It's Obama's past, not Palin's, we should examine

Blackleaf · It's Obama's past, not Palin's, we should examine

Everyone is out to destroy Palin - but it's Obama's past we should examine

13th October 2008
Daily Mail

MELANIE PHILLIPS

With all eyes glued to the collapse of global capitalism as we know it, attention has been somewhat distracted from the race to lead what still remains the most powerful nation on earth - the United States. We ignore it at our peril.

From the shockingly partisan presentation by the pro-Obama media on both sides of the Atlantic, you'd think this was a contest between twin pillars of rectitude and inspirational high seriousness on the Democratic side, and a joke Republican ticket consisting of an erratic old man and a brainless, wacko, gun-toting beauty queen, who in a fit of madness John McCain picked as his vice-presidential candidate.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, the beauty queen in question, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, has struck an enormous chord with Middle America. As a result, Barack Obama's media supporters are making a huge effort to destroy her.

US Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama: Are we giving him too much leniency?

Inquiry

Now the Left thinks it has shot its moose. It has been crowing that an inquiry by Alaska's legislature has found Palin abused her office by firing Alaska's Commissioner of Public Safety for refusing to fire in turn Palin's former brother-in-law, Trooper Michael Wooten.

This really is a case of half-baked Alaska. First, the inquiry's conclusions were ambiguous. It found that Palin had violated public trust through using official action for personal interest; but it also said the firing was a proper and lawful exercise of her authority, and that personal interest had only been a contributory factor in the Commissioner's firing.

And just what was that personal interest? Palin wanted a state Trooper fired because he had assaulted his 11-year-old stepson with a stun gun, been caught drinking alcohol in his patrol car, and the Palins say was threatening to kill a member of their family.

Certainly, there was a conflict of interest because Wooten was the Governor's sister's ex-husband. But shouldn't the real question be why such a man was not fired?

What is really astounding, however, is the hue and cry over this non-event in Alaska while a raft of disturbing evidence about Senator Obama's connections is being either glossed over or not reported at all.

This may come as a shock to most people, but Obama is at the centre of a network of radical associations which he has tried to conceal.

Take for example his relationship with William Ayers, founder of the terrorist Weather Underground which bombed federal buildings in the 1960s and who has consistently maintained his radical views ever since.

Sarah Palin: The key target for Democrats

Obama's own political career was actually launched in Ayers's Chicago house at a fundraising-event in 1995 which fired the starting gun for his run at the Illinois Senate.

Not only that, Obama and Ayers both sat on the boards of two organisations, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund.

These organisations put into practice Ayers's revolutionary ideology by channelling money supposed to fund regular educational projects into extreme radical groups instead.

Obama now says he didn't know of Ayers's terrorist past and never endorsed his views, simply working with him on an educational project.

But it defies belief he didn't know about Ayers, who was notorious in Chicago. In 2001, indeed, Ayers told a magazine: 'I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.'

The crucial point was that this educational project was itself a vehicle for subversion; in the view of Ayers, its driving force, education was 'the motor-force of revolution'. Moreover, Obama wrote a rave review about Ayers' book on criminal justice, which compared America to South Africa under apartheid.

Scandal

If John McCain had such strong links with ACORDN, wouldn't he be torn apart for it?

Through the Woods Fund, Obama also funnelled millions of dollars to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

Described by an academic sympathiser as 'a uniquely militant organisation', ACORN played a significant role in the sub-prime scandal - which detonated America's financial crisis - by physically intimidating banks into lowering credit standards for poor and minority customers.

The Obama campaign has paid an ACORN subsidiary $800,000 to register new voters. But now, numerous states are launching investigations into massive voter fraud being carried out by ACORN activists who are being caught falsifying voter registration cards, registering fictitious individuals and hounding voters to register multiple times.

But Obama's connections with ACORN go even deeper. Even though his campaign has denied this, for several years running he trained its activists and in 1992 even ran one of its voter registration projects.

Such radical links fit with other highly dubious associations Obama has made. We all know that, under pressure, he distanced himself from his longstanding mentor Pastor Wright, who infamously coined the phrase 'God damn America!'

But Obama never distanced himself from the anti-white teachings of his church, which was heavily influenced by the philosophy of the black racist James Cone who claimed that 'whiteness is the symbol of the antichrist'.

And after the controversy over Wright, Obama has become close to another preacher, Jim Wallis, who spews out the same anti-American message - once calling the U.S. 'the great power, the great seducer, the great captor and destroyer of human life'.

That's not all. ACORN is heavily involved with a Marxist group called the Chicago New Party, whose strategy is to force the Democratic Party to the far Left by infiltrating it and ' burrowing from within'. In 1996, the New Party exulted that one of its members who had just been successful in the political primary season was - Barack Obama.

Guilt

Whenever any of this surfaces, the Left tries to suppress it by screaming 'guilt by association'. Not so. This is guilt by participation.

The left cries 'smear' and 'racism'. On the contrary - if Obama wasn't a black Democrat, with this history his candidacy would have been toast before it got started.

Just consider if the boot had been on the other foot and McCain's political career had been launched by an abortion clinic bomber; his mentor for 20 years had been a Ku Klux Klansman, and he had paid nearly a million dollars to far-Right militias who strong-armed voters into fraudulent registrations.

Of course, there is no suggestion that Obama supports terrorism or intimidation. But the question is whether through expediency or ideological sympathy or a combination of the two, he has allowed himself to be associated with thinking that threatens the basic values of America and Western society.

This may sound too incredible for words. But what's really incredible is that, with dozens of reporters feverishly combing Alaska for any evidence to tarnish Sarah Palin, the mainstream media has largely refused to investigate any of this.

What's really incredible is that a man with such a background in anti-Western thinking can now stand on the verge of becoming the leader of the free world.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not a particular fan of John McCain. I think he is indeed erratic, and has run a lousy campaign. And the exhausted Republicans deserve to lose. But the prospect of Obama in the White House as America's first far-Left radical president is deeply worrying.

It would be a crowning triumph for the anti-Western ideology which has wrought such havoc on both sides of the Atlantic.

The reason Sarah Palin has struck such a chord is that Middle America sees her as the first candidate in its lifetime who stands against that destructive nihilism. That's why she is the key target for Western radicals who are now poised to gain the biggest prize of all.

dailymail.co.uk

Dave Coull · Re: It's Obama's past, not Palin's, we should examine

Blackleaf sent another piece from his beloved Daily Mail, a paper notorious for its historical support of Mussolini, Hitler, the British Union of Fascists led by Sir Oswald Mosley, and its most famous headline "Hurrah For The Blackshirts!".

Neil

I doubt if there is anybody working on the Daily Mail now who was working there in the 1930s - call it a hunch. The strange thing is that I have never seen anybody who criticises the Mail on this somewhat dated allegation who criticises the Guardian or the BBC for their willingness to tell absolutely any lie & censor any fact to help people they knew to be Nazis publicly committed to mass genocide (the Croatian, Bosnian Moslem & KLA leaders) engage in genocide, child rape & the dissection of living human beings to provide body organs. Since most of these monsters are still in place this seems remarkably hypocritical.

The fact is that Palin's opposite number Biden is publicly on record as having called for 10 million Serbs to be put in "Nazi style concentration camps"

Now I am going to go out on a limb here & say that in my opinion wanting to murder 10 million people is a more important story than spending $150,000 on clothes. In fact the murder of 1 person should be a bigger story than spending $1,000 on clothes. Idea

In which case if the BBC, Guardian & all the other MSM who are pushing Obama are not one & all corrupt scum they must have spent 70,000 times more covering Biden's statement. And if the BBC, Guardian etc are so much as 0.00015% honest they will have given both stories equal coverage.

And if every single person in the BBC, Guardian, CNN & the rest of the MSM is an obscene wholly corrupt racist, murdering, genocidal, child raping, Nazi willing to tell absolutely any lie & censor any fact to support their obscene masters (who in this case want Obama as their front man) then they will have deliberately censored the Biden story, the evidence that Obama is merely a loyal operative of the corrupt Democratic Chicago machine & his general commitment to up taxes to pay the bankers & lawyers who bankrolled him.

You don't have to like the Mail but you do have to acknowledge that it is a beacon of humanity & integrity compared to its competition. Also that the smear campaign against Palin can only have been inspired by the fact that the various "insiders" who run the world are scared stiff of her.

Holebender

She scares the s**t out of me, and I don't even run my own house (ask my wife) let alone the world!

Dave Coull

I don't have a vote in the American presidential election; I'm not sure I would use it if I did have one; and if I did use it, I'm not sure who I would vote for. Like I said already, personally, I don't for one minute believe Obama will really be all that radically different. There isn't such a big difference between him and John McCain, or between him and George Dubbya Bush for that matter. Nevertheless, although the REAL differences between them are not so big, a lot of misguided people BELIEVE they are big. Some folk at McCain rallies have been accusing Obama of being a "terrorist". That is why folk have been shouting "Kill him!" at McCain rallies, without being rebuked by either McCain or Palin. And, despite the actual political differences between the presidential candidates being much smaller than the rhetoric makes out, there are some right wing nutters around who might just be willing to carry out that threat.

If the opinion polls are right, Obama does have majority popular support. Okay, so maybe he won't be assassinated. But, as we saw in Florida under Governor Jeb Bush, there could be more than one way that majority support could be frustrated. One thing is certain: whoever is elected, the USA is facing some extremely serious and divisive economic, social, and political problems. Maybe there won't actually be civil war, but some form of civil conflict cannot be entirely ruled out.

agentmancuso

Neil

Dave it is dishonest of you to claim to be quoting me when you leave out the end of the sentence which read

Dave Coull

Neil

agentmancuso

Neil

You have demonstrated before Mancuso that you are a fascist with no slightest trace of honesty. It is not necessary for you to do so again.

Holebender

Neil

Hi Holebinder. The usual suspects rounding up themselves then.

agentmancuso

Holebender

Ah... UKIP... The Monster Raving Loonies who believe they are serious politicians. At least the official Monster Raving Loonies know they're 'aving a larf.

Mind you, there's always Veritas. Are they still around?

Alasdair

Veritas, I believe not!

As somebody who doesn't really care a great deal for the way Europe is run UKIP does have a certain appeal, although whether or not I could bring myself to mark an 'x' next to their name is debatable.

Neil

Recently I was atacked, in terms of Godwin's Law, for using the term "Nazi". Obviously eveybody who did so & is in any way honest, has equally criticised Dave for using that term to apply to the BNP.

Holebinder & Mancuso are obviously not among those to whom honesty is matter of the slightest interest.

Dave, of course, having effectively admitted going out with genocidal child raping Nazis to beat up members of a democratic & lawful political party, needs no further criticism.

Dave Coull

Regarding Neil,

Dave Coull

Neil

It's Obama's past, not Palin's, we should examine

Re: It's Obama's past, not Palin's, we should examine