Posts Tagged ‘Pennsylvania’

Pennsylvania Voter Law Outrage: People Buying Guns Should Sue Over ID Requirement Because It Places Impossible Burden On 2nd Amendment Rights

October 2, 2012

“… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  — 2nd Amendment

Only that right IS being infringed, and infringed massively.  Don’t believe me?  Just listen to Democrats talk about the impossible barrier of trying to provide an ID to vote.

If it’s so hard to provide an ID to exercise my right to vote, then how the hell am I supposed to be able to produce one to exercise my right to buy a gun – said right being one that government isn’t supposed to be able to infringe?

If Democrats are right in protecting voters from meeting such a difficult burden, it means that Democrats are treasonous, Constitution-trampling fascists who have fundamentally and profoundly violated the 2nd Amendment.

Judge blocks Pennsylvania voter ID law ahead of election
Published October 02, 2012
FoxNews.com

A Pennsylvania judge on Tuesday blocked the state from enforcing its strict  voter ID law before the presidential election, citing “disenfranchisement”  concerns. The ruling in a vital battleground state comes five weeks before the  election.

The ruling, which could still be appealed, followed two days of testimony  about the state’s efforts to make it easier to get a valid photo ID, as well as  possible hurdles for those seeking proper identification.

The challenge to the six-month-old law is one of several across the country  to laws — largely backed by Republican legislators — requiring voters to show  photo identification.

Republicans say the laws are necessary to prevent election fraud. But  Democrats, who in Pennsylvania joined up with the AARP and NAACP in opposition,  claim residents could be blocked from exercising their right to vote.

Judge Robert Simpson said in his opinion Tuesday he anticipates that by  Election Day, “the gap between the photo IDs issued and the estimated need will  not be closed.”

He added: “Consequently, I am not still convinced in my predictive judgment  that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth’s  implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the  upcoming election.”

The ruling blocks the law before November, but would still allow it to go  into effect next year. Shannon Royer, the state’s deputy secretary of state,  said officials are “reviewing all legal options” but said the state is “pleased”  the law itself was upheld.

“Under today’s ruling, voter ID will be implemented on a different timeframe.  This November, all voters will be asked to show photo ID when they vote, though  it will not be required,” she said in a statement.

The law was already a partisan lightning rod when a top Republican lawmaker  boasted over the summer that it would allow Republican nominee Mitt Romney to  beat Democratic President Obama in Pennsylvania.

Republicans, long suspicious of ballot-box stuffing in the Democratic bastion  of Philadelphia, justified the law as a protection against potential election  fraud.

Critics claim it could suppress minority turnout.

The plaintiffs — a group of registered voters, plus the Homeless Advocacy  Project, the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania chapter  of the NAACP — had sought to block the law from taking effect in this year’s  election as part of a wider challenge to its constitutionality.

The judge’s decision Tuesday could be appealed to the state Supreme Court,  but it could easily be the final word on the law before the Nov. 6  election.

The constitutionality of the law was not a question before the  judge.

Other states face similar debates over voting.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID law in 2008, and Georgia’s  top court upheld that state’s voter ID law. But a federal panel struck down  Texas’ voter ID law, and the state court in Wisconsin has blocked its voter ID  laws for now. The Justice Department cleared New Hampshire’s voter ID law  earlier this year.

Now here’s the damn deal: either recognize that photo IDs are a part of life today such that you can’t go visit Eric Holder’s Justice Department without having to show one, and you can’t go inside the Democrat National Convention without showing one, or you decide that it is such an impossible burden to meet which becomes a barrier to people being able to exercise their rights that we do away with the requirement to keep and bear arms.

Do I HAVE a right to visit the Justice Department?  Do I have a right to access a government courtroom?  I’ve got to show an ID to get in, you know.  And thus according to Democrats, I have been denied my right to access the government.  Just as I have been denied the right to access the goods and services of a free market because try to buy a TV without having to show an ID these days.

This is really a pretty asinine argument.

The problem, of course, is that Democrats are pure, distilled hypocrite in meat suits, and if you were to lock a Democrat in a room and sterilize hypocrisy from that room, you would find nothing but empty clothes.  Because if you take the hypocrite out of a Democrat, there’s nothing left of that Democrat.

Which is why the same Democrats that are literally doing everything they can to ensure that voter fraud can prevail among black and Hispanic areas (because such groups tend to vote Democrat) have likewise done everything they can to disenfranchise active duty military personnel from voting (because such members tend to vote Republican).

The right to vote is a dangerous thing; the Nazi Party (not to mention George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama) were elected into power.  It seems to me that ensuring that only authorized persons be allowed to vote is every as reasonable as ensuring that only authorized persons are allowed to exercise other rights.

I hope the next guy who is asked to show an ID when trying to buy a gun sues because it’s just too darn difficult a burden for him to provide and therefore his 2nd Amendment right has been violated.  And to prove that it is an impossible burden, all you’d have to do is start quoting the statements of Democrats and the decisions of liberal judges.

Advertisements

Election Fraud: If You Vote Democrat, You Are A Corrupt Dishonest Cheat By Proxy

October 29, 2010

Everyone could see it right in front of them on live television.  Florida Democrat gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink was caught red-handed cheating in a debate.  Her excuse?  She blamed her Republican opponent (i.e., “blame Bush!).

Corrupt Democrat voter machine ACORN never truly dies.  It just changes its name.

In previous elections, any race that was close would be stolen from Republicans by Democrat cheating.  As Al Franken being elected on the illegally-cast votes of incarcerated convicts serves to demonstrate.

But that is no longer the case.  Now, Democrats are behind by larger margins due to their incredibly failed and incredibly fascist policies.  So they have to cheat bigger than ever before to steal elections.

There are all kinds of other examples to show that the Democrat Party is the party of cheating and corruption.

There are the strange goings-ons inside the voting machines in Nevada, which have a mysterious tendency to prompt voters to select Harry Reid.

Add to that the SEIU pro-Democrat voter-stuffing shenanigans, with clear evidence of massive fraud.

Add to that the 250 absentee ballots the Republican candidate tracked to a vacant lot.

Add to that an Ohio public high school that bussed students during school hours to vote after being given a ballot that ONLY had Democrats on it.  After which they were treated to ice cream.

Add to that the evidence in Bucks County, Pennsylvania that the Democrat candidate is flooding the voter registration office with fraudulent applications for absentee ballots.

Add to that voting machines in North Carolina which are “voting” for Democrats even when that is the exact opposite of what voters intend.  Which is simply the icing on the cake of all kinds of other fraud going on there.

Add to that Chicago, where Republicans are being disenfranchised of their right to vote by corrupt Democrat organizations.

Add to that still more corrupt Democrats in Pennsylvania who created a fictitious “Pennsylvania Voter Assistance Office” to commit voter fraud.

Add to that a public state university in Wisconsin that illegally urged students and faculty to get out and help the Democrat cause.

Add to that a woman who is literally under criminal indictment for past voter fraud with liberal A.C.O.R.N. now heading up yet another corrupt liberal voter fraud group.

Add to that Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer both illegally and immorally requesting public high school teachers to send public school kids to volunteer for her campaign.

Add to that a Democrat organization in Virginia “shocked” that their free beer in exchange for votes was actually criminal.

Add to that the woman named Gabby Mercer with the Republican “Jan Brewer for Governor” sign painted on the rear window of her car getting a big rock thrown through that window in a clear act of political intimidation.

Add to that Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee committing voter fraud at a polling place.

Add to that First Lady Michelle Obama, who had committed voter fraud in the same way.

Add to that forged ballots and illegals registering to vote for Democrats via groups such as Mi Familia Vota, Border Action, and Faith.Hope.Vote!  Which all have ties to the SEIU.

Add to that a staffer for a long-time Arizona Democrat who was caught stealing the yard signs featuring his Republican opponent (see also here for the KGUN 9 story, at least until they delete it).

Add to that illegal immigrants who are actively working to undermine the vote in Washington State for Democrats.  Even as liberal Democrat bastions such as San Fransisco are currently seeking to undermine the sanctity of citizens and the vote altogether.

Add to that Democrat states such as New York and Illinois disenfranchising military service members – who vote heavily Republican – of the right to vote in violation of the law.

Add to that campaign ads by Democrat candidates such as Rep. Alan Grayson which so shockingly and deliberately misrepresent the truth that even MSNBC are taking them to the woodshed for their gross lies.

Add to that Democrat Rep. Barney Frank, accepting campaign contributions in clear violation of his own promise from banks that his committee regulates.

Add to that the incredibly vicious and misogynist attack against Republican Christine O’Donnell, as a man was paid to smear her with allegations of a one-night stand (i.e., “feminists” despise successful conservative women).

Add to that the earlier clear election corruption by the Obama administration in offering Democrats Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff jobs not to run against candidates preferred by the regime in clear violation of the law.

Nancy Pelosi falsely promised to “drain the swamp.”  Instead, her party is swimming in it.

But it’s not just in campaigning that Democrats are pathologically dishonest frauds; it is in governing.

There was the Generational Fraud Act otherwise known as the stimulus that was sold as preventing unemployment from rising above 8%.  What is it now?

There was the “sales pitch” that promised all sorts of “shovel-ready jobs.”  The problem is that there NEVER WERE any such jobs.  And now we have the admission that there never WERE any “shovel-ready jobs” coming right out of the lying mouth of the liar-in-chief himself.

There was the “sales pitch” that ObamaCare would bend the cost-curve down; that if you liked your health plan you could keep it; that the mandates weren’t a tax; etcetera.  And every single one of those promises was just an obscene lie.

Lately we see the Obama administration playing all kinds of monkey games with the TARP program finances, according to the TARP inspector general.

That’s just the way the party behind fifty-two million dead babies rolls.  I suppose you just shouldn’t expect baby killers to be decent people.

To be a Democrat today is to support institutional cheating, fraud and lies.  If you are a Democrat, you are a despicable cheating liar by proxy.  Just embrace it.  It is what you vote for.  It is what you support.  It is who and what you are.  And shame on you.

Neverending Blame Bush Insanity: Democrat Alex Sink Obviously Cheats In Debate, Then Blames It On Republican Opponent

October 27, 2010

Just another of oh-so-many proofs that this election is a plebiscite on national integrity.  If we as a nation are without honor, decency, honor, or virtue, then we will vote for Democrats.

Democratic candidate cheats in Florida debate, then blames opponent for it
By Toby Harnden World Last updated: October 26th, 2010

This is pretty extraordinary. Alex Sink, locked in a tight gubernatorial race in Florida with Rick Scott, reads a message on a Droid shown to her by her make-up artist. That’s against the CNN debate rules. It’s cheating. Scott notices what she’s doing and blows the whistle.

Watch the video:


According to The St Petersburg Times, the message said:

The attorney who [w]on the Sykes suit said alex sink did nothing wrong. Tell not to let him keep talking about her.

Sink was clearly being surreptitious and, far from declining to read the message once she saw it related to the debate, she actively participated in the subterfuge. She was content to be coached and her body language indicates she knew she was doing something wrong.

That’s bad enough. What’s really disgraceful is what she does afterwards. She supposedly fires an aide (initially unnamed but now identified as Brian May, the person who apparently signed the campaign’s agreement to the debate rules) and issues a statement saying this:

While he [the aide] told me it was out of anger with Rick Scott’s repeated distortion of facts, it was a foolish thing to do.

In the annals of non-apology apologies, this takes some beating. The candidate cheats. There is no admission of personal responsibility at all and an aide is blamed. Then she goes one step further, justifying an aide’s ‘foolish’ actions as being motivated by ‘anger’ with her opponent’s ‘repeated distortion of facts’.

Okaaaay. So the candidate’s position is that she didn’t cheat but anyway it’s all her opponent’s fault? It’s the kind of thing few parents would let a six-year-old get away with.

No wonder so many Americans are so disillusioned with their politicians.

Add to that the strange goings-ons inside the voting machines in Nevada, which have a mysterious tendency to prompt voters to select Harry Reid.

Add to that the SEIU pro-Democrat voter-stuffing shenanigans, with clear evidence of massive fraud.

Add to that the 250 absentee ballots the Republican candidate tracked to a vacant lot.

Add to that the evidence in Bucks County, Pennsylvania that the Democrat candidate is flooding the voter registration office with fraudulent applications for absentee ballots.

Add to that voting machines in North Carolina which are “voting” for Democrats even when that is the exact opposite of what voters intend.  Which is simply the icing on the cake of all kinds of other fraud going on there.

Add to that Chicago, where Republicans are being disenfranchised of their right to vote by corrupt Democrat organizations.

Add to that still more corrupt Democrats in Pennsylvania who created a fictitious “Pennsylvania Voter Assistance Office” to commit voter fraud.

Add to that a woman who is literally under criminal indictment for past voter fraud with liberal A.C.O.R.N. now heading up yet another corrupt liberal voter fraud group.

Add to that Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer both illegally and immorally requesting public high school teachers to send public school kids to volunteer for her campaign.

Add to that a Democrat organization in Virginia “shocked” that their free beer in exchange for votes was actually criminal.

Add to that illegal immigrants who are actively working to undermine the vote in Washington State for Democrats.  Even as liberal Democrat bastions such as San Fransisco are currently seeking to undermine the sanctity of citizens and the vote altogether.

Add to that campaign ads by Democrat candidates such as Rep. Alan Grayson which so shockingly and deliberately misrepresent the truth that even MSNBC are taking them to the woodshed for their gross lies.

To be a Democrat is to support institutional cheating, fraud and lies.  If you are a Democrat, you are a despicable cheating liar by proxy.  Just embrace it.  It’s who and what you are.  And shame on you.

And it’s not just in campaigning that Democrats are pathologically dishonest frauds; it is in governing.

There was the Generational Fraud Act otherwise known as the stimulus that was sold as preventing unemployment from rising above 8%.  What is it now?

There was the “sales pitch” that promised all sorts of “shovel-ready jobs.”  The problem is that there NEVER WERE any such jobs.  And now we have the admission that there never WERE any “shovel-ready jobs” coming right out of the lying mouth of the liar-in-chief himself.

There was the “sales pitch” that ObamaCare would bend the cost-curve down; that if you liked your health plan you could keep it; that the mandates weren’t a tax; etcetera.  And every single one of those promises was just a filthy lie.

Lately we see the Obama administration playing all kinds of monkey games with the TARP program finances, according to the TARP inspector general.

Don’t trust Democrats.  They are liars without shame or dignity.

Vote them out on November 2.

Obama Demagoguery Outraging The Citizen Class

May 23, 2010

A good article on Townhall underscores the building anger that is going to overtake Obama and the Democrat regime in November.

Sunday, May 23, 2010
by Austin Hill: Townhall.com Columnist
Obama Has Enraged the “Citizen Class”

The “citizen class” is horrified.

We’re speaking here of those Americans who, while they may disagree on a variety of social and public policy issues, nonetheless agree on a few, crucial matters.

Those of us among the citizen class generally agree that the United States is a good country. While far from perfect, we see our nation as being a place of tremendous opportunity, and a force for goodness around the world.

We also agree that being a U.S. citizen is a significant and distinct thing. While we respect the notion that all human beings are worthy of their “basic human rights,” we see the rights imparted to citizens of the United States as being something different, something “over and above” the category of “basic human rights.”

This is not to say that we are superior people, because we are U.S. citizens. This is, however, the greatest blessing of being a U.S. citizen. It is why so many of us in the citizen class think of our status as a “naturally born citizen” as being a God-given gift, and we celebrate those who legally earn American citizenship as well.

But along with the distinctiveness of being an American citizen, those of us among the citizen class also regard our nation’s sovereignty as something that must be safeguarded as well. Political philosophies, governmental structures, and economic systems are not morally neutral – some work far better than others. And the structures and institutions and governing philosophies of the United States have produced a far higher level of human flourishing and freedom than any others. For this reason, if for no other, our nation must always be regarded as separate and distinct.

Our nation is good, U.S. citizenship is distinct, and national sovereignty is non-negotiable. In a nutshell, this is the mindset, the worldview, of the citizen class. It has nothing to do with one’s ethnicity, or socioeconomic background, or sexual orientation, or gender. It has everything to do with one’s most deeply held beliefs.

Not every U.S. citizen possesses the “citizen class” view (clearly some Americans don’t understand the blessing of their status), yet a majority of us still do. And no matter how much we may disagree on other matters, those of us in the citizen class won’t budge on these three items.

And this why President Obama has enraged the citizen class. He has planted the seeds of doubt regarding our nation’s goodness, and has implied that U.S. citizenship, and national sovereignty, are irrelevant.

While an overwhelming majority of the citizen class supports Arizona’s effort to uphold the significance of citizenship and sovereignty, President Barack Hussein Obama has sided with the United Nations, Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez, China, and the President of Mexico in opposing the state of Arizona. One would hope that the President of the United States – any President of the United States – would seek to protect all fifty of the states that he governs from international criticism, even if he didn’t happen to like the behavior of one of his states. But our current President stands united with some of the most thuggish regimes in the world, in opposing his fellow Americans of Arizona.

Worse yet, our President not only allowed, but enabled Mexican President Felipe Calderon to publicly humiliate our fellow Americans of Arizona, while standing on the sacred grounds of the White House. And President Obama’s party – the ruling party in Congress – couldn’t rise to their feet quickly enough and offer thunderous applause, when Mr. Calderon publicly humiliated Arizona during an address to both the Senate and House last week.

It’s nothing short of disgraceful to see the President of the United States undermine us, while the entire world is watching. His behavior has, in no small part, called in to question just how “united” the United States of America is right now.

Yet in the midst of the disgrace, there are hopeful signs. The citizen class has whole-heartedly rejected the agenda (such that it is) of Barack Obama. It began last November with statewide elections in New Jersey and Virginia, where gubernatorial candidates endorsed by Barack Obama both lost. It moved on to Massachusetts where Obama’s choice for U.S. Senate lost to Republican Scott Brown.

And now, evidence of the rejection of Obama’s agenda has radiated from Utah, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky. And we haven’t even seen yet how the President’s trashing of Arizona will impact elections yet to occur.

The louder President Obama and his party cheer, the greater the rage of the citizen class. And the citizen class won’t be ignored much longer.

Democrats are claiming that the victory of Democrat Mark Critz over his Republican challenger in a heavily Democrat district, proves that the Democrats are as popular as ever.  Let’s forget the fact that Pennsylvania’s 12 district has been gerrymandered to give Democrats a 2-1 registration advantage over Republicans.  Let’s forget the fact that the special election occurred on the same day as the Democrat primary – whereas Republicans had already voted, and essentially had to vote twice.

Republicans could point out that they just won the election in Barack Obama’s hometown in Hawaii – another state that is heavily Democrat as proof of the fact they they are going to destroy Democrats in November.  But the Republicans only won that because two Democrats were in the race, splitting the Democrat vote.  Sometimes those little details matter.

The fact is that the Democrat victory in Pennsylvania and the Republican victory in Hawaii are for the most part anomalous. Both races will be fought all over again in six months – and the results of both may very likely change.

But the fact is also that the American people have largely turned against Barack Obama.  As of today, he has an approval rating of minus seventeen (- 17), with only 45% of Americans approving of his performance versus 54% who disapprove.  And the fact that a pissed off and frightened people are going to vote in huge majorities against Barack Obama in states and districts across the country in November.

What is particularly interesting is that Mark Critz – and many Democrats – are actively running against Barack Obama and the Obama agenda.  Crizt ran against ObamaCare, and against Obama’s cap-and-trade plan, among other things.  Democrats are literally saying that the American people should elect Democrats in order to oppose the Democrat agenda.  Does that really sound like a narrative that’s going to work in November?

Add to that the fact that unemployment and a host of other measurements of the U.S. economy are bad, with not a whole lot of evidence that they are going to improve.

The Democrats demagogued and demonized Republicans about the Republican record as they assured the American people that they would make everything better.  And now the same anger and outrage that Democrats rode last year will fittingly come back to wash them away over their failures.

I see a reckoning coming.

Update May 24: Oops.  Did I say 45% of Americans approved of Obama, versus 54% who disapproved?  That was yesterday.  Today only 44% of Americans approve of Obama, against 55% who disapprove.  And the President Approval Rating is at a negative eighteen.

Update May 25: Oops again.  Did I say 44% of Americans approve of Obama?  That’s no longer correct.  I’m sorry, but Obama is tanking so fast that it’s just hard to keep up with it.  Today, only 42% of Americans approve of this turd which is stinking up the White House.

From Rasmussen, May 25:

Overall, 42% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance. That is the lowest level of approval yet measured for this president. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove of his performance.

And oh my, a whopping 20% more voters utterly despise Obama now than like him.

And that overwhelming majority of voters is going to want to come out and hurt somebody in November.

Obama White House Accused By Democrat Of Federal Crime In Specter, Bennet Races

February 23, 2010

Richard Nixon was honest to a fault compared to Barack Obama – and Obama is displaying corruption in only a year (Nixon was into his second term before he got caught).

We have Obama on video telling what we now recognize were seven major lies in less than two minutes when he was lying his way to the presidency:

[Youtube link]

We’ve got Obama displaying a shocking pattern of corruption and lack of transparency in a case involving a friend and a sacred-cow program.  It is also a case of a president firing an Inspector General for the crime of investigating a crime in a manner that was not merely Nixonian, but Stalinist (link1; link2; link3; link4).  Rest assured that Obama has his own enemies list.

The case of the illegal firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin is far from over as it works its way through the legal system.

Getting closer to what we now have before us, we have the cases of the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, and a list of political bribery shenanigans that gets too long to follow.

All from an administration that deceitfully promised unprecedented transparency and openness and continues to shamelessly represent itself as being the best thing since sliced bread.

But this story – supported by the testimony of Democrats – may be in a whole new class of corruption:

White House Accused of Federal Crime in Specter, Bennet Races
By Jeffrey Lord on 2.22.10 @ 6:09AM

“Whoever solicits or receives … any….thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” — 18 USC Sec. 211 — Bribery, Graft and Conflicts of Interest: Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office

“In the face of a White House denial, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak stuck to his story yesterday that the Obama administration offered him a “high-ranking” government post if he would not run against U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary.”
Philadelphia Inquirer
February 19, 2010

“D.C. job alleged as attempt to deter Romanoff”
Denver Post
September 27, 2009

A bombshell has just exploded in the 2010 elections.

For the second time in five months, the Obama White House is being accused — by Democrats — of offering high ranking government jobs in return for political favors. What no one is reporting is that this is a violation of federal law that can lead to prison time, a fine or both, according to Title 18, Chapter 11, Section 211 of the United States Code.

The jobs in question? Secretary of the Navy and a position within the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The favor requested in return? Withdrawal from Senate challenges to two sitting United States Senators, both Democrats supported by President Obama. The Senators are Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Michael Bennet in Colorado.

On Friday, Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak, the Democrat challenging Specter for re-nomination, launched the controversy by accusing the Obama White House of offering him a federal job in exchange for his agreeing to abandon his race against Specter.

In August of 2009, the Denver Post reported last September, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina “offered specific suggestions” for a job in the Obama Administration to Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff, a former state House Speaker, if Romanoff would agree to abandon a nomination challenge to U.S. Senator Michael Bennet. Bennet was appointed to the seat upon the resignation of then-Senator Ken Salazar after Salazar was appointed by Obama to serve as Secretary of the Interior. According to the Post, the specific job mentioned was in the U.S. Agency for International Development. The Post cited “several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post.”

The paper also describes Messina as “President Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop.” Messina’s immediate boss is White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Sestak is standing by his story. Romanoff refused to discuss it with the Denver paper. In both instances the White House has denied the offers took place. The Sestak story in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reported by Thomas Fitzgerald, can be found here, While the Denver Post story, reported by Michael Riley, from September 27, 2009, can be read here.

In an interview with Philadelphia television anchor Larry Kane, who broke the story on Larry Kane: Voice of Reason, a Comcast Network show, Sestak says someone — unnamed — in the Obama White House offered him a federal job if he would quit the Senate race against Specter, the latter having the support of President Obama, Vice President Biden and, in the state itself, outgoing Democratic Governor Ed Rendell. Both Biden and Rendell are longtime friends of Specter, with Biden taking personal credit for convincing Specter to leave the Republican Party and switch to the Democrats. Rendell served as a deputy to Specter when the future senator’s career began as Philadelphia’s District Attorney, a job Rendell himself would eventually hold.

Asked Kane of Sestak in the Comcast interview:

“Is it true that you were offered a high ranking job in the administration in a bid to get you to drop out of the primary against Arlen Specter?”

“Yes” replied Sestak.

Kane: “Was it Secretary of the Navy?”

To which the Congressman replied:

“No comment.”

Sestak is a retired Navy admiral.

In the Colorado case, the Post reported that while Romanoff refused comment on a withdrawal-for-a-job offer, “several top Colorado Democrats described Messina’s outreach to Romanoff to The Post, including the discussion of specific jobs in the administration. They asked for anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.”

The Post also noted that the day after Romanoff announced his Senate candidacy, President Obama quickly announced his endorsement of Senator Bennet.

The discovery that the White House has now been reported on two separate occasions in two different states to be deliberately committing a potential violation of federal law — in order to preserve the Democrats’ Senate majority — could prove explosive in this highly political year. The 60-seat majority slipped to 59 seats with the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, a Democrat, and the election of Republican Senator Scott Brown. Many political analysts are suggesting Democrats could lose enough seats to lose their majority altogether.

This is the stuff of congressional investigations and cable news alerts, as an array of questions will inevitably start being asked of the Obama White House.

Here are but a few lines of inquiry, some inevitably straight out of Watergate.

* Who in the White House had this conversation with Congressman Sestak?

* Did Deputy Chief of Staff Messina have the same conversation with Sestak he is alleged to have had with Romanoff — and has he or anyone else on the White House staff had similar conversations with other candidates that promise federal jobs for political favors?

* They keep logs of these calls. How quickly will they be produced?

* How quickly would e-mails between the White House, Sestak, Specter, Romanoff and Bennet be produced?

* Secretary of the Navy is an important job. Did this job offer or the reported offer of the US AID position to Romanoff have the approval of President Obama or Vice President Biden?

* What did the President know and when did he know it?

* What did the Vice President know and when did he know it? (Note: Vice President Biden, in this tale, is Specter’s longtime friend who takes credit for luring Specter to switch parties. Can it really be that an offer of Secretary of the Navy to get Sestak out of Specter’s race would not be known and or approved by the Vice President? Does Messina or some other White House staffer — like Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel — have that authority?)

* What did White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel know, and when did he know it?

* What did Congressman Sestak know and when did he know it? Was he aware that the offer of a federal job in return for a political favor — his withdrawal from the Senate race — could open the White House to a criminal investigation?

* What did Senator Specter know about any of this and when did he know it? .

* What did Governor Rendell, who, as the titular leader of Pennsylvania Democrats, is throwing his political weight and machine to his old friend Specter, know about this? And when did he know it?

* Will the Department of Justice be looking into these two separate news stories, one supplied by a sitting United States Congressman, that paint a clear picture of jobs for political favors?

* Will Attorney General Holder recuse himself from such an investigation?

While in recent years there have been bribery scandals that centered on the exchange of favors for a business deal (Democrat William Jefferson, a Louisiana Congressman) or cash for earmarks (Republican Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham), the idea of violating federal law by offering a federal job in return for a political favor (leaving two hotly contested Senate races in this instance) is not new.

Let’s go back in history for a moment.

It’s the spring of 1960, in the middle of a bitter fight for the Democratic presidential nomination between then Senators John F. Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson, Stuart Symington and the 1952 and 1956 nominee, ex-Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson.

Covering the campaign for what would become the grandfather of all political campaign books was journalist and JFK friend Theodore H. White. In his book, the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Making of the President 1960, published in 1961, White tells the story of a plane flight with JFK on the candidate’s private plane The Caroline. The nomination fight is going on at a furious pace, and White and Kennedy are having another of their innumerable private chats for White’s book while the plane brings JFK back from a campaign swing where he spoke to delegates in Montana.

The subject? Let’s let White tell the story.

The conversation began in a burst of anger. A story had appeared in a New York newspaper that evening that an Eastern Governor had claimed that Kennedy had offered him a cabinet post in return for his Convention support. His anger was cold, furious. When Kennedy is angry, he is at his most precise, almost schoolmasterish. It is a federal offense, he said, to offer any man a federal job in return for a favor. This was an accusation of a federal offense. It was not so.

Let’s focus on that JFK line again:

“It is a federal offense, he said, to offer any man a federal job in return for a favor.”

With a fine and jail time attached if convicted.

What Larry Kane discovered with the response of Congressman Sestak — and Sestak is sticking to his story — combined with what the Denver Post has previously reported in the Romanoff case — appears to be a series of connecting dots.

A connecting of dots — by Democrats — that leads from Colorado to Pennsylvania straight into the West Wing of the White House.

And possibly the jail house.

“It is a federal offense,” said John F. Kennedy, “to offer any man a federal job in return for a favor.”

And so it is.

Obama – who is loudly and frequently patting himself on the back for how “bipartisan” he is, is the most radically ideological partisan who ever sat in the Oval Office.

And as Obama continues to push his ObamaCare boondoggle apparently to the very last Democrat, it is more than fair to ask: why on earth are we trusting these dishonest rat bastards with our health care system and literally with our very lives in the event that their government takeover succeeds?

How McCain Can Win Electoral College And Lose Popular Vote

November 3, 2008

There are a number of solidly blue large states that will drive up the tally of Obama’s popular vote support.  California, New York, and Illinois are examples of states that should easily go to Obama by huge margins.

But winning one state by a big margin in an all or nothing state doesn’t mean any more in the Presidential contest than winning that state by one single vote.

We are a nation that decides Presidents by an electoral college system that is based on building a coalition of states that results in at least 270 electoral college votes.  Any combination of states that results in at least 270 electoral college votes wins the White House.

Right now, there are fundamentally seven “battleground” states that will decide the election, with the remaining states having already fallen one way or the other: Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.  The way the election has been breaking based on polling data, McCain has to win the first seven, or make up for a loss by winning Pennsylvania.

The point is, McCain could easily lose the popular vote by a significant margin and still win the election by narrowly winning the states he needs to win.  In the 2000 election, Gore lost to Bush while receiving a little over half a million more popular votes.  The same thing could happen to Obama, only on a much more massive scale of several million votes.

What is frightening for Democrats is that McCain has been making significant gains in those key states.  The fact that Barack Obama promised an audience of San Franciscans that his plan would bankrupt the coal industry ( and send the cost of electicity skyrocketing in the process) will not help his chances in four of those eight states.  Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, and Indiana are four of ten states which collectively provide 90% of America’s massive coal industry.  Coal produces 49% of the electiricy consumed in the United States, so frankly everyone who doesn’t want to freeze in the dark should care.

The coal industry is located in some of the hardest-hit states.  Obama’s words could have devastating consequences for a large swath of the nation.

Rasmussen currently has McCain tied with Obama in four of those vital states (Colorado, Ohio, Missouri, and Virginia), and the Rasmussen data would not include either the full extent of the late McCain surge or the fallout from Obama’s “bankrupt the coal plants” statement.  And the poll that predicted the race most accurately in the last presidential election has the national race within two points, within the IBD/TIPP poll’s margin of error.  Most polls show the race at a 6-7 point gap.

On top of these factors is the so-called Bradley Effect, in which people told pollsters misleading information, but in the end refused to vote for a black candidate (Tom Bradley) who had led in the polls and who continued to lead in the exit polling in the 1982 race for Governor of California.   And Barack Obama, whether due to the “Bradley Effect” or something else, did not prove to be a stong finisher during the primary races against Hillary Clinton.  John McCain, by contrast, has always been a historically strong finisher who has relied on a “72 hour” strategy and simply doesn’t have any quit in him.

It may be a crucial factoid that seven of the eight critical states are traditionally Republican.  If Republicans have a stronger get-out-the-vote machine in their “home field states,” McCain may very well pull out a shocking win.

An Associated Press article by Liz Sidoti titled “Can Obama win popular vote but lose election?” appears to be a fairly balanced presentation of the facts as most of the media believe they understand them.

But we can go back to 1980 to see the media asking the question, “Where the Polls Went Wrong” to try to cope with bad projections that led to massive failures by both the polling organizations and the media who broadcast what turned out to be disinformation.

One thing I know: nobody deserves to look bad more than the mainstream media.

Obama’s ZERO Lack Of Progress With Hillary Voters Eroding Dem Confidence

September 23, 2008

“Barack Obama’s support from backers of Hillary Rodham Clinton is stuck smack where it was in June, a poll showed Tuesday, a stunning lack of progress that is weakening him with members of the Democratic Party in the close presidential race,” according to the Washington Times.  The Times article also says that Hillary Clinton primary voters “find Obama less likable, honest, experienced and inspiring than Democrats overall do, and have a better view of McCain.”

That’s what I call a triple whammy: zero progress with an essential voter block; erosion of confidence in the Democratic Party; and a whopping load of Democrats don’t like him, don’t trust him, don’t think he’s qualified, and actually prefer his Republican opponent over him.

Sounds like things aren’t going all that great in Obamaland, the Peoples’ Socialist Republic of.  And when you add to these woes the problems he’s having in crucial swing states he desperately needs to win (like Pennsylvania), and the six point gulf between what the polls say and how he will likely actually do in November, and Obama’s problems begin to stack up like a house of cards.

I have marvelled at just how terrible a candidate Barack Obama has been since learning of his incredibly radical church and his incredibly anti-American and anti-white reverend.  He is the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, who in turn chose the third most liberal member of the Senate as his running mate.  Even the man’s vaunted speaking ability has turned out to be limited to the presence of a teleprompter!  And yet fickle Demorats spurned their inevitable candidate for a fling with a politician who cynically promised to bring “hope” and “change,” but turned out to have “the political instincts of a Chicago thug.”

There are some discrepencies in the polling data, like there always are in almost every polling issue; just enough to provide the Obama campaing with hope:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Clinton supporters are turning to Obama “in huge numbers” and noted that the AP-Yahoo News data differed from other polls. He said strong feelings by Clinton supporters were understandable considering the length and intensity of the Democratic primaries and said of Clinton, “She’s done everything we’ve asked her to do.”

But I would submit that this is the same overconfident and arrogant campaign that was being widely criticized by Democratic insiders only ten days ago.

Americans are outraged over the housing finance meltdown, and Obama has benefitted with a short term bump in the polls.  But few analysts believe that the Wall Street turmoil will be decisive, and some feel that if Americans are truly frightened, they will turn to McCain, who leads Obama in perceived trust, leadership, and experience according to poll internals.

What If Obama Loses “Bitter” Pennsylvania?

September 22, 2008

DNC Chairman Howard Dean is hardly alone in calling Pennsylvania a “must win” state for Barack Obama.  But it’s a genuine possibility that he won’t.  Chris Matthews, that paradigm of journalistic objectivity, confessed to his “worry” that Obama may not be able to carry either Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Hillary Clinton carried Pennsylvania over Obama by 10 points, fueled at least partly by Obama’s infamous “bitter” statement about Pennsylvanians at an elite San Francisco fundraiser:

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Who wants to bet that Pennsylvanian voters won’t be reminded of that one a few thousand times between now and November?

Lest we forget, the pre-primary polling had Obama gaining on and actually overtaking Clinton in Pennsylvania.  And then they actually voted.

The current Real Clear Politics (RCP) average has Obama up by only 1.8 percent, which is within the margin of error.  And there are good reasons to believe that Obama will not do as well as the polls indicate.

There is a current barrage of stories that are already blaming racism for a potential Obama defeat.  These stories, while undoubtedly attempting to solicit a “guilt vote” for Obama, may actually backfire, as voters angered by having their motives questioned and impugned may harden against Obama.

If Barack Obama loses Pennsylvania, he will be the political equivalent of a smoldering chunk of dead meat.  Most experts agree that he MUST WIN Pennsylvania due to the electoral map calculus, and the loss of this state will likely single a very long night for Obama supporters.

Hillary’s Pennsylvania Win Has Media Snivelling

April 23, 2008

Last night’s Democratic primary in Pennsylvania is worth commenting on. A 10-point margin of victory against a candidate who spent three times more in the state is obviously significant.

Why can’t Barack Obama – the candidate of sweeping hope and change – close Hillary Clinton out? It’s a question being taken up by more and more pundits. Obama threw the kitchen sink at Clinton – spending-wise – and ended up with a double-digit loss in a major state. The 200,000 vote margin in Pennsylvania also gives Hillary Clinton a legitimate claim to boast that she has obtained the nationwide popular vote.

Back in 2000, the Democrats mantra was “Every vote should count!” But here we are completely excluding the votes in Florida and Michigan? It’s just part of the self-serving pretzel-logic of the Democratic Party.

Obama has now lost 7 of the 10 biggest states in the country, including all 4 of the major battleground states that could go either Red or Blue in November.

As it stands, there is no no way either candidate can win enough delegates to take the nomination outright. Whoever wins will win because the super delegates hand the election to one or the other. In this race, neither candidate genuinely has the right to claim that the super delegates “owe” their vote to one or the other, precisely because the super delegates aren’t beholden to any specific “rule” that tells them how to vote one way or the other.

The conventional wisdom holds that the super delegates will crown the candidate that has the best chance of winning in November. But who is that? Obama has won twice as many states. But many of those states were awarded by caucuses – a byzantine process very nearly as un-democratic as the super delegate rule itself. Hillary Clinton has won more large states. She won Florida, won California, won Texas, won Ohio, won Pennsylvania. And she has certainly had the recent momentum in the last few major states – but how much of that recent momentum has been her own, and how much was handed to her by Obama’s stumbles? Finally, both candidates are nailing down their respective bases, but both would need to hold on to the other’s base in November in order to have any chance of winning the general election.

And it appears to me, at least, that if either candidate is “snubbed” by the super delegates, well, to coin a movie title, “There Will Be Blood.”

My own sense is that the super delegates will award the nomination to Barack Obama simply because elite liberals, the ideological “Moveon.org”-types, and blacks would raise more of a tantrum than the working-class whites, the seniors, and the women in Hillary’s camp.

In other words, the barometer will ultimately be “PC,” rather than the calculus of “electibility,” that determines the nominee. If I am correct in my assesment, this bodes ill for Democrats: because PC guarantees that the side that gets snubbed will have hard feelings, just as it always has against everyone else on whom it’s been played. There will be lifelong Democrats who will vote for McCain, or simply not vote at all, mark my words.

At times, MSNBC’s Hardball coverage of the election revealed some genuine bitterness over Clinton’s victory.

Keith Olbermann quoted Donna Brazile as saying, There is a group around Senator Clinton that really wants to take the fight to the convention. They don’t care about the party. It scares me, and that’s what scares a lot of superdelegates.

Chris Matthews – on the very same night that Hillary Clinton wins a 10 point victory in a major state – analogizes the Hillary Clinton campaign to the Titanic, and points out that “The iceberg’s name is Barack Obama.”

Tom Brokaw all but wrote Hillary’s campaign obituary, saying she’d go as far as she could before she finally hit the wall.

There was one exchange that I found especially revealing in its “journalistic implications”:

Christ Matthews: It’s not just the Clinton forces continue to change the score sheet and the scoreboard itself, they reserve the right to do it again and again and again.

Tim Russert: Yes. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Terry McAuliffe have one thing they want: Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee. And they’ll use any path that’s available to get there….That’s what it is all about — those are the rules according to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Terry McAuliffe.

Chris Matthews: Mulligan after mulligan after mulligan.

Keith Olbermann: And yes, it really is not just a moving goalpost but the proverbial movable feast of goalposts. You put it anywhere you want. And remember – and the other thing about is, as much as we might look at it with astonishment or you know, amazement maybe that especially in that — that core group of women supporters, that group we mentioned earlier, that is so adherent to Hillary Clinton, this particular action of moving the goalpost, the actual act of redefining the game as it goes along, is perceived as one of her greatest strengths.

Republicans, of course, could have told everyone 16 years ago that the Clintons didn’t care about anybody but the Clintons; that they would deceive, distort, mischaracterize, and use deceptive media tactics that could have come right from the mafia in order to win. But the liberals who loved Clintonian tactics when they were successfully employed against Republicans are suddenly finding that they have no stomach whatever for them when they are employed against someone they like.

Keith Olbermann underscored the media’s fidgeting over the prospect of Democrats mud-wrestling themselves right out of viability, saying, “Yes, I really like the image of superdelegates moving quickly, because, so far, they have been glacier-like, in any respect, in any direction.” Most any other time, of course, journalists love the idea of dirty laundry being constantly hung out for them to sniff. Most of the time, they wouldn’t want anybody to step in and end this endless twisting in the wind. But this fight is clearly different for them.

One writer pointed out on 24 March 2008, “And prominent pundits are saying so. Last Friday, just about an hour after the Richardson endorsement event, two top writers for the Politico, an influential website, posted a news article-cum-editorial arguing, accurately, that Clinton has almost no numerical case to make. Another uber-pundit and conventional-wisdom shaper, this one at Time, posted 14 reasons why Clinton should consider withdrawing. And so it was that the week that began with Obama on the ropes ended with Clinton being urged out of the ring.”

Jonathan Alter of Newsweek offered the objective title, “Hillary Should Get Out Now.”

I particularly like the New York Times editorial for 23 April 2008, “The Low Road to Victory.” Laura Ingraham – rightly – points out that these New York Times people couldn’t get enough dirty laundry out of the Catholic Church, that the continued to demand one mea culpa after another. And they certainly didn’t mind throwing a clearly dirty mud ball at John McCain by all but accusing him of a sexual affair in addition to other illegitimate behavior with a female lobbyist. But now they don’t have the stomach for any more negative news to damage Democratic candidates. They are clearly sorry they endorsed Clinton at this point. They didn’t know who the liberal darling would turn out to be.

The editorial begins, “The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.”

Another inconclusive result?” A 10 point victory? These people have clearly become unhinged over the Democratic campaign. And they couldn’t show their bias much more nakedly.

And it ends: “It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.”

In other words, PLEASE, OH PLEASE PLEASE, WON’T SOMEBODY STOP THIS UNDERMINING OF OUR BELOVED DEMOCRATS? WE OBJECTIVE JOURNALISTS JUST CAN’T STAND IT ANYMORE!”

But I close with the extremely relevant question of MSNBC anchor, Joe Scarborough, who said on last night’s Hardball: “Hey, Harold [Ford], let’s pretend we’re in the Democratic cloakroom. We are two uncommitted superdelegates and we just found out Barack Obama lost Pennsylvania. We are talking and I say to you hey, man, I’m concerned about this guy. He’s been in Pennsylvania for seven weeks. He has had $9 million, he’s crushed Hillary Clinton as far as the ad wars go. But he can’t close the deal. He can win now, and we are in a Democratic cloakroom, I would then say those Republican bastards are going to kill him in the fall. What do we do?

Indeed.

Obama’s ‘Cling to Religion’ Remark Reveals Marxist Worldview

April 15, 2008

What should we make of Barack Obama as we evaluate him as a potential president of the United States?

In a previous article (Jeremiah Wright As Barack Obama’s Political Albatross), I explained the profound connection between the “black liberation theology” of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the “liberation theology” that emerged from Latin America in the early 1970s. The former is a branch from the tree of the latter, and the roots of liberation theology are Marxist to the core.

When the Marxist Sandinistas wanted to spread revolution to Nicaragua – which was well over 90% Roman Catholic – they realized that they had to enlist the cooperation of the Catholic clergy if they wanted to have any hope of installing a Marxist regime. To this end, a small group of Marxist-Catholic theologians concocted the combination of carefully selected teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Marx as a way of justifying violent revolution to overthrow capitalism and any government that supported it.

These “liberation theologians” saw every biblical criticism of the rich as a mandate to “expropriate from the expropriators” (in Marx’s words), and viewed every expression of compassion for the poor as a call for an uprising by proletariat peasants and workers against capitalist oppression. Rather than viewing Marxism through the lens of Christianity, they viewed Christianity through the lens of Marxism. As early as 1972 (the same year Jeremiah Wright came to the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago), the Catholic Church (at the 1972 Sucre CELAM conference) was officially repudiating this new theology as heresy.

John Paul II criticized liberation theology at the 1979 Puebla CELAM conference, saying, “this conception of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth, does not tally with the Church’s catechisms.” Former Cardinal Ratzinger – now Pope Benedict XVI – strongly opposed certain elements of liberation theology. Through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led by Ratzinger, the Vatican twice condemned the liberationist acceptance of Marxism and violence (first in 1984 and again in 1986).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

Black liberation theology does little more than particularize the Marxist doctrine of class struggle specifically to blacks.

So from the point of view of orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholic teaching, black liberation theology is simply the poisonous fruit from a poisonous tree. Elements of liberation theology are partially true, but as is the case so often, these partial truths amount to complete lies when they are stripped of their context and bundled in a package of Marxist dialectic.

When revelations of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s racist, anti-American remarks first began to surface, Democratic supporters of Barack Obama quickly claimed that these were just a few comments that were taken out of context. But when one considers black liberation theology, and when one listens to the words of numerous other black liberation theology theologians, this defense quickly becomes untenable.

When Jeremiah Wright talked about “white greed” in his now-famous “Audacity of Hope” message, he was perfectly expounding on black liberation thought. When he claimed that white America deliberately created the AIDS virus as a genocide against blacks, he was accurately exegeting black liberation ideology of class based warfare against the oppressed black class. Or, expressed negatively, when he said that anti-crack cocaine penalties were instituted by racist legislators for the purpose of incarcerating as many blacks as possible, how was that in any way contrary to his central theological beliefs? When Wright denounced Israel as a Zionist state that imposed “injustice and … racism” on Palestinians, how was this not in perfect accord with his theology? When Wright railed against “AmeriKKKa” in his sermons, just how was that contrary to black liberation thought? And when Wright lectured American society that it deserved 9/11, was this in any way out of bounds with either the teachings of black liberation theologians or the Marxism from which they derived their message?

John Perazzo put it this way: “When we read the writings, public statements, and sermons of Rev. Wright, we quickly notice his unmistakable conviction that America is a nation infested with racism, prejudice, and injustices that make life very difficult for black people. As he declared in one of his sermons: “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!… We [Americans] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.””
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=c19d4d91-618e-40d3-a5d9-c07d7a87a5ba

Given Wright’s profound hostility for both the U.S. and Israel, is it in any way surprising that he so very publicly embraced and acclaimed the virulently anti-American, anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan? Jeremiah Wright says, “When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens.” I point this out to ask this: why on earth would Rev. Wright even make such a statement unless he thought Black America should listen to Farrakhan, a documented anti-American racist?

For his part, the very recently retired Rev. Jeremiah Wright himself laid to rest any claim that he really didn’t mean what the hateful explosions taken from his sermons seemed to mean. The Reverend came back from a visit to Africa that conveniently removed him from the media spotlight (and demonstrated why Barack Obama probably wishes he’d stayed in Africa) and performed a marriage ceremony at Trinity United Church. He could have just conducted a simple wedding ceremony, but he chose not to. He could have acknowledged how wrong and hurtful his words have been, but he chose not to. He could have attempted to claim that what appeared to be such hateful words had been somehow taken out of context, but he chose not to. Rather, at a sacred ceremony celebrating the union of a man and a wife, the same pastor who had similarly joined in matrimony the hands of Barack and Michelle Obama once again used his pulpit as a platform to angrily blast away at those who had exposed his message.

What does any of this have to do with Senator and presidential hopeful Barack Obama? Nothing, if you listen to the spin of Obama supporters. Senator Obama always managed to be consistently and conveniently absent whenever these statements – and however many like them – rang through Trinity United Church, and, besides, you can’t convict Barack Obama with guilt by association. Barack Obama hasn’t said anything like this, after all.

Well, not so fast.

It simply stretches credulity to believe that Barack Obama never heard a hateful word come out of Jeremiah Wright’s mouth during his twenty years in the church.

In his 1993 memoir “Dreams from My Father,” Obama in his own words recalled his first meeting with Wright in 1985 in vivid detail. The pastor warned the young, politically ambitious, up-and-coming community activist that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church’s radical reputation. In other words, he was warned from the get-go.

John Perazo writes, “American voters ought to have more than a passing interest in the fact that when Barack Obama formally joined TUCC in 1991, he tacitly accepted this same Jeremiah Wright as a spiritual mentor. Moreover, he pledged allegiance to the church’s race-conscious “Black Value System” that encourages blacks to patronize black-only businesses, support black leaders, and avoid becoming “entrapped” by the pursuit of a “black middle-classness” whose ideals presumably would erode their sense of African identity and render them “captive” to white culture.”

Both the title of Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 came right out of Wright’s sermons. “If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from,” says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left who knows both men, “just look at Jeremiah Wright.”

But none of his core theology? None of his ideas or beliefs? Preposterous.

It is frankly impossible not to see the profound impact Jeremiah Wright has had on Barack Obama. Their relationship – and Wright’s influence – goes far deeper than the surface realities that Rev. Wright married Barack and Michelle Obama and baptized their children.

We have already heard Wright’s poison come out of the mouth of Michelle Obama. Her expression of her lack of pride in her country throughout her adult life, and her comment that “America is a mean place in 2008,” could have come right out of her pastor’s mouth. Her feelings are certainly incongruous with her own privileged history as a Princeton University graduate or her high-paying position with a hospital in Chicago, to say the least.

But what about Barack Obama?

A lot of the connections between Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama are carefully camoflaged by Obama’s polished rhetoric to avoid the overt bitterness and racism of his mentor while retaining Wright’s substance. For example, in his “Audacity of Hope” message, Jeremiah Wright railed against “white greed.” Barack Obama’s message is, “The biggest problem facing America is greed.” Now, Senator Obama, are you referring to the greed of poor, oppressed blacks, or to the white greed that your pastor talked about in that sermon that inspired your book? Senator?

But now we’ve got a naked expression of black liberation theology Marxism revealed in all its polished prose.

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiments as a way to explain their frustrations,” Obama said at an April 6 fundraiser in San Fransisco.

Hillary Clinton immediately pounced on the “elitism and condescension” of Obama’smessage (and c’mon, it’s just not every day someone with $150 million gets to say stuff like this and mean it!). And, yeah, it sure is those things, being that it is a message explaining to wealthy liberal San Fransiscans the uncomprehending stupidity of white working class Pennsylvanians, who can only dully cling to guns and religion the way a frightened child might cling to a teddy bear.

Some analysts picked up on the “bitter” part of the explanation. Others picked up on the “cling” part.

I want to make sure you pick up on the Marxist part.

Karl Marx famously claimed that religion was an opiate of the masses. He was explaining his view that the wealthy bourgeoise cynically used religion as a device to keep the poor, simple proletariat happy in their misery and squalor so they would find it immoral to rise up and overthrow their capitalists oppressors.

Immediatly after the flareup over his remarks, Barack Obama, speaking from Muncie, Indiana on April 12, said, “I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter.

“So I said well you know when you’re bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community.”

Well, I would agree that everyone who views the world through the Marxist perception of liberation theology, dialectic materialism, and religion-as-opiate, might know that it’s true. But everyone else should frankly have a lot of problems with Obama’s views.

I also noticed that on this second go-around, Senator Obama didn’t add his “antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiments” remarks to his revised list of “what [working class Pennsylvanians] can count on.” Adding those little items to the security provided by religious belief and the right to bear arms somehow just doesn’t sound as good, does it?

At the CNN “Compassion Forum” on April 13, Obama explained that “Religion is a bulwark, a foundation, when other things aren’t going well.” Okay. Just as long as we don’t think that religion actually reflects simple reality, or that people are religious because there is a Creator God who cares about us and has a plan for our lives. Thank God (well, er, thank the liberal equivalent of God, anyway) that Barack Obama isn’t one of those “fundamentalists,” right, San Fransisco? Otherwise, he might oppose abortion and the homosexual social agenda.

Eventually, the crushing impact of the poll numbers – which now have Senator Hillary Clinton up by 20 points in Pennsylvania – will force Senator Obama to do a better job of distancing himself from his formerly expressed views. Just as with the previous firestorm over the Rev. Wright’s hate-speech, the Obama campaign seems to be progressing from a casual dismissal, to a few casual words of dismissive explanation, to a half-hearted apology, and – if all else fails – to a full-blown speech. Only this time, it will be his very own words that are at issue.