Exclusive: A Marriage of Convenience: Obama, the Left and Radical Islam

As we enter the home stretch of the 2008 presidential election, new revelations about Barack Obama’s harshly critical views of the U.S. Constitution for not providing for wealth distribution have again raised concerns as to whether the American people may be about to elect the first radical Leftist if not outright socialist president in the republic’s history. This hugely troubling possibility, were it to happen, would mark yet another historical watershed that’s mentioned less often – the de facto alliance between the Left and radical Islam in American politics.

The discussion of Islam, to the extent that is mentioned at all in the campaign, has mostly been limited to a rather inconclusive debate in the blogosphere as to whether Obama is a Muslim or not, and a more substantive, if suppressed by the mainstream media, discussion of Senator Obama’s questionable ties to radical Islamists and anti-Semites. The latter has provided more than enough empirical evidence to at least give a pause to a dispassionate observer as to Obama’s pious assertions of his dedication to the struggle against Islamic extremism and friendship for Israel. Without going into too much detail, these connections include well-documented close ties with Black Panther mentor-turned-radical Muslim and Wahhabi stooge, Khalid al-Mansour (nee Don Warden); Nation of Islam hate-spewing, anti-white racist, Louis Farakhan; Columbia professor and apologist of Palestinian terrorism, Rashid Khalidi; and last, but not least, Salam Ibrahim, an alleged Taliban sympathizer and chairman of the defunct Chicago Shariah-finance company Sunrise Equities, who appears to have absconded with $80 million of his clients’ funds.

What all of these unsavory men have in common, apart from friendship with and admiration for Barack Obama, is their passionate dislike for the United States and their virulent anti-Semitism. This may not prove that Obama himself is an Islamist, an anti-Semite or an anti-American, it but it does show that, throughout his career, he has willingly associated with, and been mentored by, people who are.

As much as this should be an issue of serious concern, the growing nexus between radical Islam and the Left is ultimately of much greater systemic consequence and one that goes far beyond current election considerations to present a palpable threat to the future of this country and Western civilization itself.

To understand that, we must first look at what the two parties to this unholy alliance represent. Should Senator Obama be elected as the next president of the United States, he will come to office as the leader of a party that has changed so dramatically from its historical traditions that, today, it has little in common with the Democrat Party of old. It is a party in which the worldview of the 1960s hard, anti-American Left reigns triumphant and in which yesterday’s democratic icons such as Truman, JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey and Scoop Jackson would feel completely out of place.

It is thus not a huge surprise that a radical Leftist like Barack Obama would find an enthusiastic reception in a party that itself has become socialist in everything but name. And like its fellow-socialist confreres in Europe and elsewhere, it is a party that implicitly rejects individual rights, the free market system and the Judeo-Christian moral order on which they are based in favor of socialist collectivism, multiculturalism and robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul redistributionism. More than anything else, it rejects the imperative to defend those sacrosanct American principles against enemies foreign and domestic, as enshrined in our Constitution, in favor of political correctness, utopian pacifism and appeasement of evil.

It is these ideological propensities of the new American Left that radical Islam finds made to order for its purposes, and eager to cultivate and exploit. This is indeed a tactical alliance, a marriage-of-convenience for the Islamists, whose ultimate objective is the destruction of Western civilization, including its socialist infidels. It is, nonetheless, a critically important alliance in the meantime that serves Islamism by legitimating it within Western society, allowing it to infiltrate its political establishment and government and weakening resistance to Islamist efforts to subvert it from within. In the American context, this has led to numerous successful initiatives by the Muslim Brotherhood/Wahhabi fifth column that dominates the Islamic establishment to make a common cause with the Left on efforts to stop anti-terrorism measures such as “Secret Evidence” and the Patriot Act, and various anti-Iraq war and pro-illegal immigration campaigns, among others.

None of this is particularly surprising and the imperative for Islamists to ally with the Left has long been part of the official Muslim Brotherhood strategic doctrine of waging war on the West. Less well-known is the fact that even prominent ideologues of violent jihad against the West, such as the leading theoretician Abu Musab al-Suri in his seminal work “Global Islamic Resistance Call,” lists Leftist parties with “anti-American and anti-imperialist ideology” as key potential allies for the jihadists.

A more pertinent question is what in radical Islam appeals to the Left. A messianic, totalitarian doctrine in religious garb that preaches violence against all non-Muslims and espouses the establishment of the medieval barbarism of shar’iah law as its political program, Islamism is, at first sight, as incompatible as could be with the lofty humanitarian pretenses of the Left. The more so because key constituencies of the Left, such as gays and lesbians, feminists, animal rights fanatics, atheists and Jews are among the first marked for destruction, should Shariah ever triumph.
The answer is to be sought in the common denominator and obsession of the radical Left around the world – a bottomless hatred for capitalism and America as the country that epitomizes it. A hatred as pathological as that of the Communists for the class enemy and the Nazis for the Jews. That and the documented mass appeal and murderous vitality of radical Islam made the dispirited Leftists after the fall of Communism believe that here finally was a mighty ally that could help defeat the hated capitalist system and bring down America.

It is this transcendent obsession that made a flamboyant homosexual like French post-modernist philosopher Michel Foucalt, who knew full well what Khomeini does to his kind, lionize the reactionary ayatollah as the new hope of the proletariat; British politician George Galloway claim that “progressives” like him and the Muslims had the same enemies; American greens to dream of an alliance with the Islamists to “destroy capitalism”; and assorted radicals and Communist leftovers from the 1960s to march against “Islamophobia” with terrorism accomplices from the American Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) networks. It is, of course, a pernicious illusion but a very costly one for a free society.

It has already led to electoral alliances between socialist parties and the Islamists in Europe, facilitated the introduction of shar’iah law, sanctioned appeasement of violent Islamist norms and turned a blind eye to the spread of vituperative anti-Semitism not seen since the 1930s. Should the Democrats win the White House, it will not be long before the same trends appear on American soil.

In a recent speech, Senator Obama admirably promised to go to the gates of hell if necessary to get Osama bin-Laden. He would have been more persuasive if before traveling that far he had bothered to check some of his campaign’s dubious connections and come clean on them and his own with the American public. He would have found out, for instance, that a former Muslim outreach coordinator of his campaign, one Mazen Asbahi, was a key leader of the Muslim Student Association, a radical Islamist organization on campus, which had this to say about Osama bin-Laden in an official publication: “When we hear someone refer to the great Mujahid Osama bin Laden as ‘terrorist’, we should defend our brother and refer to him as a freedom fighter, someone who has forsaken wealth and power to fight in Allah’s cause and speak out against oppressors.” This same virulently anti-American organization now advertises a “get out the vote” campaign on its website.

Barack Obama’s deafening silence on his own and his campaign’s troubling connections with Islamists does little to discourage one from believing that the loudest cheers for his eventual victory next Tuesday will be those of the sworn Islamist enemies of our civilization.

Thanks to FamilySecurityMatters.org

The Great Obama Swindle of 2008

If you are a NObama supporter, why does this not scare you?
From Family Security Matters

PART ONE
OBAMA: THE ILLEGAL ALIEN

I have become 100% convinced, to a moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Barack Obama is not only not a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution to be president, but that he was not even born in the USA, not born in Hawaii, probably in Kenya, never naturalized. If he is elected, he will be the UnConstitutional President from the moment he takes the oath of office, the first president who is not a citizen of the United States.

Why I am so sure?

I was not convinced by the lawsuits filed by Philip Berg, Andy Martin, Jerome Corsi, and others seeking disclosure of Obama's birth certificate. I was not convinced by the books and articles that now abound contesting Obama's origins. I was convinced by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, asking the governor of Hawaii to seal Obama's birth certificate so it could not be seen, by anyone, and by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, sealing his records at Columbia University and Harvard Law. Barack Obama is hiding himself from America. And he wants to be POTUS, and Commander-in-Chief.

In the litigation business, one quickly learns that if somebody has a document that will be good for them, they can't wait to give it to you. And if somebody has a document that will hurt them, they'll be tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago to keep you from getting it.

Obama is tap dancing.

If I were Obama's lawyers, and if there was a good, authentic, birth certificate that proved Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii, I would tell him to instruct the Hawaiian Department of Health to provide a certified copy to every journalist who asked about it, to the Courts and plaintiffs in all the lawsuits, and to make the original available for inspection by any expert forensic document examiner any litigant or news agency engaged to examine the birth certificate for authenticity. I would tell him to come clean, and end the speculation. And I would tell him that the speculation could cost him the election.

But that's not what Obama's lawyers are doing, they're filling motions for summary judgment, not on the merits of the case, but on "technicalities," at least in the Berg case, arguing that Citizens, voters, do not have standing to enforce the United States Constitution, and at least one judge, Richard Barclay Surrick, has agreed.

But what Obama and his lawyers and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) are not doing is being open and honest with America. They're tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago. So we are forced to this conclusion as a matter of logical necessity:

1. If Barack Obama could produce a good birth certificate that would verify his status as a "natural born citizen," he would. Failing to do so can only hurt him. Failing to do so can cost him the election.

2. He hasn't, and is doing all possible not to.

3. Therefore, we can only conclude that he can't, and that his birth certificate, if it exists at all, is either altered, forged, or shows him born outside the U.S. We have to conclude that producing his birth certificate, if he can, will prove he is not eligible to be president, not a natural born citizen, or not a citizen at all. We can only conclude that Obama and his lawyers know that producing his birth records will hurt him even more than not producing them.

Now, I could be wrong. Barack Obama can prove me wrong by producing a good birth certificate. But he hasn't. Will he? Can he?

PART TWO
NO "STANDING" TO SUE?

In the case of Berg v. Obama, US Federal Judge Richard Barclay Surrick agreed with Obama's lawyers and ruled that Berg, as a citizen, as a voter, has no "standing" to enforce the United States Constitution. I have read that other agencies have asserted that only another presidential candidate has standing to sue respecting the qualifications of a candidate, presumably because, arguendo, only another presidential candidate could be injured (lose an election) as a result of a non-qualified candidate on the ballot.

This may be the most patently absurd, illogical, incomprehensible, astonishing, mind-boggling, and utterly stupid argument I have ever heard in my life – and from a Federal Judge, at that. And if I didn't make myself perfectly clear, let me know and I'll try again.

Let's do the analysis.

1. The U.S. Constitution is a CONTRACT between The People, The States, and The United States, the federal government, that defines and limits the role of the federal government, and the rights of the States and The People, and, among other things, defines and limits the qualifications for president, i.e., that the president must be over the age of 35 years, and must be a natural born citizen.

2. Any party to a CONTRACT has standing to enforce it. This is as basic as it gets. Contract Law 101. First week of law school stuff. And it seems that lawyers and judges all over the country have forgotten all about it. Also, the Constitution was intended to benefit all American citizens, We, The People, and in basic contract law the intended beneficiaries of a CONTRACT, i.e., us, also have standing to enforce it.

3. If We, The People, do not have standing to enforce the CONTRACT, the U.S. Constitution, then it is unenforceable, and if it is unenforceable it is just a historic curiosity that means nothing. It’s just an old piece of parchment. But that was not the intent, and to give intent to the CONTRACT it must be enforceable by its parties and beneficiaries.

4. We, The People, have standing under the First Amendment "to petition the government for redress of grievances." If we have a grievance that a non-citizen, illegal alien, is running for president, I think the First Amendment unequivocally gives every American citizen standing to sue the government to redress that grievance and enforce the Constitution.

I think Judge Richard Barclay Surrick is dead wrong, illogically wrong, irrationally wrong, legally wrong, I think his legal analysis of this issue, in legalese, stinks.

PART THREE
THE DUTY OF CONGRESS

Article II, Section 1, requires that upon taking office the President of the United States shall take the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the
United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States."

Article VI, Clause 3, requires that Senators and Representatives requires:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution . . ."

Members of Congress take this oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Having taken this oath, Sen. Barack Obama has violated his oath of office if he is refusing to disclose a birth certificate that proves his candidacy for president is unconstitutional, and I believe this is a mandatory basis for his impeachment.

Having taken these oaths, the President, the Vice President (an executive officer of the United States), every member of the Senate and House, every member of every State legislature, and every executive and judicial officers of the United States and of each State, has a mandatory duty per Article VI Clause 3 of the US Constitution to "support and defend" the Constitution, and that would necessarily include taking whatever action is necessary to assure that no person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" ever becomes President.

And every Federal Judge, and every Justice of the Supreme Court, having taken this oath, also have a mandatory duty to "protect and defend" the Constitution by doing whatever is necessary to assure that no person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" ever becomes President. Indeed, I believe that the Supreme Court has a sua sponte duty to resolve this dispute by ordering, on its own initiative, the immediate production of all of Obama's birth records in order to confirm his place of birth, and prevent the election of an UnConstitutional President. So far, all Justices of the Supreme Court have failed this mandatory duty.

So far, the President, the Vice President, every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, ever Federal Judge and Justice, every member of every State legislature, and every governor, have failed in this duty. They have all failed to fulfill their oaths of office. Every one. They must all demand that Sen. Barack Obama either (a) produce a good birth certificate proving his status as a "natural born citizen," or (b) withdraw his candidacy before November 4th.

All those who do not should be impeached for having failed their oath of office.

PART FOUR
THE GREATEST SWINDLE IN HISTORY

If Senator Barack Hussein Obama cannot prove that he is a "natural born citizen," then Obama, the Democrat National Committee, the Democrats in the Senate and House who support him, and others such as former president Bill Clinton who openly support him, have perpetrated the greatest swindle in history by falsely and fraudulently misrepresenting Obama as Constitutionally eligible to be president, concealing the truth about his place of birth, thereby inducing millions of Democrats by the fraud of concealment, by the lie of non-disclosure, by "trick and device," to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the Barack Obama presidential campaign to elect an UnConstitutional President.

My opinion.

Note, this is a fraud perpetrated by Sen. Barack Obama, the DNC, and hundreds of Democrats in Congress, on their own constituency, the Democrat voters of America. It is a fraud of the Democrats, by the Democrats, and perpetrated on the Democrats. And it has defrauded Democrats out of more than $600 million.

According to their oaths of office, every Democrat member of Congress has an affirmative duty to assure that their presidential candidate is constitutionally qualified. As soon as questions about Obama's birth arose, every Democrat in Congress had a mandatory duty to confirm his eligibility by demanding release of his birth records. But, they have not. Not to my knowledge. Instead, every Democrat in Congress is complicit in the cover up – the cover up – of Obama's birth certificate, by failing to demand full disclosure to confirm his place of birth.

In my opinion, unless Obama can produce a good birth certificate proving that he is a "natural born citizen," then every Democrat member of Congress, every person managing Obama's campaign, every officer and director of the Democrat National Commitee, and every person who has ever taken an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution and is now supporting an UnConstitutional candidate for president, has participated in a vast left-wing conspiracy to defraud millions of Democrats out of hundreds of millions of dollars to elect an UnConstitutional President.

In my opinion, every one of these people, hundreds of them, should be prosecuted for fraud under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), for if Obama is not a "natural born citizen," that is what the Democrat National Committee (DNC) has become. And every one of them should be tried, convicted, and sent to prison for decades, for this is a $600 billion swindle of America's Democrats, a swindle perpetrated by the DNC and Barack Obama.

Now, I could be wrong. I could be wrong about every opinion I have expressed here.

Sen. Barack Hussein Obama can prove me wrong, quickly, simply, easily, by opening the doors of the hospitals and the Hawaiian Department of Health and showing us, showing America, showing the Democrats, all of his birth records.

Unless and until he does, I will remain convinced that Barack Hussein Obama is not an American citizen.

Exclusive: Obama’s Hope ‘n Change Smells More like Socialism

Barack Obama promises change. But can America afford the change he’s promising?

Joe the Plumber’s question to Obama about taxes, to which Obama answered “when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody,” just scratched the surface of the candidate’s plans. A Chicago radio interview of Obama in 2001 has surfaced and it paints a detailed picture of Obama’s guiding political philosophy.

The most significant part of the clip is below (emphasis mine):



If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth,and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.In some ways we still suffer from that.

Joe Biden wanted to know if WFTV-Channel 9’s Barbara West was “joking” when she asked, “How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?” After hearing this interview, perhaps Joe might want to amend his answer.

In a nutshell: Obama thinks the Constitution stands in the way of government meddling in the way you and I live our lives.

A Gallup poll in June indicated that Americans oppose redistribution of wealth by the government 84% to 13%, preferring that the government do what it can to improve the overall economic situation. I find it hard to believe they’ve changed their minds in just a few months. So if a majority of Americans are against socialism, how would Obama enact it?

Simple: judges.

The next president will likely make appointments to the Supreme Court - possibly as many as three. Tommy Vietor, Obama spokesman, explained that "Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves." Denver Post columnist David Harnsanyi points out that

“Justices solemnly swear to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." So judges, incredible as this may sound, are not prohibited from "protecting" the powerful if the powerful happen to be right on the constitutional issue.

To suggest otherwise, as Obama has, is to suggest they should ignore their oath.

Could this latest bombshell be why Americans have not been privy to Obama’s college records and writings? The Obama campaign is calling this latest revelation a distraction. I call it critical information.

Tom Blumer, writing for Pajamas Media, says, “No wonder Team Obama is pushing the travesty known as ‘early voting’ so hard. They’re praying that as many Obama voters as possible will cast their ballots without learning the true nature of the person they are supporting.”

Voters who have been enthralled by Obama’s flowery teleprompter speeches and promises of hope, change, lollipops and unicorns owe it to themselves to look beyond the information being offered by the mainstream media in this last significant week before the election.

As the saying goes, forewarned is forearmed.

Pam Meister is the editor of
FamilySecurityMatters.org.

Where is Obama’s Birth Certificate and Why Doesn’t He Produce It?

Four years ago, when I had just about completed the lengthy legal and financial vetting process required by the U.S. government to place my then-92-year-old-mother in a nursing home, I was asked to produce her birth certificate as “proof” of her citizenship. While she was born in America, had voted in every election for untold decades, and paid her taxes religiously, that wasn’t good enough to qualify my elderly mother –deaf, legally blind, and confined to a wheelchair – to be admitted to the facility I had chosen for her near my home.

Frankly, I didn't think finding my mother's birth certificate was possible, given the fact that she had been born in a farmhouse in Storrs, CT, along with nine of her 10 siblings, to parents who didn't speak English. Despairing that she would never be "qualified" to receive the care she desperately needed, I set about to find the document, which I was sure had vanished in the unreliable record-keeping of 1913.

First I called an official in Hartford, the capitol of Connecticut, who recommended that I call the Storrs record-keeping office.

That took two minutes.

Next I called the Storrs office and was told to call another number.

That took two minutes.

When I called the third number, I explained to the woman who answered the phone that I was "asking something impossible." I gave her my mother's first name and her father's last name.

Within four minutes, she said, "Here it is!" She had found my mother's birth certificate, and it surprised me when I learned my mother's "real" first name and "real" last name had changed significantly as she and her family became Americanized.

When I expressed my amazement, the woman said: "That's nothing...we're routinely asked to find birth certificates from the 1800s, and we do that all the time!"

Total time it took me to find my mother's 1913, born-in-a-farmhouse birth certificate: 10 minutes.

WHERE IS OBAMA'S?
To this date, Barack Obama has refused - or been unable - to produce an authentic birth certificate that attests to the fact he is eligible to run for office. He has had more than the two-years of campaigning for the presidency of the United States to do this, but failed.

Why is this important? Because the Constitution of the United States expressly forbids anyone born on foreign soil to run for the highest office in our land.

You would think that Obama would have volunteered the "proof" of his eligibility within a nanosecond of entering the race. But here we are, less than two weeks away from the election, and Americans still don't know if Obama is an American!

While Obama's camp submitted a supposedly authentic birth certificate to the far-left blog Daily Kos, it was found to have been a photo-shopped version of the birth certificate of his half-sister, who was actually born in Hawaii, as Obama claims he was.

While this glaring omission in Obama's eligibility to become the most powerful man on earth mystified some and rankled others, a few people - clearly alarmed at what they considered a stealth candidate's attempt to dance his way around the Constitution and venture into the realm of criminality - took action.

SLEUTH #1
The first sleuth was lawyer Philip J. Berg, a Democrat from Pennsylvania and an undisguised Hillary fan. Last August, Berg - a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania and one-time candidate for both governor and senator - filed a lawsuit in Federal Court (Berg v. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083) seeking a Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction against Obama, alleging that the first-term Illinois senator did not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States.

Berg's suit was based on Obama's failure to answer satisfactorily the question of where he was born. Was it in Hawaii, Kenya, or Indonesia? Was his legal name Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro (his stepfather's surname), Barry Obama, Barack Dunham (his maternal grandparents' surname), or Barry Dunham?

Among the other questions Berg raised were the authenticity of the name Obama used on his Illinois Bar Application and his possible allegiance to other countries.

Details of the case, including direct quotations, are found on Berg's website: www.obamacrimes.com.

"Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Senator Obama's lies and obfuscations," Berg said. "He clearly shows a conscience of guilt by his actions in using the forged birth certificate and the lies he's told to cover his loss of citizenship. We believe he...supported this belief by his actions in hiding his secret, in that he failed to regain his citizenship and used documents to further his position as a natural born citizen...His very acts prove he knew he was no longer a natural born citizen. We believe he knew he was defrauding the country or else why use the forged birth certificate of his half sister?...If the DNC officers and/or leaders had performed one ounce of due diligence, we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament...from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship through an oath of allegiance at age eighteen [18] as prescribed by Constitutional laws."

The net result of Berg's efforts was that, on September 9, both Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a joint motion for a Protective Order to Stay Discovery pending a decision on the Motion to Dismiss his lawsuit. In other words, to make Berg's lawsuit go away!

Berg said he was "outraged, as this is another attempt to hide the truth from the public; it is obvious that documents do not exist to prove that Obama is qualified to be President." The joint motion, Berg asserted, was a concerted effort to avoid the truth by attempting to delay the judicial process, although legal, by not resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama meets the qualifications to be President. He said it is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States. Simply stated, Obama "is unable to produce a certified copy of his Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist."

An e-mail friend of mine, a lawyer, stated: "What has boggled my mind about this case is that Berg simply waited for a court order to compel the production of the birth certificate, when he could just as easily have served a subpoena on the Hawaii County Clerk or County Recorder - or whoever is the custodian of records in Hawaii - to produce the original birth certificate for examination by an expert forensic-document examiner to produce certified copies to the Court, the Plaintiff, and the Defendants, which would have shifted the burden to Obama to quash the subpoena - and if he filed a motion to quash the subpoena to produce his own birth certificate, that would sure as hell tell us that he has a lot to hide."

SLEUTH #2
Also in August, longtime Obama nemesis Andy Martin - a Chicago journalist, lawyer, author of the bestseller, "Obama: The Man Behind The Mask," and executive editor or www.contrariancommentary.com - filed a suit in the Court of the First Circuit State of Hawaii (08-1-2147-10) against the Republican governor, Linda Lingle, and the director of the Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino.

Martin's suit alleged that the defendants had refused to provide a copy of the requested, certified copy of the birth certificate of Senator Obama "attested to by the State and not a `certificate' which is posted on a website and which has been debunked as possibly having been altered."

"It is axiomatic," Martin's suit said, "that the birth certificate of a presidential candidate is a document of crucial public concern and significance."

Failing both his petition and an initial "emergency motion," Martin filed his second emergency motion this month (-1-2147-10 BIA) "for an Order to Show Cause (`OSC') directing the defendants...on or before October 22, 2008...at a hearing before this Court why the relief requested by the Plaintiff should not be granted...This lawsuit does not involve complicated or disputed facts."

"Why is Barack Obama obstructing access to his birth records?" Martin asks. "Along with his obstructing access to college records and other essential information about his past? I want to see a certified copy issued by the State of Hawaii, not one issued by the State of Obama... Interestingly, we think we also know now why he has virtually imprisoned his white grandmother and refuses to allow her to appear in public?"

Numerous conservative journalists, talking heads and bloggers have addressed Obama's fitness to be president, questioning his:
* Reed-thin résumé.
* Stunning lack of concrete legislative accomplishments (both in the Illinois legislature and the U.S. Senate).
* Long-time close relationships and associations with Marxists and anti-American militants like Frank Marshall, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Phleger, Khalid Rashidi, et al.
* Failure to provide transcripts of his years at Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School.
* Failure to provide any more than a one-page "report" from his medical doctor about his health status.

* Rationale for flip-flopping on every major issue - economic policy, domestic policy, foreign policy, et al - during this campaign.
The sleuthing continues. According to Berg, Martin, and a number of other sources, Obama was really born in the Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombassa, Kenya at 7.24 PM on August 4, 1961, a birth that was documented by a certificate with an embossed seal that displays the name of the hospital, as well as witness signatures. In addition, if these reports are accurate, his grandmother in Kenya, as well as his brother and sister, claim they were present during Obama's birth in Kenya.

GRAMMY DEAREST

Now - belatedly - that the net is closing in on Obama, and the suspicions, as many have alleged, are that he is a Trojan Horse for Islamic interests, or a Manchurian Candidate, or a total fraud - Obama has seemingly discovered an interest in his ailing grandmother. Yes, that Grammy who he so facilely threw under the bus during the early days of his campaign.

He is now so worried about Grandma Dunham - the woman who raised him but strangely didn't attend his nomination - that he is taking a few days off from his intense campaign to visit this ailing widow.

Or could his strangely-timed trip to Hawaii really be to "clear up" the sticky case of his missing birth certificate?

I live in New York, where it is not uncommon for BIG payoffs to influence people to come up with "the goods." A half-a-million here, a dire threat there, often influence people to do things - like perjure themselves, produce phony documents, et al - that they would never do under less "pressured" circumstances.

If the magic document doesn't appear, it is possible, and entirely legal, that Obama could be removed from the ballots in states that are questioning his eligibility.

According to a recent article in The Daily Herald in Everett, WA, a civil action was filed in Washington State Superior Court against Sam Reed, Secretary of State, demanding that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama be removed from the ballot in Washington unless he can provide verification of his status as a United States citizen. The citizen who filed the suit, Steven Marquis, asked that Reed verify - by looking at "original or certified verifiable official documents" - that Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States and eligible to serve as president, and that the office do so by Election Day.

Like others investigating the matter, Marquis said that answering the unanswered questions about Obama's eligibility and background would "preclude a constitutional crisis and likely civil unrest" that would arise if information about Obama's ineligibility came to light after the election.

EXPLOSIVE PRESS RELEASE

This week, on October 21, 2008, Mr. Berg released the result of his investigation. In a startling press release, he has announced that "Obama & DNC admit all allegations in Berg v. Obama."
In his release, Berg explained that "by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions...the DNC `ADMITTED' that Obama is "NOT QUALIFIED" to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate."

Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed "ADMITTED." Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.


According to Berg, Obama - by default - admitted to every charge the lawyer made, among them:
1. I was born in Kenya.
2. I am a Kenya "natural born" citizen.
3. My foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.
4. My father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. admitted Paternity of me.
5. My mother gave birth to me in Mombosa, Kenya.



The list includes 56 admissions.


The DNC's admissions, which number 27, include that:
1. They nominated Barack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President.
2. They have not vetted Barack Hussein Obama.
3. They did not have a background check performed on Barack Hussein Obama.
4. They did not verify Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States.
5. Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya.

For the entire list, go to: www.obamacrimes.com

WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

Interest in this case is understandably intense. Berg's website has already received over 55 million hits. But predictably, the overwhelmingly liberal media has yet to pick up on this story, as if ignoring a story that has profound implications for our Republic and for the potential of a Constitutional crisis is less important than discussing Sarah Palin's wardrobe.

It's possible that all the states that are working on obtaining Obama's birth certificate will simultaneously remove him from the ballot at one time. It's also possible that, failing to produce the birth certificate, Obama will voluntarily step aside, leaving a breach through which Hillary will walk.

Meanwhile, as legal challenges proceed at warp speed, and Obama's lawyers scramble to avoid the Scandal of the Century, one thing remains intractably the same: Obama still has not produced proof of his eligibility to run for office.

John McCain and an Army of Joes

By Byron York

Woodbridge, Va. — Tito Munoz was ready to rock when John McCain showed here up at the Connaughton Community Plaza in Woodbridge, Virginia Saturday afternoon. Dressed in a yellow hard hat covered with McCain-Palin stickers, wearing an orange high-visibility vest, Munoz carried a hand-lettered sign that said CONSTRUCTION WORKER FOR McCAIN. He got a coveted spot in the bleachers directly behind McCain, where he could be seen in the camera shot along with the guy holding the sign that said PHIL THE BRICK LAYER and the woman with the ROSE THE TEACHER banner. He cheered a lot.



Munoz and the others cheering.
AP

Everybody was playing on the Joe-the-Plumber theme. McCain spent a lot of time on it in his stump speech, using the now-famous Joe Wurzelbacher of Toledo, Ohio, as a stand-in for “small businessmen and women all over America [who] want to keep their earnings and not give it to the government.” McCain added that Obama’s response to Wurzelbacher — the assertion that it would be best to “spread the wealth around” — made Joe the Plumber “the only person to get a real answer out of Sen. Obama.”

The crowd laughed and cheered. But for them, Joe the Plumber is much more than a zinger in McCain’s stump speech. In recent days, the Joe the Plumber phenomenon has taken on a deeper meaning for McCain’s audiences, for two reasons. First, he is a symbol of their belief that Barack Obama is going to raise their taxes, regardless of what Obama says about hitting up only those taxpayers who make more than $250,000 a year. They know Wurzelbacher doesn’t make that much, and they know they don’t make that much. And they’re not suspicious because they believe that someday they will make $250,000, and thus face higher taxes. No, they just don’t believe Obama right now. If he’s elected, they say, he’ll eventually come looking for taxpayers who make well below a quarter-million dollars, and that will include them.

The second reason Joe the Plumber resonates with the crowds is what his experience says about the media. Everybody here seems acutely aware of the once-over Wurzelbacher received from the press after his chance encounter with Obama was reported, first on Fox News, and then mentioned by McCain at last week’s presidential debate. Wurzelbacher found himself splashed across newspapers and cable shows, many of which reported that he didn’t have a plumber’s license, that he wasn’t a member of the plumbers’ union, that he had a lien against him for $1,182 in state taxes, and that he failed to comprehend what many commentators apparently felt was the indisputable fact that Barack Obama would lower his taxes, not raise them. As the people here in Woodbridge saw it, Joe was a guy who asked Barack Obama an inconvenient question — and for his troubles suddenly found himself under investigation by the media.

In the audience Saturday, there were plenty of people who were mad about it. There was real anger at this rally, but it wasn’t, as some erroneous press reports from other McCain rallies have suggested, aimed at Obama. It was aimed at the press. And that’s where Tito Munoz came in.

After McCain left, as the crowd filed out, Munoz made his way to an area near some loudspeakers. He attracted a few reporters when he started talking loudly, in heavily-accented English, about media mistreatment of Wurzelbacher. (It was clear that Spanish was Munoz’s native language, and he later told me he was born in Colombia.) When I first made my way over to him, Munoz thought I was there to give him the third degree.

“Are you going to check my license, too?” he asked me. “Are you going to check my immigration status? I’m ready, I have everything here. Whatever you want, I have it. I have my green card, I have my passport — “

I was a little surprised. Did Munoz really bring his papers with him to a McCain rally? I asked.

“Yeah, I have my papers right here,” he said. “I’m an American citizen. Right here, right here.” With that, he produced a U.S. passport, turned it to the page with his picture on it, and thrust it about an inch from my nose. “Right here,” he said. “In your face.”



Photo by Damien LeVeck

Munoz said he owned a small construction business. “I have a license, if you guys want to check,” he said.

Someone asked why Munoz had come to the rally. “I support McCain, but I’ve come to face you guys because I’m disgusted with you guys,” he said. “Why the hell are you going after Joe the Plumber? Joe the Plumber has an idea. He has a future. He wants to be something else. Why is that wrong? Everything is possible in America. I made it. Joe the Plumber could make it even better than me. . . . I was born in Colombia, but I was made in the U.S.A.”



The Corn confrontation.

Photo by Andrew Coyne
The scene turned into a mini-fracas when David Corn, of Mother Jones, defended press coverage. Munoz was having none of it. Why, he asked, would the press whack Joe the Plumber when it didn’t want to report on Obama’s relationship with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground bomber? “How come that’s not in the news all the time?” Munoz said. “How come Joe the Plumber is every second? I’m talking about NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN.”A black woman with a strong Caribbean accent jumped in the fray. “Tell me,” she said to Corn, “why is it you can go and find out about Joe the Plumber’s tax lien and when he divorced his wife and you can’t tell me when Barack Obama met with William Ayers? Why? Why could you not tell us that? Joe the Plumber is me!”

“I am Joe the Plumber!” Munoz chimed in. “You’re attacking me.”

“Wait a second,” Corn said. “Do you pay your taxes?”

“Yes, I pay my taxes,” the woman said.

“Then you’re better than Joe the Plumber,” Corn said.

That set off a general free-for-all. “I’m going to tell you something,” Munoz yelled at Corn. “I’m better than Obama. Why? Because I’m not associated with terrorists!”

And so it went. I walked away for a few minutes to strike up a conversation with the woman who had jumped into the debate. Her name was Connie, and she said she had been born and raised in Antigua, in the West Indies. “I immigrated to the United States over 20 years ago,” she told me. “It’s my home. America has become my home. I came here freely of my own free will because I loved it, and I loved what it had to offer, and I don’t want to see it ruined.”

I asked her whether it was difficult, as a black person, to support McCain at a time when probably 90 to 95 percent of black voters support Obama. “I have always been a conservative,” she told me. “I’m mad. I was extremely upset to see the way the media went after Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. . . . To see the drive-by media and the Obama campaign attack two ordinary Americans simply because one of them managed to get Barack Obama to tell the truth, it was shameful and disgraceful.”

Meanwhile, the great debate was continuing, with Tito the Construction Worker and David the Journalist trading points. Much of it wasn’t terribly informative, but there was one lovely moment when a shouting match turned into a lesson on the fundamental meaning of American constitutional rights — and the immigrant was the teacher.

“Let me talk,” Munoz said to Corn. “I know the Constitution, and I know my First Amendment — ”

“I’m not the state,” Corn said. “I can’t take that right away from you.”

“No, no,” Munoz shot back. “Even the state, the state cannot take that right away.”

“Right, right,” Corn quickly agreed.

“Nobody can take that away,” Munoz said.

And indeed they can’t.

An Urgent Message from The National Republican Trust PAC

In case you missed this ... The latest swing state polls show that John McCain is now losing to Barack Obama, but many of these races still remain very close. McCain can still win! Our sponsor today, The National Republican Trust PAC, reveals that Hillary Clinton's hardball strategy against Obama actually worked -- though it was implemented too late.

Dick Morris says "The National Republican Trust is a very effective organization that can make a huge difference on election day."

Please read their full message below — and find out how you can help The National Republican Trust defeat Obama.

Obama's Radical Agenda Exposed


Never before in the history of our nation have we faced such a grave crisis: one of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States.

That man is Barack Obama.
He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you may not like.
Remember Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate.

He received a 100 percent Liberal Rating from the National Journal, making him the most left-wing Senator in Washington — more liberal than even Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy.

If you look at Obama's record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is. He even has terrorist friends he won't denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.

In 2001, Ayers said he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more. The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.
Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing.

However, Obama has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers. Obama has even been endorsed by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan. No one can deny hearing about Obama's relationship with the America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama — because he is one of them.

In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without "preconditions" even though Ahmadinejad has promised to "wipe Israel off the map" and "destroy" America.
Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him.

"We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election," Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.

And then there are Obama's dangerous economic plans for America.
He wants to almost double the capital gains tax. He wants to strip the FICA tax cap off every worker making more than $97,500. He wants to increase the dividend tax. He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire — giving almost every American family an automatic tax increase.

He has called for more than $800 billion in new spending programs.
He is so radical he even backed driver's licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.

He is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.

He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns. He originally backed Washington D.C.'s total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an "F" on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.

Never forget that Obama is a Harvard educated elitist. To him we Americans are simply "bitter" and he has mocked us saying "[they] cling to their guns and their religion."

Exposing the Truth
Hillary Clinton was late in recognizing the threat Obama posed to her campaign, but once she did, her strategy worked.
When Hillary exposed Obama publicly, her campaign saw a major turnaround.

Hillary won every major state primary in the nation with the sole exception of Obama's home state of Illinois.

And even though Obama was "anointed" by the media and Democratic elites, Hillary went on to win eight of the last 10 Democratic primaries. How did Obama beat Hillary for the nomination?
Well, using a loophole in Democratic rules, he was able to rack up large majorities in caucus states where he outspent and out organized her.

But in large, contested states she won almost every time. Why? Because when Democrats heard what Obama really stood for, they turned on him.

Make no mistake about it: If we let Americans know the truth about Obama, John McCain can win this election!
But we must employ Hillary Clinton's strategy.
We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is.

Let's look at what a Democratic Congress has done in the last 2 years

Just so you know, I am not a Bush fan but facts are facts. . .

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy
was fine.

A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations, overseas,
living large!
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right.

In the PAST YEAR:

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure;
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low ~~ $2.5 TRILLION
DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

And NOW a BAIL OUT!!
YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT
IT! ...REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.
AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS??? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!

Thanks to
ronyvo3 over at JihadChat.com

Why did Barack Obama say "my Muslim faith"?

So, as the election nears, we MUST take a hard look at Obama. If you don't think that being a muslim is a bad thing for the president of the USA, the you should educate your self on Islam at Jihad Spin there are links to other site about Islam on this site and you can read Islam's holy book, the quran and hadith here also.

But the real question here is why did obama make this slip if he is a christian?





Thanks to ALTHOUSE

Shhh, can't talk about the saviors friends. But we can wail all we want about McCains. . .

The media went crazy when people questioned Barack Obama's friendships, they defended their savior and said it's a distraction from the issues, yadda yadda yadda. They, for the most part, ignored Obama's shady friends, but when it comes to John McCain's great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather (what's that, like 489 AD?) who owned a slave. Of course that is front page news!

Two Families Named McCain

Obama and Iranian Caviar

Obama is out there as the champion of the average Joe and he knows what you are going through and he so bravely is willing to pay more taxes (as he said during the debate) because he's fighting for you! So it must have been a mistake when he and his wife ordered some Iranian caviar while staying at the Waldorf Astoria, right?
Glenn Beck: Obama and Iranian Caviar

Obama’s WealthSpread(TM) - Can you say Socialism

Obama to 'Joe the Plumber': "My Plan is to Spread the Wealth Around"



"Joe the Plumber" Calls Out Obama as a Socialist




Obama's WealthSpread™: I Can't Believe It's Not Earned!
Thanks to ThePeoplesCube.com

Fighting Obama’s Goon Squad

By Michelle Malkin • October 14, 2008 03:16 PM

Chicago-trained thug Barack Obama has recruited musclemen in Missouri to intimidate critics.

It’s just the latest example of his bare-knuckle, speech-chilling bully tactics.

Missouri-based Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit has an overview of how “St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, both Obama supporters, are threatening to bring criminal libel charges against anyone who levels what turns out to be false criticisms of their chosen candidate for President.”

Glenn Reynolds has a thorough round-up.

American Issues Project, whose efforts to fight the Obama Goon Squad I’ve covered extensively, responds today to Obama’s Missouri machine:

September 26, 2008 – Barack Obama is now using local law enforcement officials to carry out his campaign of legal intimidation by assembling a group of high-ranking Missouri police officials and prosecutors – including St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCullough and City of St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce – to identify and target anyone the campaign determines is producing “misleading” political advertisements.

“This is an outrageous and shocking attempt by the Obama campaign to again employ Stalinist, police state tactics against those who dare to disagree with Barack Obama,” said Ed Martin, American Issues Projects president. “I am frankly stunned to see public officials like McCullough and Joyce abusing their official prosecutorial positions to serve as attack dogs for a national political campaign. I am quite certain Missourians elected these individuals to enforce the laws and arrest criminals, not to throw people in jail for daring to practicing free speech.

“The Obama campaign continues to provide a chilling preview of what would happen to political freedom in an Obama administration.”

This new effort is only the most recent attempt by the Obama campaign to crack down on free speech. Obama’s lawyers twice demanded the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute the American Issues Project, its officers, board of directors, and donors. The campaign also threatened stations running American Issues Project’s ad in an unsuccessful attempt to compel them to pull the spot, and ran its own ad in response.

Notably, this ad failed to dispute a single fact the American Issues Project has put forth.
About American Issues Project

American Issues Project is a 501(c)4 organization representing a coalition of conservative activists committed to raising important issues that deserve deeper examination given their impact on policy and politics. In accordance with federal law, American Issues Project only solicits and accepts contributions from individuals and not from any business corporation. For more information, visit: www.americanissuesproject.org.

About the Ad

The American Issues Project’s ad describing the relationship between Obama and Ayers aired 7,307 times from August 21 - 29 on 69 stations in 14 markets within Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The total ad buy was $2.8 million, making it the largest third-party expenditure to date in this election cycle. An electronic version of the ad and full documentation of all statements in the ad are available at American Issues Project’s website: www.americanissuesproject.org.

Exclusive: Obama – ‘Spread the Wealth Around’ Reveals Socialist Plan for America

Interview with Joe Wurzelbacher

The Editors


At a recent campaign appearance in Ohio, Sen. Obama was approached by plumber Joe Wurzelbacher, who has concerns about Obama’s proposed tax policies. FamilySecurityMatters.org’s Pam Meister had a candid conversation with him about his experience.

PAM MEISTER: You recently met Sen. Obama on the campaign trail in Ohio, and you asked him a question about his tax policies. What exactly was your question for him?

JOE WURZELBACHER: Initially, I started off asking him if he believed in the American Dream and he said yes, he does – and then I proceeded to ask him then why he’s penalizing me for trying to fulfill it. He asked, “what do you mean,” and I explained to him that I’m planning on purchasing this company – it’s not something I’m gonna purchase outright, it’s something I’m going to have to make payments on for years – but essentially I’m going to buy this company, and the profits generated by that could possibly put me in that tax bracket he’s talking about and that bothers me. It’s not like I would be rich; I would still just be a working plumber. I work hard for my money, and the fact that he thinks I make a little too much that he just wants to redistribute it to other people. Some of them might need it, but at the same time, it’s not their discretion to do it – it’s mine.

PM: You’re a plumber, and you’re looking to buy your own plumbing business?

JW: Correct.

PM: Would that plumbing business employ other people or would it just employ you?

JW: Eventually it would employ other people. Right now it’s a two man shop and it’s got a very good footprint and a very good reputation, so eventually I would want to put other people out there. I don’t want to get huge because if you get too big your quality goes, but I definitely wouldn’t mind having two good plumbers out there with me working.

PM: So a potential tax increase – how do you see that affecting your ability to hire more people to work with you at your company?

JW: Obviously these are hypothetical questions to a degree because I don’t know what the economy is going to do…

PM: Of course.

JW: Essentially what that would do is, I’d have to see how much money is available after everything else is paid, to see if I can one, afford a new vehicle, two, outfit it, and then three, pay a good salary. And if I’m being taxed too much, one of those three things is going to get shorted. One, I won’t be able to buy as good a good vehicle or I won’t stock it as well, or the guy I hire – if I’m able to hire somebody – is not going to make as much as he should.

PM: Obama gave you quite a long answer, I see, on Jake Tapper’s blog on ABC News. He did give you quite an extensive answer to your question talking about a 50% tax credit for healthcare costs, that sort of thing, and he talked about the reason he’s doing this – saying 95% of small businesses make less than $250,000 a year. He talked about your time as a plumber– you said you’ve been a plumber for 15 years?


JW: Yes.

PM: Okay, and then he talked about 10, 15 years ago maybe you weren’t making that sort of money, how would you feel – if you were just starting out, or maybe looking back – the kind of tax cut that he’s promising for other people, does that still make you think that that’s a great idea?

JW: No. See, I believe in working for what I get. I don’t want to say it’s a handout, but essentially that’s what it comes down to. You’re going to tax someone else more that’s been working hard to fulfill the American Dream and you’re gonna give it to other people who – I’m not saying they don’t work as hard, but I’m sure some of them don’t – and I don’t think it’s right just to give it to them or reduce taxes on their part and hike it up on my part like a teeter totter to bring it back even. So no, that wouldn’t – well, let me rephrase that. It would appeal to me because back then I was struggling. That kind of thing appeals to me – anybody wants to cut my taxes, I look at it very seriously, it’s like, it sounds great. But you gotta see what the other hand is doing too.

PM: Still, in that vein, Obama says he doesn’t want to “punish” you, but he wants to – let me see if I can see what his exact quote was…

JW: Redistribute the wealth.

PM: …taxing small businesses making $250,000 and above is going to help the people “behind you.” And yes, “spreading the wealth around.” How did you feel about that?

JW: As soon as he said it, he contradicted himself. He doesn’t want to “punish” me, but – when you use the word “but,” you pretty much negate everything you just said prior to that. So he does want to punish me, he does want to punish me for working harder to – you know, my big thing is the American Dream. I work hard. You know, I was poor; my mom raised me and my brother by herself for a very long time until my dad came along. So I know what it’s like to suffer. It’s not like I was born with a silver spoon. Usually it was a wooden spoon and it was on my butt. It was just a contradiction of terms, what he said: he doesn’t want to punish me but he wants to redistribute my wealth. And what I mean when I say my wealth, I mean the collective. Eventually – I mean, just to sound a little silly here, but you need rich people. I mean, who are you going to work for?

PM: Do you fear this is the possibility of America turning more down the socialist road if Obama does become elected and if he is able to implement these policies?

JW: Very much so. You start giving people stuff, and then they start expecting it – and that scares me. A lot of people expect it now. They get upset when their check’s late, they get upset when they don’t get as many benefits as they used to, or when different government agencies are cut or spending is cut here and there for whatever reason – people get upset at that. And that’s because they’re used to getting it and they want more. I mean, everyone’s always gonna want more. People work the system left and right to get more out of welfare, to get more out of state assistance, federal assistance. And if government’s there for them, they’re gonna keep on trying to manipulate it to get more out of it. You got people that come along and say, “Hey, I wanna help you people,” I mean, they’re all ears! They’re like, “Hey, you can help me more, I don’t have to work as hard, I don’t have to do as much, and you’re gonna give me this? Man, that’s great, you’re a good guy.”

So yeah, it goes down the socialist – His healthcare plan scares me. You know, I don’t like people going without healthcare, but it’s not my job to pay for everyone else’s healthcare. It’s hard enough paying for my own. I like the idea of deregulation as far as – nationally, you know, you only get insurance companies that can work in this state – if you deregulate that then you have more people competing and then the prices would go lower. It seems pretty simple to me. It probably isn’t that simple – but you flood the market with more products, usually they go down cheaper.

PM: In a recent survey of America’s chief executive officers, a full 69% of them said they were worried about an Obama presidency. Some even say he could plunge us into a depression or even bankruptcy in about three years. If you are to buy this business, you yourself would be a CEO, essentially, of a smaller business. Do you agree with those CEOs and if so, how might that change whether you take the risk of buying your business should Obama become elected?

JW: You know, I don’t know enough about that to give you a real intelligent answer. It does concern me. I’ve listened lately and I’ve heard he’s proposed more spending. You spend more, you gotta get it from somewhere. I don’t think he’s gonna cut any of the government down, in fact I think he wants to make it bigger. And eventually, you get it too big, it’s gonna topple. In essence, I suppose I do agree for a little bit, but I just don’t know enough as far as the grand scheme like that. In three years…I wouldn’t feel comfortable stating something like that.

PM: That’s fair enough. Could it be that people won’t be as productive? If you’re going to be paying more taxes, why should you be more productive when you could possibly take home the same amount without being as productive? Do you agree with that?

JW: That’s the catch right there. Some people will agree with that. Some people will say, “Well, I’m not gonna work for the stars or shoot for ‘em because if I do, I’m gonna be punished, or I’m gonna be subjugated to more taxes,” or for whatever they wanna do. So yeah, I would agree to that to a point. Some people will say, “Well you know, I still want this, I’m still gonna work hard and try to make that happen for myself” And then other people are gonna sit back – and then you look at mediocrity for the country, and I don’t like that idea.

PM: What do you think that Obama’s tax plan will do to entrepreneurship in general in this country?

JW: It’ll definitely make people think twice about it. It’s not something that they’re gonna just rush into. It’s a tax increase, but it’s not a 50% tax increase. It’s not gonna keep everybody from doing it – some people might decide not to, but I don’t think it would keep everybody from doing it.

PM: Now did Obama tell you that you would receive some sort of tax cut?

JW: He talked about suspending capital gains to a certain amount… To be honest with you, I don’t want to say I tuned him out – because as he started, he pretty much regurgitated what he said in his debate, first one, second one, and a lot of his rallies. What he said to me was pretty much word for word what he’s been saying for the last couple months. So when he started down that path, it’s like, ”Okay, I’ve already heard this, Obama, give me something different.”

PM: There was nothing new in his answer?

JW: No, there was nothing new. You know, I didn’t appreciate that, actually.

PM: There’s a clip of you that’s been shown on television, and it’s all over the Internet on YouTube as well. It’s a very short clip. Do you think it accurately portrays the exchange that you had with Sen. Obama? Obviously there was more to it.

JW: I haven’t seen too much of it to be honest with you – I’ve been working yesterday and today, and the evenings spent with my boy or with my family. So I haven’t spent too much time looking at it. I did notice – I wish the newspaper people, talk shows, I wish they would start off with the very beginning: “Do you believe the American dream?” That was essentially what it came down to for me – was do you believe in the American Dream, you’re not going to punish people for going for it?

PM: To you, what exactly is the American Dream? Can you explain that?

JW: Me personally?

PM: Yeah, you personally.

JW: Me personally, my American Dream was to have a house, a dog, a couple rifles, a bass boat. I believe in living life easy and simple. I don’t have grand designs. I don’t want much. I just wanna be able to take care of my family and do things with them outdoors and that’s about it, really. I don’t have a “grand scheme” thing. My American Dream is just more personal to me as far as working, making a good living and being able to provide for my family, college for my son. Things like that – simple things in life, that’s really what it comes down to for me. That’s my dream.

PM: Do you think your question surprised Obama, caught him off guard at all?

JW: Well that was actually my intent. Most people, you ask them “do you believe in the American Dream?” Nine times out of ten they’ll sit there and go, “Yeah, of course!” That’s where he messed up, because as soon as I asked him that, his answer shows that he doesn’t believe in the American Dream. You know, like the question you asked before – he pretty much contradicted himself. “I don’t want to punish you but – “ Well, you’re going to anyways.

PM: Has there been a lot of media interest in your story? Have you been getting a lot of calls from the media asking you to talk about this?

JW: Neil Cavuto, I was on his show earlier today, just a phone interview for about five minutes. He asked a couple of questions. Then a talk show – Trey Ware – he has a conservative talk show down in San Antonio, Texas – he picked up on it. I’ve had friends call me from all over the nation, saying they heard Rush Limbaugh quote something from me or they’ve heard Hannity quote something. I guess it’s getting quite a bit of play.

PM: What kind of feedback are you getting from friends and family, other than the fact they have heard you being quoted on some very popular talk shows?

JW: Well, my son thinks it’s absolutely the most incredible thing in the world. He loves – I always teach him to speak his mind and to know what he’s talking about before he speaks his mind because usually there’s always someone in the room who will know what you’re talking about. So he just thinks it’s really neat. My friends – well, a lot of them will come to me and ask me political questions just because I think it’s important to know about it – and so they know they’ll get a straight answer from me, even if I don’t like they guy or I do like the guy, you know, I’ll give them the pros and cons of it and let them make their own decisions on it. But some, they know it’s pretty important to me. I was kind of actually nervous about doing any of this, you know, answering calls and going on that show. But they all, you know, said that I always answer them good and so they just said go for it, so they’ve been very supportive.

PM: Do you hope Sen. McCain will talk more about this issue during Wednesday’s debate, you know, taxes for small businesses?

JW: There’s a lot of things I wish McCain would say. As far as this, yes, I would like him to speak. Not so much about small businesses, but just people in general that make this money. It’s not up to them to help America, I mean – let me rephrase that. It’s not – they shouldn’t be taxed more because they’ve succeeded. That’s envy and jealousy. Get off your butt and go work. Don’t sit there and expect the government to give it to you. So I wouldn’t mind him speaking on it like that. I know he couldn’t say it probably like that because that’d turn a lot of people off. But it just – yeah, I guess I would like him to speak about that and a bunch of other things. I’d like to hear him talk about immigration and what he plans on doing about that and with our borders. I mean, there’s a lot of things that haven’t even been addressed in the last two debates.

PM: You’re right about that. I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to me.

JW: Thank you so much.

Brought to you by the editors and research staff of FamilySecurityMatters.org.

Exclusive: Forget Bill Ayers - Here Are Over a Dozen More Virulently Anti-American Obama Friends

The Obama defenders are complaining that William Ayers’ radical bombings in the late 1960s and early 1970s are dismissible as "old news." They declare Obama's associations to be "irrelevant." (Somehow I'm prompted to wonder what they'd say if McCain were a friend of a 1940s Nazi prison camp guard.) Yet Obama's associations are relevant, as they are in fact current news, and they speak to his judgment, character and to his political proclivities and inclinations. And we can never forget that a man is known by the company he keeps.

Here is a brief accounting of over a dozen of Obama’s long-time colleagues, associates and friends.

Khalid al-Mansour: the anti-Semite Black Nationalist racist who changed his name from Don Marshall and converted to Islam, was a patron of Obama’s and helped advance Obama’s candidacy to law school. He was instrumental in starting the violent Black Panthers group, became Kind Saud’s attorney and represents OPEC. No wonder Obama doesn't want to drill anywhere, although he changed that tune in last Tuesday's debate in an apparent attempt to drill for votes.

As an article in FrontPageMag.com reported, “And why is it that black racists such as al-Mansour constitute a significant proportion of these hate mongers? In large part, it is because blacks have been specifically and aggressively targeted for recruitment by leaders of the worldwide jihad, just as they were targeted for recruitment by the Communist Party USA in the 1920s. Black grievance, combined with the evangelism of the Nation of Islam over the last seventy years, has established an audience for the ideology of hate.”

It is notable that Khalid al-Mansour is an advisor and friend to Prince al-Walid bin Talal, the Saudi sheik to whom Mayor Rudy Giuliani returned a $10 million check right after 9/11 because bin Talal stated that America brought the bloodthirsty attack on itself due to our foreign policy.

Rashid Khalidi: an enthusiastic supporter of the Palestinians, fervent critic of Israel (which he calls a destructive “racist” state), an admirer of suicide bombers and a driving force behind the Arab American Action Network (AAAN). This so-called pro-Palestinian “community organization” in Chicago is another beneficiary of the Obama-Ayers team at the Woods Fund. It promotes an agenda that would horrify Obama’s Jewish supporters and any normal person. In fact, both Sen. Obama and Mr. Ayers actually spoke at a testimonial dinner for Rashid Khalidi.

According to Jack Kelly in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “ ‘Khalidi and Obama lived in nearby faculty residential zones and the two families dined together a number of times,’ a source on the University of Chicago faculty told WorldNet Daily. ‘The Obamas even babysat the Khalidi children.’ ”

Ingrid Mattson: President of the troubling Islamic Society of North America, a group named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist trial, and a woman whom Obama invited to lead prayer at the Democrat Convention, which she did.

Frank Marshall Davis: another of Obama's mentors mentioned in his book, a well-known Stalinist Communist whose devotion to the Soviet Union and hatred for an America which he described as racist and imperialistic put him under FBI surveillance for at least 19 years. It is quite possible that Davis did more to shape Obama’s world view than many in his entourage.

Tony Rezko: convicted felon of fraud and shady dealings, he and Obama were very close. Rezko helped get Obama a sweetheart mortgage, and he bundled tons of money for Obama’s campaign. Rezko bought property (under another sweetheart deal) to be Obama's neighbor. As of today, it appears Rezko is willing to talk to reduce his sentence.

William Ayers: Ayers is still today (this is not an “old news” story) an unrepentant terrorist. He was quoted (coincidentally on September 11, 2001, in the New York Times) as being proud and unapologetic for the bombings of the Pentagon, the Capitol and the New York City Police where several police officers were murdered as a result. In fact, he stated that his only regret was that they hadn't done more. For a smug thug like this, Sen. Obama – unbelievably – did the favor of writing a dust-jacket blurb forMr. Ayers' 2001 book, "Fugitive Days".

Ayers and Obama served on the board of the Annenberg Foundation together, overseeing the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars. Currently, or rather, inexplicably, all the related records remain "unavailable."

Interestingly, the Annenberg Foundation runs the "Factcheck.org" site that Obama uses as his only source of "facts" on his "fight the smears" website. Why or how factcheck.org is given any mainstream media credibility as a fact source is laughable. The mainstream press should be ashamed of itself for using them.

Saved from jail, unfortunately, by legal technicalities, Ayers is married to Bernardine Dohrn, another Weathermen terrorist once on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List, who did serve time for refusing to testify about the death of other Weathermen when a bomb they were building blew up prematurely. J. Edgar Hoover called her ''the most dangerous woman in America'' and ''la Pasionara of the Lunatic Left.''

Bernardine Dohrn, who in the 80’s worked at the same time with Michelle Obama for the Chicago law firm Sidley Austin,was also a fan of Charles Manson:

At a 1969 "War Council" in Flint, Michigan, Dohrn gave her most memorable and notorious speech to her followers. Holding her fingers in what became the Weatherman "fork salute," she said of the bloody murders recently committed by the Manson Family in which the pregnant actress Sharon Tate and a Folgers Coffee heiress and several other inhabitants of a Benedict Canyon mansion were brutally stabbed to death: "Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach! Wild!" The "War Council" ended with a formal declaration of war against "AmeriKKKa," always spelled with three K's to signify the United States' allegedly ineradicable white racism.

ACORN: An organization so fraught with voter fraud they should be closed down and indicted under RICO. Where you're never too dead to vote twice. Ever wonder what a "community organizer" is? Think ACORN. For whom was Obama a "constitutional lawyer"? ACORN. Currently, numerous ACORN offices are being raided by the FBI and investigated for ongoing and major voter fraud.

Fannie/Freddie: Obama was the number two campaign contribution recipient from Freddie and Fannie execs, behind Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd. And bear in mind, those are numbers compiled over nine years. Obama has been a senator only for four of those years and raked in almost as much dough as Dodd did in all nine years.

Franklin Raines/Jim Johnson: Former heads of Fannie Mae, both men were removed for impropriety. Both made tens of millions of dollars from their time at the helm, helping to pilot the economy onto the rocks. Are there two people more responsible for the current economic mess? Besides Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, they may have had more to do with creating the problem than anyone else... and they're in Obama's inner circle giving economic advice; Jim Johnson was actually chosen to vet Obama's VP Pick.

Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger: radical, fervently anti-American, and anti-Semitic. The Rev. Louis Farrakhan, also an anti-Semite and black racist, was recently honored by Rev. Wright for “Lifetime Achievement”. And Obama called them mentors, friends and/or spiritual advisors. What did he learn from them over the decades of their association? And why did he not reject their views until it was politically expedient for him to do so?

Michelle Obama: Mrs. Obama seems to hold radical separatist views consistent with a 20-year attendance and tutelage under Rev. Wright. Her college thesis was on assimilation vs. "the black culture,” and she was openly dismayed that so many blacks were choosing to assimilate into the American melting-pot culture. She also stated on the campaign trail that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country. This, from a possible First Lady of the land.

From anti-American at best, to virulently anti-American and criminal anti-American at worst, this is the rag-tag crowd with whom Obama has chosen to build his career and personal relationships for the past few decades. That such a person – and crowd - could end up holding the fate and deepest secrets of our most precious jewel, America, in their hands – as well as all our futures - is deeply troubling, to say the least, and it would be an unspeakable tragedy if it were to transpire.

Why Doesn’t McCain Fight Back?

The headline over Harold Ford Jr.’s Washington Post column was, “Will McCain Do Anything to Win?” The former Democrat congressman, who lost a bitter race for senator in Tennessee, insisted that McCain was attacking Obama “in harsh, personal terms” and smearing him. But this is patently absurd. Indeed, on page 8 of the same edition of the Post was a story headlined, “McCain Mum on former Pastor,” on how the Republican presidential candidate has avoided mentioning Obama’s spiritual adviser for 20 years – the racist anti-American preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who believes Soviet disinformation that the U.S. Government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill black people.

This explosive and close personal relationship, which casts doubt on Obama’s judgment and sheds light on what he truly believes about religion, politics and world events, could drive millions of voters away from Obama. But McCain steadfastly won’t touch it. Yet Obama relentlessly pounds away at McCain for being a Republican like George W. Bush. Needless to say, this kind of “guilt by association” is perfectly acceptable to the liberal media.

Contrary to Harold Ford’s ridiculous assertion, some Republicans are openly wondering if McCain really wants to win.

In some ways, McCain has laid a trap for himself. It is difficult for McCain to label Obama a socialist when he has just come down on the side of Obama and most congressional Democrats and against the House Republican conservatives on the matter of the $700-billion Wall Street bailout.

It didn’t have to happen this way. McCain could have voted against a bailout bill that benefited China. He could have threatened as president to investigate and prosecute those federal officials who let the U.S. become vulnerable to Communist China’s holding of U.S. debt and assets. Instead, he called for the head of Christopher Cox of the Securities and Exchange Commission, who is far down the totem pole of responsibility.

McCain had a concrete opportunity to break with Bush and other top officials and he didn’t take it. Then, to make matters worse, he used a presidential debate to promote another federal bailout of bad mortgages. He was trying to move to the Left of Obama. No wonder Republicans at McCain’s town hall meetings are frustrated.

Having realized that McCain blew an opportunity to come down on the side of the American people by opposing the bailout, McCain’s top advisers, who will return to their lucrative lobbying practices no matter who wins on November 4th, have apparently decided that all they can do now is question a few of Obama’s associates. The timing is bad and it looks like too little and too late. But it is still worthwhile to get the information out on the table. After all, the American people are entitled to know the truth about their next Commander-in-Chief.

However, one of the most glaring taboo topics, even for the McCain campaign, has been Frank Marshall Davis, the black communist “poet” and “journalist” who mentored Obama in Hawaii for about eight years. Davis was under investigation by the FBI for 19 years. His 600-page FBI file notes that he was even considered by his fellow communist comrades as anti-white. The Davis relationship helps explain why Obama would later attend and belong to Wright’s church, where he would get married and have his children baptized.

Much is known about Obama being in the middle of two communist networks, one in Hawaii involving Davis, and the other in Chicago, involving Wright and terrorist Bill Ayers and the crook Tony Rezko. The pattern of controversial connections occurs over a 30-year period. But the Obama campaign has been quick to label any critical reports, no matter how factual and accurate, as “smears” and “personal attacks” and “guilt by association.” The media echo these allegations and refuse to dig deeper. At this late date in the campaign, there is still a legal controversy brewing over whether Obama was even born in the U.S. and is therefore constitutionally eligible for the office of president. It is certainly suspicious that Obama’s “birth certificate” originally surfaced on the Daily Kos website, the source of the false claims that Sarah Palin faked her last pregnancy.

A new book, The Dream Begins, co-authored by a journalist with the Honolulu Advertiser, is the latest example of the preemptive war that is being waged by the Obama campaign and its media supporters. This book acknowledges that Frank Marshall Davis helped “shape” Obama’s world view but insists that Davis wasn’t a communist, only a civil rights activist. In fact, Davis was identified by congressional committees, as well as his own biographer, John Edgar Tidwell, as a Communist Party member. Davis was also part of the “Toward Soviet America” movement. His FBI file suggests possible espionage activity on behalf of the Soviet Union.

Equally shocking, Davis was a sexual pervert and pornographer whose autobiographical Sex Rebel book describes having sex with a child. Leaving aside the personal nature of whatever may have occurred―and Obama has never been asked about it – don’t voters have a right to know to what extent Obama has adopted Davis’s attitudes about sexual libertinism?

In the context of cultural and moral issues, the McCain campaign aired a mild but misleading ad accusing Obama of supporting sex education for children. The broader concern is that Obama favors the homosexual and abortion rights movements, and wants open homosexuals in the U.S. military. But these seem to be “taboo” topics for the McCain campaign.

Even the McCain campaign’s belated attacks on Obama associate Ayers are missing the mark. He wasn’t just a “domestic terrorist” and didn’t just run a “violent left-wing activist group,” as a McCain ad says. Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn were communist terrorists with links to foreign communist regimes in Hanoi and Havana. Declassified intelligence information also demonstrates links between their Weather Underground terrorist movement and the Communist Party USA and the intelligence services of Cuba and the Soviet Union. They succeeded in forcing a U.S. military withdrawal from Vietnam, resulting in hundreds of thousands of “boat people” and political prisoners in Vietnam and over a million dead at the hands of the communist Khmer Rouge in neighboring Cambodia. McCain should know all of this. After all, he was in the middle of it.

Yet the McCain ad is so careful not to offend Obama that it says that his friendship with Ayers “isn’t the issue” and that the controversy is whether Obama has been truthful about his relationship with the terrorist. So if Obama had been honest about associating with a terrorist it would be all right? The ad fails to make the basic point that Ayers was a member of a communist movement that aided the enemies of the United States―and that he and his wife are still members of this movement. What’s more, the ad fails to connect Ayers to Davis and Wright.

As I discovered, when I attempted to interview Ayers at his university office, his views haven’t changed since the time he and his wife were bombing federal buildings and police stations. I took photos of the Left-wing, pro-homosexual, anti-Israel and Marxist propaganda plastered outside his office door. One big poster highlights an Ayers visit to see his “education” comrades in Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela. It is there for anyone to see. But the eyes of the media, of course, are looking elsewhere.

When anti-communist analysts and security experts examine Obama’s history of associations with unsavory characters and communist figures, and his open backing from an assortment of communist and socialist groups and individuals, they have to wonder if Obama is a Marxist mole or a communist collaborator. The answer has to be somewhat speculative because, as a candidate, Obama doesn’t have to undergo a background security check. As president, however, he will have instant access to our most closely guarded and classified state secrets. If the truth comes out then, it will be too late.

Many current and former officials have expressed alarm about Obama avoiding a background investigation. One said, “I used to have top secret clearance, and if I had the contacts that Obama had, I would not have gotten that clearance.”

John W. Slagle, a retired career federal law enforcement agent, who said that he had held “secret” and above security clearances for over 30 years, pointed out that the questionnaire for obtaining working clearances at the National Security Agency (NSA) is clear and concise in every area. He explained, “Persons known with possible criminal contacts to personal problems, misdemeanors, to any ‘gray’ areas in a person’s past, are grounds to revoke a NSA security clearance until the problem is explained and examined in great detail.”

“For those of us, current and prior military, federal law enforcement agents who hold or have held Secret and above NSA classifications, our continuing re-investigations year-to-year never end,” he said.

But the media ignore this aspect of Obama. Instead, they would prefer to focus on matters such as what Sarah Palin did to protect her family from a state trooper with personal problems.

On the American Thinker website, Professor Paul Kengor has attempted to explain why information about Obama’s controversial connections to communists like Ayers and Davis has “failed to resonate beyond the political right” and make headlines in the major media. He believes that the history and truth about communism are not taught by our educators.

But this goes beyond media ignorance. How, for example, does one explain Newsweek’s editor, Jon Meacham, writing an article about Obama that mentions Davis but insists that Davis was the victim of a false charge of being a communist? Somebody like Meacham has to have some elementary awareness of the bloody record and failures of communism. A simple Google search would disclose Davis’s communist affiliations. But Meacham decided that the best way to handle this information was through deceit and cover-up. He didn’t want his readers to know the truth.

Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel has berated Meacham for moving Newsweek in a left-wing direction but O’Reilly hasn’t been much better than Meacham in getting out the facts about Davis. His producers have made it clear they will not examine Obama’s “Sex Rebel” mentor in any detail. Sex sells, except when it involves Obama’s communist mentor.

There seems to be a desire, at least in the case of Fox News, to avoid being labeled a “McCarthyite” or “red-baiter.” This shows how the attitudes of the liberal-left even taint and shape the coverage of a so-called “conservative” news channel.

Sen. McCain, who was tortured by communists as a prisoner of war, should understand what is at stake far better than most people. But he doesn’t seem to want to go there. Indeed, conservatives who raise any of these taboo topics are likely to get criticized by McCain.

No wonder some Republicans are acting mad as hell at his town hall meetings. They have an economic system that is being transformed into socialism under a Republican Administration while their presidential candidate seems to be clueless through it all.