The Liberal blogs, with the Daily Kos at the top of the list, are all having a fit that the Democratic candidates are appearing on Fox News. For them, the concept of freedom of speech ends when it is speech they don't agree with. It's funny how they don't even try to cover up the fact that when it comes to Fox News they act like fascists who believe Fox News has no right to exist.

The other interesting item to note about this is how quickly they turn on their own. We saw it with Hillary Clinton - when she wouldn't be strong-armed out of the race, they viciously attacked her with vile postings. It's like a bunch of spoiled children who are mad because they are not getting their way. Now that H. has appeared on Fox news, they are now calling him "weak" and his campaign spokesmen as "liars."

It's clear that Kos posters and other liberal bloggers have a clearly exaggerated sense of self-importance. They refer to themselves as his "base," but a there are a lot of people in this country. A few thousand liberal bloggers barely comes close to being able to deliver a significant majority in an election. They failed with Howard Dean in 2004, but they still haven't realized the actual limited scope of their influence. If anything, they have begun to marginalize themselves with hateful postings and profanity-laden insults. These are the types of things that will never be mainstream. The candidates are smart enough to realize this, and have intelligently looked beyond this childish, scornful, self-ascribed "base," and made steps to appeal to those of us in the real world.

With the explosion of the Reverend Wright controversy, liberals are falling all over themselves to try to defend H. The first defense was the "guilt by association" card. They stated that it is not fair to judge H. by the company he keeps. "Guilt by association," they would say is simply not fair.

That hasn't really worked that well, as the issue is much more than that. H. is running a campaign based partly on his incredible judgment, as supposedly evidenced by his statement "I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning," or statements by his key supporters such as Bill Richardson, "He is ready. He has great judgment..." or his own "Judgment To Lead" Video. It turns out that his judgment isn't all that good, as he has spent years in the pew of a racially divisive pastor, associated with known terrorists such as Bill Ayers and his wife, and conducted deals with suspected criminals under indictment such as Tony Rezko.

So now, instead of trying to defend H. from the charges of questionable judgment, the liberal media spinners are now going after John McCain by digging up questionable contacts he has with supposedly nefarious persons, and charging... you guessed it.... "guilt by association!" Never mind the fact that they said it was an unfair tactice when (in their view) it was applied to H., now that they find themselves against a wall, they are trying to use it to taint John McCain.

Alan Colmes has repeatedly used this tactic throughout the Reverend Wright controversy when he would state that "it's a guilt by association game and it's not going to work." Then he would use the same tactic to try to attack McCain by mentioning McCain's "questionable associations." Way to maintain credibility, Alan.

Liberal columnist Stephen Chapman has also tried the "guilt by association" tactic in his column this week when he ties McCain to G. Gordon Liddy, the conservative who was convicted in the Watergate conspiracy three decades ago. Of course, that's really apples and oranges - while Liddy is unrepentant of his crime, he served his time for the crime, Ayers didn't, and the while Chapman tries to magnify the intensity of the actual crime, Liddy is not a terrorist bent on bringing down the government and more importantly, no one was killed by Liddy. I will give up the point that the association of McCain and Liddy is questionable but the magnitude of the association is hardly equal to H.'s aforementioned associations. And H's response to his associations is also telling, as it pulls back the curtain on H. and shows him to be just another politician, something he said he was not.

This current "guilt by association" backlash is probably why McCain tried to distance himself from this sort of politics from the beginning. We now are going to have any number of liberal H. defenders, who at first claimed that such a tactic was unfair, now poring through every aspect of McCain's life trying to find a similar brush as the one H. was tainted with. So far, it looks the brush used to taint H. is more like a house painting roller that covers broad expanses of H's persona, while the brush used on McCain is the kind people use to paint details on miniatures.

Previous: Alan Colmes Misses The Subtle Nuance

The equalization game continues, as H. supporters continue to dredge up "questionable" McCain associations. Alan Colmes, and The Nation columnist Katha Pollitt are pointing their fingers at two religious figures that have endorsed John McCain, televangelist John Hagee and preacher Ron Parsley. Both are outspoken, and sometimes outrageous in their sermons, but neither can be compared to Reverend Wright, nor can the association between them be compared to the association between H. and Wright.

Let's take a look at John Hagee. He has "famously attributed Hurricane Katrina to God's wrath at homosexuals," and this, H. supporters believe, somehow cancels out Wrights outrageous rant about "America's chickens have come home to roost." Well, these two are hardly equivalent. John Hagee was speaking out against behavior and so was Reverend Wright. I endorse neither statement, although Wright's actually probably has more truth to it than Hagee's. But Hagee was extorting people to follow the word of God and trying to help them be better people in God's eyes. In the bible, homosexuality is a sin, after all. We don't have to believe it, but I find no offense in him saying it. Wright on the other hand, was stirring up pure hostility and offering nothing of a constructive nature whatsoever. Hagee's statements were not vitriolic in the sense that Wright's were. In the racially tense South Side of Chicago, Wright was stirring up civil disobedience, calling the American government a "liar," and destroying in one swoop any presumption of civil authority. How many crimes may have been committed because of Wright and his divisive sermons? And then he ends by cursing the U.S.A. right from the pulpit, using language that most people would never use before small children. No, Hagee's and Wright's statements are hardly equivalent.

Another set of statements that Wright defenders and H. supporters use to equalize Hagee, Parsley and Wright, are the beliefs by both Hagee and Parsley that Islam is evil and their claims that "the Koran commands Muslims to kill Jews and Christians." Parsley goes further to state that America was founded to "destroy Islam," which is a bit of a crackpot statement, but a logical extension of his beliefs about Islam in general, which is evidenced by the Koran itself. This is somehow supposed to equal out Wright's excoriation of Jews and Israel. Once again, these statements and/or beliefs are hardly equal. Wright's beef against the Jews has no factual basis whatsoever. He merely spews the same one-sided lies that we hear from people like Louis Farrakhan, whom he has honored in his church. Hagee and Parsley, on the other hand, are correct in their claim that "the Koran commands Muslims to kill Jews and Christians." From TheReligionOfPeace.com:

The Koran contains 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers, and kill the infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

For the actual passages that explicitly state such things, visit TheReligionOfPeace.com.

So, once again, Hagee and Parsley are actually stating some things that are known to be true, or at least backed up by evidence. In addition, Parsley calls Allah a "demon spirit," which Alan Colmes seems to think is just as hateful as anything Reverend Wright has said. Why would Parsley think that, when his prophet Mohammed was a man who condoned war and bloodshed, was married to 11 women at one time (one as young as 9 years old), raped women captured in battle, added new, sometimes contradictory verses to his holy book any time he wanted to change the rules, and founded a religion which is directly or indirectly responsible for humans dying every single day, to this very day? I could see some basis for that statement. Wright, on the other hand, is spewing pure propaganda which is not borne out by evidence. Of course, many people may believe that Jews and Palestinians for example are equally culpable for the disorder in the Middle East, but I don't. And I do not find it to be "hate speech" to say so. That is an opinion found only on the left. All people, on the other hand, should condemn anti-Semitism. This is no double standard. Saying that Jews are evil is a bigoted statement with no evidence to back it up. Saying that Muslims are commanded by the Koran to kill infidels is not bigoted; that's what the book actually says.

These are the most glaring examples of equalization defenses put out by Wright defenders and H. supporters, and upon closer examination, they fall flat. Add to this Wright's obviously racial eugenics rants and the fact that McCain's relationship with his two "questionable preachers" is not nearly as close nor as long-lasting as H.'s relationship with Reverend Wright, and you can see why the Reverend Wright issue has far more relevance than either Hagee or Parsley and John McCain. Can you say apples and oranges?

David Horowitz has been making the round promoting his new book Party of Defeat. My copy arrived a short time ago, and it is in my collection of soon-to-be-read books. If it is anything like the video below, I think it will be quite an informative read. How refreshing to listen to someone who actually can debate properly; that is, who lays out a thesis then provides points that prove the thesis in a clear linear fashion. Whenever I hear most liberals (and some conservatives) debate, there is little, if any, differentiation between what may be understood as an item of fact and an item which is merely something that people may believe but has no evidence to back it up. Nobody sums it up quite like Whoopi Goldberg, who said: "...if you want to go and get lots of facts and not go from your heart. I go from my heart."

I prefer facts, and I like it when they are strung together to form an actual compelling argument rather than an opinion based on how someone feels. That's why this video showing David Horowitz speaking about his new book is good viewing.

Front Page Magazine has a good series this week about H. and some of his ties to the community on Chicago's South Side.

Jacob Laksin explores Obama's ties to the South Side personalities who helped propel him to power, but whose continuing - and reciprocated - friendship with the candidate raises troubling questions about his ability to forge a new political consensus, especially on the fractious issue of race. To evaluate Obama's campaign and its grand promises, readers must first come to know the world of Chicago politics from which he emerged.

Relationships with Father Michael Pfleger, Dorothy Tillman and, of course, the ubiquitous Reverend Wright are examined in good detail.

To read the Front Page Magazine Series "Obama's World," click here.

"Barack Hussein Obama! Barack Hussein Obama! Barack Hussein Obama!"
-Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright

The words above were uttered by Reverend Wright to ridicule those who he believed were racist in bringing up H.'s middle name, Hussein. Most on the left believe that any utterance of H.s middle name is a racist ploy by those who wish to discredit him. That fact his name is Barack Hussein Obama is not important, and if you think it is, you must be a racist.

H. was given the full name of Barack Hussein Obama by his father, a man he barely remembers knowing, and only saw once beyond the age of 2. H. was raised by his mother, an American woman who was born in Kansas, and he lived most of his life in Jakarta, and then Hawaii. Although he had at one point in his life attended a school that was at least in part a Muslim School, the question of him actually being a Muslim is widely discredited. I can believe that he is not a Muslim, as in all reality, Barack Hussein Obama is not a Muslim name. It is an Arab name. And H. is not an African-American. He is an Arab-American.

"Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side. He is 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. - Kenneth Lamb

Now, there is nothing wrong with being Arab; to say so would truly make you a racist. But, there are a large number of Arabs and Arabian states that fall into the category of being enemies of the United States. An even larger number could call themselves the enemies of Israel. Of course, ascribing an association between these enemies and H. purely because of any Arabian descent would, once again, be racist or bigoted. But when you have a disturbing pattern of words and associations, that's another story...

Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs has reported the following:

Here's a quick run-down of some of Barack Obama's questionable and disturbing associations:

• Rabidly anti-Israel Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi. The Obamas were regular dinner guests at Khalidi's Hyde Park home for years.

• Terrorist sympathizer Ali Abunimah, who runs the viciously anti-Israel web site Electronic Intifada.

• Unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

• Reverend Jeremiah Wright. What more needs to be said?

• Anti-Israel foreign policy adviser Samantha Power -- fired after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster."

• Anti-Israel foreign policy adviser Robert Malley -- fired when it was revealed he has been holding talks with Hamas.

• Hatem El-Hady, former official of the Hamas-linked charity Kindhearts, closed by the Justice Department. El-Hady's web page suddenly vanished from the Obama campaign site with no explanation, after being exposed by LGF and others.

• Tony Rezko -- a Chicago fixer currently in a whole lot of legal trouble.

There are names above that we have seen in the news quite a bit lately, but there are a few that have not been widely publicized and show Obama has some associations that might presume one to think he might be a bit anti-Israel. Having dinner on numerous occasions with someone like Rashid Khalidi for example.

Khalidi has been accused of having ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization, based on his work for Wafa in the late 1980s. Khalidi has been accused of being "a director of the Palestinian press agency," publishing an "adulatory book" on the PLO in which he personally thanked Yasser Arafat, and acting as an adviser to the Palestinian delegation during peace negotiations. Khalidi denied the allegation that he served as a PLO spokesman. -- Wikipedia

Another name on the list that rings a few bells is Ali Abunimah. In a lengthy piece on his website (ironically titled "How Obama learned to love Israel"), Abunimah describes how H. has slowly been inflluenced to turn away from Israel and turn towards Palestinians.

As (H.) came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"

Only if enough people know what Obama and his competitors stand for, and organize to compel them to pay attention to their concerns can there be any hope of altering the disastrous course of US policy in the Middle East. It is at best a very long-term project that cannot substitute for support for the growing campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions needed to hold Israel accountable for its escalating violence and solidifying apartheid.

If only we knew, indeed.

One more name on the list is Hatem El-Hady, called by FrontPage Magazine, a "Terrorist fundraiser for Obama."

Two years ago, Hatem El-Hady was the chairman of the Toledo, Ohio-based Islamic charity, Kindhearts, which was closed by the US government in February 2006 for terrorist fundraising and all its assets frozen. Today, El-Hady has redirected his fundraising efforts for his newest cause - Barack Obama for President.

El-Hady has his own dedicated page on Barack Obama's official website, chronicling his fundraising on behalf of the Democratic Party presidential candidate (his Obama profile established on February 19, 2008 - two years to the day after Kindhearts was raided by the feds). Not only that, but he has none other than Barack Obama's wife, Michelle Obama, listed as one of his friends.

It is interesting to note that the profile on H.'s website has since been removed. In any case, it is evident that H. has been associating with some unsavory characters. These associations may lead one to believe that H. is somewhat sympathetic to Palestinians at the cost of Israel. He has certainly has his ear bent by some anti-Israel voices, and by one account above, it seems his opinions have been swayed in their direction. But what of H.'s own experiences? Is he not also exposed to those who have a view-point opposing the above anti-Israel sentiments? Is cherry-picking three associations out of many really a fair assessment? One can look to H.'s own words and actions to help clarify this.

(Obama) criticized Holocaust deniers. That is certainly not such a radical position (unless you live in Iran) yet then advocated more talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad-who not only denies the Holocaust but also promises a new one to come. He noted how Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon led to the rise of an enemy on its northern border. But then he seemed to be encouraging Israel to make even more such gestures. For instance, he praised past Israeli leaders for gestures of peace they have made towards the Palestinians-but refused to recognize that these previous moves have just led to more violence and death for the Israelis.

"Israel government must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart". --Barack Obama

from American Thinker

One seemingly consistent theme running throughout Barack Obama's career is his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates. Now that Obama has become a leading Presidential candidate, he has assembled a body of foreign policy advisers who signal that a President Obama would likely have an approach towards Israel radically at odds with those of previous Presidents (both Republican and Democrat). A group of experts collected by the Israeli liberal newspaper Haaretz deemed him to be the candidate likely to be least supportive of Israel. He is the candidate most favored by the Arab-American community.

from American Thinker

H. has consistently denied the claims that he is anti-Israel, but the evidence seems to be accumulating that American policy towards Israel will change if he is elected president. Of course, the left-wing Democrats will have no problem with this, as they have grown into an anti-Israel force themselves. Astoundingly, the propaganda of the Palestinians, Hamas and Hezbollah has found a home in the liberal mind. It is common to hear Israel blamed for all the problems in the Middle east. One can find such propaganda on the liberals own websites such as the Daily Kos, which posted this awful hate piece: Eulogy before the Inevitability of Self-Destruction: The Decline and Death of Israel. Here's are some excerpts:

"It is a matter of Israeli policy to engage in militaristic war cry of ultra-nationalistic morale, deception, cruelty, thievery, subversion, assassination, sabotage and warfare by belligerence to achieve its objectives for supreme rule."

"Israel is not grateful for the 'tiny' parcel of land it calls a home after the enunciation of the Declaration of Independence that beget the birth of Israeli state. It calls for the mandate of "Greater Israel" in fundamental reorganization of the Middle East and Central Asia states with Israel as the "holy" supreme power in geopolitical and military-economic hegemony."

"Drunken by its belief of entitlement and arrogance - Israel now believes it has the power to exercise control of the region by subversive means even if the result will be counterproductive that may end in disastrous blowback not only for Israel but also precipitate the accelerated fall of the United States in economic and moral collapse in mismanagement of the host nation's priorities."

Could it be that the liberal left-wing has no problem with H.'s anti-Israel stance?

So, in the end, what does this have to do with H. being of Arabian descent? One cannot seriously draw the conclusion that because he is Arabian he favors pro-Arabian policies, without being called a racist or a bigot. But he is showing signs of anti-Israel viewpoints in his words, actions and associations, and he seems to certainly be sympathetic with some Arabian causes. I think it is probably more attributable to his association with the the extreme left-wing of his party, a topsy-turvy bizarro world where people like William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn are not bomb-wielding terrorists but are instead distinguished professors, and Israel is consistently seen as an aggressor in the Middle East and Palestinians as hapless victims who have done nothing to bring this upon themselves. Just take a look at Jimmy Carter for example, a standard bearer of the liberal left, a Palestinian apologist, and a former president who has been identified as the most like H. in Middle Eastern viewpoints.

And as the liberals sweep H. into the candidacy of the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination, it looks like they would be willing to throw Israel under the bus.

Prominent Democrats are decrying statements made by President Bush in a speech in Israel. The President, on the occasion of Israel's 60th Birthday, said the following:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

The Democrats immediately went into counter-attack mode, with Nancy Pelosi, H., and Joe Biden all making statements decrying Bush's statements. Of course, they would never acknowledge that what Bush said was true. There are numerous examples throughout history of attempts to negotiate with terrorists, dictators and despots that have failed miserably because the enemy just went ahead with their plans, regardless of any "agreements." Conversely, while there are some successes for diplomatic measures, they are few and far between. When I pressed a colleague for an example of successful diplomacy that actually solved a problem, it took him a few minutes to think of an example.

In our current age, the Israel/Palestinian conflict is a glaring example of decades of diplomacy yielding absolutely nothing, at the cost of thousands of lives and the misery of many more. And since that worked so well, the afore-mentioned prominent Democrats want that to be American policy towards rogue states like Iran and Syria?

Of course, Bush didn't name any particular sitting American Senators. They are calling themselves out by their objections. Could it be that those that are speaking up have a guilty conscience?

This morning in my Sunday paper, I came across an advertisement that made me stop and consider its content. The ad, reproduced at right, is for Kool-Aid. It depicts young black children in various "gangsta" poses.

This is wrong on so many levels. The ad was in the Sunday magazine section, so its obviously aimed at parents. I could be wrong, but I don't think people are going to coo and go "Oh look, they're little gangsters. How adorable!" At least I didn't. I immediately thought about how course culture has become when this is an acceptable depiction of children. Start your kids on the road to being a gangster early, so they can screw up their life later!

Then there's the racial component. The "angry black" image coming into everyone's homes in an ad for Kool-Aid? This merely reinforces a negative stereotype that is hardly constructive. Blacks as well as whites should find this ad to be objectionable.

What are the folks at Kool-Aid thinking? They must be drinking their product...

American Thinker has a good article entitled Your Energy Future Under the Democrats by Larrey Anderson, but in addition to the critical look at Democrats energy plans, there was another thing that caught my eye. In a quote of a statement from the DNC website, writer Anderson had to point out that the bad grammar in the statement was not a typo on his part, but that the offending grammar exists in the source statement.

From their official website, here is the summary paragraph (including the bad grammar) of the Democrat plan to solve the energy crisis:

"We will create a cleaner, greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in energy independent technology."

So there's a typo on the DNC website, you might say, what's the big deal? This, to me, goes beyond just being a typo. We all make mistakes, and as bloggers sometimes in our writing we might play a little loose with grammatical correctness, or use slang words, statements or sentences. But this isn't a blog post or note to mother. This is an official position statement from the political party that wants to occupy the White House.

This shows a disturbing tendency I have been seeing more in more in younger people, especially those on the left. The "intelligentsia" of the liberal left seems to have given up on the discipline to precisely and correctly communicate. And their ideology is buried so deep in their psyche that nothing is just plain black or white or right or wrong. Feelings becomes fact, and actual facts are secondary to feelings. Details like conjugating a verb or communicating in complete sentences are secondary, as long as the point gets across.

What kind of slackers are our colleges graduating these days? The white collar work place is full of fresh faced young graduates who have been indoctrinated in the liberal mind-set at their respective universities. They spout high-minded ideals, and swagger with the smarm and confidence belying the intelligence their sheepskin confers upon them. Except that they can barely spell. Universities nowadays are more concerned with teaching children what to think than how to write or communicate decently. And it shows.

The irony of this is that they so deeply believe that they are the intelligentsia, and that conservatives are the clueless automatons who have been brain-washed by the Bush administration and aren't intelligent enough to vote in their own interest. But we are the ones who pay attention to details, and string facts together into intelligent arguments. And we are the ones who can conjugate a verb.

A deep and sincere thanks go out to all of our soldiers, veterans and all who have served in our military. Your service to our nation is the greatest gift we have.

Thank you.

The Surge Is Working, and not just in Iraq, reports an editorial in Investor's Business Daily.

Victory can be achieved.

* Update Below * John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the United Nations, will be speaking in Wales this evening, and George Monbiot, a self-righteous peace activist, says he has plans to perform a "citizen's arrest" on him. The Dyfed-Powys Police have been in contact with Monbiot and are aware of the planned action, and supposedly are actually considering the arrest, although I can't believe they actually will. Monbiot calls himself a "journalist," and "activist," but I think he is nothing more than a left-wing publicity hound with an exaggerated sense of self-importance.

It appears that Britain actually has a law that allows for one citizen to detain another without a warrant or police involvement. The law is part of the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Thankfully, others believe that Monbiot's attempt to arrest John Bolton would not be legal:

Peter Florence, director of the Hay Festival, said Mr Monbiot's attempt at a citizen's arrest would be "completely unlawful".

He said: "The Hay Festival has sought the advice of both police and lawyers, and has been unequivocally assured that a citizen's arrest, or an attempt to instigate a citizen's arrest, would be completely unlawful in these circumstances.

"The Hay Festival encourages visitors to voice their opinions, but also requires that, in their expression, they respect both the law and the speaker."

Even with that being the case, I think Monbiot will in fact try to carry out his protest. And I hope John Bolton will regard this as an unlawful assault on his freedom and an insult. And I also hope John Bolton, like any well known figure in politics, travels with some Secret Service style goons that will stop Monbiot if he tries to pull anything.


* Update * It appears I was correct:

Mr Monbiot was blocked by two heavily-built security guards at the end of the one-and-a-half hour appearance, before he could serve a "charge sheet" on him.

After being released by the guards the columnist - a fierce critic of the 2003 American-led invasion - made a dash through the rain-soaked tented village in a failed attempt to catch up with Mr Bolton.

Ha!

It sure looks like its going to be John McCain vs. H. in the forthcoming Presidential race. Hillary is still campaigning, but H. is readying himself for the general election, and many pundits think the primary race is over. Unfortunately for H., in the battle between him and John McCain, McCain is currently the one who is controlling the debate.

Over the last week or so, H. has continually had to react to comments by McCain or his supporters, and even change his behavior on foreign policy by responding to McCain's remarks about not being in Iraq since 2006 by planning a trip there. Whether the trip was already being planned isn't known, but H. sure is doing a lot of reacting. And, as they say, if you're reacting you're losing. The winner is the one who controls the debate, and currently that's John McCain.

And while he's got H. suckerpunched, the pastors that keep on giving are also taking some shots, and while they are not directed at H., H. is the one getting hit by them. Last Sunday's rant by Chicago's Father Pfleiger is just the latest in a long run of questionable religious associations for H. Michelle Malkin has a complete list of the dangerous religious mentors that H. has cited. We've already seen that H. has a bit of a glass jaw when it comes to reacting to these associations.

The race has barely begun, and H. is already on the ropes.