It's about judgement and truthfulness stupid!

The Obama campaign is squealing like a stuck pig lately about the impact they are feeling from recently successful attempts by the McCain campaign and the alternative media to bring up Obama's past choice of allies such as William Ayers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Fr. Michael Pfleger, Frank Davis, Tony Rezko, Franklin Raynes, Jim Johnson, the radical group ACORN, and Kenyan genocidal psychopath, socialist and election stealer Raila Odinga.

The Obama camp has attempted to deflect these discussions by saying that they want to talk about the issues, not about his past 'associations'.

Well here is a newsflash, it's about judgement and truthfulness stupid.

The issue is the people and organizations that Obama has chosen to use for his political advancement, that he has taken money from and given money to; the people and organizations whom he associates with due to philosophical and political affinity. What do the people and organizations Obama has surrounded himself with say about his judgement and his truthfulness?

So let's examine the issue of judgement and truthfulness:

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if a man who can launch his political career in a man's house (William Ayers), sit on several boards with that same man, write a blurb for the book jacket of a book written by that same man, and live in the same neighborhood for years with that same man can be believed when he says he 'just didn't know' he was a terrorist? If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if a man who sat in a church for 20 years with a known radical preacher (Rev. Jeremiah Wright), who identified that same preacher as his spiritual mentor, who was married in that church by that preacher, and who allowed his children to be baptised and educated by that preacher can be believed when he says he 'just didn't know' he held such radical, racist and hateful views, that he never heard such terrible sermons even though they were for sale on DVD in the church lobby and on the internet? If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if a man who says he worked with various church leaders in chicago for years with another known radical preacher (Fr. Michael Pfleger), who identified that same preacher as a good man, who did not condemn that man when he accused Hillary Clinton of crying about being a victim of a black man, can he be believed when he says he 'just didn't know' he too held such radical, racist and hateful views, that he never heard such terrible sermons even though they this preacher had been a guest at his own church many times? If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if a man who identifies one of his political mentors as a man who was a registered communist (Frank Davis), who identified that same man as a force in his original political dealings and someone whose early support he recieved and who he later supported himself, a man who was a member of the violent Black Panthers, can he be believed when he says he 'just didn't know' he held such radical views? If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if a man who identified as friend and supporter a now convicted felon and influence peddler (Tony Rezko), who represented that same man in receiving $43M in government funding, the same man whose wife paid retail for a parcel of land next door to a new home Obama bought in the Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (which was $300,000 below the asking price) so that Obama could close on the house he wanted and who later sold a piece of the land to Obama, can he be believed when he says he 'just didn't know' Rezko was a slumlord and a blatant influence buyer? If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if a man who includes as his housing and economic advisor a man who ran Fannie Mae which is now in government receivorship and who had to give back bonus money when it was found that under his leadership Fannie had overstated earnings like Enron (Franklin Raynes), a man who earned $90M in 6 years while Fannie was creating the siutuation that resulted in a $200B buyout and now $700B in additional expenditures, can he be believed when he said he 'just didn't know' that Raines had been so untrustworthy? If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

Similarly with Jim Johnson, another Fannie Mae executive who presided over the same steakth collaps of the housing market and who Obama had tapped for his VP search and who is still raising money for Obama. Obama says he 'just didn't know' Johnson was so corrupt. If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

And what of the radical group ACORN? Obama worked for ACORN in their Project Vote program, the same program that is now under State and Federal investigation for Voter Fraud in at least 12 States. Obama also represented ACORN in court in Chicago in the mid 90's forcing Chicago lenders into sub-prime lending, the heart of the economic collapse we are now suffering. Obama has since had his campaign make improper donations to ACORN. What does that say about his judgement? What does it say about his trustworthiness?

And lastly, we have to ask ourselves if a man who has provided political advice and support to a genocidal psychopath, socialist and election stealer in Kenya (Raila Odinga) is fit to be President. What does that say about his judgement? What does it say about his trustworthiness?

'I just didn't know' is not an acceptable excuse, and frankly it rings rather hollow. As President you do not get to vote 'present' to avoid the tough decisions. And as President we require enough intellectual curiousity, integrity and honesty to evaluate all potential allies and to make the right decision up front, rather than after the fact when the political csts are deemed too high.

Again, it's about judgement and truthfulness, areas where Obama has no lead in any poll, and no record to stand on.

On Rabid Partisanism and Media Bias

This just in, George W. Bush is NOT running for President.

I believe that the independents and undecideds will make their mind up about the forthcoming election based on a review of the big picture. The problem is that the big picture is being deliberately whitewashed by a complicit and decidedly partisan media.

Unfortunately, it takes people like me and many other bloggers to try and highlight the glaring lack of experience or accomplishment for Obama. Admitting he did some blow is not the same as admitting he was wrong - a key criticism from many about W. If it is good for the goose it is good for the gander.

Obama's choices in mentors and advisors shows a critical lack of judgement, and his actions when enough people call him on it show him to be overly maleable and disloyal, he tossed his 'spiritual mentor' of 20 years, who apparently he never actually listened to, under the bus, along with his 'typical white' grandmother as soon as it became politically expedient to do so.

I and people like me may take poetic license in how we word it, but it is not factually inaccurate.

For your consideration, some recent entries:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_...in-fannie.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp...eature=related

Raines and Johnson were/are on Obama's team and they, along with Barney 'there is a gay prostitute ring in my basement' Frank and Chris 'Thanks for the donation' Dodd are largely responsible for the situation at Freddie and Fannie that started this whole collapse. The sub-prime mortgage concept is a DEMOCRAT innovation and it was FORCED on lenders and Freddie and Fannie. Raines was fined for accounting irregularities that led to his enormous bonuses (he made $90M in six years).

Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist and there are questions about the CAC, significant questions involving the public trust and $100M. Obama and his team are blocking every attempt to gain access to the PUBLIC records about this and even Chicago has had to investigate corruption in Obama's Garden Program - HOW BAD DOES IT HAVE TO BE FOR CHICAGO TO CALL IT CORRUPT?

Again, I think partisanism is a key element in having a robust discussion, some call W 'shrub', I call Obama the Uh-uh-uh-nnointed one, does not really matter - what matters is that the discussion include the reality and the history of BOTH sides and that has clearly NOT happened.
More attention was paid to Gov. Palin's NON book banning than has gone into the Obama-Ayers connection, or the Obama-ACORN connection, or the Obama-Raines connection, or the Obama-Johnson connection, or the Obama-Wright connection, or the Obama-Flager connection, or the Obama-Alinsky connection, or the actual results of Obama's work as a community organizer.

I agree that there should not be wide ranging poll results as the electorate is pretty roughly split right now - but the action line that Obama won the debate is manufactured. The kook Left netroots are in a panic (HuffingtonPost, DailyKOS, etc,) about how poorly Obama did, the conservative blogs (Politico, Human Events, Real Clear Politics) are abuzz about how good McCain did - think about that, Left and Right agree that McCain won, but the mainstream media line is Obama won - THAT is the problem.

A lot of critics miss the point I think when talking about the MSM and talk radio, and that chiefly is that it is called TALK radio, in other words, it is NOT called NEWS radio. Talk radio is entertainment and again is from an OVERTLY conservative point of view. The Liberals have failed miserably at talk radio due to their message and their delivery - it is real free market.

Rush or Hannity or O'Reilly or Gibson are not masquerading as objective journalists like Dan 'National Guard Hoax' Rather, or (cough, cough) Keith 'Worst Person in the World' Olberman or Chris 'Tingle up his leg' Matthews.

It is people from inside the media, like Bernard Goldberg, and finally some Democrats themselves like Hillary Clinton, Howard Wolfson, Ed Rendell and others who have made the charge of liberal bias and specifically a pro-Obama bias in the mainstream media.

The behavior of the media towards Obama has been an embarassment by any objective standard - and it is their behavior which has confirmed the bias. The only rejoinder for some is to accuse us of 'rabid' partisanism.

Many of we Conservatives ARE partisan, but we are hardly rabid.

Rabid indicates there is only foaming-at-the-mouth, no thought or logic in it and that is very far from the case. Many Conservative posts are well structured, humorous and reserve the name-calling for the stumbling empty suit nominated by the Democratic party - he has a bracelet too you know, his uh, name uh, is, uh, uh, what was the question?

They Bravely Ran Away, or Would You Believe a ‘Redeployment’?

As serious challenges to the US Economy are reported with glee Pelosi and Reid are trying to bravely turn their tails and flee. With $200B in estimated costs to fix the subprime bombs at Freddie and Fannie, $85B to AIG, Lehman Bro’s and Merril Lynch on the Auction Block, high energy prices, rising unemployment and massive panic on Wall Street, the ‘leaders’ of the Democratic House and Senate try to skate out of town to leave their mess allowing Obama to apportion blame rather than fix the underlying issues now.

In Monty Python’s cult classic Monty Python and the Holy Grail, we are introduced at one point to Sir Robin who runs away when faced with danger. His minstrels, which could pretty well be today’s mainstream media, sing as they run to keep up with him:

Brave Sir Robin ran away...
bravely ran away away...
When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about, and valiantly, he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat.
A brave retreat by brave Sir Robin.

And what could bring me to pay homage to such an institution in English Comedy? The comically announced intention for Sen. Harry Reid (D – NV) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D – CA) to adjourn the congress in the midst of a significant challenge to the overall stability of the American economy.

I am not a doom and gloomer and I recognize the farcical inaccuracy of Obama, Reid and Pelosi talking up the current difficulties as the ‘worst economy since the Great Depression’, but these are challenging times and one of the duties of our elected government is to stand fast and put up a brave face, and right now only two leaders in the American political scene are doing that, their names are George W. Bush and John McCain.

Although woefully unreported by the decidedly partisan Liberal mainstream media, both Bush and McCain have tried, unsuccessfully, to reign in the excess at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Bush in 2003, and McCain in 2005. They were opposed by long term Freddie/Fannie ‘family members’ Sen. Chris Dodd (D - CT) and Rep. Barney Frank (D – MA), the Congressional Black Caucus, a wide range of Democrat Senators and Representatives, as well as some from their own party as well.

These same names appear at the very top of political contributions from Freddie, Fannie, their leadership, and many of their employees. Democrats have benefitted from political contributions from Freddie and Fannie and Lehman and Goldman-Sachs and other Wall Street giants by a factor of 150% compared to Republicans. And Wall Street has seen a similar benefit from the largesse of their ‘friends’ in Congress.

So now, when there is a crucial need for leadership within the Congress and from the Administration, when there is a clear need for criminal investigations not only into the leadership of the GSE’s and the other recently weakened Wall Street companies BUT ALSO the members of Congress and the Administration who benefitted from or enabled them, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want to run away from the swamp and leave Bush to pick up the pieces.

I agree there should be investigations, but Congress can not be trusted to perform them, The investigation simply must delve deeply into the ties that bind these failed institutions and companies to the Senators and Representatives that have protected them, encouraged them, enabled them, and (in the case of requiring sub-prime mortgages for people who could not qualify for conventional mortgages) FORCED them into the situation that has the markets in turmoil and which could top $500B in costs to the American Taxpayer.

While there is an opportunity for political benefit for Republicans if the do-nothing Democrat Congress retreats and the Bush Administration does manage to shore up confidence, the first cause is not to seek political gain, it is to lead the Nation, to protect the American Taxpayer, and to put into place soild proposals to rectify the challenges the economy faces today.

Proposals like this take time to develop, more time than is allowed in the 24-hour news cycle, and this has led to a neophyte kneejerk proposal from the Part-Time Junior Senator from IL and criticism of a lack of a plan from John McCain.

Well, Sen. John McCain (R – AZ) has just today announced a proposed a Mortgage and Financial Institutions Trust, similar to the Resolution Trust Corporation that successfully managed the challenge of the Savings and Loan bailout from the late 80’s. Economists from the Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton administrations all agree that this is a good and workable solution with a similar chance of success if developed and managed properly.

The time is for leadership, the need is for leadership. McCain has proposed just such a thing, while Pelosi, Reid and Obama seek only to apportion blame and take political advantage.

The Inconvenient Truth About Obama, Jesus, and Community Organizing

A lot of attention has been played in the alternative media lately to a new action line comparing Obama to Jesus as a ‘Community Organizer’. Now we all know how loathe the Left in America typically is to engage in religious comparisons so this shows just how desparate the Obama camp and its minions have become.

To show the utter insidious, contemptuous and manipulative nature of this ridiculous comparison, I offer some quotes from Saul Alinsky’s 1971 book Rules for Radicals, the handbook for community organizing, used by Barack Obama, as well as Hillary Clinton so that you the undecided can compare those to your understanding of Jesus.

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.

The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe's 'conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action'; in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind.

The second rule of the ethics of the means and ends is that the judgment of the ethics of means is dependent on the political position of those sitting in judgment. If you were a member of the underground Resistance, you adopted the means of assassination, terror, property destruction, the bombing of tunnels and trains, kidnapping, and the willingness to sacrifice innocent hostages to the end of defeating the Nazi's. Those who opposed the Nazi's conquerors regarded the Resistance as a secret army of selfless, patriotic idealists ...." Rules for Radicals is therefore concerned with how to win. "...[i]n such a conflict, neither protagonist is concerned with any value except victory.

The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the ends justifies almost any means.

There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds, he becomes a founding father.

Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. In the world of give and take, tactics is the art of how to take and how to give. Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves.

For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people's organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then...conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.

Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

Second: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity. The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

Sixth rule: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment.

Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being
trapped by the enemy in his suddenly agreeing with your demand and saying
"You're right - we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

In conflict tactics there are certain rules that the organizer should always regard as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and "frozen." By this I mean that in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant, and somewhat legitimate, passing of the buck. The target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target.

One of the criteria in picking your target is the target's vulnerability - where do you ave the power to start? Furthermore, the target can always say, "Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?" When you "freeze the target," you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all others to blame.

Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the "others" come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target.

The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract such as a community's segregated practices or a major corporation or City Hall. It is not possible to develop the necessary hostility against, say, City Hall, which after all is a concrete, physical, inanimate structure, or against a corporation, which has no soul or identity, or a public school administration, which again is an inanimate system.

Rules for Radicals teaches the organizer that he must give a moral appearance (as opposed to behaving morally): "All effective action requires the passport of morality.

The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends states "that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments ... Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means."

Rules for Radicals provides the organizer with a tactical style for community organization that assumes an adversarial relationship between groups of people in which one either dominates or is dominated.

In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.

Saul Alinsky urged the active and deliberate "conscious-raising" of people through the technique of "popular education." Popular education is a method by which an organizer leads people to a class-based interpretation of their grievances, and to accept the organizer's systemic solutions to address those grievances."

Essentially, Alinsky and his students such as Obama and the Clinton's focus on the individual need, the individual grievances, and use any means necessary backed up with moral relativism.

Compare that to the message of forgiveness, and love, and actual community of Jesus, with His lesson of moral objectivity - and of course His ultimate SELF sacrifice.

If you recognize the teachings and actions of Christ somewhere in there, then maybe the comparison is valid.

Where in the Bible does Jesus try to get people to be upset about their individual situation and then channel that hateful energy against an individual, stating that the ends justifies the means?

Is it 1 Obama, Letter to the Daleyian ACORNs, verses 12-19?

Personally, I think it clearly demonstrates that the Obama camp has literally no comprehension of the teachings of Jesus or the sacrifice He made.