Wednesday, 12 November 2008
HAMAS AND OBAMA
This one speaks for itself. It comes to us from John Hinderaker of www.powerlineblog.com:
We and others were alarmed when Hamas endorsed
Barack Obama for President, even though the endorsement was later withdrawn. We
were also concerned about Obama's feckless promise to meet with the leaders of
hostile states--not for any particular reason, but just because talk is good.
But Obama did say Hamas was one group he wouldn't be meeting with; not until
they renounce terrorism and recognized Israel's right to exist.
Apparently, though, that assurance was inoperative
even when Obama gave it. Yesterday, in an interview in the London-based
Al-Hayat, Ahmad Yousef, political
adviser to Hamas's Prime Minister, said that Obama's aides have already
been meeting with senior Hamas officials:
In an interview published Tuesday in the
London-based Al-Hayat, Dr. Ahmad Yousef, political adviser to Hamas Prime
Minister Ismail Haniyeh, said senior Hamas figures had held a secret meeting
with advisers to Barack Obama in Gaza before the U.S. elections.
Throughout his campaign Obama's official line
was that he would "only talk with Hamas if it renounces terrorism, recognizes
Israel's right to exist, and agrees to abide by past agreements."
According to Yousef in the Al-Hayat interview,
the Obama-Hamas talks were already ongoing during the U.S. election campaign:
"We were in contact with a number of Obama's aides through the Internet, and
later met with some of them in Gaza, but they advised us not to reveal this
information as it may influence the elections or become manipulated by
Yousef also claimed he personally had friendly
relations with some of Obama's advisers and that "Haniyeh will draft a
congratulatory letter to Obama for his victory."
It's hard to disagree with this assessment by
David Hornik of Pajamas Media:
A clash between Obama's public, anodyne,
mainstream statements and behind-the-scenes activities of a different nature
would confirm the fears of those concerned about Obama's history of
association with radical people and ideologies.
It would have been nice to know about the cordial
relationship between Obama's advisers and Hamas during the campaign. But, of
course, it was an article of faith in the mainstream media that Obama's many
unsavory and radical associations were somehow irrelevant to any expectation as
to how he would govern as President.
According to the exit polls, 78% of all Jews voted for this
man. Presumably, most of them support Israel.
Speaking as one of the other 22%, let me say to them that this is what you
wanted, and this is what you got. I hope you're happy about
This is posted, without any additional commentary, from www.sweetness-light.com.
Please read the entire piece. But even if you're just skimming you
have to promise to read the very end. You'll see why when you do.
Ok, you're on your honor:
November 12th, 2008
As we have previously
reported, Mr. Obama chose to expunge his
agenda items from his Office Of The President Elect Change.Gov site, once we
began to discuss them.
So we thought it would be a public service to
republish them from an earlier source:
Turn Our Country Around
A new day is dawning. Our country is at a
turning point. This is a time of great possibility. Across the land, people
are coming together to reshape our nations priorities to make government of,
by and for the people a reality.
From the Midwest to the South, from coast to
coast, in big cities and rural communities voters have turned out in record
numbers for change.
There is a crisis in every critical area of
national life. Profits at the top are record high, but families cant make
ends meet. Trillions are squandered in Iraq, but 45 million are without health
care. Billions are spent on tax breaks to the super rich, but working families
are losing their homes and young people cant afford higher education.
Working people want bold new policies to end war
restore democratic traditions and create green living wage jobs, affordable
housing, healthcare and quality education for everyone.
Voters are demanding a new kind of politics to
rebuild our country for the common good. A democratic spirit of unity and hope
is inspiring millions to get involved.
During the Great Depression of the 1930s,
unemployed workers and their allies marched and organized until public works
jobs, Social Security and New Deal programs were won. In the 1960s the great
civil rights movement won the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
EMERGENCY PROGRAM TO REPAIR, RENEW AND REBUILD
We offer these proposals as a contribution
toward the bold policy changes necessary to meet the immediate needs of
working people, eliminate poverty and move our country forward with a new
President and Congress. Funding to come from monies now being spent on the
Iraq war, military budget and tax breaks to the super rich.
1. Immediate Relief
A moratorium on foreclosures and evictions.
Reset mortgages so payments are affordable. No bail outs for banks.
Extend unemployment compensation, increase
payments and eligibility. Increase food stamps, WIC, childrens health
insurance, and low income energy assistance.
Assist deficit-ridden state and local
governments so they can preserve services and jobs. Fund ready-to-go
2. A Peacetime, Green Jobs Economy for All
Enact massive public works job creation to make
existing buildings energy efficient, construct new schools, hospitals,
affordable housing, mass transit and bridges. Priority to areas hurt by loss
of manufacturing, loss of family farms and highest unemployment areas
including the Katrina-devastated Gulf Coast.
Major clean, affordable energy development
project for solar, wind and biomass electricity generation. Immediate program
to cut greenhouse gas emissions and for environmental cleanup. Restore Federal
energy regulation and encourage public ownership of utilities.
Enact the Employee Free Choice Act to enable
workers to form unions without intimidation and win higher wages and benefits,
dignity and respect.
Enact HR 676 the US National Health Insurance
Act to provide universal health insurance with single-payer financing. Fully
fund public education from pre-school through higher education and technical
training. No privatization of Social Security or Medicare. Expand and improve
3. Restore Civil Rights, the Bill of Rights and
Separation of Powers
Restore Civil Rights Act enforcement,
affirmative action in employment, education, and housing. End the school to
prison pipeline. Outlaw hate crimes. Preserve Roe v. Wade.
Pass immigration reform with legalization, a
path to citizenship, due process, no militarization of the borders, and no
exploitative guest worker programs. No human being is illegal.
Repeal Patriot Act. Restore Habeas Corpus
rights. No more torture. Investigate and prosecute Bush administration
violations of the Constitution.
Expand voting rights. Enact publicly financed
elections, same day registration, voting rights for ex-felons, verifiable
voting equipment, and instant runoff voting. Restore Fairness Doctrine in
4. Strength through Peace
Withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq with no bases or
U.S. corporations left behind. Full care for returning veterans. No war on
Iran or expansion of troops in Afghanistan. Assistance to Iraqi people to
rebuild their country.
Adopt a new foreign policy of diplomacy and
respect for all nations, instead of preemptive war for corporate interests.
Renew commitment to UN peace role.
End trade policies that enrich corporations
while destroying jobs. Ratify Kyoto Treaty and other climate change
Enforce nuclear non-proliferation, work to
abolish nuclear weapons. Cut Pentagon spending in half, close down US bases
around the world.
Sorry. This is actually not from Mr.
Obamas campaign site.
(Click on images to
It is from the Election 2008′ brochure from the
Communist Party Of The United States (a
pdf file), which we have posted previously
But its an honest mistake, is it
CAMILLE PAGLIA ON SARAH PALIN
Camille Paglia is a leftward liberal feminist, one with a brain in her head
(which not all leftward liberal feminists always use - as you will see at the
end of this blog).
Here, within a larger
article written for www.salon.com, is her take on how Sarah
Palin was treated by media during the presidential campaign:
In the closing weeks of the election....I became
increasingly disturbed by the mainstream media's avoidance of forthright dealing
with several controversies that had been dogging Obama -- even as every flimsy
rumor about Sarah Palin was being trumpeted as if it were engraved in stone on
Mount Sinai. For example, I had thought for many months that the flap over
Obama's birth certificate was a tempest in a teapot. But simple questions about
the certificate were never resolved to my satisfaction. Thanks to their own
blathering, fanatical overkill, of course, the right-wing challenges to the
birth certificate never gained traction.
But Obama could have ended the entire matter
months ago by publicly requesting Hawaii to issue a fresh, long-form, stamped
certificate and inviting a few high-profile reporters in to examine the document
and photograph it. (The campaign did make the "short-form" certificate available to
Factcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University
of Pennsylvania.) And why has Obama not made his university records or thesis
work widely available? The passivity of the press toward Bush administration
propaganda about weapons of mass destruction led the nation into the costly
blunder of the Iraq war. We don't need another presidency that finds it all too
easy to rely on evasion or stonewalling. I deeply admire Obama, but as a voter I
don't like feeling gamed or played.
Another issue that I initially dismissed was the
flap over William Ayers, the Chicago-based former member of the violent Weather
Underground. Conservative radio host Sean Hannity began the drumbeat about
Ayers' association with Obama a year ago -- a theme that most of the mainstream
media refused to investigate or even report until this summer. I had never heard
of Ayers and couldn't have cared less. I was irritated by Hillary Clinton's
aggressive flagging of Ayers in a debate, and I accepted Obama's curt dismissal
of the issue.
Hence my concern about Ayers has been very slow in
developing. The mainstream media should have fully explored the subject early
this year and not allowed it to simmer and boil until it flared up ferociously
in the last month of the campaign. Obama may not in recent years have been
"pallin' around" with Ayers, in Sarah Palin's memorable line, but his past
connections with Ayers do seem to have been more frequent and substantive than
he has claimed.
Given that Obama had served on a Chicago board
with Ayers and approved funding of a leftist educational project sponsored by
Ayers, one might think that the unrepentant Ayers-Dohrn couple might be of some
interest to the national media. But no, reporters have been too busy playing
mini-badminton with every random spitball about Sarah Palin, who has been
subjected to an atrocious and at times delusional level of defamation merely
because she has the temerity to hold pro-life views.
How dare Palin not embrace abortion as the
ultimate civilized ideal of modern culture? How tacky that she speaks in a
vivacious regional accent indistinguishable from that of Western Canada! How
risible that she graduated from the State University of Idaho and not one of
those plush, pampered commodes of received opinion whose graduates, in their
rush to believe the worst about her, have demonstrated that, when it comes to
sifting evidence, they don't know their asses from their elbows.
Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their
sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie
released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle. A
shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage was
exposed at the heart of current Democratic ideology -- contradicting Democratic
core principles of compassion, tolerance and independent thought.
I like Sarah
Palin, and I've heartily enjoyed her arrival on the national stage. As a career
classroom teacher, I can see how smart she is -- and quite frankly, I think the
people who don't see it are the stupid ones, wrapped in the fuzzy mummy-gauze of
their own worn-out partisan dogma. So she doesn't speak the King's English --
As for the
Democrats who sneered and howled that Palin was unprepared to be a
vice-presidential nominee -- what navel-gazing hypocrisy! What protests were
raised in the party or mainstream media when John Edwards, with vastly less
political experience than Palin, got John Kerry's nod for veep four years ago?
And Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, for whom I lobbied to be Obama's pick and
who was on everyone's short list for months, has a record indistinguishable from
Senate as a career option? What a claustrophobic, nitpicking comedown for an
energetic Alaskan -- nothing but droning committees and incestuous
back-scratching. No, Sarah Palin should stick to her governorship and just hit
the rubber-chicken circuit, as Richard Nixon did in his long haul back from
political limbo following his California gubernatorial defeat in 1962. Step by
step, the mainstream media will come around, wipe its own mud out of its eyes,
and see Palin for the populist phenomenon that she is.
How refreshing to read that. But now contrast it
with this snippet from maureen dowd's column in today's New York Times, and see
what happens when brains are turned off and replaced with whiney hissy-fits:
Sarah Palin represents a huge historic leap
forward for women.
When Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton ran,
their fates were inextricably linked with their gender. If they failed, many
women felt, there was an X through the whole X chromosome. A blot on the
If not this woman now, Hillarys supporters
would ardently ask me, what woman ever?
But Sarah Palin can come across as utterly
unready to lead the world or even find the world on a map and that doesnt
reflect poorly on the rest of us.
It only means that she doesnt have enough mind
grapes or thoughtsicles, as Tracy Morgan refers to brain droppings on 30
Rock, to be president soon.
What a sweet sentiment. Sarah Palin is an idiot with a "mind
grapes" and "thoughtsicles" deficiency. Thank, you maureen dowd. Is
this not what Ms. Paglia was talking about?
Call me a voyeuristic sadist, but I would love to be at a party where these
two meet up after each has had a couple of drinks. My money is
on Paglia standing tall and dowd running to hide in the ladies' room.
GAY MARRIAGE AND RACE
Jeff Jacoby, the always-worth-reading columnist for the Boston Globe, has
written an extremely interesting and provocative column about the racial
implications of gay marriage. Here it is:
PLAYING THE RACE
CARD ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
November 12, 2008
It has been widely noted that black voters put
California's Proposition 8 over the top last week, with nearly 7 out of 10
voting in favor of the constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union
of one man and one woman. As the magnitude of black opposition to same-sex
marriage became clear on Election Day, blogger Andrew Sullivan, a prominent
gay-marriage champion, reacted bitterly:
"Every ethnic group supported marriage
equality," he wrote, "except African-Americans, who voted overwhelmingly against
extending to gay people the civil rights once denied them."
Well, let's see. The civil rights once denied to
black Americans included the right to register as a voter, the right to cast a
ballot, the right to use numerous public facilities, the right to get a fair
hearing in court, the right to send their children to an integrated public
school, and the right to equal opportunity in housing and employment. Have gay
people been denied any of these rights? Have they been forced to sit in the back
of buses? Confined to segregated neighborhoods? Barred from serving on juries?
Subjected to systematic economic exploitation?
Plainly, declining to change the timeless
definition of marriage deprives no one of "the civil rights once denied" to
blacks, and it is an absurdity to claim otherwise. It is also a poisonous slur:
For if opposing same-sex marriage is like opposing civil rights, then voters who
backed Proposition 8 are no better than racists, the moral equivalent of those
who turned the fire hoses on blacks in Birmingham in 1963.
Which is, of course, exactly what proponents of
same-sex marriage contend.
It has become routine for the defenders of
traditional wedlock to be cast as the worst sort of hateful bigots, "gladly
donning the roles played by Lester Maddox and George Wallace in the civil rights
era," to quote The New York Times's Frank Rich. Anyone who insists that marriage can only mean the union
of male and female -- and "anyone" now includes a majority of voters in 30 of
the 30 states where marriage amendments have been on the ballot -- can expect to
be told that they are no better than racists, modern-day segregationists
motivated by malevolence and an evil heart.
Thus, supporters of same-sex marriage regularly
referred to the California ballot measure as "Proposition Hate," while a group
calling itself "Californians Against Hate" launched a website to publicize the names and addresses of donors to
the Yes-on-8 campaign. Yet it was the foes of Proposition 8 whose hatred and
intolerance were most vividly on display.
Signs promoting the amendment were stolen or defaced, churches were vandalized,
and at least one supporter of the amendment ended up in the hospital after being beaten by an assailant screaming: "What do you have against
For sheer hatefulness and bigotry, however,
nothing surpassed the anti-Proposition 8 television ad that depicted two
Mormon missionaries forcing their way into the home of a married lesbian
"Hi, we're here from the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints," one of the Mormons says. "We're here to take away your
rights," says the other.
The missionaries pull the wedding rings from the
women's fingers, then proceed to ransack the house, looking for their marriage
license. When they find it, they triumphantly tear it up.
"Hey, we have rights," one of the women
"Not if we can help it," one of the missionaries
As the commercial ends, a message appears on the
screen: Say NO to a church taking over your government.
If black voters overwhelmingly reject the claim
that marriage amendments like Proposition 8 are nothing more than bigotry-fueled
assaults on civil rights, perhaps it is because they know only too well what
real bigotry looks like. Perhaps
it is because they resent the assertion that adhering to the ageless meaning of
marriage is tantamount to supporting the pervasive humiliation and cruelty of
Jim Crow. Perhaps it is because they are not impressed by strident condemnations
of "intolerance" and "hate" by people who traffic in rank anti-Mormon
Or perhaps it is because they understand that a
fundamental gulf separates the civil rights movement from the demand for
same-sex marriage. One was a fight for genuine equality, for the right of black
Americans to live on the same terms, and under the same restrictions, as whites.
The other is a demand to change the terms on which marriage has always been
available by giving it a meaning it has never before had. That isn't civil
rights -- and playing the race card doesn't change that fact.
Interesting, wouldn't you say?
Personally I find myself somewhere in-between
on this issue. I fully support same-sex unions. But I understand
that the word "marriage" has always meant one man/one woman.
It is clear
that the key reason many people fight expanding the word's meaning is intolerance
- i.e. they do not consider same-sex unions worthy of "marriage" status. I don't
share their intolerance at all, and wish the dispute related exclusively to
semantics. But obviously it does not.
And now, as an extra-added attraction, we find that Black people,
as a group, are appreciably less tolerant regarding same-sex marriages than
Are Blacks who feel that way acting the way racists act? Are they hypocrites? As Jeff's
article demonstrates, some people say yes to both questions.
It certainly gives you something to think about, doesn't
THE STEALING OF NORM COLEMAN'S SENATE SEAT (cont.)
The stealing of Norm Coleman's senate seat continues. Right in front of
Here is the latest summation of this theft in progress, brought to us by the
Wall Street Journal:
Mischief in Minnesota?
Al Franken's recount isn't
You'd think Democrats would be content with last
week's electoral rout. But judging from the odd doings in Minnesota, some
in their party wouldn't mind adding to their jackpot by stealing a Senate seat
for left-wing joker Al Franken.
When Minnesotans woke up last Wednesday,
Republican Senator Norm Coleman led Mr. Franken by 725 votes. By that
evening, he was ahead by only 477. As of yesterday, Mr. Coleman's margin
stood at 206. This lopsided bleeding of Republican votes is passing
strange considering that the official recount hasn't even begun.
The vanishing Coleman vote came during a week in
which election officials are obliged to double-check their initial results.
Minnesota is required to do these audits, and it isn't unusual for officials to
report that they transposed a number here or there. In a normal audit, these
mistakes could be expected to cut both ways. Instead, nearly every "fix" has
gone for Mr. Franken, in some cases under strange circumstances.
For example, there was Friday night's announcement
by Minneapolis's director of elections that she'd forgotten to count 32 absentee
ballots in her car. The Coleman campaign scrambled to get a county judge to halt
the counting of these absentees, since it was impossible to prove their
integrity 72 hours after the polls closed. The judge refused on grounds that she
Up in Two Harbors, another liberal outpost, Mr.
Franken picked up an additional 246 votes. In Partridge Township, he racked up
another 100. Election officials in both places claim they initially
miscommunicated the numbers. Odd, because in the Two Harbors precinct, none of
the other contests recorded any changes in their vote totals.
According to conservative statistician John Lott,
Mr. Franken's gains so far are 2.5 times the corrections made for Barack Obama
in the state, and nearly three times the gains for Democrats across Minnesota
Congressional races. Mr. Lott notes that Mr. Franken's "new" votes equal more
than all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the
Presidential, Congressional and statehouse races combined (482
This entire process is being overseen by
Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, who isn't exactly a nonpartisan
observer. One of Mr. Ritchie's financial supporters during his 2006 run for
office was a 527 group called the Secretary of State Project, which was
co-founded by James Rucker, who came from MoveOn.org. The group says it is
devoted to putting Democrats in jobs where they can "protect
Mr. Ritchie is also an ally of the Association of
Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn, of fraudulent
voter-registration fame. That relationship might explain why prior to the
election Mr. Ritchie waved off evidence of thousands of irregularities on
Minnesota voter rolls, claiming that accusations of fraud were nothing more than
"desperateness" from Republicans.
Mr. Franken and fellow Democrats are already
waging a full-scale public pressure campaign to help turn the recount their way.
That includes a push to turn what should be a straightforward count of existing
legal ballots into a complete do-over -- mau-mauing election officials into
accepting tossed ballots. The Franken campaign recently showed up before the
Hennepin County canvassing board, demanding that its liberal members count 461
previously rejected ballots. To the board's credit, they unanimously voted
The Franken campaign has also been wrapping itself
around Barack Obama's popularity to increase its recount potential. Minnesota
has a voter intent law, which means that election officials can take a second
look at ambiguous ballots. Mr. Franken's people are already arguing that a vote
for Mr. Obama certainly indicated a vote for Mr. Franken. This can't possibly be
true, however, because nearly every campaign poll showed Mr. Franken lagging Mr.
Obama by five to 15 percentage points -- and on Election Day he trailed by
12.2%. Mr. Franken ran a nasty, polarizing campaign, and in any case he was part
of a three-man contest.
The Coleman team is demanding the tapes from the
voting machines on election night, and that's the least Mr. Ritchie can do. The
Secretary of State should also investigate miraculous discoveries like the
"forgotten" 32 car ballots. He needs to show voters, the press and the Coleman
team that he's running a transparent process that focuses on previously counted
votes, rather than changing the rules after the election is over.
With their party only three Senate seats from the
60 needed to break a filibuster (and two still not decided), Democrats have a
political incentive to cut corners to steal a seat if they can get away with it.
Mr. Franken and his left-wing allies also know that if Mr. Franken couldn't win
election in this fabulous Democratic year, then the not-so-funnyman never will.
If Minnesota wants to retain its reputation as a state with clean elections, it
needs to run an honest recount
There it is. Right in front of your eyes. Right in the middle of
And who is going to stop it? MEDIA? Not a chance. This is
what happens when you have a corrupt process and a complicit media looking the
Enjoy the show. And live with the consequences.
OBAMA AND CAMPAIGN FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY
Remember all that wonderment over how Barack Obama was getting the oceans of
money to run his campaign - enough so that he could overwhelm his
Well keep wondering. Because you're not going to find out where it came
Here are the particulars, which I have excerpted from an article by
Kenneth Vogel, writing for www.politico.com.
The scandal is Obama's. The bold print is mine:
The Federal Election Commission is
unlikely to conduct a potentially embarrassing audit of how Barack Obama raised
and spent his presidential campaigns record-shattering windfall, despite
allegations of questionable donations and accounting that had the McCain
campaign crying foul.
Adding insult to injury for
Republicans: The FEC is obligated to complete a rigorous audit of McCains
campaign coffers, which will take months, if not years, and cost McCain millions
of dollars to defend.
Obama is expected to escape that level of
scrutiny mostly because he declined an $84 million public grant for his campaign
that automatically triggers an audit and because the sheer volume of cash he
raised and spent minimizes the significance of his errors. Another factor: The
FEC, which would have to vote to launch an audit, is prone to deadlocking on
issues that inordinately impact one party or the other like approving a messy
and high-profile probe of a sitting president.
McCain, on the other hand,
accepted the $84 million in taxpayer money, which not only barred him from
raising or spending more allowing Obama to fund many times more ads and ground
operations but also will keep his lawyers busy for a couple years explaining
how every penny was spent.
Through the end of September, McCain had socked away $9.4 million in a special fund to pay for the audit.
the first presidential candidate to decline public funding in the general
election certainly would provide fodder for the green eye-shades at the FECs
E Street offices.
Obamas campaign admitted it initially mis-categorized the purpose of an
$832,598 payment for get-out-the-vote efforts to a consulting firm affiliated with ACORN, the community
organizing group that became a top target
for Republicans alleging voter fraud.
And FEC analysts over the course of
the campaign have written more than a dozen letters to Obama singling out
hundreds of contributors for whom the campaign either didnt supply
adequate information or from whom he accepted donations
exceeding the $4,600 limit
Spokesman LaBolt said the campaign has corrected
errors as it was made aware of them. It's not at all unusual for the FEC
to send many such letters requests for additional information in agency
parlance to big-money campaigns. McCains campaign received at least a dozen,
But the media first conservative outlets then mainstream publications seized on the FEC letters to Obama, singling out
donations from apparently fictitious donors as well as from foreign
addresses - which are permitted as long as the donors are U.S. citizens.
Allegations that the Obama campaign was willfully allowing foreign donations and
excessive donations blossomed in the conservative blogosphere and prompted the
Republican National Committee to file an FEC complaint.
Seizing on Obamas
reversal on a pledge to accept public financing if his Republican opponent
agreed to do the same, as well as his campaigns refusal to voluntarily release the names, addresses and employers of donors who gave less than
$200 each a group that accounted for about half of the more than $600 million
that the campaign had raised through the end of September the RNC asked the
FEC to immediately conduct a full audit of all of Obamas
Obamas campaign reached the audit recommendation trigger point, itd be tough
to muster the majority commission vote necessary to initiate the audit. Thats
because the FEC is comprised of three Democratic commissioners and three
Republicans and, as such, is prone to deadlock on partisan
Obama lies about how he will finance his campaign while McCain sticks by his
word. The result is that Obama not only is able to wildly outspend
McCain (which no doubt helped him to win the White House), but he now can avoid
having the public find out whether untold millions of that money was
Media must be seething about this, right? There must be a small army of
investigative reporters working on making the source of those millions known to
us all, right?
Yeah sure. And Jack really climbed up a beanstalk.
A dose of reality is in order here: A media that weren't interested in
finding out what Mr. Obama did as a community organizer, or in grilling him on
his votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act - even after language was
added that fully protected abortion rights - won't be interested in how dirty
his campaign funding was.
But, then again, you knew that already. Didn't you?