Monthly Archives: October 2008

>OBSERVATION: Obama’s Jewish problem

>Obama has a Jewish problem. They are not voting for the Democrat candidate in traditional numbers. Some say it is this Muslim myth. Well … get real. Barack Obama NOT a Muslim. However, that silly debate takes away from a more serious issue. Okay, Obama may not be a face-the-East, pork rejecting, dress like and actor in a biblical movie Muslim but he IS the most pro Arab candidate for President since the creation of Israel.

Though he pays lip service to a strong and secure Jewish state as a political necessity, and has notable Jewish personalities on his team (including key members the powerful Pritzker family), there is not doubt that Obama is more comfortable with and appreciating of the Arab ambitions in the Middle East.

His popularity in the Arab world is not without justification. From his earliest days, he was surrounded by Muslim influences. He was raised in a Muslim environment. He have visited the Arab enclaves, and conferred with its leaders. He has given encouragement to Arab causes. What little record he has created in his remarkably undocumented life shows his sympathy of Arab aspirations.

His maladroit offer to sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (right) was indicative of Obama’s own belief that he can be a persuasive “friend” to achieve concessions. Of more concern to Jewish-Americans are the concessions Obama is willing to make for “peace in our time.”

Next to African-Americans**, Arab-Americans support Obama in the highest percentages. World Arab leaders have expressed their hope in an Obama victory — even the Arab terrorist factions. Arab money, both domestic and international, legal and illegal, have flowed into the Obama coffers. In this day of world communication, Middle East phone banks have barraged U.S. Arabs with get-out-the-vote calls.

While Obama says he would defend Israel from an unlikely Arab invasion or all-out attack, it is his view on the source of the problems and the complex negotiations required to bring about evenutal peace in the region that is most relevant. Most alarming to the Jewish community is the almost certainty that Obama will change the long-standing American view that
Arab terrorism is the primary problem, with Israel as the victim. Obama’s pre-campaign views are more sympathetic to the hopes and apirations of the

All this has led to an understandable anxiety and concern on the part of American Jews — especially those with deeper emotional commitments to the preservation and security of Israel.

**Whether it is because they share the African continent or due to historic prejdices against Jewish merchants in the inner cities, or both, African-American leaders have been among the most consistent ethnic groups in supporte of Arab positions. If not anti-Semitism, there is certainly a pro-Arab bias in the black culture. This was reflected in Jesse Jackson’s derogatory reference to New York City as “Hymietown.”

Advertisements

>OBSERVATION: Black churches … for the love of God.

>

As a one-time media advisor to the late Mayor Gene Sawyer and as a lover of Gospel music, I volunteered for a duty that others avoided. Sunday after Sunday, I joined the late Mayor in visiting black churches — hitting at least half dozen churches each Sabbath.

In the years since, I have occasionally attended African-American services with friends or been a visiting speaker. More often than not, my wife and young son would join me as the only white church mice to be found among the congregation.

When I traveled with Sawyer, I usually tried to stay inconspicuously in the rear of the church. I say “tried” because many times I was singled out by the preacher and invited to come to the alter to receive a “special” blessing. This usually was about the time for the offertory. I learned to come prepared with a dozen ten dollar bills to drop into the various collection plates.

In one case, my stash proved insufficient. As soon as I dropped a ten dollar donation into the basket, the pastor peered longingly over his glasses into my wallet. With each new Hamilton dropped into the basket I got a hardier “thank you, brother” until he was satisfied that I had tithed appropriately – at about the fifty dollar mark, as I recall.

These experiences in dozens of black churches cause me to now wonder. Were did the Jeremiah Wrights and Michael Pflegers come from? When did the angry racist homilies infect the body of Christ?
Though it was sometimes costly to the pocket book, I cannot recall a time that I did not enjoy and feel uplifted by my attendance. In every black church I attended, I felt the most gracious and loving welcome. My family was made to feel like the most special of guests — not part of some white oppressors. There was a perceptible outpouring of energetic love throughout the congregation. You could feel it in the music, the sermons and the interaction of the people. I never felt uncomfortable. Of course, I never visited Trinity or St. Sabina.
With all the press attention paid to the divisive screeds of Wright, Pfleger and a few other publicity seeking reverends, I hope the public in general will not assume that they represent all the black pastors.

>OP ED: Skinheads and William Ayers

>Thanks to good police work, it appears that two racist skinheads were arrested before they would unleash their heinous terrorist attack on the black community and on democracy, itself, by murdering more than 100 African-Americans, including Senator Barack Obama.

One should keep in mind, however, that the only difference between these degenerates and William Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, is that the latter actually implemented their deadly plans. Their bombs went off, and people died.

I wonder if these hate monger skinheads will also wind up as “distinguished college professors” at prestigious universities one day.

>OBSERVATION: The Ayers apparent.

>

Ayers. Ayers. Ayers. Ayers. So much talk about terrorist cum radical school “reformer” Willam Ayers. Is this relevant? I say “yes,” but poor old John McCain cannot seem to get to the point. He talks about Barack Obama’s friendship with Ayers without pointing to its relevancy. On the other hand, Obama dismisses it as so much old news. So, it appears it is nothning more than the desperate charges about a long ago radical who is now a reformed reformer.

That is NOT the case, at all.

Let’s stick with the facts — first about Ayers. He and his wife, Bernadette Dorhn, certainly were murderious terrorist — not just outspoken radicals. They made bombs to terrify and kill people, and kill people they did. She went to jail for her crimes, and he was spared due to a legal technicalities that so often benefit the wealthy. (His father was Chairman of Commonwealth Edison). In most other nations, there would have been no compassion or “legal technicalities.” They would have been summarily shot for their treasonous crimes.

They are not repentent, rehabilitated or reformed. By their most recent statements, Ayers is a Marxist with an affection of anarchism. He remains hateful of capitalism and the free enterprise system. He belives the United States is a white supremist nation and largely responsible for world violence. He specifically criticizes Christianity and Judism for the problems of the world, without so much a mention of brutal Muslim fundamenalism that is currently terrifying the planet. He believe in unrestricted drug use. His only regret regarding his murderous past is to express sorrow that they did not do more to bring down the U.S. government.

He is not a “school reformer” as the public would think of that appelation. He is not interested in imporving test scores, or assuring quality education to all children. He does not care about a students ability to achieve success in life, or to keep America in the leadership of technological advancement. Ayers’ “reform” is to fundamentally change American education from intellectual excellence and vocational ability to an old Soviet Union model of social and political indoctrination. It is his desire to produce a generation of William Ayers and Bernadette Dorhns to further undermine the American culture in favor of a Marxist world order.

These are not the suspicions of critics or the baseless charges of adversaries. These are recent sentiments flowing directly from Ayers’ own lips.

Through their work together under the Annenberg Grant, Ayers and Obama both pursued the promotion of educational activism at the primary and secondary levels — the introduction of propaganda through teacher education and curriculum changes.

The issue is not why Obama might have found commonality in “paling around” with Ayers. The question is, why did Ayers find Obama so attractive a friend, ally and civic partner? What did the strident self-styled anarchist, Marxist communist, violent foe of American capitalism find so appealing in this well-spoken, young and ambitious political activist?

And why did the politicians, such as Mayor Daley, and so many business leaders bestow the mantel of respectibility on a person who hates what they stand for so fervently? And why would the University of Chicago, proud of its devotion to the Milton Friedman school of economics, add Ayers to its powerful professorial line up? And the same question of Northwesten Univeristy for making convicted felon Bernadette Dorhn a professor of law, of all things. These two to not respresent responsible diversity of thought, but unabated radicalism designed to undermine the American culture through subtefuge and violence. Rather than educators, there only role in acedemia should be as bad examples.

Campaign charges and flippant responses aside, there is a legitimate and disturbing unanswered question regarding the importance of the Ayers/Obama link — more so because it does not appear to be an anomoly. The fact is, Ayers is only one of a series of capitalism hating, America loathing individuals who guided Obama through his formative years. The Obama campaign would have us believe that merely asking these quesitons is racist — and tantamount to accusing Obama of being unpatriotic. That is not an acceptable answer.

>REACT: McClellan endorses Obama … figures.

>After publishing a shameless back-stabbing book about his patron and employer, former George Bush Press Secretary, Scott McClellan (left … oh … that’s a weasel. An honest mistake.), has poked both his faces out from under the rock to endorse Barack Obama.

Why is it that Obama seems to attract the support of such low lifes? I mean … Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, et al. What do these people see in him?

If you have already forgotten who McClellan is … or was … he is the guy you saw explaining George Bush to the press. He was a shoe-licking lackey. Once his fifteen minutes of fame expired, he published an embellished account of his days in the White House. If his harsh criticism were even half true, you have to wonder why he hung around the place until he was booted. Well … now he found a way to add a couple more minutes of fame.

Let me make it clear that I do not think every cross-party endorsement is political treason. Joe Lieberman and Colin Powell have both endorsed the candidate of the “other” party. These are part pragmatic and part heartfelt. McClellan is just a sleaze.

>OBSERVATION: The Chicago-izing of America

>If elected, will Barack Obama save the Chicago Democrat machine? Duh! Of course.

The oldest and arguably most racist and corrupt political machine in American history has been showing signs of a death rattle these days. Thanks to a crusading U.S. Attorney and a growing disenchantment with the point man, Mayor Richard Daley – and the Daley clan, in general – it seems that the political institution launched in the 1930s is tottering.

Most critical has been the loss of patronage leverage. Thanks to the courts and something called the Shakman decree, the Chicago bosses can no longer use government employees as political and personal lackeys. They cannot impose the historic indentured servitude that forced underlings to work precincts and raise political dough. They can no longer safely re-sell government services for campaign contributions.

However, for many years, the law was simply ignored, and monkey business in City Hall continued as usual. That was until a one-term Republican senator, Peter Fitzgerald, refused to play go-along politics in the appointment of a new U.S. Attorney. Over the objections of the good ole boys of both parties, the Senator picked the untouchable Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation).

Now with hundreds of indictments and convictions under his belt, including one governor, a smattering of high profile influence peddlers and Mayor Daley’s closest aides, the machine mischief of the past has come to a screeching halt. In a complete reversal of polarity, the endorsement of an alderman today will most likely kill a job applicant’s potential for a city job.

In addition to the structural problem, Chicago is transforming from a “city that works” to a community beset with critical financial, social and infrastructure problems. What is knows locally as “the corruption tax” has placed Cook County and Chicago in the stratosphere of taxing municipalities. Yet, to the chagrin of the public, children still go uneducated and potholes go unfilled.

Enter President Obama. The irony in having an African-American (even half) breath life into the white-controlled political machine of Chicago is not lost on the locals. Obama would not be the first “window dressing” black political figure to provide a measure of politically correct diversity to the racist machine – gaining a personal piece of the political pie while keeping the greater black community in perma-subservient underclass status.

Despite promises to the contrary, you can rest assured that Obama will most certainly dismiss Patrick Fitzgerald and appoint a patsy recommended by Illinois’ strident partisan U.S. Senator Dick Durbin. Daley, who some believe could be indicted, himself, will breath the loudest sigh of relief. Once again, the effect of reform laws and court decisions will be thwarted by lack of investigation, enforcement and prosecution.

The city’s and state’s financial problems will be provided financial opiates from the federal vault which will temporarily mask the surface symptoms of the mismanaged local economy. Obama & Co. will open the federal treasury to whatever his political padrones need. Chicago’s inefficiencies and costs of corruption will be plastered over with cold cash courtesy of the national taxpayers.

Like Lazarus, an Obama presidency could raise Chicago’s 2016 Olympic bid from the dead. While there would be some entertainment value for the people of Chicago – offset by the frustrations attendant to extreme overcrowding – the real winners would be the political insiders who would not only get the best seats at every venue, but would pocket enormous amounts of money from every imaginable skim and scam.

Whatever the Chicago machine has lost in terms of the power over local patronage will be more than made up from the mother lode of jobs available on the federal payrolls. Chicago cronies and family members will be filling moving vans heading east within days of an Obama victory. At least two Cabinet positions will be handed to Chicago Democrats.

With the trifecta of Obama in the White House, Dick Durbin one step away from the top job in the Senate and Rahm Emmanuel as heir-apparent to the speakership of the U.S. House, there is no doubt that the Chicago Democrat machine will be the proverbial kid in grandpa’s candy story.

>CORRECTION: Obama … a man of letters

>My! My! My! It does not pay to be too academic in the middle of a highly charged presidential contest. A friend said he was surprised to see me – a most tolerant fellow — call Barack Obama a Communist. Well, I didn’t. Okay, I did … but I didn’t. Let me explain.

In a previous blog, I did imply that Barack Obama had communist instincts. My reference is to the small “c” variety — a person who believes in a controlled economy and government interventionalism in attempting to guarantee economic and social equity. Mine is the academic reference. It defines a form of socialism.

I am NOT suggesting that Obama is a capital “C” Communist in the traditional of the Cold War definition – a subversive agent of some adversarial Communist nation. Not at all my intent.

While communists and Communists lay claim to the same philosophy, they are not necessarily the same people. In fact, the big “C” Communists have never lived up to the small “c” communist doctrines and philosophies as offered up by Karl Marx and others. Karl was a lower case communist, who got a lot of lip service from the upper case crowd.

One might argue that Obama is more of a little “c” communist than even the old style big “C” Communists. In fact, in Russia and China today, the upper case Communists still rule but lower case communism is as dead as the proverbial door nail. So, while Obama talks the talk – small “c” variety — I suspect if he becomes President, he will not walk the walk. At least I hope not.

So … I want to make it very clear that I do not think Obama is one of those big “C” commies who were plotting – and probably still are – the downfall of America. He is no more an upper case Communist than he is an upper case Muslim. I know from Pastor Jeremiah Wright that Obama is a capital “C” Christian even if he has been a long standing member of a small “c” church that functions more like a little “c” cult. You know … that racist black liberation theology stuff.

I just think Obama may be too influenced by all three of the little c’s — communist, church and cult — to make me feel good about him leading our nation as a capital “C” Commander-in-Chief.

My concern about Obama is heightened as we move down the alphabet. While there is no doubt that he is an elitist upper case “D” Democrat, I fear he is not at all a common lower case “d” democrat. He comes from Chicago and there are no little “d” democrats to be found among the big “D” Democrats who rule of the one party Windy City machine like the big “C” Communists rule over China. Furthermore, most communists – whether little “c” or big “C” are way not small “d” democrats.

So … these are a few of the reasons why I hope and pray that Obama does not take up residency in … you know … D.C.

I hope this clears things up.

>OP ED: It’s not racism, stupid

>Barack Obama’s standing in the poles is testimony to the fact that non-black America is not nearly as racist as the Jesse Jackson’s of the world would contend to maintain their relevancy. Having now shown the significant racial tolerance of the non-black communities, it is time to focus on Barack Obama, the man. Should HE be the next president? (<– The "he" is capitalized for emphasis, not for the purpose of deification, as many might assume.) Had it not been for the economy tanking, and panic running amok, that answer would have been a decided “no.” The non-racial reasons for rejecting the Obama candidacy are still valid, however. He possesses five qualities that are totally wrong for America.

1. Despite the sweet talk and pleasant demeanor, Obama is among the most radical left-wingers to be seriously considered for the presidency. His proposals for massive government programs, here and abroad, and redistribution of the wealth from the productive sector to the non-productive community is a socialist agenda by any measure. It sets America on the terminal path most recently traveled and abandoned in failure by the old Soviet Union and cold war China. His redistribution of wealth comments are distrubingly akin to the language of Karl Marx — and why not? The policies are disturbingly similar pure communist ideology.

2. He is a radical internationalist, who would realign our foreign policy toward greater accommodation with the America-hating Islamic fundamentalist at the expense of Israel, yield elements of our sovereignty to international agencies and withdraw from the Reagan-launched era of dedication to world democratization. There is a reason why those who wish to ring down the curtain on “the American era” have expressed universal hope and encouragement for an Obama presidency.

3. Obama’s personal history of associations with radical anti-American extremists, from childhood to just before his pole numbers started rising, is significant to understanding what drives his thinking. From the early education at the knee of his proclaimed American-loathing Communist family and childhood mentors, to the racist political foundation of liberation/revolution theology preached by his father figure pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and to the propaganda-as-education philosophy of unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, Obama has been consistently cradled and influenced by the haters of the successful American capitalist system – those who would rather wage class warfare on the rich than bring a just war to the doorsteps of murderous tyrants.

4. He brings to office, albeit in a polished form, the lust for raw power exemplified in the Chicago political machine — the wellspring of his political life. He is a graduate of arguably the most corrupt political environment in America. The support he has received from, and the support he has given to, friends and allies wallowing in local political chicanery strips away the flimsy mask of reform he dons on the national stage and belies the scripted lines in his stage role as a small “d” democrat. The Chicago way of political control is to constantly change the rules to increase partisan power and advantage, and if that is insufficient, to simply break the rules to maintain power. Obama’s arrogant radical liberalism — characterized by a twisted sense superiority and noblise oblige — coupled with a Chicago-style contempt for citizen participation, gives him an already discernibly unhealthy lust for personal power — and the instinct to pursue it.

5. Obama would come to the presidency as the most woefully inexperienced and untested candidate in American history. His simplistic idealism is at once charming and dangerous. In addition to his misguided instincts, Obama brings a naïveté to the presidency that makes America more vulnerable — politically, diplomatically and physically — to the advances, actions and assaults of our avowed adversaries. Voting for the recordless Obama is an act of faith. He is the proverbial “pig in a poke” – lipstick notwithstanding.

6. Finally, there is a matter of integrity. With enormous financial advantage, Obama has been able to undermine the credibility of the Republican team. Yet, much of his image is founded in lies. He would have us believe that after 20 years of intimate association with Trinity Church, and the fiery Jeremiah Wright, he had never “heard a disparaging word.” His latter day answers, on such matters of abortion and taxation, stand in stark contrast, yet he is not challenged on these discrepancies. He denies his days as a slum lord in partnership with the now indicted Tony Rezko. Obama is not what he appears.

Hillary Clinton got it right when she said that Obama’s national launch was on the basis of one skillfully crafted and presented speech. He has remained aloft on the same vacuous propellant. He is a spellbinding orator, as any snake oil salesman must be. A President Obama will undoubtedly be a great disappointment – either to those who did not fully appreciate his commitment to a radical world socialist agenda or to those who will watch the malleable Chicago machine President again re-invent himself to accommodate the moderating influence and pragmatism of the American system. Is he a Roosevelt or a Clinton? Stay tuned.

>REACT: ACORN – another left wing nut?

>The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) was where Barack Obama plied some his community organizer talents. Alas, it seems this is just another relationship that requires more ‘splaining. Apparently, the mission of ACORN is to advance the flagrantly corrupt election practices of the Chicago Democrat machine to the national stage.

Never in American history has there been a better funded and better organized effort to pack the voter roles across the nation with fraudulent “voters.” The audacity (to use the word of the day) of the group in filing phony voter registrations is beyond belief. Their efforts are clearly coordinated with the Obama key states strategy. And why not? The Obama campaign have this so-called independent group $800,000 directly.

NOW GET THIS!! Obama also supported legislation that would exempt ACORN from Truth-in-Lending laws to protect homeowners from unscrupulous and crooked mortgage “middlemen” SUCH AS ACORN!!!

Just in case you missed the point: These are the people and the liberal Democrat policies that created the housing bubble that recently burst, triggering the worldwide credit crisis.

ACORN has become nothing less than the vote stealing wing of the Obama campaign — paid for by the illegal contribution wing of the Obama campaign, a cadre of liberal fat cats and YOU, the victimized taxpayer.

All this comes at a time Democrat lawmakers throughout the nation have unhinged ballot protections to every extent possible through legislation that they claim was designed to make it easer for more folks to vote.

Well … there is some truth to that. Thanks to their efforts, it is now easier for dead people to vote. Fictional people (yes, even Mickey Mouse) can now vote. Illegal aliens can vote. Under aged children can vote. Prisoners can vote. Those locked-up in mental institutions can vote. And even nonexistent people can vote. Not only can these ineligibles vote, they can vote as often as they please. The can vote at the same time in different polling places. They do not even have to go to the polling place. In fact, they do not even have to be aware of the fact that they voted. All thanks to the efforts of ACORN.

Opening the door to this new opportunity for election tampering is ACORN. By most counts, they have registered, or attempted to register, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of the aforementioned ineligibles. They are to elections what bootleggers were to prohibition.

Under Obama’s starched white shirt is the heart of a true Chicago machine Democrat.

Time to be afraid again. Be very afraid.

>OBSERVATION: Will Obama fail to win?

>

Like the race between the tortoise and the hare, Barack Obama can out sprint the lumbering John McCain any day of the week. Thus, McCain was right when he said that the media had now written him off. Aside from a few columnists, the news corps, entertainment-as-news comics and left-wing talk show jabber mouths are back to gloating over their vision of Obama hopping over the finish line by a wide margin.

I have reluctantly surrendered to the possibility that Obama can now win, but I have not written off McCain just yet – not by a longshot.

The most interesting bewilderment about this election is why Obama is not slamdunking McCain into some neo-Goldwater status. McCain is portrayed as a geezer – and a cranky one at that. The economy has tanked. The war drags on. George Bush continues to be the increasingly unpopular dunce-in-charge. McCain and his campaign cannot seem to maintain footing on the slippery ledge of the political chasm. The veep candidate is made out to be a dizzy blond slapped with a pseudo-scandal. It even appears that the less-popular-than-Bush congressional democrats are poised for gains in both chambers.

Then there is the money. Obama, by virtue of flip flopping on public funding, is proving that his devotion to campaign finance reform is as fragile as anything and that the entire concept is fatally flawed. However, his Machiavellian switch-a-roo, augmented by some very questionable money bundling schemes, means the Illinois senator enjoys a substantial financial advantage.

Finally, there is Obama himself. A gifted speaker. Tall. Movie star handsome, with an engaging smile. Kennedyesque. He can sell anything – or more appropriately, nothing. McCain, but virtue of his age and handicaps, has the movements of a hand puppet, with a voice like the mad scientist in a horror flick.

Yet … there are those polls. No matter the situation, Obama cannot seem to breakaway from McCain. They are still sweating heavily in the Obama camp – and well they should. First, the polls are probably inaccurate. The current 10 point lead Obama sees in Ohio, for example, is just bad polling. That state will not be a blow out for Obama, if he even carries it at all.

Then there is the tendency for the Republican candidate to pick up the lion’s share of the independent votes. The notion some have, that “independent” is synonymous with “liberal,” is just wrong.

This election may see the nationalization of the Bradley Effect, which suggests that African American candidates (at least at the gubernatorial level) enjoy significantly higher polling numbers than vote totals. There is every reason to assume that this will be even more dramatic in the presidential campaign, since there has been so much accusation of racism against those who do not support Obama.

From the get-go, everyone assumed that this would be another in our modern series of close presidential elections, where anything can happen. That has not changed. Give McCain a couple good days and/or Obama a couple bad days, and the dynamic of this race completely changes.

There is always talk of an “October Surprise.” Maybe we have seen it, but cannot recognize it at the moment. Perhaps the October Surprise with how far off the current polling is. I can only say… if the polls are proven to be way off base, the truth will not be to good news for Obama.