As I was slogging through the thousands of spam in my e-mail box, I came across an actual letter that I feel compelled, in all fairness, to respond to. Although months old, I just discovered this e-mail today, and as it is a thoughtful critique, I would like to do my best to offer a fair-minded response. Here's the letter:

Dear P. (Sense you favor use of initials),

I find it odd that you are so quick to call H. a racist, but you won't acknowledge your own families(sic) racist history of Slavery. I wonder how many of your readers would be interested in the history of your own families recent past. You are a talented writer and even though I'm a Democrat, I find your post well researched and informative. You should use your talents to be more open-minded and less bias. It is one thing to support your party, but another to build support by posting such negative (and often hateful) comments regarding your opposition. I have not read one post describing anything positive that McCain or Bush (W) stand for that would make the reader switch parties or even see your views. Your posts have more hatred and ridicule towards Obama, Syesha Mercado, R-Kelly, Rev Wright and other minorities than insight on the party issues.

There is an implication here that I am a racist, although it is not implicitly stated. I am not "quick to call" H. a racist; as the letter states, my post is "well researched and informative." I am not sure exactly to which post the letter writer is referring to, but I did a quick search of my posts from April and May (when the e-mail was sent) and could not find a statement where I called H. (Obama) a racist. I certainly have called Reverend Wright a racist, and perhaps it could be inferred by my linking of Wright to H., that I was calling H. a racist. While that may be a fair conclusion, I was primarily trying to question the judgment of H. for associating with racists such as Wright, and not just for a short time, but for twenty long years.

More importantly, I feel the letter writer did make a very important comment when he implored me to be more positive. I think he has a valid point there, and in the future, I will do my best to comment on the positive offered by the people I support, and not just knock the people I don't. I believe I have offered positive comments, but they may have been buried in the deluge of harsher criticisms. For example, I posited that the surge in Iraq is working when I stated on April 26, 2008 that the Iraq War has strengthened the U.S. international position. On March 27, 2008, I called attention to a great speech by John McCain where he deftly describes our current international position in regards to Iraq, and what he feels needs to be done. On February 19, 2008, I called attention to the recognition of Bush from Bob Geldof for providing more aid to Africa than any other American president. And more recently, on July 7, 2008, I compared and contrasted examples of what I feel are patriotic and unpatriotic actions in regards to the service afforded to our nation.

Still, these examples are few and far between, as the letter writer infers. So, in that regard, let me offer some of the positives that have resulted from the Bush administration:

• While the economy seems to be rocky right now and the price of gas was recently increasing, there is no question that our country has experienced one of the longest runs of economic growth in history. I believe this may be credited in part to the tax cute that Bush enacted early in his first term, as well as the pro-business, pro-growth policies that are implicit in lower taxes.
  
• The foreign policy of the Bush administration has yielded significant achievements in our world position. Libya has gave up its pursuit of atomic weapons and is pursuing a path to becoming a partner in the world, rather than an adversary. Pro American politicians have been elected in Britain, Germany and France. While Iraq has been a rough and sometimes tragic endeavor, a fledgling democracy is taking root there. In regards to the Iran problem, one of the reasons they are blustering on the world stage is that we now have our troops stationed in countries both East and West of them (Afghanistan and Iraq). From a strategic stand-point, we have them surrounded. That may a simplistic way to look at the issue, but it is true that we have troops on both sides, and they undoubtedly are feeling the squeeze.
  
• Al Qaeda in Iraq has been shattered. Of course, liberals will say that they weren't there until we drew them there, but one of the best strategic actions any nation can do in fighting an enemy is pick the battleground.
  
• Self reliance by the American individual is supported and strengthened by the Bush administration and Republican policies. While some may say that the American way is to offer hand-outs to the people who have less, I believe this is trumped by the American spirit of creating your destiny, not having it handed to you.
  

• John McCain favors the renewal of the tax cuts, which do not just help the rich, as some would have you believe. As a small business owner, these tax cuts have helped me tremendously. And I am not rich by any means. My income is in the low five figures, in other words, I make less than 50k a year. Much less.
  
• On foreign policy, McCain will continue the practice of regarding terrorists as engaging in acts of war, rather than criminals to be prosecuted. This is actually the number one issue facing the country today, and I believe it was the practice of treating terrorists as criminals rather than enemies of war that enabled Al Qaeda to proceed from the first World Trade Center bombing to the second.
  
• McCain has an admirable record of service to this country, both in war and in the U.S. Senate. He has experience in foreign policy that far exceeds his opponent, and I believe a McCain presidency will benefit our country much more than his opponent.
  

The final point of the letter seems to suggest once again that I dislike minorities, and once again infers that I am racist. I believe Reverend Wright is a racist and have called him so. I do not believe my criticism of him in my numerous posts shows me to be a racist. I am not attacking him because he is black, I am attacking him because I believe he offers a dead-end for the unfortunate members of his church who are posited by him as victims, rather than as self-reliant individuals who can take positive steps to further their own futures. As for Syesha Mercado, she can't sing that well. It has nothing to do with her being black; I just can't take that screechy voice. And the other minority mentioned is R. Kelly, who was found not guilty in his recent trial. Once again, I have no problem with him because if his race. I have first-hand accounts, which of course would be considered hearsay in the eyes of the law, that he has engaged in exactly the types of acts he was accused of. Although I am not at liberty to reveal my sources, I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of these claims. In addition, I have also learned that he treats his dogs poorly, one time leaving one locked in a hot car for hours. So I dislike and distrust him because of his actions, not his race.

I think it is unfair to suggest that I dislike minorities by cherry-picking criticisms of them and ignoring the many other people of all races that I have criticized. What about my posts about William Ayers, Allen Colmes, Jane Fonda, and the far more numerous other caucasions I have given the same treatment in my posts? By that logic, I must dis-like all races. I do not believe that minorities are off limits to criticism because of their race. And if I criticize them it is not because of their race.

In the end, I hope this answers some of the concerns this letter writer had. I appreciate his positive comments on my writing, and do thank him for taking the time to read some of my posts, and further, to communicate his response. I look forward to other readers doing the same. I do not allow comments on my site because I do not want to have curse words appear on my site, nor do I want to provide space for "hate bombs" by trolls. Nor do I want to deal with the spamming that inevitably comes with open comments. I do invite readers to send me an e-mail with their thoughts, and I will do my best to address them, as I feel I have done here.

Nancy Pelosi's book is tanking, and Michelle Malkin has posted a Photoshop sent by a reader with a funny parody of the book cover. Here's my take:

H. keeps making statements that suggest the Republicans are going to play the race card, but he continually is the one who is playing it himself. The typical liberal tactic of demonizing your opponent is evident in his statements. Is he saying that McCain is racist? That doesn't seem to be the case, but he is suggesting that, in general, Republicans are racist. Meanwhile, the Republicans haven't brought up his race at all, other than to respond to him bringing it up. That's a bit ironic, dontcha' think?

In addition, he claims the Republicans are going to try to make people afraid of voting for him, because "he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." Well, here's some news for Barack Hussein Obama: many of us are afraid of him being the president, but not because of anything having to do with his race.

I'm afraid that if he's president he will:

• weaken our national security by cutting the budget for the military;
  
• weaken our national security by treating terrorists and their acts as criminal cases, rather than acts of war, which is what they are;
  
• weaken our national security by being a naive player on the world stage who thinks that if we could just make other countries like us, our problems will go away;
  
• weaken our national security by appeasing our enemies rather than by standing up to them;
  
• weaken our economy by raising taxes and redistributing the money to the "less fortunate," or in other words, take money from responsible people who create wealth and move it into the hands of irresponsible and/or lazy people who create no wealth or benefit to society;
  
• punish those who create jobs, via the aforementioned raising of taxes;
  
• and institute reforms that make people more dependent on the government rather than on their own self-reliance.
  

Other reasons to fear his presidency include:

• he is completely inexperienced for the job;
  
• he claims to be embarrased by his own country-men;
  
• he associates with very questionable people and/or known terrorists, such as Reverend Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, William Ayers, Hatem El-Hady, Tony Rezko, and Ludacris, just to name a few;
  
• and his complete misunderstanding of the values of Middle America.
  

And that's only a partial list. So you see, Mr. Obama, we have many reasons to fear you being president that have nothing to do with race. So perhaps you should stop playing that card and address the very real issues that we are afraid of.

Will he do it? I doubt it; the race card is easier.

Michelle Malkin has asked for designs for an Obama World Tour t-shirt, and has been publishing some of the better entries. I'm a bit late on this, but I can't believe I didn't think of it sooner...

In honor of The New York Times apparent bias towards H., including this most recent example, we decided to update their front page in a way that accurately reflects their position....

9 people convicted of adultery are going to be stoned to death in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It's just amazing that in the 21st century, 9 people, guilty of nothing more than innappropriate behavior, are going to be executed in a brutal 7th century punishment, thanks, of course to Muslim Sharia law, the law that keeps on killing. How is it that a country that was once one of the most progressive societies in the entire Middle East has reverted back to the stone age in their matters of civil prosecution?

I have to thank Jimmy Carter, the former president who undermined the Shah, and encouraged the rise of an Islamic theocracy. While president, Carter demanded the Shah step down and hand over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini, and undermined the Shah's position by telling the Shah's military advisers to acquiese to the Ayatollah. Of the Ayatollah himself, Carter said he was a "religious man," and believed he would better represent the values of the Iranian people.

He was right about the Ayatollah being religious, but didn't quite comprehend that the religion of the Ayatollah was a stone-age abberation called Islam. And in addition to this he fails to understand the consequences of his actions while president. The rise of the mullahs in Iran was the first "shot" in the jihad against the "great Satan," the United States of America. The connection between the events of 1979 in Iran and the 9-11 attacks is a string of events that were borne by that first failure of the United States under Jimmy Carter, which spurred Islamic fascists to ever increasing resolve in their effort to defeat and destroy us.

Jimmy Carter, how can you sleep at night?

Myrlie Evers-Williams, widow of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers, has accused the news media of a political lynching of H. The Obamas are being painted as "unpatriotic and dangerous radicals," and she even used the term "lynching." I have nothing against Mrs. Evers-Williams and am sorry for the loss of her husband 45 years ago, especially because of the circumstances of his death, but her particular viewpoint does not justify giving any person an immunity from criticism. Did it ever occur to her that H. is being painted as "unpatriotic," or as a "dangerous radical," because many people feel that he may just be one?

I have a lot of questions about H. and his carefully crafted short-list pedigree, a resume padded with dubious accomplishments and a lot of failed exposition that makes nothing clear about who he really is. Is he unpatriotic? He was a member of a church that regularly bashed America for twenty years, and is on record nodding his head in agreement when the pastor called our country the "United States of White America." Is he a dangerous radical? He has been known to associate with the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, as well as people like Hatem El-Hady, former official of the Hamas-linked charity Kindhearts, closed by the Justice Department.

Questioning H. about these associations, or drawing attention to them is not a "lynching." There are honest questions and concerns about his patriotism and his radical terrorist ties. To many, though, if you ask these questions or draw attention to thse associations, it is some sort of unfair attack. Why is this? George W. Bush has been unfairly castigated from all sides, and nobody cries that he is being lynched. Why the outrage when people ask honest questions and draw probable conclusions about H.?

The key is the word "lynching," The use of this word has a racial context, and if one uses it, one knows its connotations. Now, Mrs. Evers-Williams has lived through racism in a way that we could never understand, as her husband was killed purely because of his race. This was truly a hateful act, and once again I will reiterate that I am sorry for her loss. But just because H. is black does not mean that he is immune to criticism. It is understandable that Mrs. Evers-Williams would make such a statement, but it is a statement designed to use race as a wedge. The choice of the term "lynching" was carefully chosen and used to communicate the idea that we are making these specific criticisms of H. because he is black. Conversely, it implies that if we criticize H. at all, it is because we are racists, not because we have honest questions or are uncomfortable with factual evidence surrounding the candidate.

The hyper-sensitivity to racial issues has created an environment where actual communication is subverted to questions of racial intent. Take for example, the recent kerfuffle in Dallas involving County Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, Commissioner John Wiley Price, and the infamous "black hole" comment. An honest and correct scientific reference by Mayfield was blown up into a racial issue that caused Price to demand an apology, because of Price's hyper-sensitivity to bigotry. Perceived racism curtails the freedom to speak in certain situations, and it is this card that many people want to play in regards to H.

Clear-thinking people will reject these tactics and will feel free to make valid and thoughtful criticisms of either candidate regardless of their race. Of course, actual racist comments should be rejected outright and subjected to the scrutiny they deserve, but we will not be silenced from drawing attention to the questionable actions and associations of H. To many, it is perfectly valid to have questions about H.'s patriotism, and to consider his very real ties to unrepentant and dangerous radicals. And by examining these issues, we just may find that H. is unpatriotic, and is a dangerous radical as well.

When I saw the cover of the new issue of The new Yorker over the weekend, I was a little surprised. At first I wasn't sure what to think. The left is in a tizzy over this malicious "slander" of H. in the name of satire, and many on the right probably think that maybe someone is finally realizing that H. has some dangerous problems as a presidential candidate.

Thankfully, Michelle Malkin puts it all into perspective.

Let's hope the left eventually wakes up...

I hope everyone had a nice and safe Independence Day this past July 4th. On the occasion of our nation's 232nd birthday, I watched fireworks, ate barbecue, and was thankful for the opportunity afforded by my country to pursue such happiness. I'm sure many others did the same in their own patriotic way.

That's right, I said "patriotic," as in "patriotism." Why the big deal in pointing that out? It seems that patriotism has become somewhat of a hot-button issue these days, mostly in regards to the upcoming presidential election, but also because of the differences in the "support Bush/hate Bush" factions of our society.

Take the ubiquitous flag lapel pin, for example. One side wears the pin with pride, the other says that merely wearing a flag pin is not patriotism, it is more akin to jingoism; if you don't wear a flag pin, they say, it does not mean you are not patriotic. Fair enough. I don't think whether you wear a flag pin determines whether you are a patriotic American, but I don't think someone should be criticized for wearing one. And I do think advertising your support for your country and publicly honoring the flag of your country by wearing a flag pin is decidedly patriotic.

But now, a new wrinkle is being folded into the discussion. The issue of the use of the word patriotism is now being called into question, taking this argument of being patriotic one step further. As reported by see-dubya on Michelle Malkin's website, NPR journalist Daniel Schorr has now stated that patriotism has been "corrupted by misuse." He states that he has "come to suspect most assertions of patriotism, and most accusations of unpatriotism." He further states that "patriotism is not a matter of lapel pins, or flags in your front yard. And you get to define patriotism for yourself." He has asked that politicians "declare a moratorium on references to patriotism."

Of course that's just plain silly, but it does suggest that one's patriotism is a gray area that is not so easily defined. In some cases, that may be true, but in other cases, I think it's quite clear cut whether an action is patriotic or unpatriotic. Here are a few examples.

Patriotic - Joh McCain being captured by enemy forces, being held for many years as a captive, and refusing an offer to be released because he knew it would be a proganda victory for the enemy.

Unpatriotic - H. sitting in the pews of a divisive America bashing church for twenty years, and nodding his head in agreement when the pastor calls his country "the United States of White America."

Patriotic - Col. George Everett "Bud" Day offering maximum resistance when he was captured by the Viet Cong, escaping and being recaptured and giving the enemy false information while being subjected to "maximum punishment and torture" by Vietnamese guards.

Unpatriotic - Michael Moore making movies that slander his country with lies and innuendo, sending these films to other countries for personal profit, and going himself to speak and berate his homeland on foreign soil.

Patriotic - Football star Pat Tillman giving up a lucrative football career to go to Iraq and fight for his country.

Unpatriotic - Cindy Sheehan meeting with enemy dictators like Hugo Chavez and praising them while calling our president a terrorist.

These are just a few of many possible examples, but as we can see, sometimes it is pretty clear what is patriotic and what is unpatriotic. It seems that those who want to "declare a moratorium" on the word patriotism are the ones who are being called unpatriotic. So let's keep the word patriotism alive. And let's have it be something to aspire to, not something to hide from.

"These are the new leads. These are the Glengarry leads. And to you they're gold, and you don't get them."

The preceding quote is a line from the classic David Mamet play, and subsequent film, Glengarry Glen Ross, a story which is pivoted around the sale of real estate. The Glengarry leads are sales leads for a new property, and to the agents who are trying to sell real estate, they are gold. The new property is valuable, and the leads are fresh; they are the names people who are interested in spending money, and would likely bear fruit and net the agents actual commissions. The problem is, the agents can't get those sales leads until they sell off worthless property to a bunch of dead sales leads.

Does this sound familiar? If you've been following the current oil crisis and the debate about offshore drilling, and drilling in Alaska, it should. The oil companies have a bunch of existing leases which are not very promising in the prospect of actually obtaining any oil. Democrats in Congress are insisting that they will not open up any new land to oil exploration and drilling until the oil companies drill on the land they already have. It doesn't matter that the actual leases the oil companies have are poor prospects, and the actuality of recovering any oil is negligible. Rather than letting them drill in areas where we know there is oil, they want to punish the oil companies by making them spend their profits in a search for fool's gold. Nobody wins.

The continental shelf and Anwar are the new leads. They're the oil-rich leads. And to the oil companies (and the Amercian people who would like lower gas prices) they are gold. And the oil companies (and the Amercian people who would like lower gas prices) don't get them.

H. has appropriated the official Presidential seal and has made a parody of it for his own use. The fact that he does not understand how offensive that is to many Americans calls into question his overall judgment once again.

What is really ironic is that his appropriation of the image shows a complete lack of respect for the office he is seeking. If one believes that the Presidency is truly a special office of ultimate sanctity, one does not make MAD magazine style parodies of the official icon of that office.

Obviously this is the work of a promotional expert who believes that perception becomes realty. By placing H. with something that looks like the Presidential seal, it plants an image of H. looking like the President. But this just shows that H. is not a new kind of politician at all. It betrays the fact that he is a packaged politician like any other. This is pure Madison Avenue, not Pennsylvania Avenue. I'm surprised they haven't come up with a jingle.

What really burns me is the way the apologists look down their noses on those who do find this offensive. To them, it is a "non-issue," and they keep telling us so. If you find this to be the issue, you should get over it and focus on the Chicken Little mantras of the liberals, such as the sinking economy or the "mess in Iraq." if you think this is important, you're wrong. This Presidential Seal thing is not an issue, you should focus on this other stuff. It's funny that they keep having to deflect attention from issue after issue by saying that it's not really important. You would think they would get the message that maybe these things are important. Actually, they know that these are important issues and the only way they can deal with them is to remind us that we're wrong.

I saw Susan Estrich on Fox News this morning, another in a line of "What's The Matter With Kansas," liberals reinforcing the view that this isn't an issue. After hearing her spew the same tired old issue redirection, I was compelled to send her an e-mail:

On Jun 22, 2008, at 10:50 AM, pBlakeney wrote:

Dear Ms. Estrich,

I heard you on Fox News this morning, and I am increasingly offended by you and other liberals calling things that may be important to us as "distractions" or "non-issues." You seem to insulting a large segment of Americans with your dismissive derision. Who are you to tell us what issues we should find important?

Issues such as the underlying core sense of patriotism of the presidential candidate is an important issue to many, and just because you don't see it that way, you need to understand that others do. The judgment as to how delicately the candidate handles his campaign in regard to the very valid patriotic feelings of millions of Americans is an issue. Of course, other issues such as the economy and international relations are important to us as well, but that doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of issues of patriotism and respect for the symbols and icons of our country.

Your attitude reflects the viewpoint and enforces the perception that liberals are elitists who look down on those who don't agree with them.

pBlakeney

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.

* 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."

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.

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

Victory can be achieved.

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."

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.

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."

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?

"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.

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

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.

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.

(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

"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."

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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