The Obama Thugocracy

Michael Barone presents a cold, hard look at the likely shape of American politics upon the possible accession of Barack Obama to the presidency: "The Coming Obama Thugocracy":

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.

That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign emails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Kurtz had been researching Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago -- papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.

Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest emails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.

Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Obama's ties to Ayers.

These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals....

Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.

Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that used to pride themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.

Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech that they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims that this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.

Also, see the short film, "October Surprise," a devasting indictment of Obama's refusal to provide a copy of his birth certificate to Philip Berg, who has filed a lawsuit challenging Obama's citizenship eligibility to serve as president of the United States.

Assassination Politics?

Barack Obama continues to hold a sizable lead in Gallup's daily tracking numbers, but the Democrats nevertheless are reacting with abject paranoia to the recent news of angry GOP supporters at John McCain rallies.

Apparently, the McCain/Palin team is guilty of stoking "hate and fear" among the conservative base, and the visceral emotions seen at the McCain events allegedly indicates that Barack Obama is now at risk of being assassinated:

How far will McCain and Palin go to get what they want? Are they willing to incite violent behavior? The fringe of the right-wing does not need to be encouraged or supported. They simply need to be pushed to the outskirts of civilized society. Sure they can vote, but KKK members can vote too. Best not to pander to hate in a country where hate has already caused so much horror.

And here's this from the New York Times:

IF you think way back to the start of this marathon campaign, back when it seemed preposterous that any black man could be a serious presidential contender, then you remember the biggest fear about Barack Obama: a crazy person might take a shot at him.

Some voters told reporters that they didn’t want Obama to run, let alone win, should his very presence unleash the demons who have stalked America from Lincoln to King. After consultation with Congress, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, gave Obama a Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in our history — in May 2007, some eight months before the first Democratic primaries.

“I’ve got the best protection in the world, so stop worrying,” Obama reassured his supporters. Eventually the country got conditioned to his appearing in large arenas without incident (though I confess that the first loud burst of fireworks at the end of his convention stadium speech gave me a start). In America, nothing does succeed like success. The fear receded.

Until now. At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets, are actually something new in a campaign that has seen almost every conceivable twist. They are alarms. Doing nothing is not an option.

All’s fair in politics. John McCain and Sarah Palin have every right to bring up William Ayers, even if his connection to Obama is minor, even if Ayers’s Weather Underground history dates back to Obama’s childhood, even if establishment Republicans and Democrats alike have collaborated with the present-day Ayers in educational reform. But it’s not just the old Joe McCarthyesque guilt-by-association game, however spurious, that’s going on here. Don’t for an instant believe the many mindlessly “even-handed” journalists who keep saying that the McCain campaign’s use of Ayers is the moral or political equivalent of the Obama campaign’s hammering on Charles Keating.

What makes them different, and what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.

By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete. It is stoked further by the repeated invocation of Obama’s middle name by surrogates introducing McCain and Palin at these rallies. This sleight of hand at once synchronizes with the poisonous Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail blasts and shifts the brand of terrorism from Ayers’s Vietnam-era variety to the radical Islamic threats of today.

That’s a far cry from simply accusing Obama of being a guilty-by-association radical leftist. Obama is being branded as a potential killer and an accessory to past attempts at murder. “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family” was how a McCain press release last week packaged the remembrance of a Weather Underground incident from 1970 — when Obama was 8.

We all know what punishment fits the crime of murder, or even potential murder, if the security of post-9/11 America is at stake. We all know how self-appointed “patriotic” martyrs always justify taking the law into their own hands.

Especially precious is the "Weimar" reference (Republicans are Nazis, remember), but read the whole thing for more (John McCain and Sarah Palin have apparently assumed the Jesse Helms mantle).

And the Democrats are ahead?

These assassination smears are coming precisely when Obama's held his longest sustained lead all year, and when there's even been some speculation that the Illinois Democrat might see a reverse Bradley effect working in his favor.

We've still got over three weeks of campaigning, of course, so we'll see even more unhinged rants against GOP partisans in the days ahead. Nothing surprises me any more.

Related: "Stop The Hate....Remember The Worst Times In America Are Better Than The Best Times Elsewhere!"

Our Sacred Duty as Parents

A couple of months back, precinct walkers for the Yes on 8 campaign knocked on my door. I told them that I favored the measure and I gave them my card, indicating that my department often hosts speaker forums and that faculty members invite speakers for classroom visits.

I was contacted by a representative of the campaign, and a gentleman came to discuss the Yes on 8 position in my classes. It was an interesting day, with some strong reactions among students, from both sides of the issue, but I was pleased that the kids had a chance to discuss the proposition.

In any case, I thought I'd share that story to go along with this incredibly moving video above, via Political Pistachio, featuring Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and his interview the Parker family in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal. The Parker's kindergartner brought home a "diversity" booklet that featured treatments of homosexual marriages as normal. The Parkers were shaken not only by this loss of moral guidance over their kids, but also the state's reaction to their request for parental notification.

It turns out that the measure is now gaining support in public opinion, due to the increased television advertising on the Yes on 8 side (a yes vote would amend the state's constitution to authorize marriage solely between one man and one woman).

See also the Yes on 8 website, Protect Marriage.

The Question of Barack Obama's Socialism

Rick Moran argues that Barack Obama is not a socialist and he says he detests "conservatives throwing around the words “socialism” and “Marxism” when it comes to Obama."

Well, with due respect to Rick, he taking a jab at me in his post!

Actually, while I don't think Obama's an orthodox Marxist-Leninist in the Soviet sense, I do think he's socialist in terms of "welfare state socialism," a form of social democracy that advocates a heavy role for the state in a mixture of government planning, market regulation, and social provision.

Such democratic welfare state socialism is in fact institutionalized in the U.S., particularly in New Deal-era programs like Social Security, agricultural subsidies, workers' compensation, welfare (public assistance), and deposit insurance. Because these policies have become institutionalized and expanded with bipartisan support, we tend not the think of them in terms of "socialism."

What makes Barack Obama different, and why it's not inaccurate to speak of him as ideologically socialist, is that by background and inclination he'd like to expand the American welfare state toward the European model, in countries like Denmark or Germany.

Obama speaks in terms of socialist ideology: He stated during the primaries that "the chance to get a college education is the birthright of every American," and during the primaries, and again in Tuesday's presidential debate, he argued that health care should be a right.

As Investor's Business Daily points out, Obama's essentially a collectivist in outlook:

It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.

Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.

Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.

Among his proposed "investments":

• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.

• "Free" college tuition.

• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).

• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").

• "Free" job training (even for criminals).

• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).

• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.

• More subsidized public housing.

• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."

• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.

That's just for starters — first-term stuff.

Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress.

There's also the question of Obama's ideological training and past associations. In many respects, one is defined by the company they keep and the activities they pursue. We often hear criticism of the attacks on Obama's past as "guilt by association," but it's not just a radical aquiantance here or an early Marxist mentor there: It's the over-time acclimation to and identification with doctrinaire socialist ideology and practice.

As Jawa Report notes, regarding the controversy surrounding Obama's past relationships:

Aren't we seeing a pattern here? One interaction with one old communist isn't particularly troubling. A handful of sporadic interactions with a handful of radical left-wingers may not be particularly troubling. But a lifelong pattern of extended associations and alliances with scores of fringe, America-hating radicals is very, very troubling indeed.

Just to be clear:

It's not just that Barack Obama's father was a Marxist economist or that his mother Stanley came from radical far-left roots.

It's not just that Obama's childhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis was a famous communist poet.

It's not just that Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor, counselor and spiritual mentor of 20 years is a racist, America-hating radical.

It's not just that Michael Phleger, Obama's other spiritual mentor is every bit as extreme as Wright.

It's not just that his wife Michelle has never been really that proud of America, or that she thinks this country is "mean".

It's not just that Obama refused to wear a flag, or that he refused to salute it during the national anthem.

It's not just that Obama's political and financial benefactor William Ayers is an unrepentant radical socialist terrorist.

It's not just that Bernadine Dohrn regrets that she didn't kill more people back in the 1960s.

It's not just that Alice Palmer, Obama's political mentor in Chicago, was a communist propagandist.

It's not just that Obama was a member of the radical socialist New Party or that he ran as a candidate for public office under their far-left platform.

It's not just that Obama was an agitator, trainer and attorney for the corrupt and radical-left ACORN.

None of these facts, by itself, tells you that much about Barack Obama. A reasonable person should, however, be able to look at this motley crew of left-wing communists and America-haters, realize that Barack Obama's rolodex is a veritable Who's Who of American Socialism, be very, very disturbed by that fact and ask some very probing questions about WHO Barack Obama is, WHAT he believes, and WHY this gang of radical America-haters considers Barack Obama such a good friend.

Thus, in both policy and associations, it's clearly not unreasonable to identify Barack Obama as socialist, and not just of the democratic welfare state variety.

If elected, the Illinois Senator may very well take American government further to the left than in any time in U.S. history, not just in terms of market regulation, but in the fullest sense of the democratic socialist model of European-style welfare states.

Dow Drops $8.4 Trillion of Wealth!

Each morning, as I watch the news, read the papers, and write my posts, I'm reminded constantly that this is the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression."

It remains to be seen if we'll ever have another crisis on par with the collapse of capitalism in the 1930s (see Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker, for example, "We're Not Headed for a Depression").

That said, I might as well admit that I've been in a bit of political funk over the news. The ongoing market turmoil is killing the GOP's chances in November. There's no other way to spin it ... no matter how damaging are Barack Obama's ties to each and every left-wing oppositional group under the sun.

This morning's Wall Street Journal, with yet another banner headline, captured the political implications of economic crisis: "Market's 7-Day Rout Leaves U.S. Reeling":

Stocks fell for the seventh straight trading day on Thursday, continuing what amounts to a slow-motion crash that has pulled the market down more than 20% over that brief period.

On its way down, the Dow Jones Industrial Average broke through another milestone, closing below 9000 for the first time since 2003, wiping out the bulk of the gains from the last bull market. The decline leaves America in one of its worst bear markets in decades, a slump that is triggering comparisons to long-running declines of the 1930s and 1970s.

Thursday's decline - the 11th largest in percentage terms in the Dow's history - put the stock market either in, or nearly in, a crash. A common definition of a crash is a 20% decline in a single day or several days. The Dow's crash in 1987 was 22.6% in one day. The 1929 crash was back-to-back declines of 12.8% and 11.7%.

On my way to work each day, or after I drop off my boy at elementary school, I look around, taking in all the people hustling to their jobs, all the moms strolling the babies and kissing their little ones goodbye, and all of the beautiful landscaping on all of the fabulous homes that line the drives of nearby neighborhoods in suburban Orange County.

And then I say to myself: "A depression does not look like this."

Indeed, some economists argue that the banking crisis will not bring down the U.S. economy - that indeed, the fundamentals are sound (see, Professor Casey Mulligan, "An Economy You Can Bank On").

It's mass psychology that's going to matter, however, and people are feeling the stress. A period of three and a half weeks remains a long time in politics. But if we keep getting daily doses of market declines, while consumers and homeowners stress over inflation and dwindling balances on 401k statements, not too much else is going to matter.

Graphic Credit: Wall Street Journal

Baghdad Walls Come Down Amid Greater Security

Iraq has been off the political radar of late, except for the cheerleaders of terror, who applaud every McClatchy piece of yellow journalism spinning the residual dangers in the region.

The New York Times, also a ringleader of antiwar opposition, does achieve a burst of journalistic objectivity once in a while, for example, in its piece today, "As Fears Ease, Baghdad Sees Walls Tumble":

Market by market, square by square, the walls are beginning to come down. The miles of hulking blast walls, ugly but effective, were installed as a central feature of the surge of American troops to stop neighbors from killing one another.

“They protected against car bombs and drive-by attacks,” said Adnan, 39, a vegetable seller in the once violent neighborhood of Dora, who argues that the walls now block the markets and the commerce that Baghdad needs to thrive. “Now it is safe.”

The slow dismantling of the concrete walls is the most visible sign of a fundamental change here in the Iraqi capital. The American surge strategy, which increased the number of United States troops and contributed to stability here, is drawing to a close. And a transition is under way to the almost inevitable American drawdown in 2009.

There are now more than 148,000 United States troops in Iraq, down from the peak of around 170,000 a year ago, and President Bush has accepted the military’s recommendation to remove 8,000 more by February.

Iraqis are already taking on many of the tasks the Americans once performed, raising great hopes that the country will progress on its own but also deep fears of failure.

On Oct. 1, the Sunni-dominated Awakening movement, widely credited with helping restore order to neighborhoods that were among the most deadly, passed from the American to the Iraqi government payroll in Baghdad. There is deep mutual mistrust between the new employer and many of its new employees, many of whom are former insurgents.

Another element of the transition, which has attracted far less notice than the Awakening transfer, is the effort by the Iraqi Army to begin turning over neighborhoods to the paramilitary National Police. In the future, its officers, too, will leave and be replaced by regular police officers.

All three moves mark a transition to an era in which Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government seeks more control over its own military and sway over America’s.

“The Iraqi security forces are now able to protect Iraq,” said Joaidi Nahim Mahmoud Arif, a National Police sergeant in Dora, in southern Baghdad. “They will depend on themselves above all.”

In dozens of interviews across Baghdad, it is evident that while open hostilities have calmed, beneath the surface many Sunnis and Shiites continue to harbor deep mistrust.

If the changes work as hoped, it will be a huge step toward restoring normal life in Baghdad. Each move, however, has its pitfalls. Awakening members could return to insurgent activity. Bombers could take advantage of streets without walls. The National Police, long accused of being sectarian, could abuse its new positions.

American commanders concede the risks but contend that the changes are worthwhile, given the potential payoff.

“We’ve got to balance that: security with economic concerns,” said Lt. Col. Tim Watson, commander of the Second Battalion, Fourth Infantry, attached to the First Brigade Combat Team, Fourth Infantry Division, for Baghdad.

But commanders acknowledged that the cost of failure would be high. Referring to the Awakening transfer, Colonel Watson’s boss, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, said, “If the project were to fail, these guys would be out on the street, angry.”

“Al Qaeda in Iraq will be recruiting them,” he said.

That sounds reasonable to me, and I'd suggest these points argue in favor of a substantial residual deployment for some time to come (60 to 70 thousand troops would be my preference).

That said, for the last few years war critics cried, "when will the Iraqis stand up?!!"

It's happening now.Things are going to be rough for some time, but defeatists have long been proven wrong, and the American public has for all intent and purposes accepted an American victory in Iraq (a majority says things are going well), and folks are ready to shift gears a bit, without jeopardizing the gains so far made by the U.S.

See also, Jules Crittenden, "The Forgotten War."

Visualizing Memeorandum

Memeorandum is a really cool blog aggregator, so cool, in fact, I wonder if blogging would be as fun without it.

Yet lately I've been seeing left-wing blogs getting a preponderance of attention, especially on the "featured posts" sidebar. With the exception of Hot Air, the featured links have been to pro-Obama lefties overwhelmingly - and over and over again. It's seemed so bad I was thinking folks like the nihilist Newshoggers were paying kickbacks for the traffic.

Well, it turns out that waxy.org's got a cool study posted, graphically indicating the political biases found at Memeorandum (but not necessarily of Memeorandum):

Like the rest of the world, I've been completely obsessed with the presidential election and nonstop news coverage. My drug of choice? Gabe Rivera's Memeorandum, the political sister site of Techmeme, which constantly surfaces the most controversial stories being discussed by political bloggers.

While most political blogs are extremely partisan, their biases aren't immediately obvious to outsiders like me. I wanted to see, at a glance, how conservative or liberal the blogs were without clicking through to every article.

With the help of del.icio.us founder Joshua Schachter, we used a recommendation algorithm to score every blog on Memeorandum based on their linking activity in the last three months. Then I wrote a Greasemonkey script to pull that information out of Google Spreadsheets, and colorize Memeorandum on-the-fly. Left-leaning blogs are blue and right-leaning blogs are red, with darker colors representing strong biases.

Waxy notes that the model measures linking patterns, not necessarily political bias:

The colors don't necessarily represent each blogger's personal views or biases. It's a reflection of their linking activity. The algorithm looks at the stories that blogger's linked to before, relative to all other bloggers, and groups them accordingly. People that link to things that only conservatives find interesting will be classified as bright red, even if they are personally moderate or liberal, and vice-versa. The algorithm can't read minds, so don't be offended if you feel misrepresented. It's only looking at the data.

The tech mechanics of their model are pretty accurate in any case, as we can see the ideological identification of the blogs highlighted as realistic. American Power is highlighted in light red in the screen-shot above, so that's kind of cool to be captured in all of this hypothesizing.

Note how on the Brooks piece at top, lefty blogs hammered the point like blood-sucking vampires; meanwhile, conservatives took after the Obama socialist documents piece like a pack of hungry wolves. That's the way it is in the political blogosphere, as I noted previously.

Waxy's got script for download availble, to highlight partisan colors in individual browsers.

But my suggestion is for political bloggers to take advantage of Memeorandum itself, reading and linking to it aggressively when writing.

That's how aspiring political commentators will get their stuff noticed - you'll be a "playa"!

ACORN Spells Trouble for Obama

The full extent of ACORN's corruption and radicalism is on display today, with the news that the organization filed thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms in Indiana, and has bribed individuals into submitting multiple or fraudulent voter registration cards in Ohio and elsewhere:

ACORN is under investigation in Ohio and at least eight other states - including Missouri, where the FBI said it's planning to look into potential voter fraud - for over-the-top efforts to get as many names as possible on the voter rolls regardless of whether a person is registered or eligible.

It's even under investigation in Bridgeport, Conn., for allegedly registering a 7-year-old girl to vote, according to the State Elections Enforcement Commission.

Meanwhile, a federal judge yesterday ordered Ohio's Secretary of State to verify the identity of newly registered voters by matching them with other government documents. The order was in response to a Republican lawsuit unrelated to the ACORN probe in Cuyahoga County, in which at least three people, including Johnson, have been subpoenaed.

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign has begun to develop a line of attack on Obama's ties to ACORN, starting with its new 90-second video spot outlining the Illinois Senator's ties to the group:

Here's the text:

ANNCR: Who is Barack Obama? A man with “a political baptism performed at warp speed.” Vast ambition.

After college, he moved to Chicago. Became a community organizer. There, Obama met Madeleine Talbot, part of the Chicago branch of ACORN. He was so impressive that he was asked to train the ACORN staff.

What did ACORN in Chicago engage in? Bullying banks. Intimidation tactics. Disruption of business. ACORN forced banks to issue risky home loans. The same types of loans that caused the financial crisis we’re in today.

No wonder Obama’s campaign is trying to distance him from the group, saying, “Barack Obama Never Organized with ACORN.” But Obama’s ties to ACORN run long and deep. He taught classes for ACORN. They even endorsed him for President.

But now ACORN is in trouble.

REPORTER: There are at least 11 investigations across the country involving thousands of potentially fraudulent ACORN forms.

ANNCR: Massive voter fraud. And the Obama campaign paid more than $800,000 to an ACORN front for get out the vote efforts.

Pressuring banks to issue risky loans. Nationwide voter fraud.

Barack Obama. Bad judgment. Blind ambition. Too risky for America.

Obama's ACORN relationship is indeed damaging, but it remains to be seen how the Obama connection plays out in public opinion.

Barack Obama's Born Alive Cover-Up

Here's the new ad spot from the National Right to Life Committee, which details the scope of Barack Obama's cover-up of his consistent opposition to born alive infant protection legislation:

See the "Fact Check" piece referred to in the video, "Obama and 'Infanticide'."

Barack Obama, aka Senator Infanticide, will not apologize for his deceit.

The Illinois Senator disrespects the sanctity of life - he's the ultimate abortion extremist, and his evolving position on abortion is just one more confirmation that's he's America's stealth candidate.

Related: "Killed Abortion Survivor Finally Gets Funeral."

Barack Obama's ACORN Cover-Up

The unraveling of Barack Obama, America's stealth candidate, continues this morning with new evidence confirming the shady Chicago socialist's ties to ACORN, the radical community rights organization:

While Barack Obama's connection with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has not gone entirely unreported, it has not been fully explained. Most media background pieces simply note Obama's involvement in a 1995 lawsuit on behalf of ACORN. Obama's own website, as well as most major media, fail to reveal the full depth and extent of his relationship with the organization.

Attempts to hide evidence of Obama's involvement with ACORN have included wiping the web clean of potentially damaging articles that had appeared, and were previously publicly accessible. Unfortunately, those behind the attempted cover-up failed to realize that in today's day and age, nothing disappears forever. There also exists another layer of the web, the hidden web, which is full of information included in proprietary scholarly databases where these very same "missing" articles can be easily uncovered.

See the full story at the link.

Barack Obama's campaign website continues to lie and deny the truth about his involvement and association with ACORN. No matter how many times you say it, it does not make it true. The facts do not lie, Senator Obama. It's time to come clean and tell the truth, and it's time for the American people to demand it.

Public opinion polls show Obama sustaining his lead in national and state surveys. The elecion will be tight going into the final week, but it's safe to say now that the accession of an Obama administration in Washington will see the most election of the most secretive candidate to the White House in American history.

Also, see Obama's "Fight the Smears" cover-up page, "Barack Obama Never Organized with ACORN."

Photo Credit: The Cleveland Leader

Cancer Risk is Barack Obama's Latest Stealth Secret

CNN reports that Barack Obama, a cigarette smoker who continues to light up (after failing to quit), is at risk of contracting cancer.

Obama's smoking is considered an "accelerator" of serious disease. What is more, the Illinois Senator's family history puts him particularly at risk: Obama's mother died of ovarian cancer and his grandfather was afflicted with cancer of the prostate.

Note that John McCain, himself a cancer survivor, has released 1,100 pages of medical documentation on his health, and he has spoken forthrightly and publically on the governmental implications of his recovery.

Obama, on the other hand, refuses to release his medical records.

At 47 years-old, it seems counterintuitive that the younger candidate would be stonewalling the press on matters of great national significance. But as many commentators have observed, Obama has run the most secretive presidential campaign since the smoking-gun administration of Richard Nixon in the '70s.

From birth certificates to "my Muslim faith" to William Ayers to ACORN, Barack Obama is the ultimate stealth candidate.

The American people deserve more than the wool pulled over their eyes by a corrupt Chicago machine politician and closet radical, one who is enabled by a liberal, partisan press intent to install in office the first black president in American history.

Barack Obama's Moral Cowardice

I shouldn't be amazed, but I can't help it.

The left's extreme reaction to John McCain has gotten to the point of calling him a coward.

For some time, I thought Andrew Sullivan had taken the cake for the most unhinged Obama backer on the left, but frankly, Josh Marshall - now attacking Senator John McCain for "moral cowardice" - has gone so far overboard in the unscrupulous sea of nihilism that authorities are calling off the search:

The image is coming into focus. Even McCain's confidants are now suggesting that it was his anger and frustration with Obama that led him to embrace Steve Schmidt's Willie Horton-on-Steroids campaign for the White House. And whether it's the appearance before the Des Moines Register Editorial board or his tense refusal to make eye contact during the first presidential debate, I don't think many people would deny at this point that McCain's hostility and contempt for Obama -- what even Wolf Blitzer calls his "disdain" -- is palpable.

After the first debate many people wondered aloud whether it was hostility and contempt or fear and intimidation that kept McCain from looking Obama in the face even once. But with two weeks and more evidence to consider, it is clear that it was both: Hostility that is magnified by the person's mortifying inability to face the person who inspires it. That's the kind of unchanneled, clogged up anger that makes you unsteady, that makes you make mistakes.

McCain's moral cowardice has been one of the subtexts of this campaign ever since he wound up the nomination and turned his attention to Barack Obama. But I did not realize it would reveal itself in such a physical dimension.

Notice, first, how genuinely dumb this is: Either McCain disdains Obama (whereby the emotional reflex would be an urge to punch the Chicago socialist) or he's afraid of him.

Marshall can't get his attacks straight: All along McCain's been allegedly contemptuous of Obama (and thus elitist) and now he's morally challenged?

The truth is, Barack Obama's the one suffering from moral cowardice.

Note the most recent example, via Jeff Jacoby: The Illinois Senator made an about-face on genocide and U.S. foreign policy in Tuesday night's debate:

Moderator Tom Brokaw asked the candidates what their "doctrine" would be "in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security," such as "the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998," or Rwanda or Somalia.

In such cases, answered Obama, "we have moral issues at stake." Of course the United States must act to stop genocide, he said. "When genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening . . . and we stand idly by, that diminishes us."

But that wasn't how Obama sounded last year, when he was competing for the Democratic nomination and was unbending in his demand for an American retreat from Iraq. Back then, he dismissed fears that a US withdrawal would unleash a massive Iraqi bloodbath. "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep US forces there," the AP reported on July 20, 2007 (my italics).

What kind of candidate is it whose moral response to genocide - genocide - can reverse itself 180 degrees in a matter of months? Is that the kind of candidate who ought to be the leader of the free world?

John McCain is truly the last person whom radical leftists want to call a moral coward. Barack Obama - the candidate of appeasement and retreat - has already got the market cornered on that one.

But Andrew Sullivan, Josh Marshall, and untold other extremists of the leftosphere, are steadily building up enough capital for a leveraged buyout of the top Democrat's moral depravity.

The Greatest Challenges of Our Lifetime

Check out this clip from a McCain campaign rally, and I think you'll see how everyday Americans see the stakes before them:

I think it’s so important in today’s country what we’re really missing in what’s going on. When you have an Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the hooligans up there going to run this country, we’ve got to have our head examined. It’s time that you two are representing us, and we are mad. So go get them.

Via Alex Koppelman, who disapproves of this message.

Election Gets Down to Basic Human Emotion

As seen in my last two posts - on drunk hillbillies and GOP lynch mobs - election 2008 has finally come down to base human emotions. Partisans on both sides see the stakes as high as any time in their lives, and they're willing to share the most unusual ideological sentiments and personal abominations.

Dana Milbank, at the Washington Post, shares his reaction to a McCain campaign rally, and the rage of the crowd:

Now, it's personal.

John McCain and Sarah Palin were backstage, and Lehigh County GOP Chairman Bill Platt was warming up the crowd of 6,000 at a rally here for the Republican ticket.

"Think about how you'll feel on November 5 if you wake up in the morning and see the news, that Barack Obama -- that Barack Hussein Obama -- is the president-elect of the United States," Platt said. The audience at the Lehigh University arena booed at the thought of it.

"The number one most liberal senator in the United States of America was, you guessed it, the ambassador of change, Barack Hussein Obama," he added. "This election is about preserving America's past and protecting the promise of its future."

The sage Platt had more information to disclose. "Barack Obama refused to wear an American flag on his lapel," he said of the man who, at the presidential debate the night before, was wearing a flag pin on his lapel. The audience booed. "Barack Obama, a man who wants to be president of the United States of America, removed the American flag from his chest because it was a symbol of patriotism. Perhaps Barack Obama doesn't put country first, but he puts fashion first."

The verbal barrage in the hall must have convinced McCain he was running with a rough crowd.

"Across this country, this is the agenda I have set before my fellow prisoners," he said when he took the stage.

And Platt wasn't the only inmate in the arena. Northampton County council member Peg Ferraro, in her turn at the microphone, spoke about Obama's "backgrounds and affiliations," calling these unspecified relationships "questionable" and asking: "Do we know who his friends are?"

The crowd engaged in a chant of "No-bama!"

State Rep. Karen Beyer darkly warned the crowd that "Barack Obama doesn't know anything about you."

Cindy McCain implied that Obama was trying to harm her son. "My son . . . has served on the front lines," she told the crowd, with her husband and Palin standing behind her. "Let me tell you, the day Senator Obama decided to cast a vote not to fund my son when he was serving . . . sent a cold chill through my body, let me tell you. I suggest that Senator Obama change shoes with me for just one day and see what it means to have a loved one serving in the armed forces, and, more importantly, serving in harm's way."

Only the polka band, which entertained the crowd before the speeches, seemed unaffected by the pervasive anger in the arena. "Ha, ha, ha, come join my happy song," sang the man with the accordion. "Clap along!" The crowd clapped. "We're going to party tonight," he crooned, "with joy and laughter, that's what we're after."

Andrew Sullivan, who has no compunction against continued Trig Palin smears, calls the religious invocations at the rally (at the link), "the fruits of Christianism."

Fireloglake denounces the "slanderous" attacks, as if the months-long attacks against both John McCain and Sarah Palin have not sunk to the most vile slanders, slurs, and smears ever seen in a presidential election.

Even more interesting is Milbank's partisan reporting of the event.

No doubt both sides have invested the deepest personal emotions in the outcome of the race, but only a blind idiot could deny that the demonization of Republicans, after eight years of BusHitler, has now reached the truly unhinged heights of epic fever pitch.

McCain/Palin Rallies are Lynch Mobs?

I often attack the demonology of the left, so for some perspective, how about this:

Barack Obama is not a terrorist, yet would you call this a "lynch mob":

It’s no wonder that the slightest incitement from Sarah Palin or John McCain will turn one of their rallies into a lynch mob. Just talk to the folks who attend....

I’ve been doing blog video for a while, and presidential rallies a lot longer. And this is the most strange, ignorant, uninformed, angry, up-to-no-good, and gullible group of people I’ve ever seen at a political rally.

Ever.

"Up-to-no-good"? Like those at a Klan rally?

That's taking it a bit far, but we're seeing everything in this election, so I'm not suprised an Obama backer wants to turn GOP activists into night riders. It's all about racism nowadays, not the fact that Obama consorts with unrepentent '60s terrorists.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama for President?

Barack Obama Hussein Obama for president? Some voters say no way:

With all due respect, it's not just drunk hillbillies who think Obama's middle name is an issue:

The Democrats believe there will be a landslide at the voting booth on November 4, 2008, for Barack Hussein Obama. I do not agree, but more on that in another post. I hope you noticed that I used Barack Hussein Obama's middle name. I have refrained from doing that lately, but it's back on the table and in articles from now on. Why? Because I will not allow the thought police who are in the tank for Obama to silence my free speech. People are being investigated by the FBI for using Barack Hussein Obama's middle name.

Some folks have decried "the Willie Hortonization of Obama," so just mentioning Obama's full, legal (Muslim) name will get one labeled as racist.

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

New McCain Ad Hammers Obama's Ayers Connection

Via Captain Ed, the McCain campaign's got a new 90-second advertisement attacking Barack Obama's ties to unrepentant '60s terrorist William Ayers:

Here's the text:

Barack Obama and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Friends. They’ve worked together for years. But Obama tries to hide it. Why?

Obama launched his political career in Ayers’ living room. Ayers and Obama ran a radical “education” foundation, together. They wrote the foundation’s by-laws, together. Obama was the foundation’s first chairman. Reports say they, “distributed more than $100 million to ideological allies with no discernible improvement in education.”

When their relationship became an issue, Obama just responded, “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” That’s it?

We know Bill Ayers ran the “violent left wing activist group” called Weather Underground. We know Ayers’ wife was on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list. We know they bombed the Capitol. The Pentagon. A judge’s home. We know Ayers said, “I don’t regret setting bombs. …. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

But Obama’s friendship with terrorist Ayers isn’t the issue. The issue is Barack Obama’s judgment and candor. When Obama just says, “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” Americans say, “Where’s the truth, Barack?”
Barack Obama. Too risky for America.

Also, don't miss Sol Stern's new essay, "The Bomber as School Reformer":

Back in the early eighties, in an interview with David Horowitz and Peter Collier, Bill Ayers remembered his reaction upon learning that he would not be prosecuted by the government for his bombing spree as a member of the Weather Underground. “Guilty as hell, free as a bird—America is a great country,” he exulted. Ayers is now a university professor, but he must have been exulting all over again after reading Saturday’s front-page story in the New York Times.

The article explored the putative relationship between Ayers and Barack Obama during the time they worked together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a five-year philanthropic venture that, starting in 1995, distributed over $160 million in school-improvement grants to the Windy City’s public schools. Ayers wrote the grant proposal that secured seed money for the schools and ran the implementation arm of the project; Obama became chairman of the board that distributed the grants. Not only did the Times exonerate the Democratic presidential candidate of having anything like a “close” relationship with Ayers—their paths merely “crossed” while working on the Challenge, the paper said—but it also bestowed the honorific of “school reformer” on the ex-bomber. “Mr. Ayers has been a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the author or editor of 15 books, and an advocate of school reform,” the article maintained. On Meet the Press Sunday morning, Tom Brokaw—who will be moderating tomorrow’s debate between the presidential candidates—picked up this now conventional wisdom and described Ayers as “a school reformer.”

Calling Bill Ayers a school reformer is a bit like calling Joseph Stalin an agricultural reformer. (If you find the metaphor strained, consider that Walter Duranty, the infamous New York Times reporter covering the Soviet Union in the 1930s, did, in fact, depict Stalin as a great land reformer who created happy, productive collective farms.) For instance, at a November 2006 education forum in Caracas, Venezuela, with President Hugo Chávez at his side, Ayers proclaimed his support for “the profound educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chávez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . . I look forward to seeing how you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.” Ayers concluded his speech by declaring that “Venezuela is poised to offer the world a new model of education—a humanizing and revolutionary model whose twin missions are enlightenment and liberation,” and then, as in days of old, raised his fist and chanted: “Viva Presidente Chávez! Viva la Revolucion Bolivariana! Hasta la Victoria Siempre!”

Related: "Obama Wears Many Different Faces Along the Campaign Trail to Get Votes."

October Surprise! Documents Detail Obama's Radical Ties

I've written all year on just about every angle of Barack Obama's radical associations, but the latest documentary evidence on the Illinois Senator's ties to the socialist New Party offers a new twist on the secret life of the shady Chicago socialist.

While conservative commentators have long understood Obama's essential oppositionalism to American ideals and institutions, the new information, if played well, could be just the kind of October surprise that can swing the momentum of an election.

Thomas Lifson reports:

Another piece in the puzzle of Barack Obama has been revealed, greatly strengthening the picture of a man groomed by an older generation of radical leftists for insertion into the American political process, trading on good looks, brains, educational pedigree, and the desire of the vast majority of the voting public to right the historical racial wrongs of the land.

The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left. It was an attempt to regroup the forces on the left in a new strategy to take power, burrowing from within. The party only lasted until 1998, when its strategy of "fusion" failed to withstand a Supreme Court ruling. But dissolving the party didn't stop the membership, including Barack Obama, from continuing to move the Democrats leftward with spectacular success.

For the full documentary trail linking Obama to the New Party, see Politically Drunk on Power, "Web Archives Confirm Barack Obama Was Member of Socialist 'New Party' In 1996."

Barack Obama's socialist radicalism is like a giant jigsaw puzzle, with key pieces strewn here and there in a systematic campaign of biographical and historical revisionism that continues to this day (last night Obama sought surreptitiously to portray himself as a pragmatic moderate in his debate with John McCain).

Yet, although some of the most damaging revelations (especially on Reverend Jeremiah Wright) peaked in significance during the primaries, if these new documents gain traction in the mainstream press, the New Party findings could alarm enough voters already wary of Obama's questionable past to shift the election to the GOP.

Chest Pounding Scrawny Creeps of the Leftosphere

I clicked around on some left blogs this morning, and the triumphalism following the debate last night seemed even a little more over the top than normal.

For example, Markos Moulitisas has another post up offering his revenge-style commentary:

Now's the time for us to press the advantage and crush their movement for a generation or more.

The question isn't whether we get complacent. No one around these parts is getting complacent. The question is whether we take full advantage of what is shaping up to be a rout and truly press our advantage. Our enemy is on the retreat. We can't let them get away and regroup. It's time to crush them. Throw those anvils and make more Republicans "weep".

Kyle Moore also had a chest-thumper of a post, declaring the wingnuts in "PANIC!":

While many in the national punditry are saying this debate wasn’t a game changer, I find myself in disagreement. I think if the debate did anything, it, as Kos writes, “broke their spirit.” If the right isn’t panicking about how Obama just moved that much closer to winning the election, they are lambasting McCain for not being conservative enough. And I don’t even think Sarah Palin can inject enough vitality back into this campaign so that it can do what it needs to do in the last weeks of this election.

As readers know, Kos is a really bothersome individual, and Moore's endorsement of him is frankly indicative of the hegemonic moral laxity on that side of the spectrum.

Note to Moore, in any case: I'm not panicked. This has always been a Democratic year, and McCain's doing better than anyone would have expected by now, in an electoral environment some have described as a depression.

In any case, I'm with Jim Treacher on the netroots nuts:

DEAR KOS:

Take a long crawl off a short pier, you astroturfing worm.

The more these idiots pound their scrawny chests, the more convinced I am that they're nervous. If they're so confident, so sure they're going to crush the evil wingnuts, why are they desperately picking apart every utterance McCain makes? "OMG! He said 'That one'!!!" Really, guys? And, "Holy nonexistent God, somebody yelled something unintelligible at a Palin rally! She should drop out NOW!!!" Yeah, that'll probably work as well as the other 20 times you've told her to drop out in the last 6 weeks.

This is not the behavior of people who think they've got it in the bag.

But then, Kos hasn't had a lot of experience at being a winner, so you can't really blame him for not knowing how to act like it. You might as well ask him to make a fist or reach something on the top shelf.

The louder these creeps declare victory with a month to go, the more I say: Screw them.

We've still got about a month left in this campaign, and it's going to be rough sledding for the GOP, but I really don't think the lefties should be popping their corks quite yet.

Barack Obama's Crisis of Confidence

Armchair analysts and professional pundits will be dissecting tonight's presidential debate over the next couple of days. Partisan bloggers, of course, will be spinning their candidates performance and looking for the fatal "gotcha" moments emerging during the exchange.

Frankly, though, both John McCain and Barack Obama performed well, and neither side scored a knock-out punch; nor did either candidate make a major blunder. McCain continues to dominate on questions of national security and he exudes a perennial sense of duty and service to nation. McCain also seemed more intent to launch pointed jabs at the Illinois Democrat; and Obama, in response, refused to take the bait, apparently seeking to stake-out the high-road of a putative front-runner.

Yet, beside the housing bailout and the candidates' concluding remarks (on the direction for the nation's future), there was one moment that offered a particularly striking contrast between the candidates.

After a few initial questions on the economy and the federal role in helping Americans through the hard times, moderator Tom Brokaw posed an Internet question on national sacrifice:

Since World War II, we have never been asked to sacrifice anything to help our country, except the blood of our heroic men and women. As president, what sacrifices - sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we're now in?

Senator Obama's response offered a revealing window to his essential dismissal of traditional American optimism and the nation's history of up-by-the bootstraps perseverance:

You know, a lot of you remember the tragedy of 9/11 and where you were on that day and, you know, how all of the country was ready to come together and make enormous changes to make us not only safer, but to make us a better country and a more unified country.

And President Bush did some smart things at the outset, but one of the opportunities that was missed was, when he spoke to the American people, he said, "Go out and shop."

That wasn't the kind of call to service that I think the American people were looking for.

And so it's important to understand that the - I think the American people are hungry for the kind of leadership that is going to tackle these problems not just in government, but outside of government.

And let's take the example of energy, which we already spoke about. There is going to be the need for each and every one of us to start thinking about how we use energy.

Take note of this ...

Obama says each and every one of us must "start thinking about how we use energy."

This is Obama's call for national sacrifice: to reduce oil consumption? Sounds more like an economy-killer, and it refects, fundamentally, the kind of "malaise" sensibility that marked Jimmy Carter's presidency during the 1970s - a presidency of limits, and limited visions.

Recall, President Carter, on July 15, 1979, delivered his "crisis of confidence" speech:

I know ... that government actions and legislation can be very important. That's why I've worked hard to put my campaign promises into law - and I have to admit, with just mixed success. But after listening to the American people I have been reminded again that all the legislation in the world can't fix what's wrong with America. So, I want to speak to you first tonight about a subject even more serious than energy or inflation. I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy....

The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.

The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.

President Carter - history will recall - was a failed one-term chief-executive, a president stymied in both domestic and foreign policy, and one who's disastrous leadership on the economy left a long legacy of inflation and unemployment that wasn't corrected until the Reagan administration's economic boom of the mid-1980s.

During tonight's debate, John McCain - in great contrast to Obama - spoke with assurance on the "sacrifice question," noting:

Look, we can attack health care and energy at the same time. We're not - we're not - we're not rifle shots here. We are Americans. We can, with the participation of all Americans, work together and solve these problems together.

In other words, there's nothing we can't do if we set our minds to it. Americans have risen to the challenge, time and again; and when facing rough times, we keep our chins up and barrel through the hard patches.

Barack Obama, instead, announced that we have to cut back, lower our sights - that government will make health care a right and not a responsibility of personal initiative. Obama wants an expansion of government in economic and energy policy, precisely when polls show the country is not looking for a second New Deal.

The American people witnessed a preview tonight of a 1970s Democratic reprise - the comeback of Carteresque crisis and malaise, absent, so far, the cardigan sweaters and double-digit stagflation statistics.