The Middle is Always Evil

What was it that Obama said on Tuesday when Blago was dragged out of his house on graft charges?

“I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening.” (Italics mine)

No contact, eh?

Here’s Obama on December 2nd, meeting with Blagojevich (right):

There’s more. According to Blagojevich’s official newsletter dated from November 12th. On the left is a from that publication of the two meeting. Guess what the accompanying story was on? One vacant senate seat.

It reads as follows:

“Last night’s victory was bittersweet for Illinois ‐ as we gain a great President, we lose a great Senator.  And it goes without saying that our next Senator has big shoes to fill. Because it’s important that the best person for Illinois is selected, I want to be clear that the calendar won’t dictate our search. Instead, I want to ensure that Obama’s successor will understand and fight for the needs of average Illinoisans,” Governor Blagojevich said.

Am I saying that Obama and Blagojevich discussed the Senate appointment at either of these two meetings? No, I am not. Am I saying that Obama is involved in corruption, graft, and other wrongdoing? No, I am not.

But, is Obama a liar?

Yes, he is; and for that reason, and that reason alone, every record and file in Obama’s “Office of the President Elect” should be subpoenaed, and scrutinized. This is something that Obama, Mr. Transparency, should willingly offer up– he has nothing to hide, after all. For Christ sakes, we already know that someone in Obama’s team is involved in this– I want to know where it stops, and I want to know before January 20!

Why is Patrick Fitzgerald so quick to say that Obama isn’t involved, anyway? Those were the first words out of his mouth after arresting Blagojevich. Surely, the man should at least be investigated! Blagojevich is friends with him; they endorsed each other; they’ve been politically connected for years. That warrants no investigation of any kind? It just speaks to the political nature of the whole thing. If these were Republicans, there would be an intense media scrutiny the likes of which has never been seen, there’d be calls for Obama to be impeached even before taking office, there’d be special prosecutors, Ethics Committees would be formed. But no! These men are Democrats– they’re the good guys.

It’s going to be a long, long 4 years.

Breaking:

Free republic is reporting the possibility of an Obama team connection to Blago-gate; apparently, when Blagojevich asked if Obama could push some clout around to get his wife placed on a paid corporate board, Advisor A responded that he, “thinks he could,” and that a “President-elect can do almost anything he sets his mind to.” The indictment names Rahm Emmanuel specifically as an advisor to the president elect; could he be Advisor A?

No matter who it is, the Obama team has been implicated; Obama now admits that a two hour long conference call took place between his team and the Blago-team about the Senate seat, and he has declined to out and out deny any wrong doing. He has, however, expressed “confidence” that there was none. This thing is obviously only beginning to unravel…

The pieces are still coming together in the Blagojevich case, but one thing has become clear to me: Obama– or at the very least, someone on his team– had contact with Blagojevich about the vacant senate seat; this is a fact that is implicit in the criminal complaint against Blagojevich. From page 66:

Later in the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he knows that the President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the Senate seat but “they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. F— them.”

If Obama had absolutely no contact with Blagojevich, as he claims, how did Blagojevich know who Obama wanted in the Senate seat, and how did he know that Obama wasn’t willing to give him anything but appreciation in exchange? He couldn’t know those things without speaking to Obama, or at least an aide. The only question is:

Why is Obama lying about it?

It seems to me that Obama could use this whole situation to his advantage. If Blagojevich contacted him and asked for a payment in return for appointing Obama’s preferred candidate, and Obama offered nothing but “appreciation” in return, it sounds like Obama did the right thing. Why hide that?

Could it be that Obama neglected to report the attempted bribe and is now trying to cover up that he did nothing? We really know too little to speculate at this point, which is why Obama should make a statement today clarifying his position.

Why the cover-up, Obama?

Not only is Obama clearly lying about his contact with Blagojevich, but Hot Air is now reporting that all questions about the situation are being removed from Obama’s new, “Open for Questions” page on his website, a utility that is supposed to contribute to a more open, transparent government. I implore everyone to go on the site and ask at least one of the following questions (via Hot Air):

• Given the current corruption charges involving Blagojevich, will ’serious’ campaign finance reform that takes money completely out of politics through publicly funded elections be a priority in the first term?
• In light of the recent corruption scandals (Blagojevich, Rangel, Jefferson, Stevens, etc) that have dominated the political scene, is there any ethics legislation being crafted to actually curb corruption and prevent another wave of Nixonian cynicism?
• Is Barack Obama aware of any communications in the last six weeks between Rod Blagojevich or anyone representing Rod Blagojevich and any of Obama’s top aides?

See how long it takes before you get your comment taken down.

Today, President-elect Obama announced some of the meat of his plan to fix the economy, which he sincerely believes will work:

Today, I am announcing a few key parts of my plan. First, we will launch a massive effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient. Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world. We need to change that. We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That wont just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work.

Finally! Obama gets specific about where he’ll be cutting the government budget: cheaper light bulbs! And new light bulbs means Obama will need to hire an army of light blub changers, which will be made up of the hordes of newly-unemployed investment bankers, stock brokers and their former secretaries. They should start a Union.

What else does Obama have planned?

Second, we will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s. We’ll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways.

The most upsetting part about this plan is that Obama truly believes that it will work. It can’t. It won’t.

Its really very simple: government make-work programs such as these do not create jobs, they move them around. Think about it. Where will the money that will pay the government-laborers come from? The top 5% of income-earners, of course; the people who do most employing in the private-sector. By taking money away from them to pay the “millions” of new government employees, they will have less money to pay those who they currently employ. As a direct result of this plan, more people will lose jobs, and then go work for new, bigger government programs. This vicious cycle will continue until we’re all working shoulder to shoulder in the rice fields.

Perfect equality, right?

Unfortunately, it was just an accident.

In a series of hang-up and follow-up calls that appears to have taken up much of the afternoon, Ros-Lehtinen first received a call on her cell phone, from a Chicago phone number, and was informed by the caller that Obama wished to speak with her. When a man sounding like Obama got on the line, Ros-Lehtinen cut him off, saying, “I’m sorry, but I think this is a joke from one of the South Florida radio stations known for these pranks.” She then hung up, according to a statement issued by her office.

A little while later, Chief of Staff-designate Rahm Emanuel called the congresswoman back.

“Ileana, I cannot believe that you hung up on the president-elect,” Emanuel said, according to the congresswoman’s office.

Her response?

“Ros-Lehtinen told Rahm that she didn’t believe the call was legitimate and hung up on Emanuel,” her statement said.

The quote to keep from this definitely comes from Rahm:

“I cannot believe that you hung up on the president-elect.”

What is the deal with these people? Seems that whenever I read something from the Obama trasition team, the words “president-elect” fly out of their mouths at least two or three times every minute. I want to grab these people by the shoulders and shake them. “President-elect” is not even an official title, its just something the media made up; its nowhere in the constitution. There is no such thing as an “Office of the President-Elect.” Be patient, you’ll get there soon enough.

…Anyway, just wait until Keith Olbermann gets his grubby little fingers on this story. I can hear it now: “This idiot Republican didn’t even know that Obama won the election!”

All in all, Ros-Lehtinen shouldn’t feel too bad; if it had been me, I would’ve hung up on them intentionally.

Last night, Sarah Palin gave what was by all accounts an excellent speech.

This is a woman who, in the last week, has been the target of multiple, scurrilous attacks. The left wing press has made her into a pariah, a target upon which it can unload all of its hatred for conservatism. Much has been said, and it has been roundly speculated that McCain’s vetting process was anything but thorough. But between Palin and Barack Obama, can there be any question as to whose record has been more carefully examined by the media– by the American public?

Briefly consider the following facts, and ask yourself how many times you’ve heard about them in the mainstream press:

Obama, a black man, is a former member of a church that endorses Black Liberation Theology, a faith that believes that Christianity teaches us to free the “oppressed” through redistributing the wealth– the oppressed, in this case, being everyone who is black; this is a church that he attended for twenty years.

While visiting his father’s homeland, Kenya, in 2004, Obama met with and campaigned on behalf of fellow Lou tribesman and openly socialist Ralia Odinga, who is now the Prime Minister of Kenya.

Obama is a known associate of William Ayers, unrepentant domestic terrorist directly responsible for bombings on both the Capitol Building and the Pentagon; it is in that man’s home where Obama held his political coming-out party in 1995, when he first announced his candidacy for State Senator of Illinois.

Many are familiar with Barack Obama as a “community organizer,” but few seem to know what work he did specifically; Obama worked for the Developing Communities Project of the Calumet Community Religious Conference in Chicago, organizations based around the principles of the Communist writer, Saul Alinsky. Alinsky wrote a book called Rules for Radicals, which Obama says he read in college in his autobiography, The Audacity of Hope. Considered by many to be the Bible of bloodless socialist revolution, Rules for Radicals surely had an effect on the just-out-of-college Obama, considering that he went to work for organizations dedicated to the principles that were laid out in it. Alinsky’s son, L. David Alinsky, recently said to the Boston Globe:

“Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

“I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”

According to Alinsky, Obama has learned his lesson well. What lesson, and from whom? The answer: how to affect “Change” as taught by an avowed Communist. This is how Obama earned his stripes– organizing.

When Barack Obama, the man who may quite possibly be the next Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America, is free from the intense scrutiny that has been given to Sarah Palin’s seventeen year-old daughter’s romantic life, something is not right.

I was doing a bit of intellectual slumming earlier tonight, watching Countdown with Keith Olbermann; Rachel Maddow was guest hosting. Initially, I was just going to shut the garbage off, but she previewed a segment on Jerome Corsi’s new book The Obama Nation that would appear later in the program, and since I am currently reading it, I decided to stick around for a bit.

I should have left the room.

I sat uncomfortably through the bizarre first half of the program, which, amid numerous calls for a united Democratic Party, mostly consisted of impugning John McCain for his wealth—very strange.

Finally, the segment I had been waiting for started, featuring Eric Burns, who was presented as a non-partisan “media critic.” I was skeptical. The segment started with Maddow saying flatly the book is full of lies that have all been debunked. “OK,” I said to myself, “if that’s true, Burns should have some solid information for me, and I can throw my copy in the trash.”

What did Burns actually have to say to discredit the book? Here he is:

“Let me… You didn’t ask me this, but I just have to mention this to you… You know, one of the other things that gives a book cachè—a non fiction book—is foot notes; you look at the back of the book and you see all these footnotes, dozens of pages of them, and you say, ‘this guy did a lot of research.’ Well, before the show tonight, and I didn’t have time to do more… but, of the first eleven footnotes in the book, nine of them, in nine of them, Corsi quotes Corsi—in other words, he quotes previous writings of his own. It’s a dubious practice to say the least.”

Wow, I thought. If that’s true, Corsi really must be a truly dishonest journalist. I happened to have the book right beside me at the moment, so I checked out what Burns had said. It was true! Of the first eleven footnotes, nine of them are of Corsi’s own writings. Shocked, I checked the actual text to see what they referred to.

Lo and behold, the citations referred to the preface of the book, which is entitled Who I Am and Why I Wrote This Book. The very first clause of the preface is footnoted, and it is one of the footnotes in question. It reads as follows:

“In 2004, I coauthored Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry.”

The corresponding footnote reads:

John E. O’Neill and Jerome r. Corsi, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2004).

A dubious practice indeed. Burns made it seem as though Corsi was being dishonest in citing himself, when he clearly was just being thorough.

Eric Burns is a renowned “media critic” with considerable experience. If Corsi’s book is so full of lies, why does a professional such as he have to distort the facts about the book itself in order to prove his case?

During his world tour this week, Senator Barack Obama has been up to all sorts of trouble. Before heading to Germany to deliver a speech at Victory Square, he stopped at the Wailing Wall, where he took the opportunity to turn the holiest site in Jerusalem into a crass campaign stop, where he paused to look contemplative and to meet with rabbis– in front of a horde of media hounds which he brought along with him for the “event.” God was not amused.

Apparently, some of the local yokels in Jerusalem weren’t too happy either; one man shouted, “Obama, Jerusalem is not for sale!” as he passed by the myriad of campaign posters and literature that had been set up around the sacred West Wall prior to the Obamessiah’s momentous visit (source). It isn’t hard for me to believe that Obama would pull something like this– after all, in his eyes, God answers to him.

Later on, in Berlin, Senator Obama forgot (once again) that he isn’t JFK, as he delivered a speech in which he spoke of nothing but vague bromides and empty platitudes, to 200,000 screaming fans who have no idea who he is or what he stands for. Throughout the speech, Obama made veiled references to “tearing down walls,” invoking the memory of president Reagan’s memorable “tear down this wall” speech. If you’d like to hear the real thing, follow this link; if you’ve never heard it, its definitely worth a listen. You’ll get a chance to hear a real American president speak in Berlin.

When I was watching the video of Obama’s speech, I couldn’t help notice that throughout the oration, the junior Senator would occasionally pause and giggle a little. I can’t say I know what he was thinking in those moments, but I definitely have a guess: he was probably thinking how hilarious it was that he could get away with so much presumptuousness, having so little experience, and only his charm to back him up.

Drudge is reporting this afternoon that the New York Times editorial staff has rejected an op-ed written by John McCain. An instance of clear media bias, the piece was written in response to Obama’s editorial, “My Plan for Iraq.” In a small attempt to thwart the disgusting incompetence and slanted journalism of the NYT, I have posted McCain’s full editorial, released by the campaign to CNN, below. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City, actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war– only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

I’m currently hanging around the Defending the American Dream Summit in Austin, Texas; I’ve been passing the time talking to a cute LP spokeswoman and checking out some of the other booths. It seems that there’s a lot of support for John McCain around here– that’s a bandwagon I cannot in good conscience jump on.

Don’t be deceived by the man’s hawkish patriotic stump speeches, he’s a liberal; there have been plenty of militaristic liberals in recent history (Castro, Mao, Stalin), so I don’t understand why this throws people off so much.

McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy are two of the most leftist legislative moves that I can think of off the top of my head. Indeed, McCain is to the left of most Democrats on immigration and campaign finance reform. Not to mention his shameful stance on gun rights and welfare. The man is simply not a conservative. Its pitiful that we have him as our smaller-government alternative to Barack Obama.

Both these two men are Marxists; one of them is pretending not to be. Anybody who believes in public education is a Marxist; anyone who supports the existence of the IRS to any extent is a Marxist; anyone who supports the existence of the Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, etc. is a Marxist. Anyone who believes that the roads should be publicly owned is a Marxist. Period.

I cannot bring myself to support John McCain.