Friday, February 29, 2008

Obama's women reveal his secret

""Cherchez la femme," advised Alexander Dumas in: "When you want to uncover an unspecified secret, look for the woman." In the case of Barack Obama, we have two: his late mother, the went-native anthropologist Ann Dunham, and his rancorous wife Michelle. Obama's women reveal his secret: he hates America.

America is not the embodiment of hope, but the abandonment of one kind of hope in return for another. America is the spirit of creative destruction, selecting immigrants willing to turn their back on the tragedy of their own failing culture in return for a new start. Its creative success is so enormous that its global influence hastens the decline of other cultures. For those on the destruction side of the trade, America is a monster. Between half and nine-tenths of the world's 6,700 spoken languages will become extinct in the next century, and the anguish of dying peoples rises up in a global cry of despair. Some of those who listen to this cry become anthropologists, the curators of soon-to-be extinct cultures; anthropologists who really identify with their subjects marry them. Obama's mother, the University of Hawaii anthropologist Ann Dunham, did so twice.

Obama profiles Americans the way anthropologists interact with primitive peoples. He holds his own view in reserve and emphatically draws out the feelings of others; that is how friends and colleagues describe his modus operandi since his days at the Harvard Law Review, through his years as a community activist in Chicago, and in national politics. Anthropologists, though, proceed from resentment against the devouring culture of America and sympathy with the endangered cultures of the primitive world. Obama inverts the anthropological model: he applies the tools of cultural manipulation out of resentment against America. The probable next president of the United States is a mother's revenge against the America she despised.

Ann Dunham died in 1995, and her character emerges piecemeal from the historical record, to which I will return below. But Michelle Obama is a living witness. Her February 18 comment that she felt proud of her country for the first time caused a minor scandal, and was hastily qualified. But she meant it, and more. The video footage of her remarks shows eyes hooded with rage as she declares: "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment."

The desperation, frustration and disappointment visible on Michelle Obama's face are not new to the candidate's wife; as Steve Sailer, Rod Dreher and other commentators have noted, they were the theme of her undergraduate thesis, on the subject of "blackness" at Princeton University. No matter what the good intentions of Princeton, which founded her fortunes as a well-paid corporate lawyer, she wrote, "My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' than ever before. I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong." ....

"Frustration" and "disappointment" have dogged Michelle Obama these past 20 years, despite her US$300,000 a year salary and corporate board memberships. It is hard for the descendants of slaves not to resent America. They were not voluntary immigrants but kidnap victims, subjected to a century of second-class citizenship even after the Civil War ended slavery. Blackness is not the issue; General Colin Powell, whose parents chose to immigrate to America from the West Indies, saw America just as other immigrants do, as a land of opportunity. Obama's choice of wife is a failsafe indicator of his own sentiments. Spouses do not necessarily share their likes, but they must have their hatreds in common. Obama imbibed this hatred with his mother's milk.

"Naivete" is a euphemism for Ann Dunham's motivation. Friends describe her as a "fellow traveler", that is, a communist sympathizer, from her youth, according to a March 27, 2007, Chicago Tribune report. Many Americans harbor leftist views, but not many marry into them, twice.

More here


Brief Excerpts

Obama against one law for all: "When the nomination of John Roberts to be chief justice of the Supreme Court came up in the Senate in 2005, Sen. Barack Obama argued that the role of a justice is to favor the "weak" over the "strong." When the nomination of Sam Alito came up in January 2006, he made the same argument. Obama does not want a Supreme Court that preserves the rule of law, he wants a Supreme Court that wages class war under color of law."

Obama could ignite a nuclear war: "Would a Barack Obama ascendancy in the US presidential election lead to a new war in the Middle East? There's quite a respectable case for thinking it might. It's a simple calculation. Despite the recently released US National Intelligence Estimate that Iran is not working on nuclear weaponisation, no one seriously doubts that Iran is moving towards nuclear weapons. The NIE confirms it is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and missile capabilities. Weaponisation is the easiest bit of the process. Many Israeli leaders say that a nuclear armed Iran represents an existential threat to Israel. If they really believe this, they have no alternative but to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. If they believe McCain will win, they will have faith that the Americans, one way or another, will try to handle the Iranians. If they believe Obama will win, they not only believe he definitely won't handle Iran effectively, but he might even stop them from doing so. If Bush believes Iran will go nuclear, he might have faith that McCain could handle it. He will have absolutely no faith that Obama would handle it. The odds are against a US strike on Iran under any circumstances, and I would say the odds are even against an Israeli strike. But either or both are much more likely if it looks like Obama will win."

Posted by John Ray. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and for a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM.

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Obama and the Power of Words

These are words that move and uplift, that give hope to the hopeless. These words inspired millions of voters nationwide to join the grand experiment called democracy, casting votes for their candidate, their country, their destiny: "More than anything else, I want my candidacy to unify our country, to renew the American spirit and sense of purpose. I want to carry our message to every American, regardless of party affiliation, who is a member of this community of shared values . . . For those who have abandoned hope, we'll restore hope and we'll welcome them into a great national crusade to make America great again!"

So Ronald Reagan proclaimed on July 17, 1980, as he accepted his party's nomination for president at the Republican National Convention in Detroit, Mich. Earlier that day, the New York Times ran a long profile of Reagan on its front page. The author, Howell Raines, lamented that the news media had been unsuccessful in getting Reagan to speak in anything other than "sweeping generalities about economic and military policy." Mr. Raines further noted: "political critics who characterize him as banal and shallow, a mouther of right-wing platitudes, delight in recalling that he co-starred with a chimpanzee in 'Bedtime for Bonzo.'"

Throughout his campaign, Reagan fought off charges that his candidacy was built more on optimism than policies. The charges came from reporters and opponents. John Anderson, a rival in the Republican primary who ran as an independent in the general election, complained that Reagan offered little more than "old platitudes and old generalities."

Conservatives understood that this Reagan-as-a-simpleton view was a caricature (something made even clearer in several recent books, particularly Reagan's own diaries). That his opponents never got this is what led to their undoing. Those critics who giggled about his turn alongside a chimp were considerably less delighted when Reagan won 44 states and 489 electoral votes in November. One Reagan adviser had predicted such a win shortly after Reagan had become the de facto nominee the previous spring. In a memo about the coming general election contest with Jimmy Carter, Richard Whalen wrote Reagan's "secret weapon" was that "Democrats fail to take him very seriously."

Are Republicans making the same mistake with Barack Obama? ... In just the past week, conservative commentators have accused Mr. Obama of speaking in "Sesame Street platitudes," of giving speeches that are "almost content free," of "saying nothing." He has been likened to Chance the Gardner, the clueless mope in Jerzy Koscinski's "Being There," whose banal utterances are taken as brilliant by a gullible political class. Others complain that his campaign is "messianic," too self-aggrandizing and too self-referential....

The assumption behind much of this criticism is that because Mr. Obama gives a good speech he cannot do substance. This is wrong. Mr. Obama has done well in most of the Democratic debates because he has consistently shown himself able to think on his feet. Even on health care, a complicated national issue that should be Mrs. Clinton's strength, Mr. Obama has regularly fought her to a draw by displaying a grasp of the details that rivals hers, and talking about it in ways Americans can understand.

More here



I would like to think something good about Obama -- seeing he could well be next POTUS -- so here is one excerpt that seems to have a point: "The best evidence of Obama's readiness to lead the nation is th e ability with which he has run for president. After all, what is more difficult, complicated, or challenging than getting elected president? What other life experience better illustrates one's qualification to hold the office than a manifest skill in seeking it. For anyone who has ever been elected president, the race that sent them to the White House was the single most important event in their lives and dwarfs any other experience they might have had before running. As we have watched Obama surmount the hurdles that lay in his path, we cannot help but be impressed with his judgment. .... Will he be a good president? If he is half as skillful in serving as he has been in running, he can't miss."

Obama terrorist connection: "The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens. The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group."

A comment on Obama's latest example of economic ignorance here

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

The Cult of Obama

America as been fortunate in avoiding political cults of personality. The closest that we have come to it may have been the 4 terms that Franklin Roosevelt was elected to. We should note also that FDR was a special case. He was first elected during the Great Depression and continued into World War II. This form of crisis situation has been unusual, and while one might disagree with the way that President Roosevelt handled some aspects of them, he certainly understood the gravity of the situation and the need for America to take action to preserve itself. This is exactly the opposite of what we see with current Democrat presidential front-runner, Barack Obama.

Simply stated, and as a significant number of critics, both liberal and conservative have pointed out, Senator Obama is an empty suit; a candidate who talks in endless platitudes, but says nothing of substance, except that he wants to enact a myriad of tax and spend programs at home, while ignoring the true nature of its enemies abroad and emasculating the military. Perhaps he believes that the foreign dictators are foolish enough to fall for his charm. If elected, he will quickly learn that they will be more than willing to say anything, and then do exactly the opposite if it suits their interest at the time. As Neville Chamberlain sold out Europe to Nazi Germany, Senator Obama is willing to sell out the United States anyone and everyone who has an axe to grind and is willing to say the right things in public, regardless of their true intentions.

Sean Hannity has talked a lot about two focus groups that were asked if they could identify any of Obama's accomplishments. Both came up with essentially nothing, which speaks volumes; the man really has done nothing, except promote his own political career as rapidly as can. Now, the fact that he can speak charismatically is really all that he is running on. People like what he says, regardless of whether it has any substance. I remember having a similar reaction to Jimmy Carter many years ago. I was a teenager when I told my, now departed, Mother that he said a lot of things that sounded nice, but there was nothing that I could identify specifically as practical or realistic. Obama is now doing the same thing. He talks about "hope" but it is a blind hope; faith that he has all the answers and that electing him to office will somehow solve all of America's problems. To make matters worse, his campaign is taking on a messianic attitude. This may well speak of an even greater underlying danger.

Michael Medved recently asked of his audience why people are supporting this candidate. He received all of the usual empty answers about hope, unity and the like. In the end, there really was nothing of substance that anyone could identify. I have an answer; it is not one I like, but I believe that it is the truth; that Senator Obama is the candidate of the intellectually bankrupt. It is no wonder to me that so many young people are swooning over this charlatan. He is all show and no substance, like so much of modern entertainment. He is the MTV candidate. He is the candidate of people who love special effects and don't care about the plot. Politically they are oblivious to the consequences of electing someone who is as gullible as they are. He is their drug that will make all problems go away, but like with a drug, the problems don't really go away and after effects are terrible.

Enacting the Obama domestic policies would result in a quick trip to national bankruptcy. His foreign policies would create a weak, vacillating nation that will not defend itself because talking to an implacable enemy is always better than eliminating him. He has no realistic method for dealing with our national energy needs. In short, he is running on hot air, and despite his contentions to the contrary, empty words. He does not have the depth to create words of real substance.

More here



This is just what they used to say about Hitler: "When you watch an Obama speech, you lean forward and listen and think, That's good. He's compelling, I like the way he speaks. And afterward all the commentators call him "impossibly eloquent" and say "he gave me thrills and chills." But, in fact, when you go on the Internet and get a transcript of the speech and print it out and read it--that is, when you remove Mr. Obama from the words and take them on their own--you see the speech wasn't all that interesting, and was in fact high-class boilerplate"

Obama no compromiser: "After his victory last week in Wisconsin and again at the Austin debate, Obama revealed himself to be the most liberal candidate since George McGovern. He is not thrilled with building a border fence. He wants to meet with Raul Castro. He will raise taxes and spend a boatload of money on new programs. He will exit Iraq pronto and spend that money on domestic programs. He opposes any restriction on partial birth abortion and thinks the District of Columbia's total handgun ban is a 'common sense' regulation. This is no 'third way' and, other than a few rhetorical flourishes, there is no sign of 'reaching across the aisle.'

Obama corruption: "A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama's fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses. The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain's wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago. A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama's bagman Antoin "Tony" Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million. Three weeks later, Mr Obama bought a house on the city's South Side while Mr Rezko's wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15."

I guess it WAS a Jewish guy who said "Love thine enemy": "It is no secret that Obama's candidacy has been supported financially and politically by many prominent members of the American Jewish community. Even previously outspoken Clinton-supporting spokespersons for Democrats Abroad here in Israel have been hedging their bets recently in articles and interviews, suggesting that an Obama Administration would augur well for Israel. Incredibly, citing unenthusiastic, canned pro-Israel campaign statements, these dyed-in-the-wool Democratic sycophants would urge Jewish voters to cast their fate and Israel's with Obama rather than with the Republican candidate, McCain. With all due deference to the Obama celebrity supporters like Steven Spielberg and George Soros, can Jews herein Israel and in America and other friends of Israel risk a vote for Obama in November? A quick look at the facts should switch on a big red light in most peoples' minds."

Foreign press warnings on Obama: "Der Spiegel editor: "The rise of democratic frontrunner Barack Obama signifies an alarming victory of style over substance." And that was just the first sentence. On Friday, it was Gerard Baker of the Times of London asking: "are Americans really ready to leap all the way across in one go to embrace a European-style Left?" Now there is a warning about Obama from Gabor Steingart of Der Spiegel's Washington bureau. "The senator's successes in the primaries also have a narcotizing effect. Obama defines himself as a new type of politician, as someone who refuses to be judged by the old standards," Steingart wrote. Judging by old standards = accountability. I realize my readers are not Obama fans. But they should not buy the baloney about the rest of the world having a feel-good crush on Obama. Europeans want a strong America - that they can complain about being too strong. Steingart pointed out: "If democracy functions only half as well as the market economy, the Obama bubble will burst. The burning question is: When?"

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

"I have the hat, I still have the hat". So does Obama. And it is a Muslim hat, as you can see above. Details about the Obama hat here.

Obama can do no wrong. Things that the Left once condemned are now OK if Obama says so. See here

Ralph Nader says Obama censors his real political views: "Nader credited Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), who leads the Democratic nomination race, with being "the first liberal evangelist in a long time." But Nader said Obama's "better instincts and knowledge have been censored" by the demands of the campaign. "He's leaned, if anything, toward the pro-corporate side of policy-making," Nader said. The question is, he added, "Do you have the fortitude to stand up against the corporate powers ... and get things done for the American people?" Obama, he said, has also erred on foreign policy. "He was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois," Nader said. "Now he's supporting" the Israeli government's policies, he added."

An Obama baracklash: "In recent days, sites have popped up indicating that the ongoing online Obamamania has hit a wall. What kind of wall? A snarky, ironic, this-Obama-thing-has-gotten-over-the-top wall. Obama's smiling mug is mashed up on countless faces on He's Sumobama. He's Pharaohbama. He's Navajobama, complete with a blue-and-white feathered headdress. The blog Is Barack Obama the Messiah? features a photo of the Illinois senator standing on a flight of stairs, Christlike, above an adoring crowd while a ray of light beams from above."

Obama's myth of the "suffering" middle class: "The "war on the middle class" is provably an invention of the Democrats and the mainstream media. But I repeat myself. Barack Obama, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton have all highlighted the "suffering" of the middle class... the "two Americas"... and that the average Joe is getting squeezed by the wealthy. Reason TV has produced an exceptional series of videos that shatter conventional myth-making using (brace yourself, "progressives") facts. This quick summary of Living Large - the vanishing Middle Class should encourage you to watch the entire seven minute video."

Black Panther, Now Inspired by Barack Obama, Gets only 30 Days For 1969 Cop Shooting: "A former Black Panther Party member has been sentenced to 30 days in jail and two years' probation for the 1969 shooting of a Chicago police officer. Joseph Pannell spent years living in Canada, working as a researcher and raising a family under the name Gary Freeman. In 1969 as a 19-year-old member of the militant group, Pannell shot Terrence Knox three times in the right arm, wounding him. Pannell was arrested after the shooting but he ran after being released on bail in the early 1970s. He spent years fighting his extradition until voluntarily returning to Chicago this month and pleading guilty to an aggravated battery charge. The case began on March 7, 1969, when Mr. Knox, then 21, was patrolling near a Chicago high school in a squad car. Prosecutors said that when he pulled over and asked Mr. Pannell, then 19, why he was not in school, Mr. Pannell fired several shots at him. While on bail, Mr. Pannell fled to Canada. In 2004, he was arrested, but fought extradition. Last month he gave up that fight, saying he was inspired by the new political climate he saw in Chicago, symbolized, he said, by the support of Mayor Richard M. Daley and other political leaders for the presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama."

Monday, February 25, 2008

There is a story here about what an absolute bonehead Obama is. He opposes NAFTA but supports economic co-operation with Mexico -- apparently unaware that NAFTA is about economic co-operation with Mexico.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Obama Fascism peeping out again

The hysteria Obama produces in his followers is not normal in democratic politics but it is VERY reminiscent of the 1930s German reaction to Hitler. And, like Hitler, Obama is an extreme socialist who want the government to control everything. But we now get another glimpse of the all-controlling Fascist leader in the words of his wife:
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

And note that Hitler was democratically elected too. And Obama even wants to invade Pakistan!. Not as ambitious as invading Russia but it is the thought that counts.


Obama the fake

Those of us on the right are rather confounded by the Obama-o-rama. Our televisions deliver imagery of percolating crowds and throngs of fainting women, yet we cannot help but wonder how a vague and airy candidate produces such hysterical levels of devotion. Indeed, Stevie Wonder wrote a song about him which sums up his superficial stances perfectly. Its lyrics are nothing more than variations on the candidate's first and last name.

Clearly there's more to the Obama monomania than vapid rhetoric. Blatant deception is integral to his appeal. He speaks of unity and there being no hyphenated Americans, but his Senate votes clash with his message. The man promising change in our time is anything but a moderate. This particular "rock star," like so many others, is a left-wing, partisan member of the Democratic Party. His votes in 2006 earned him an American Conservative Union rating of 8. The only way he will bring us together is if half the country moves to the left of John Kerry and his ACU rating of 12.

His campaign mantra is "Change You Can Believe In," but his inauguration will ring in copious quantities of the same statism that currently debilitates us. He rails against corporate lobbyists yet reflexively supports the expansion of the government. The bureaucrats and functionaries of the leviathan are the true wielders of undemocratic power and influence in our nation.

All of his "solutions" to "problems" are contingent upon Washington "helping" people. Based on past experience, this is a tenuous proposition. His imaginative plan to fix Social Security involves the raising of taxes. His economic agenda, "Keeping America's Promise," will add $200 billion in new spending to a federal budget that now gambles away over three trillion dollars a year. Change and Barack Obama do not belong together in the same sentence. The man is nothing more than Jimmy Carter with a pleasant disposition....

"A Bound Man" describes in detail the longing white Americans have for a champion like Obama. Certainly citizens of all persuasions yearn for an end to the "corrosive racial politics" of the present era. They badly want to purchase the hope he sells and probably don't care if they find out later it was a well-enunciated bag of air....

There is one significant upside to his victory, however: Every time President Obama enters a room to the sounds of "Hail to the Chief," it will indelibly confirm a truth now only acknowledged by conservatives - that America is one of the least racist nations on earth. And such realizations are the finest dreams of our founding fathers.

More here

Friday, February 22, 2008

Black conservative Bob Parks is disgusted by the whiny and unappreciative attitude of Michelle Obama too. Her weak attempt to spin her way out of it is here

Obama mentor identified as communist: "The mysterious "Frank" cited as a friend and adviser by Democratic president contender Barack Obama while he was growing up in Hawaii has been identified as Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the old Moscow-controlled Communist Party USA. The identification comes from Cliff Kincaid in his column, "Obama's Communist Mentor," which was made available on the Accuracy in Media website. "Let's challenge the liberal media to report on this," he wrote in his column. "Will they have the honesty and integrity to do so?" Kincaid, who earlier reported on Obama's pending plan to ship $845 billion overseas to battle "global poverty" as evidence of his socialist leanings, said the newly revealed connection is even more worrisome."

Thursday, February 21, 2008

When the Magic Fades

The afflicted had already been through the phases of Obama-mania - fainting at rallies, weeping over their touch screens while watching Obama videos, spending hours making folk crafts featuring Michelle Obama's face. These patients had experienced intense surges of hope-amine, the brain chemical that fuels euphoric sensations of historic change and personal salvation.

But they found that as the weeks went on, they needed more and purer hope-injections just to preserve the rush. They wound up craving more hope than even the Hope Pope could provide, and they began experiencing brooding moments of suboptimal hopefulness. Anxious posts began to appear on the Yes We Can! Facebook pages. A sense of ennui began to creep through the nation's Ian McEwan-centered book clubs.

Up until now The Chosen One's speeches had seemed to them less like stretches of words and more like soul sensations that transcended time and space. But those in the grips of Obama Comedown Syndrome began to wonder if His stuff actually made sense. For example, His Hopeness tells rallies that we are the change we have been waiting for, but if we are the change we have been waiting for then why have we been waiting since we've been here all along?

More here

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Hunger For Change Is The Highest Form Of Patriotism?

I am not really sure that what the wife of a presidential candidate says is all that important but as The Obamassiah himself says, words matter. Here's what his wife says:

For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.

Not once during her adult life has Michele Obama "really" been proud of America? Not of the fact that it won the Cold War and liberated tens of millions from totalitarian rule? What about sending billions to ease the plight of millions of AIDS sufferers in Africa? What about the nation's selflessness in stopping genocide in the Balkans when it had no immediate security interest in the region? What about our ability to produce hundreds of thousands of brave men and women who will risk life and limb to liberate two countries from despotic regimes right out of the Dark Ages? Doesn't the Herculean Tsunami Relief effort generate a flicker of national pride?

The list could go on ad infinitum. But she's proud now because her empty suit of a husband may become the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party by saying 'hope' and `change' more than anyone else? The audacity of stupidity.

Sources here and here


Obama the Messiah: It was inevitable. There is now a blog following references to Barack Obama as something more than an ordinary politician. See here

The official Obama web site has mysteriously made a page vanish: It was a page that predicted failure of the "surge" in Iraq. But a false prophecy can't be made to disappear so easily these days. The "censored" page is reproduced here.

The real Barack Obama: "The effects of 'political correctness' are prevalent in the 2008 elections and very well may result in electing a person whose true agenda and even the facts of his childhood are kept from the public because anyone expressing the true nature of his views and life would be subjected to unbearable tirades and attacks upon their own character for bringing these facts to light. To touch on the issue of Barack Obama's Muslim childhood and intended Black agenda as president would subject his opponent, media political pundits, and the general public to shrieks of racism and worse. Truth is on the chopping block -- but so is our country's future"

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Sleaze charge: 'I took drugs, had homo sex with Obama': "The electrifying presidential campaign of Barack Obama faces a new challenge - a Minnesota man who claims he took cocaine in 1999 with the then-Illinois legislator and participated in homosexual acts with him. When his story was ignored by the news media, Larry Sinclair made his case last month in a YouTube video, which has now been viewed more than a quarter-million times. And when it was still ignored by the media, Sinclair filed a suit in Minnesota District Court, alleging threats and intimidation by Obama's staff." [The above article may now have been taken down but you can still see the video here]

GOP has Obama targeted: "Leading Republicans believe they can trounce Barack Obama in the presidential election by branding him as a shady Chicago socialist. They are confident that his campaign could collapse by the time their attack machine has finished with him. Grover Norquist, an influential conservative tax reform lobbyist, said: "Barack Obama has been able to create his own image and introduce himself to voters, but the swing voters in a general election are not paying attention yet. He is open to being defined as a left-wing, corrupt Chicago politician." Obama has the voting record of a "hard-left" socialist, according to Norquist, from his time in the Illinois state legislature to the US Senate. He was recently judged by the non-partisan National Journal to have the most liberal voting record last year of any senator".

Monday, February 18, 2008

Obama's International Socialist Connections: "Campaign workers for Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara. But Obama has his own controversial socialist connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based Marxist group with access to millions of labor union dollars and connections to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler. Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat... Blogger Steve Bartin, who has been following Obama's career and involvement with the Chicago socialists, has uncovered a fascinating video showing Obama campaigning for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Interestingly, Sanders, who won his seat in 2006, called Obama "one of the great leaders of the United States Senate," even though Obama had only been in the body for about two years. In 2007, the National Journal said that Obama had established himself as "the most liberal Senator." More liberal than Sanders? That is quite a feat. Does this make Obama a socialist, too?

Saturday, February 16, 2008

OBAMA: The shallowness below the soaring rhetoric


The conventional critique of Sen. Obama has held that his pitch is perfect but at some point he'll need to make the appeal more concrete. I think the potential vulnerability runs deeper. Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message and what you find is not only familiar. It's a downer. Up to now, the force of Sen. Obama's physical presentation has so dazzled audiences that it has been hard to focus on precisely what he is saying. "Yes, we can! Yes, we can!" Can what? Listen closely to that Tuesday night Wisconsin speech. Unhinge yourself from the mesmerizing voice. What one hears is a message that is largely negative, illustrated with anecdotes of unremitting bleakness. Heavy with class warfare, it is a speech that could have been delivered by a Democrat in 1968, or even 1928. Here is the edited version, stripped of the flying surfboard:

"Our road will not be easy . . . the cynics. . . where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits . . . That's what happens when lobbyists set the agenda. . . It's a game where trade deals like Nafta ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart . . . It's a game . . . CEO bonuses . . . while another mother goes without health care for her sick child . . . We can't keep driving a wider and wider gap between the few who are rich and the rest who struggle to keep pace . . . even if they're not rich . . ."

Here's his America: "lies awake at night wondering how he's going to pay the bills . . . she works the night shift after a full day of college and still can't afford health care for a sister who's ill . . . the senior I met who lost his pension when the company he gave his life to went bankrupt . . . the teacher who works at Dunkin' Donuts after school just to make ends meet . . . I was not born into money or status . . . I've fought to bring jobs to the jobless in the shadow of a shuttered steel plant . . . to make sure people weren't denied their rights because of what they looked like or where they came from . . . Now we carry our message to farms and factories."

It ends: "We can cast off our doubts and fears and cynicism because our dream will not be deferred; our future will not be denied; and our time for change has come."

I am not saying all of this is false. But it is a depressing message to ride all the way to the White House. Presumably this is a preview of what he intends to run with against John McCain, who was mentioned several times. (Straw in the wind: This audience cheered when he called Sen. McCain an American hero.) Presidential elections now are settled by about 30% of the electorate that occupies the independent center. In late December, Gallup released a poll in which 84% of respondents said they were satisfied with their own lives. At some point in the next 10 months, people will have to square Sen. Obama's Grapes of Wrath message with the reality of their lives...

Right after the Wisconsin speech, TV broadcast another -- by victorious John McCain. The contrast with Sen. Obama's is stark. The arc of the McCain speech is upward, positive. Pointedly, he says we are not history's "victims." Barack relentlessly pushes victimology.

For Sen. Obama the military and national security is a world of catastrophe welded to Iraq and filled with maimed soldiers. Mr. McCain locates these same difficult subjects inside the whole of American military achievement. It nets out as a more positive message. Recall that Ronald Reagan's signature optimism, when it first appeared, was laughed at by political pros. Optimism won elections.

More here

Friday, February 15, 2008

Obama showing his form already: "A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations. Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends."

Thursday, February 14, 2008

More on the Fascist element in Obama's appeal
"Alles muss anders sein" (Everything must be different) -- Hitler's briefest summary of his policies

History never repeats itself but sometimes it comes close. Obama is NOT a Fascist insofar as the Fascists were patriotic and Obama is the sort of America-hater that is now typical of the Left. Right up to JFK, the American Left was patriotic. It no longer is. And sometimes Obama doesn't even bother to pretend -- as we see below:

But in matters other than patriotism -- the appeal for unity, the preaching of "change", the vague but inspiring rhetoric and the automatic turning to government as the solution to every problem -- Obama is quite Fascist.

That does not mean that he would turn America into a Fascist nation if he became President. Because he doesn't seem to have thought things through, I think he would make a very ineffectual President, in fact. But the main reason why America will remain the Great Republic is that its political institutions, traditions and customs are very strong. F.D. Roosevelt was a strong and determined leader with a legendary base of support throughout the country who openly admired Mussolini and who did his best to put the Federal government in charge of just about everything in America -- but he failed. America is not easily changed by one man. Because Americans think that it is inconceivable for America to be anything but a democracy, it is highly likely that America will always remain a democracy. As judge Learned Hand notably said: "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it."

And Obama is no FDR. But identifying where Obama stands in history might just do a little to prepare people for the adventurism and reductions in individual liberties that he is likely to move towards if he gains office. The amazing revelations of what Obama is like without a teleprompter reveal him as having all the anger and hate of the Fascists too.

I mentioned vague but inspiring rhetoric. Here is the shouted climax of one of Hitler's impassioned speeches at the 1934 Nuremberg Parteitag (party rally), speaking particularly to the Hitler Youth:

"Vor uns liegt Deutschland, in uns marschiert Deutschland. und hinter uns kommt Deutschland" ("Before us lies Germany, in us Germany marches and behind us comes Germany").

The translation erases the cadences of the original German so why it got thunderous applause and inspired many may not be immediately obvious. Hitler is notoriously impossible to translate fully so you need to understand German and see a film of the original speech to really "get" it. But what exactly did it mean? It is rather absurd considered logically but as an emotional declaration of unity it was very powerful. I doubt that Obama will ever convey that message as powerfully -- but it is a very similar message to his.

And note another famous appeal for unity, unity in the State: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato" (Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State) -- the words of Benito Mussolini.

Or how about G.W.F. Hegel, the German philosopher who started it all? (Translation only)

The state, which is that form of reality in which the individual has and enjoys his freedom; but on the condition of his recognizing, believing in and willing that which is common to the whole

And as far as Obama's "change" religion is concerned, see the quote at the head of this post and also note the following policy description:

A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists" -- again the words of Adolf Hitler, from the "Philosophy and Organization" chapter of Mein Kampf

And Hitler also described his movement as having a 'revolutionary creative will' which had 'no fixed aim, no permanency, only eternal change'

It's amusing how Leftists love to see imaginary similarities between GWB and Hitler but will never in a million years see the real similarities between Obama and the Fascists that I have set out in detail. "Bush=Hitler" gives them a feeling of righteousness. "Obama=Hitler" gives me a feeling of sadness. That Fascism has huge and enduring appeal is a very hard thing for a libertarian to swallow. And as for personal popularity, let the picture below speak for itself:

My previous comments on the similarities between Obama and the prewar Fascists are here and here and here

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Obama hearts a mass murderer: "As Barack Obamania heads to the next major primary, the campaign is opening offices in the barrios of Texas. And Obamaniacs are using an icon of revolutionaries to help them: Che Guevara. Well, why not? Obama is a lot like Che. His parents were elitists and maybe leftist. Sure, why not? But it is a good thing he did not campaign like this in Florida. Some Cuban-Americans might take exception to having Obamaniacs idolizing a terrorist and confidante of the dictator Fidel Castro."

Vacuous Obama rhetoric: "I was watching on television last week both Barack Obama and his wife Michelle speak about the supposedly depression-like conditions in the US, and a people strapped by students loans, near hungry, and without hope of betterment. Neither said anything of substance, though both were engaging, effective speakers. Still, never has so much talent been invested in saying so little. I have developed a bad habit up in the Sierra (Huntington Lake is hardly Tahoe) of asking strangers about their playthings-big boats, jet-skis, jacked-up four wheel-drive trucks with chrome struts that require a ladder to enter, all-terrain vehicles, recreation vehicles, racing-type snow-mobiles, etc. Most of these toys cost several thousand dollars. I am struck by the background of most that I meet who are driving them: the owners are electricians, cops, plumbers, teachers, government inspectors, etc. So far very few lawyers, doctors, and investors. In other words, the middle class that Obama assures us is bankrupt seems to have been able to afford optional consumer goods as never before"

Tuesday, February 12, 2008


I note that someone else has seen the similarities between Obama's campaign and the campaigns of Adolf Hitler. See here. So I thought I might put up a few more quotes about Hitler's appeal that sound very much like Obama's:

As this writer noted:
When brainwashers spoke to Germans after the war, as part of efforts to "psychoanalyze'' the Nazi experience, they found few remembered any specific content in Hitler's speeches. Almost all could remember being part of the experience, if they were in attendance, and most remembered the "excitement'' in listening to them on the radio. The words 'hypnotic'' and "mesmerizing'' were the most used to describe the Fuehrer's voice. Even some people who professed to have disagreed with the Nazis grudgingly claimed that Hitler was a "a spellbinding speaker.''

And note this comment:
"It was a sincere Hitler that they knew, whose words burned into the most secret recesses of their minds and rebuked them for their own shortcomings. It was the Hitler who would lead them back to self-respect because he had faith in them. This fundamental conception of Hitler made a beautiful foundation for a propaganda build-up. He was so convincing on the speaker's platform and appeared to be so sincere in what he said that the majority of his listeners were ready to believe almost anything good about him because they wanted to believe it.

And a few short quotes from The German dictatorship by K.D. Bracher (Weidenfeld, 1971, pp. 146-148):
"The youthful following, attracted by the romantic radicalism and emotional appeal of the "movement" became a significant factor" ... "Youth was indignant over the difficult and frequently unfair conditions of life, the manifold limitations of the times. The "movement" provided them with an outlet" ... "They protested against the seeming inertia of the politicians of the older generation..." "It was a truly religio-psychological phenomemon. Just as the concept of "belief" occupied a central place.." "Hitler appeared as the exponent of a new sense of life"

I imagine that many people reading the above will just not believe how similar Obama's approach is to Hitler's. They will feel that it is easy to tell the difference. If so, try this quiz. While there are Leftists there will always be Fascists.

And anybody who thinks Fascism belongs firmly in the past should ponder Putin's Russia. One of the most powerful Fascist States the world has ever seen is right with us now. Putin is wildly popular (in Russia) too.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Channeling the wrong Kennedy: "Obama has repeatedly compared himself to JFK, and his campaign casts itself as the second coming of Camelot. Obama's supporters see in him the same youthful optimism that made JFK an iconic symbol in the decade. It was an era when anything seemed possible. But the surviving Kennedys are also symbols of the darker side of 1960s liberalism: The bloated, bureaucratic welfare state. Teddy Kennedy's liberalism gave us welfare as we knew it and spent $11 trillion on federal programs fighting poverty without reducing it. It raised taxes until they discouraged work, investment and innovation. It created an ethic of entitlement and dependence on government. In his policy positions, as opposed to his bipartisan rhetoric, Barack Obama calls to mind this side of 1960s liberalism as well. Indeed, in his appetite for big government, Obama is quite unlike JFK."

Friday, February 8, 2008

Obama as a Rorschach blot: "It's a truism that a presidential candidate acts as a vessel for the dreams and beliefs of his followers. We've seen this for years with Madame Hillary, and more recently with Mike Huckabee. But nowhere has it been more evident than in the case of Barack Obama. With Obama it appears at least in part to be a matter of strategy. His campaign persona is so vague, and slogans such as "the audacity of hope" and "the politics of unity" so generic that they could mean anything, which is exactly what they've been taken to mean. Commentators, pundits, and voters look at Obama and see what they want see -- a "healer", an "agent of change", the "new JFK" -- a new persona each week. It follows directly that everyone also believes that Obama's ideas on policy and the issues are the same as that of the beholder, that the issue dearest to the candidate's heart happens to be the one that's most important to the individual voter. No matter what the constituency or what their concern, no doubt exists that Obama will get straight to work on their particular issue as soon as his shoes hit the oval office carpet."

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Obama a socialist ignoramus: "Obama told the newspaper the top priority of the next president should be the creation of a more lasting and equitable prosperity than achieved under Presidents Bush and Clinton. Obama apparently missed the class that teaches government doesn't create prosperity; people do. During last Thursday's debate with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama said he would pay for his proposed new programs, including health insurance, by imposing higher taxes on "the wealthy" and raising the tax on Social Security wages. He added, "What we have had right now is a situation where we've cut taxes for people who don't need them." Should government determine how much money people "need"? This is Marxism: "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need."

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

A backhanded endorsement? "California first lady Maria Shriver said she arose Sunday feeling inspired by an Eleanor Roosevelt quote: "Do something every day that scares you." "Eleanor Roosevelt," Shriver said, "This is my one thing for today." With that, Shriver, who wasn't even on the program, made a surprise appearance at the close of a raucous UCLA rally for Barack Obama and endorsed the Illinois senator for president in Tuesday's presidential primary."

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

More on Obama as the heir to Fascism

Message to Leftists: Bush=Hitler is reasonable but Obama=Hitler is not?

Let's look at some evidence bearing on the above question. I won't spend any time on the first equation above because I think that by any objective assessment Bush is simply a fairly conventional center Rightist who has acted well in accordance with the policies ("compassionate conservatism") that he proclaimed before gaining office. I actually see GWB as more a Christian gentleman than a real conservative.

The Left-dominated educational system has ensured that it is now known only to historical specialists but Hitler, by contrast, gained power on promises that were to a large extent the direct opposite of what he eventually did when he gained office. He actually campaigned on an ANTIWAR platform! See two of his 1930s election posters below. The first one reads: "Mit Hitler gegen den Ruestungswahnsinn der Welt" ("With Hitler against the armaments madness of the world") and the second reads: "Mit Adolf Hitler "Ja" fuer Gleichberechtigung und Frieden" ("With Adolf Hitler "Yes" for equal rights and peace").

There is a fuller picture from which both the above images were taken here. Hitler's British counterpart, Sir Oswald Mosley, of the British Union of Fascists, campaigned on a very similar platform. See below:

Obama eat your heart out!

I am perfectly confident that Obama will never gain the unrestricted power that Hitler did or that he will do as much damage as Hitler did but to place him in an accurate historical context should nonetheless help to predict the directions in which he will move if he gains office as POTUS -- something that is otherwise difficult because of the high generality of what he says in his speeches and his very limited voting record as a political office-holder.

I have previously pointed out how Obama's constant calls for unity above all are very much like what Hegel, Hitler and Mussolini preached. As I said on that occasion:
In fact, with his constant inspirational calls for national unity, Obama is eerily reminiscent of the Fascists. If he spoke German he might well be inclined to adopt as his slogan Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer -- as Hitler did ("One nation, one government, one leader")....

Put very briefly, the Fascists were (following Hegel) the "one big happy family" Left while the Communists were the deeply embittered "class war" Left. Hitler only hated the Jews. Marx, Trotksy, Lenin and Stalin hated just about everybody -- Marx particularly so. You can readily see why the two types of Leftist despised one-another.

And presenting oneself as the man of the "middle way" -- which Obama does -- is also of course classic Fascism. It was a major theme of Mussolini's. So there are good reasons to compare Obama to the prewar Fascists. And it is therefore also no surprise that this sounds VERY much like a common reaction to Hitler's speeches among pre-war Germans:
Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair.

The other great leaders I've heard guide us toward a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.

Hitler's speeches had a similar effect. As Elie Wiesel noted:
"The fact is that Hitler was beloved by his people - not the military, at least not in the beginning, but by the average Germans who pledged to him an affection, a tenderness and a fidelity that bordered on the irrational. It was idolatry on a national scale. One had to see the crowds who acclaimed him. And the women who were attracted to him. And the young who in his presence went into ecstasy.

So, once again we see that Fascism is not dead. It is now called "Progressive" -- as indeed it always was.

But Obama is a warm and kindly figure, you might say -- not a madman like Hitler. To say that is to ignore history, however. A warm and kindly figure is exactly how most prewar Germans saw Hitler. See here for instance. It's just snake-oil skillfully sold by someone who is very good at it.

So what do I predict if Obama gains office? I predict a maximum attempt to extend the reach of government into all aspects of American life. So the only hope that remains for what is left of America's freedoms (and it is a hope with reasonable prospects) is that the Senate will thwart him. SCOTUS could also be of some help but nobody would want to rely on it.

Sunday, February 3, 2008

The emptiness of Obama's "change" rhetoric: "Obama, despite his rhetoric, has not really thought through what should change in the future. In South Carolina, one of his most well-received lines was: `It's about the past versus the future.' Okay, we got the reference to the Clintons representing the past. But what about the future part? What great policy ideas do we have to look forward to? That all politicians will learn to play nicely together? Even if he could manage to control others' behaviors, that would hardly qualify as a `higher purpose' or as truly `transformative'.... I don't expect Obama to create a true mass movement. But why is he so reluctant to engage the public in debate on policy specifics that can take us forward? I agree that change in American politics is sorely needed. And even Obama's rhetoric isn't necessarily problematic. For instance, in today's times of anti-consumerist miserabilism, I'm all in favour of upholding aspirations like the American Dream. But you're not going to go far if you line up behind someone who can't spell out what that Dream should mean today."

Saturday, February 2, 2008

Obama's antisemitic adviser on Israel

Barack Obama's real thinking about Israel and the Middle East continues to be an enigma. The words he chose in an address to AIPAC create a different impression than the composition of his foreign policy advisory team. Several advisors have evidenced a history of suspicion and worse toward Israel. One of his advisors in particular, Robert Malley, clearly warrants attention, as does the reasoning that led him to being chosen by Barack Obama. [Note: "Malley" here appears to be an Arab name, not an Irish name. His father was a Syrian] ...

Robert Malley's writings strike me as being akin to propaganda. One notable example is an op-ed that was published in the New York Times (Fictions About the Failure at Camp David ). The column indicted Israel for not being generous enough at Camp David and blamed the failure of the talks on the Israelis.

Malley has repeated this line of attack in numerous op-eds over the years, often co-writing with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Yasser Arafat (see, for example, Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors ). He was also believed to be the chief source for an article by Deborah Sontag that whitewashed Arafat's role in the collapse of the peace process, an article that has been widely criticized as riddled with errors and bias.

Malley is a revisionist and his views are sharply at odds with the views of others who participated at Camp David, including Ambassador Dennis Ross and President Bill Clinton. Malley's myth-making has been peddled in the notably anti-Israel magazine, Counterpunch and by Norman Finkelstein, the failed academic recently denied tenure at DePaul University. Malley's Camp David propaganda has also become fodder for Palestinians, Arab rejectionists, and anti-Israel activists across the world....

Malley has written a range of pieces over the years that reveal an agenda at work that should give pause to those Obama supporters who truly care about peace in the Middle Peace and the fate of our ally Israel.
Playing Into Sharon's Hands: which absolves Arafat of the responsibility to restrain terrorists and blames Israel for terrorism. He defends Arafat and hails him as ..the first Palestinian leader to recognize Israel, relinquish the objective of regaining all of historic Palestine and negotiate for a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 boundaries. And he remains for now the only Palestinian with the legitimacy to sell future concessions to his people.

Rebuilding a Damaged Palestine: which blames Israel's security operations for weakening Palestinian security forces (absurd on its face: terrorists filled the ranks of so-called Palestinian security forces-which, in any case, never tried to prevent terrorism) and calls for international forces to restrain the Israelis

Making the Best of Hamas's Victory: which called for international aid to be showered upon a Hamas-led government and for international engagement with Hamas (a group that makes clear in its Charter, its schools, and its violence its intent to destroy Israel). Malley also makes an absurd assertion: that Hamas' policies and Israeli policies are mirror images of each other.

Avoiding Failure with Hamas: which again calls for aid to flow to a Hamas-led government and even goes so far as to suggest that failure to extend aid could cause an environmental or health catastrophe-such as a human strain of the avian flu virus!

How to Curb the Tension in Gaza: which criticizes Israel's for its actions to recover Gilad Shalit who was kidnapped and is being held hostage in the Gaza Strip. He and co-writer Gareth Evans call Israel's actions `collective punishment" in "violation of international law".....

Robert Malley also testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February, 2004. In that appearance he called for the Road Map to be cast aside because incremental measures intended to build trust were unworkable. He advocated that a comprehensive settlement plan be imposed on the parties with the backing of the international community, including Arab and Moslem states. He anticipated that Israel would object with "cries of unfair treatment" but counseled the plan be put in place regardless of such objections; he also suggested that waiting for a "reliable Palestinian partner' was unnecessary.

This is merely a sample of Malley's views -- which are focused on disengaging from our ally Israel (whose lead America should not "follow") and engaging with and, in some cases financially supporting, the likes of Syria, Moqtada al-Sadr, Hezbollah and Hamas. His ideology is radically at odds with American foreign policy as it has been practiced by two generations of Presidents -- both Democrats and Republicans -- over the years. This is the type of advocacy Robert Malley has been pursuing in the years since the end of the Clinton Administration and from his perch at the International Crisis Group -- an organization that may share his agenda.

The International Crisis Group

Robert Malley is the Director of the Middle East/North Africa Program at the International Crisis Group (ICG). Given the impressive title of the group, one might expect it to have along and impressive pedigree -- say long the lines of the well-regarded Council of Foreign Relations. In fact, the group is rather small and it has a short pedigree. More importantly, it has ties to George Soros. Soros is a man who has supported a wide variety of groups that have shown a propensity to criticize America and Israel; a man who has made clear his goal is to break the close bonds between America and Israel ; supported the views of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer whose work on the issue of the "Israel Lobby" has been widely criticized for factual inaccuracies, shoddy research, and has been called "anti-Semitic" in the Washington Post; a man who has taken steps to counter the supposed political influence of the pro-Israel community in America; a man who has also been a key financial backer of Senator Obama's; and a man who can activate a wide variety of 527 (c) and other activist groups for any politician he supports.....

Why would Barack Obama have on his foreign policy staff a man who has been widely criticized for a revisionist history of the Middle East peace process sharply at odds with all other accounts of the proceedings? Why would Barack Obama give credibility to a man who seems to have an agenda that includes empowering our enemies and weakening our friends and allies? How did Robert Malley, with a record of writing that reveals a willingness to twist facts to serve a political agenda, come to be appointed by Obama to his foreign staff?

Was it a recommendation of Zbigniew Brzezinski to bring on board another anti-Israel foreign policy expert? What role did the left-wing anti-Israel activist George Soros play in placing Robert Malley (or for that matter, Brzezinski himself) in a position to influence the future foreign policy of America? What does it say about Senator Obama's judgment that he appointed a man like Malley to be a top foreign policy advisor? Or does it speak more to his true beliefs?

Much more here