Obama nation: A donation-grant scandal

Just to throw a little TNT on the fire of Barack Obama’s burning election hopes, a new story has come out about how Sen. Obama received more than $100,000 from a donor whom Obama then helped obtain a state grant.

According to the Los Angeles Times, when Obama was an Illinois state senator, he began receiving an $8,000-a-month retainer from Robert Blackwell Jr. to provide advice to his technology company Electronic Knowledge Interchange.

At the time, Obama was struggling with debts from an unsuccessful bid for Congress, and he was so strapped for cash that his credit card was rejected for a rental car at the 2000 Democratic Convention, according to Obama’s book “The Audacity of Hope.”

The monthly payments from EKI supplemented Obama’s state Senate pay and finally totalled $112,000, according to NewsMax. Yet, Obama’s disclosure forms for 2001 and 2002 did not specify that EKI was the source of most of his private-sector compensation, the Times reported.

According to the Times story: “A few months after he received his final payment from EKI, Obama sent a request on state Senate letterhead urging Illinois officials to provide a $50,000 tourism promotion grant to another Blackwell company, Killerspin.”

The day after writing the letter, Obama received a $1,000 donation to his Senate campaign from Blackwell.

Killerspin, which promoted table tennis tournaments and gear, eventually received $320,000 in grants between 2002 and 2004 to subsidize its tournaments, the Times reported.

David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political adviser, denied the story: “Any implication that Sen. Obama would risk an ethical breach in order to secure a small grant for a ping pong tournament is nuts.”

Obama’s Web site reports that Blackwell is committed to raise $100,000 to $200,000 for the presidential campaign.

Obamites will no doubt vivisect, downplay and rationalize this story, but for thinking people, this fits right into the pattern we’ve seen from the self-annointed agent of “change” and “hope.”

Anyone started a pool yet on how many days till Obama drops out?

Obama nation: Better late than never?

Barack Obama’s winning praise from a number of media outlets and liberal blogs for his denunciation Tuesday of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but it may be too late to save his campaign.

In case you missed it, Wright embarked on what was supposed to be his rehabilitation tour this past weekend, with several media appearances in a few days. But what started out with a soft-peddled interview on PBS rapidly began to devolve a little more at each stop, until Wright’s rehabilitation tour turned into a full-fledged crazy tour. By the end, Wright’s derangement was obvious even to many of Obama’s willfully blind supporters.

On Tuesday, Obama finally admitted what most of the world has known for months, that Wright’s hateful, anti-American, prejudicial views are way outside of the mainstream. “His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church,” Obama said at one point.

Since before the start of his campaign, Obama had sensed that Wright could be trouble, yet he clung to the man who was his pastor for 20 years, who married him and his wife, who baptized his children and who inspired an entire book. That long relationship had raised serious questions about the judgment of a man who wants to be president, but supporters tried their best to downplay the importance of the issue.

But Obama was finally forced to implicitly admit his critics have been right: “Obviously, whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed. I don’t think he showed much concern for me; more importantly, I don’t think he showed much concern for what we’re trying to do in this campaign.”

Except for willing followers who might be persuaded by Obama’s 11th-hour realization, those who have left the Obama camp don’t seem likely to come back. The real issue has been too clearly defined now: Obama’s lingering refusal to part with Wright indicates the candidate is either too spineless to stand up to a hatemonger, or he agrees with the pastor. At this late date, how can Tuesday’s remarks be seen as anything but a desperate political maneuver?

And there may be worse up ahead. Rev. Wright wasn’t the only live grenade in the Obama bunker. Still waiting to explode is the senator’s relationship with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers and indicted real estate developer Tony Rezko. Plus who knows what other time bombs may be found in Obama’s past?

‘Expelled’: An argument for freedom

If you haven’t seen Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled” yet, I highly recommend you take the opportunity.

I finally had the chance to see it, and I came away feeling that everyone should be made aware of the issues it raises. As attested by the nearly empty theater I saw it in, however, the truth is it will probably only find a small audience.

The subject of discussion in the film is the Darwinian theory of evolution and the competing theory called “intelligent design.” This in itself will keep away most people, particularly those who have been brought up to accept evolution as unquestionable fact or who have been trained by the media to view ID theory as just repackaging of a right-wing creationism.

Still more will be turned off by the derision from hard-core atheists and liberals who have labeled this film propaganda.

But those who are open-minded enough to give this film a chance will find that, while the subject discussed is Darwinism, the real topic of the movie is freedom of thought and speech.

Stein, made famous as the teacher in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” who couldn’t get a rise out of his class (”Anybody? Anybody?”), does a good job of delving into what happens to scientists who question the prevailing academic support for evolution by daring to point out patterns they believe could point to an intelligence behind the development of life on Earth.

Stein doesn’t actually spend a lot of time delineating the differences between evolution and ID theory, nor does he dwell long on the scientific shortcomings some scientists now see with Darwinian evolution. He has bigger fish to fry.

What he does spend the first third of the film doing, however, is interviewing academics from various fields and institutions who have been punished by the scientific and academic establishments because they looked into possible evidence for intelligent design.

Unlike certain documentarians who have become wealthy and received numerous awards for their one-sided propaganda pieces, Stein actually includes numerous representatives from the evolutionary camp for balance, including the infamous Richard Dawkins and various highly trained scientists and skeptics of ID theory.

Although Stein clearly personally favors ID, the point he makes is that the freedom to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead, and the right to ask unpopular questions as part of scientific inquiry, is being squelched by a rigid establishment that applies scientific, academic, political, social and even legal pressure to enforce its particular worldview. (The same could be said about global warming, stem cells, cancer research or any number of other scientific issues.)

Then Stein asks the question of where such an authoritarian attitude might lead, and he finds a disturbing answer in the beliefs of the Nazis. Stein’s no fool. He points out that Darwinism in itself doesn’t lead to Nazism, but he makes a strong historical case that rigid Darwinian beliefs were certainly key components of Nazism. And he points out disturbing modern parallels, such as the “right to die” movement, or selective abortions, that can come about because of the belief that it is OK to simply get rid of the sick and unfit.

Underlying all of the discussion is the theme that this conflict between evolution and ID theorists is less scientific in nature than it is religious, but Stein makes the case that it is atheism that is the religion being promoted. In one of the most telling portions of the movie’s many interviews, Stein pins down Richard Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion,” on how he really would feel if someone were to find persuasive evidence for design in molecular biology. Dawkins admits that he wouldn’t have a problem with the idea that life on Earth was designed, say by aliens, so long as the “designer” wasn’t God.

Whether you accept all of Stein’s points or not, his overarching theme that scientific inquiry must be open, honest and unrestricted resonates strongly in light of the issues of today. The impulse in academic, political and media circles to declare debates closed, issues resolved and consensus established, while labeling the open-minded as “deniers” or “fringe,” is totalitarian in its essence and if ignored its practitioners will only become more prevalent and determined.

Obama nation: Just so unfair

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, pastor and mentor to presidential candidate Barack Obama, has come out of seclusion, doing an interview with PBS.

In bits of the interview released Thursday, Wright complained about the recent media treatment he has received that has reflected so poorly on his man Obama. Complaining that broadcasting videos of his sermons — in which he said from the pulpit, “God damn America,” “U.S. of KKK A.,” “Hillary ain’t never been called a n—–,” and other spiritually enlightening things — was “unfair” and “devious,” Wright said that he found the negative reaction to his sermons “very, very unsettling.”

“I felt it was unfair. I felt it was unjust. I felt it was untrue. I felt — for those who were doing that — were doing it for some very devious reasons,” Wright told “Bill Moyers’ Journal.”

He also complained about the sound bites being “sermons preached 15, seven, six years ago and now becoming a media event, not the full sermon, but the snippets from the sermon.”

I recall when I used to live near a family whose teenage daughter was in a local gang and whose friends were all sorts of juvenile delinquents. The alleged adults knew what was going on, but they never stopped whining that it was just so unfair when neighbors would repeatedly report their poor little dear and her chums to the police, or when the darlings were instantly suspected whenever something was vandalized in the area.

The Rev. Wright is the same kind of sociopath. Somewhere inside he knows what a despicable anti-American, racist lout he is, but if YOU notice it, then it’s devious, unfair, unsettling and, of course, untrue. And most intelligent people can’t help but think that Obama, as Wright’s parishioner and friend for 20 years, is made in the same mold but is just better about hiding it.

No matter what the Rev. Wright or Obama say, if you are dumb enough to sell DVDs of your hate-filled rhetoric through your church gift shop, or if you are dumb enough to sit through 20 years of anti-American ranting without saying a word in protest and then to run for president, there’s nothing unfair about the media pointing it out.

Obama and his surrogate whiners need to man up.

Global warming: Newt on the dark side

Among the most distressing developments in the ongoing global warming hysteria is watching the continuing fall of Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the Jedi Council.

He stunned fans a year ago when, in what was supposed to be a debate with Sith puppet Sen. John Heinz Kerry, he publicly surrendered his light saber to the warm-mongers, saying global warming was real, the “crisis” had to be dealt with, apologizing for the GOP’s lack of “action,” etc. — the whole litany. It was like watching Richard the Lionheart convert to Islam.

Now he’s made a commercial with Borg Queen Nancy Pelosi (yes, I know that’s “Star Trek,” not “Star Wars” — this is a multi-conventional blog). See the commercial here.

Normally, once you go to the Dark Side, that’s it. The path back is too hard for most mortals.

However, there may be more to Newt’s story than is recognized by the leftist Sith. …

Newt has posted on his Web site the following explanation for why he participated in making the above commercial:

First of all, I want to be clear: I don’t think that we have conclusive proof of global warming. And I don’t think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.

But here’s what we do know. There is an important debate going on right now over the right energy policy, the right environmental policy, and making sure we do the right things for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. Conservatives are missing from this debate, and I think that’s a mistake. When it comes to preserving our environment for future generations, we can’t have a slogan of “Just yell no!”

I have a different view. I think it’s important to be on the stage, to engage in the debate, and to communicate our position clearly. There is a big difference between left-wing environmentalism that wants higher taxes, bigger government., more bureaucracy, more regulation, more red tape, and more litigation and a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in. Unless we start making the case for the latter, we’re going to get the former. That’s why I took part in the ad.

Is Newt a spy in the house of the Sith? Is he just playing a dangerous game?

There may be hope yet for the former Jedi master. …

Global warming: Al Gore lies again

The Nobelly empowered Al Gore, god-king of global warming, has been caught in yet another lie in his movie “Inconvenient Truth.”

ABC News revealed on Friday’s “20/20″ that in one scene purporting to show actual collapsing ice shelves, Gore actually used computer-generated footage from the sci-fi movie “The Day After Tomorrow.”

In a touch of irony, the segment was delivered by Sam Champion, a prominent warming alarmist.

But before you start thinking that ABC has had a sudden recurrence of journalistic integrity, understand that “20/20″ did its best to bury the lead in a lengthy segment focusing on shaky science in blockbuster movies. The information about Gore’s film was tossed at the end of a much longer discussion of films such as “Poseidon Adventure,” “Twister” and various movies that came out years ago.

ABC posted a version of the segment on its Web site that ends before the information about Al Gore. Here is an audio file of the Al Gore segment.

This is about the hundredth time a fabrication has been spotted in “Inconvenient Truth,” including a list of points that a British court has ruled must be pointed out to schoolchildren before they can be shown this movie in a classroom.

It’s getting to the point that about the only true thing in the Academy Award-winning “Truth” is that it was put together by Al Gore.

Jimmy Carter: Still useless

So after defying the White House, the State Department and common sense, Jimmy Carter’s terrorist tour wound up on Monday with the ex-president claiming he — and he alone! — had made progress in achieving peace in the Middle East by talking to Hamas and Syria.

According to the New York Times:

Mr. Carter said he extracted a promise from Hamas to respect the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip negotiated by Hamas’s rivals in the Palestinian Authority if it were ratified by a referendum of the Palestinian people.

Furthermore, Syrian leaders told him, he said, that “about 85 percent” of the issues between Syria’s government and Israel had been resolved in prior negotiations and that it wanted a peace deal “as soon as possible.”

After criticizing the U.S. for not talking to the good folk of Hamas, Carter claimed that Hamas not only would accept a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as the capital, but that they would accept Israel as their neighbor.

Illustrating the delicate precision of diplomatic language, a spokesman for Hamas made an appearance shortly after Carter’s press conference and clarified that Hamas would not acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, but it might propose a 10-year truce if the Palestinian state was quickly approved, according to the BBC.

Carter’s “breakthrough” might require some translation into common English to fully appreciate: In exchange for the credibility boost that Carter’s visit gives them, at least among liberals, Hamas leaders agreed that they would consider letting Israel live for up to 10 years if Israel gives the Muslims everything they’ve ever wanted. (Historically, the Palestinians have never been content with getting what they want, no matter how Israel or anyone else has tried to appease them.)

In the end, Carter’s trip accomplished what it was probably really designed to achieve: providing Carter another high-profile opportunity to humiliate his own country and the current administration.

Clinton country: Hillary’s terror ties

While Barack Obama has been receiving well-deserved criticism lately for his serious lack of judgment in associating with people involved in anti-American groups, and specifically with home-grown terrorist William Ayers, he’s not the only Democratic candidate with ties to terror.

Hillary Clinton also has a record of involvement with recognized terrorist groups and their supporters.

In the mid-1980s, she served on the board of the New World Foundation, which gave funding to the Palestine Liberation Organization during a time when the PLO was officially designated a terrorist group by the United States.

In 1996, as first lady, she initiated a program to bring Muslim leaders to the White House. The list of invitees was notable for the number of fundamentalist groups represented, including the American Muslim Alliance (AMA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, both of which openly support Hamas. Representatives of those groups attended a White House reception hosted by Hillary Clinton. Both groups have published anti-Semitic statements and hosted conferences that encouraged participants to engage in jihad and denounce Jews.

The AMA in the mid-90s was headed by Abdulrahman Alamoudi, who had ties to Musa Abu Marzug, the Hamas official known for organizing the group’s death squads.

When Hillary ran for Senate in 2000, she was thrown a fundraiser by the Massachusetts chapter of the AMA. Somebody in her campaign organization must have realized the donations would be controversial, and in federal filing forms, the Clinton campaign described the AMA as the “American Museum Alliance.” When called on the lie, Clinton’s campaign returned the funds four months later.

Some terrorist groups have made known their support for Hillary in this coming election, according to an October WorldNetDaily.com article. Aaron Klein, Jerusalem correspondent, has quoted Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group, as saying, “I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq. … I hope also that she will maintain her husband’s policies regarding Palestine and even develop that policy.”

Few people realize that this country fought a war on Muslim terrorists shortly after its birth. At the time of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, American ships in the Mediterranean were frequently subject to attacks by Muslim terrorists, known at the time as the Barbary pirates. The Muslims would raid ships unprovoked, steal their goods and take the survivors as slaves. It was a practice they had been engaged in for centuries without much opposition.

Then, as now, there was a debate between those who wanted to fight the villains and those who thought it would be easiest to simply give them what they wanted. Even John Adams was in favor of appeasement and attempted to buy off the pirates and ransom Americans. The result of that effort was that tribute to the Muslims grew to become 20 percent of the United States budget at the time. And yet, even in his most pro-appeasement moods, John Adams never willingly associated with terrorists.

It wasn’t until Thomas Jefferson that anybody stood up to the thugs and the states that supported them. Rather than pay tribute, Jefferson used the money that would have been spent on bribes and ordered creation of the Marine Corps and construction of highly advanced (for the time) warships. Then he sent the Marines to the Mediterranean to settle the matter once and for all. The Marines bombarded and invaded Muslim countries until the pirates and their sponsors surrendered and freed all the kidnapped Americans.

Clearly, Jefferson had the right strategy.

The Democrats have fallen far, far from the ideals that once made this country great. They not only are not capable of leading this country, but the extensive ties both front runners have with terrorist groups and America haters should serve as ample warning that either Clinton or Obama may pose a serious danger to this country’s future.

Global warming: Not an issue

Virtually no voters care about global warming, according to an ABC News poll that asked voters to pick the most important issue in selecting a candidate for president.

With three presidential hopefuls who have vowed to varying degrees to wage “war” on global warming, it’s interesting that ABC has found voters don’t consider climate change important.

The poll has tracked voters’ interest in a score of topics throughout the campaign.

Far and away, the stuttering economy is what voters consider to be the single most important issue facing the presidential wannabes. The second biggest issue is the war in Iraq, though the number of voters who see that as the deciding factor has decreased by almost half since September. Health care placed third and is also decreasing. Other subjects were around 5 percent or less.

Among the score of issues voters were asked about, the interest in global warming as a presidential decider was so low it didn’t even register. Only slightly more voters thought the more general issue of environmentalism was the most important. The poll doesn’t mean global warming isn’t a concern at all, but it shows no voters consider it THE issue that has been portrayed in the media.

Considering that most proposals to deal with global warming are costly and destructive to the economy, not to mention personal freedom, presidential candidates would do well to reassess their commitment to “do something” about the climate.

The poll also raises the question of what’s really driving all the media coverage of global warming and all the political proposals to deal with the “problem.” I’ve maintained for sometime now that the global warming frenzy is nothing more than a cynical drive for power and money by a combination of corporate, political and education interests.

When one looks into the lists of the major contributors to lobby groups pushing the warming agenda, it quickly becomes apparent that there is a core group of names involved — names like Dow Corning, British Petroleum, Heinz Foundation (as in Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of Sen. John Kerry and friend of Al Gore) and numerous others.

Among those consistently contributing is the New York Times Company Foundation. And if you peruse the lists of officers of environmental groups, you’ll start to notice a proliferation of prominent publishers and other media types, such as Warner Books Chairman William Sarnoff.

Global warming is being pushed by wealthy politicians, large corporations and prominent media groups and individuals. But if the ABC poll is accurate, it’s not an issue high on voters’ list of priorities.

Global warming: Time insults Marines, intelligence

For the cover of Time magazine’s April 28 edition, the editors have Photoshopped the famous picture of Marines at Iwo Jima to replace the American flag with a redwood tree for their story called “How to Win the War on Global Warming.”

Veterans of Iwo Jima are understandably upset at such a crass use of the iconic image.

For generations, that photo has represented the triumph of freedom over the forces of tyranny, a fight that cost millions of lives.

Now along comes Time, not only daring to erase the flag those brave men planted, but actually replacing it with a tree to symbolize a “war” on the mythical global warming, which more and more people are realizing is just a scam by wealthy individuals and corporations to make money from carbon cap-and-trade schemes while the rest of the world suffers with higher energy costs and abusive regulation of personal freedoms.

It takes either unmitigated gall or unfathomable stupidity to use an image commemorating the defeat of evil and enlist it in promoting the global warming movement, whose proponents have a whole laundry list of tyrannies they want to install as law.

The editors no doubt realized the image would be controversial but went ahead with it in order to elicit a reaction. Well here’s a reaction for them: disgust.