obama went to Kenya in August of 2006, he was hosted by Raila and spoke in praise of him at rallies in Nairobi: Obama’s bias for his fellow Luo was so blatant that a Kenya government spokesman denounced Obama during his visit as Raila’s stooge.

Here is the video:

By encouraging unrest and ultimately genocide against the Christian supporters of the opposition, Raila Odinga was simply feeding into the Muslim-Christian conflict that has existed in Kenya for years: 

January 8, 2001 - Christianity Today: "Muslim-Christian Riots Rock Nairobi"

Significant tensions have been building regarding constitutional reforms supported by moderate Muslims and Christians. Many conservative Muslims are suspicious of reform and instead seek the implementation of Shari’ah, the Islamic legal code which Muslims feel restricts their freedoms. The next day the fighting spread. By the end of the day, four people had lost their lives; hundreds were injured. A mosque and two church buildings burned to the ground, and an international Christian center was destroyed.

April 3, 2003 - Kenya: "Jihad Threatened if Muslim Demands Are Not Met"

Muslim leaders in Kenya are threatening armed conflict if the new Kenyan constitution does not enshrine Islamic courts (known in Kenya as Kadhi courts).

Muslim clerics, led by Sheikh Ali Bin Mayaka of the Eldoret mosque responded, “We should try to mobilize Muslims countrywide for Jihad if anyone will try to intimidate us and provoke our religion…We shall fight up to the end with all ways to retain Kadhi courts in the constitution even if it means to seek help from our fellows around the globe.”

December 18, 2007 - The Christian Post:  "Concerns Raised Over Alleged Vow to Enforce Islamic Law In Kenya"

Raila Odinga, the current frontrunner in the upcoming presidential election in Kenya, has promised to implement strict Islamic Sharia law if he receives the Muslim vote in the predominantly Christian country and is elected president.

In the secret version of the MOU, Odinga allegedly states his intention to, ”within six months, rewrite the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Sharia as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared regions” if elected, according to ICC.

Here are thumbnails of the Memorandum of Understanding:

Finally, a long but well-produced video recently posted on YouTube that hopefully will go viral during the last month before the election, and expose yet another one of Barack Obama’s bloody ties:

Previous articles:

Obama’s Bloody Ties

Barack Obama: Power By Any Means

(Supported by multiple links)

How is it that trillion dollar corporations sliding into a hole of bad debt, hundreds of billions of dollars deep, suddenly decide to throw in the towel two months before Election Day?

Certainly, the red ink of last month’s crisis existed in, say, March. Or even January.

Either we are in the midst of the Mother of All Coincidences, or the Democrats have finally figured out how to engage in Rovian-style political warfare.

Perhaps it is impossible to wrap the mind around the prospect of a controlled demolition of such breadth and scope, but when one considers that the entire devastation on Wall Street occurred after the little Dutch boy (Barney Frank) removed his finger from the dike, the possibility of subterfuge becomes plausible.

Had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac not been controlled by elected government Democrats, and had they not been the first to go under, I might dismiss this notion as an impossibly complex conspiracy theory involving multiple CEOs, board members, and a trillion dollar gamble of ridiculous proportions.

But they were.

The financial collapse, whether coincidental or orchestrated, is undoubtedly helping Barack Obama. At this point, John McCain has only one way to win this thing, and I’m not talking about Ayers, Wright, and Odinga. This approach no longer works. Apparently, the American voter is willing to elect Adolf Hitler as long as he’s black and a Democrat.

The only thing that can save John McCain is Israel.

With the bipartisan bailout now in place, McCain sorely needs the subject to be changed. Given the fact that Americans have a seriously short attention span, the financial collapse will be old news by next week. Only Israel, who has stated a desire to take out Iranian nuclear capabilities, can sufficiently change the current subject.

Bill Clinton was guilty of wagging the dog when he bombed Serbia at the onset of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. So why not Bush, McCain, and Israel?

By ridding the world of a growing international threat through the use of force, not only can Israel reassure Americans that the military is capable of instantly resolving a crisis (without a protracted ground war and occupation), but they can cast a "vote of no confidence" for an Obama administration unwilling to support them, and help elect their preferred presidential candidate: John McCain.

Prediction: Israel bombs Iran and John McCain wins by a nose.

In the past, whenever McCain looked as if he were fading, his campaign under the steady leadership of Steve Schmidt would suddenly snap out of it and launch a massive attack.

In essence, the pattern of attack that McCain has consistently shown he prefers is one that was no doubt learned from five and a half years in the Hanoi Hilton: strength through the perception of weakness.

A stampede of panicked buffalo will invigorate a lioness into chase and attack mode, whereas an isolated and weakened victim will cool her down as she ponders her imminent victory. This would be the more ideal time for a counter-attack.

Either McCain’s campaign is truly foundering, or is he psychologically setting the stage for an all-out attack. I believe tonight’s vice presidential debates will provide the answer.

Here’s why:

The selection of Sarah Palin was a stroke of genius that solidified the base, inspired women, and turned on independents and the bubba vote. For two weeks, Sarah was electrifying.

Suddenly, the ball was dropped. Palin’s interviews with two liberal media icons, Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, were loaded with “gotcha questions” that drove the governor’s approval numbers into the ground.

One of three things has occurred:

1. McCain had no idea the interviews would be unflattering. (This is unlikely).

2. McCain knew the interviews were risky, but thought Palin could hold her own. (This is the popular notion, one that implies failure, and the one I personally reject).

3. McCain set this up on purpose.

I believe the third option to be true. If it seems a bit too fantastic, consider this:

By going into the debates battered from the interviews, the bar for Governor Palin has been lowered considerably. Had her popularity remained at its zenith, not only would the bar have been too high to clear, but the avoidance of the liberal media (which would have been necessary for her to keep such high approvals) would have heated into a frenzy. The longer she dodged them, the more aggressive they would have become.

Also consider that the image of Sarah Palin now being portrayed by the media is that of a weak candidate marching to her political death at the hands of the seasoned Joe Biden. This might even have Biden in an “I’ll go easy on her” mode.

Regardless of how Sarah Palin was weakened, whether by accident or intention, tonight she has the perfect chance to strike back with a vengeance. If she goes into this thing unloading both barrels from start to finish, she will rise from the political ashes in the same tradition as John McCain. If she fails, the McCain/Palin ticket is surely going down.

We don’t have to wait until November 4th to find out who will win the election. We will have the answer tonight.

VAN SUSTEREN: You raise the issue of values. And let me ask you a question that I ask very carefully because I don’t want to be misinterpreted. I don’t want anyone to read anything into my question and — you know, because this is one of the hottest items that any of us can talk about and we have to face it.

But what is the difference between an association with someone like David Duke and an association with someone like Reverend Wright?

CLINTON: ………………Well, I think that — first, we don’t have to go there because Senator Obama left the church.

VAN SUSTEREN: After two things happened.

CLINTON: That is correct.

VAN SUSTEREN: One was a lot of pressure from the media, and then the second thing was after Reverend Wright at the National Press Club took a personal strike at him. That’s when — well, that’s when..

CLINTON: That’s correct.

VAN SUSTEREN: … He disavowed him. It wasn’t until that point.

CLINTON: But to me, it’s not necessary for those of us who are surrogates on either side to weigh into that now. To me, this election is fundamentally about how the American people are going to live and who is most likely to do things that will be helpful and empowering to them and their children.

If this were still a big issue, then, you know, we could all deal with that. But I think that — I think that that was something that was exhaustively looked at in the primary, and I just don’t — you know, I don’t have anything to say about it.

In other words, there is no difference. If there was, Clinton would have simply stated it minus the song and dance.

Born in Arkansas, no doubt Bill is aware of another adage about a pig that does not include lipstick:

“You can lay a million bricks in your lifetime, and no one will call you Billy the Bricklayer….. but if you screw one single pig, from that day on, you will forever be known as Billy the Pigf**ker”.

Unless of course, your name is Barack Obama. This man spent 20 years attending a racist, black separatist church and no one in the media seems to give a damn. Let a white politician spend 20 minutes in the company of David Duke, and watch the media ensure that his political career crashes and burns faster than the Hindenburg.

This was Greta’s point, a problem of hypocrisy that still resonates with rural American voters today despite attempts to gloss over the facts and move on.

Several news organizations are preparing for a Barack Obama loss, already attacking Americans as vile racists who don’t like the man simply because the color of his skin.

I beg to differ. It isn’t that we don’t like him. We’re simply afraid he doesn’t like us.

Tiger Woods lovingly embraces all the various ethnicities that are his makeup by referring to himself as a “Cablinasian”. Unfortunately, Barack Obama doesn’t appear to possess that same embracing quality. Rather than refer to himself as biracial, which is what he is, he insists upon being simply black.

Come election day, like the media would do to an associate of David Duke, rural America should do to an associate of Reverend Wright.

With any luck, on November 4th, Obama’s racebaiting, sexist, fear-mongering, hydrogen-filled dirigible will meet the spark of the Heartland. And then……

UPDATE — 11/05/08: Bad luck.

Sponsors: Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE]

Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC]

Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]

Sen. John Sununu [R-NH]

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

 

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

 

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

 

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

 

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

 

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Regardless of the accusations of corporate greed and risky miscalculations, the root of the problem for all of the faltering Wall Street giants seems to be in their mortgage investments.

Barack Obama recently made this statement:

So let’s be clear: what we’ve seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed. And I am running for President of the United States because the dreams of the American people must not be endangered any more. It’s time to put an end to a broken system in Washington that is breaking the American economy. It’s time for change that makes a real difference in your lives.

First, Bill Clinton compared the historical candidacy of Barack Obama with the other historical candidacy of Jesse Jackson. In hindsight, the comparison seems fairly benign, but the Obama campaign tarred and feathered the former President with a charge so outrageous, it threatened Clinton’s legacy.

Second, Bill Clinton refered to the media’s infatuation with Obama as a “fairytale”. Again, the Obama campaign struck with a vengeance. Their accusation was that the former President was somehow labeling a “black” candidate’s aspirations for the presidency the equivalent of a pipe dream. The over-stretched accusation therefore could be translated into the belittlement of all black candidates as being something of a joke.

Talk about a stretch. But somehow, it worked. The Obama campaign succeeded (with the help of the mainstream media) in turning America’s first black president into a despicable racist based on flimsy assertions. This brilliant character assassination spelled the beginning of the end of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

Recently, political master, Bill Clinton, said the following:

“Suppose for example you’re a voter and you have candidate X and you have candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything but you don’t think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues but you believe that on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver. For whom will you vote?

This is the kind of question that I predict — and this has nothing to do with what’s going on now — but I am just saying if you look at five, 10, 15 years from now, you may actually see this delivery issue become a serious issue in Democratic debates because it is so hard to figure out how to turn good intentions into real changes in the lives of the people we represent.”

Clearly, Bill Clinton is referring to Obama and McCain although within the same breath he denies it. What was the point of saying this in the first place? Many pundits have been wondering, but with minimal analysis, I note that McCain in this scenario is “Candidate Y” — and Obama is “Candidate X”.

Unlike many, I don’t believe Bill Clinton makes as many gaffes as the pundits would have us believe. His political rhetoric is cold and calculating with the precision of a surgical knife…

But also consider this: Years ago, one of my college professors laid out a map of Paris on an overhead projector and then aligned with it a map of the constellation. The result was a near perfect fusion of monuments and stars in an uncanny synchronicity that awakened students’ eyes to the possibility that Paris had been built as a monument to the Heavens. The map of Paris was in fact a map of the stars with as much architectural perfection as the great pyramids or Stonehenge. Was my professor’s revelation accurate?
No. My political science professor was a master of deception. He played with our minds only to prove to us that despite our relative intelligence, we can be played.

A map of Paris with thousands of dots will undoubtedly match up to a map with billions. To prove his point at the end of the great head game, he simply moved one of the maps over an inch to show that they aligned again.

My professor taught me that politics is about deception. More accurately, it is about winning, and deception is a vital key — as is defining your opponent before he has a chance to define himself.

Was Bill Clinton comparing Barack Obama with Malcolm X?

I wouldn’t be surprised. And if the shoe fits….

writing

Here’s just a sample of what I’ve found:

#1 — Frank Marshall Davis

Apparently, the Canadians, the National Enquirer, and a few bloggers are the only ones interested in truly vetting Barack Obama. Canada Free Press has a multitude of information about Obama’s “other mentor” being a member of the Communist Party (see here, here, and here for starters).

Also, Davis stated that:

“…under certain circumstances I am bisexual”

“…and a voyeur… and an exhibitionist… occasionally, mildly interested in sado-masochism. I have often wished I had two penises to enjoy simultaneously the double – but different – sensations of oral and genital copulation.”

Davis describes having sex with a 13-year-old girl:

“I’m not one to go in for Lolitas. Usually I’d rather not bed a babe under 20. But there are exceptions. I didn’t want to disappoint the trusting child. At her still-impressionistic age, a rejection might be traumatic, could even cripple her sexually for life.”

He then described how he and his wife would have sex with the girl.

“Anne came up many times the next several weeks, her aunt thinking she was in good hands. Actually she was. She obtained a course in practical sex from experienced and considerate practitioners rather than from ignorant insensitive neophytes….I think we did her a favour, although the pleasure was mutual.”

Sado-masochistic bisexual Communist pedophile. No scandal here, folks, just a typical mentor…

Wait, isn’t Obama’s mother named Ann? Nevermind, nothing to investigate here…

#2 — Philip Berg

Philip Berg has filed a temporary restraining order in federal court to bar Obama from running for president, claiming the Democratic candidate was actually born in Africa.

“We really don’t believe he was born in Hawaii,” Berg said. “We think he was born in Kenya.”

From The Times-Herald: The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, aims to expose deception and confusion in U.S. politics. Recently, FactCheck.org staffers “touched, examined and photographed” the original birth certificate kept at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago and concluded the document is genuine.

Annenberg? Now where have I heard that name before…

#3 — Obama/Ayers/Annenberg

From National Review: When Obama made his first run for political office, articles in both the Chicago Defender and Hyde Park Herald featured among his qualifications his position as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge — a foundation where Ayers was a founder and guiding force.

Obama assumed the Annenberg board chairmanship only months before his first run for office, almost certainly at the behest of Bill Ayers. With a writ to aid Chicago’s public schools, the Annenberg challenge played a deeply political role in Chicago’s education wars, and as board chairman, Obama clearly aligned himself with Ayers’s radical views on education issues.

With Obama heading up the board and Ayers heading up the other key operating body of the Annenberg Challenge, the two would have had a close working relationship for years, therefore “exchanging ideas on a regular basis”.

# 4 — The Murders of Donald Young, Larry Bland, and Nate Spencer

Three openly gay members of Obama’s church were shot execution-style in the back of the head within 40 days of each other late last year. (See here for a good overview). Investigative reporters from The National Enquirer and The Globe have been the only ones (so far) to write anything concerning this scandal. Normally, these ragsheets are immediately dismissed as garbage, but considering that The National Enquirer was the first to expose the John Edwards affair, maybe they deserve a second look.

Also, it is interesting to note that Larry Sinclair, a man who says he smoked crack and had oral sex with Barack Obama, and had talked to Donald Young, was arrested in June by the Delaware District Attorney whose name happens to be…

#5 — The Biden Connections

…Beau Biden. Name ring a bell? Meet Joe’s son. Is this how you bargain your way into becoming the Vice President, Joe? Nice work, boys.

Previous Political Pyro articles:

Obama’s Bloody Ties
Barack Obama: Power By Any Means

“He’s not black and he can’t represent me, that’s just the bottom line.”
– Minister Robert Poindexter

From Newsbusters 7/30/08:

We are, each year, treated to national media reports on race relations in this country and they invariably discuss white America coming to terms with other races in this country. Very, very rarely does the media ever report on other races coming to terms with white America.

It is not really relevant, frankly, to point out that most black voters are going to vote in droves for Barack Obama. Regardless of his race, black voters would vote for the Democrat. But when you read about Congressman Steve Cohen’s race in Tennessee’s Ninth Congressional District, you really are confronted by both racism and anti-Semitism in a way we rarely think about in this country. And the media is silent. Barack Obama is silent.

From The Jerusalem Post 8/10/08:

The advertisements also led the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who had previously stayed out of the race, to speak out on Thursday against the smears.

“These incendiary and personal attacks have no place in our politics and will do nothing to help the good people of Tennessee,” Obama said in a statement. “It’s time to turn the page on a politics driven by negativity and division so that we can come together to lift up our communities and our country.”

The statement was not an endorsement and did not mention Cohen by name. Cohen’s campaign manager, Jerry Austin, said Thursday he didn’t think it was going to make much difference in the race because by the time it was issued many people either had already voted or weren’t going to hear about it before the polls closed.

Cohen supported Obama during the senator’s primary campaign and spoke on his behalf at an election panel at the Anti-Defamation League’s annual conference last spring.

Nice timing, Barack. Wait until voting day to denounce (in a statement no less, without mentioning names) the racist and anti-Semitic attacks against a Democratic incumbent who has supported you since last Spring… who introduced you at an Anti-Defamation League conference to boot. That’s great loyalty. Great leadership.

But the controversy doesn’t stop there. In 2006, Cohen implied that he wanted to join the Congressional Black Caucus.

He was turned down because he was white.

From Politico 1/22/07:

As a white liberal running in a majority African American district, Tennessee Democrat Stephen I. Cohen made a novel pledge on the campaign trail last year: If elected, he would seek to become the first white member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Now that he’s a freshman in Congress, Cohen has changed his plans. He said he has dropped his bid after several current and former caucus members made it clear to him that whites need not apply.

“I think they’re real happy I’m not going to join,” said Cohen, who succeeded Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., in the Memphis district. “It’s their caucus and they do things their way. You don’t force your way in. You need to be invited.”

Cohen said he became convinced that joining the caucus would be “a social faux pas” after seeing news reports that former Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, had circulated a memo telling members it was “critical” that the group remain “exclusively African-American.”

Other members, including the new chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., and Clay’s son, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., agreed.

“Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. … It’s time to move on,” the younger Clay said. “It’s an unwritten rule. It’s understood. It’s clear.”

The bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, a House aide said, but no non-black member has ever joined.

Post-racial America… How sweet it is.

In an election year that has become increasingly dull since the departure of Hillary Clinton, it seems that the fun is actually getting ramped up again with the introduction of Steve Schmidt into the McCain campaign. Schmidt was one of the architects (along with Karl Rove) of the 2004 George W. Bush re-election campaign that produced some of the sleaziest most entertaining moments in modern campaign history.

It seems Schmidt’s presence in the campaign is lighting a much-needed fire under the asses of the McCain camp the way Maggie Williams did for Hillary with the "kitchen sink". But with the mainstream media so firmly in the tank for The Messiah, providing him with 24-hour non-stop coverage, what else is the man to do for some airtime?

Bob Herbert wrote an opinion piece for The New York Times, Running While Black, slamming the newly invigorated McCain campaign for its latest political ad, "Celebrity". While trying to be critical of McCain’s new tactics, Herbert merely solidifies my earliest assumption that Obama and his media minions have been playing the race card all along. Only now, they are becoming more obvious about it. Here is the opening paragraph to Herbert’s piece:                                           

Gee, I wonder why, if you have a black man running for high public office — say, Barack Obama or Harold Ford — the opposition feels compelled to run low-life political ads featuring tacky, sexually provocative white women who have no connection whatsoever to the black male candidates.

 
You’ve got to be kidding me, Bob. The first thing you think about when you see those two women are the fact that they don’t wear panties? And did you just use the word "slimy" in reference to two women without underwear? The innuendoes are really flying out there, Bob.

Dude, close the laptop, grab your jacket, and procede to the nearest bar. You’ve got some serious internal issues. I suggest you start off with four Martini’s and just keep pounding them till all this blows over. Did you pick up on my subliminal message for you in the previous sentence? That’s right, better find an ATM…