Barack Obama: Red Diaper Baby

Not raised black, actually, just white --- and red.

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Barack Obama is a "red diaper baby" who has spent his formative years -- literally from the moment of his birth -- interacting with members and sympathizers of the Communist Party, USA. His mother Stanley Ann Dunham has been described by former classmates as a "fellow traveler." His grandfather Stanley Armour Dunham arranged Obama's mentorship by Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis.

From an American Thinker .com article, Barack Obama: Red Diaper Baby, more follows:

Barack Obama: Red Diaper Baby [/] October 30, 2008 [/] By Andrew Walden

By now most of the American public has heard about unrepentant Weatherman terror bomber Bill Ayers, who discovered the pen is mightier than the sword and so worked with Barack Obama to steer $150 million to their radical cronies via the Annenberg Challenge. [...] In March and April TV viewers were treated to a solid month of "God %%%% America" from Obama's pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.

Are these simply isolated incidences of Obama using poor judgment in choosing his allies?

No. Barack Obama is a "red diaper baby" who has spent his formative years -- literally from the moment of his birth -- interacting with members and sympathizers of the Communist Party, USA. His mother Stanley Ann Dunham has been described by former classmates as a "fellow traveler." His grandfather Stanley Armour Dunham arranged Obama's mentorship by Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis.

Key details about Ann Dunham [(Obama’s mother)] come from interviews in The Chicago Tribune, March 27, 2007 and the Seattle Times, April 8, 2008.

Done bouncing around Kansas, California and Texas in the years after World War Two, Stanley and Madelyn in 1955 picked up and relocated 2,000 miles from Texas to Seattle. The next year they relocated to Mercer Island specifically so their daughter, Obama's future mother, Stanley Ann Dunham could attend Mercer Island high school. [/] What was special about Mercer Island High School? The Chicago Tribune explains: [/] "In 1955, the chairman of the Mercer Island school board, John Stenhouse, testified before the House Un-American Activities Subcommittee that he had been a member of the Communist Party." [/] After intense debate, Stenhouse decided not to resign from the school board according to an April 11, 1955 account in Time Magazine. While others demanded Stenhouse's resignation, the Dunhams gravitated towards his school.

Stenhouse's leftism found an echo on the faculty. The Seattle Times explains: [/] Dunham [(Obama’s future mother)] gravitated toward an intellectual clique. […] [/] The parents of the late 1950s are those we now call "The Greatest Generation." But years later Ann Dunham's ignorance and arrogance found an echo in Obama's book "Dreams From my Father" (p 47). [/] Obama describes his mother arguing with her second husband, Lolo Soetoro. Soetoro had become an Indonesian oil company manager and wanted Ann to accompany him to various social functions with American oil company personnel. Ann refused arguing, "Those are not my people." (p 47)

As with Obama, his mother's generation of these pseudo-intellectual leftist high schoolers found a way to think of themselves as superior. How? By surrounding themselves with co-thinkers. The Seattle Times continues: [/] One respite was found in a wing of Mercer Island High called "anarchy alley." Jim Wichterman taught a wide-open philosophy course that included Karl Marx. Next door, Val Foubert taught a rigorous dose of literature, including Margaret Mead's writings on homosexuality. [/] Those classes prompted what Wichterman, now 80 and retired in Ellensburg, called "mothers' marches" of parents outraged at the curriculum. [/] Dunham thrived in the environment, Wichterman said.

[…] And despite flirting with atheism, she went to services at East Shore Unitarian church, a left-leaning congregation in Bellevue. [/] […]"She touted herself as an atheist, and it was something she'd read about and could argue," said Maxine Box, who was Dunham's best friend in high school. "She was always challenging and arguing and comparing. She was already thinking about things that the rest of us hadn't. [/] "If you were concerned about something going wrong in the world, Stanley would know about it first," said Chip Wall, who described her as "a fellow traveler...."

The Chicago Tribune mentions a description of the Dunham's chosen church as "The Little Red Church on the Hill". According to its own website, East Shore Unitarian Church got that name because of, "Well-publicized debates and forums on such controversial subjects as the admission of ‘Red China' to the United Nations...." The fact that John Stenhouse once served as church president might also have contributed to the "red" label.

[…] Barack Obama writes: "The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics." [/] But she had a very different idea about black Americans. As Obama explains: [/] "Every black man was Thurgood Marshall or Sidney Poitier; every black woman Fannie Lou Hammer or Lena Horne. To be black was to be the beneficiary of a great inheritance, a special destiny, glorious burdens that only we were strong enough to bear." (Dreams p 51) [...] Starting in the 1930s the Communist Party promoted opportunities for ‘inter-racial' relationships among its members. [/] As future Obama mentor Frank Marshall Davis would explain in his 1968 book "Sex Rebel: Black", CPUSA recruitment burgeoned in part due to the sexual opportunities the Communists created.

[…] This is echoed in The Chicago Tribune: [/] While her girlfriends, including Box, regularly baby-sat, Stanley Ann showed no interest. "She felt she didn't need to date or marry or have children," Box recalled. "It wasn't a put-down, it wasn't hurtful. That's just who she was." [...] Things suddenly changed when Ann graduated in 1960 and the Dunhams moved to Hawaii. Young Ann quickly fell in love with and married Barack Obama Sr, a socialist from Kenya who she met in a University of Hawaii Russian language class -- and soon gave birth to Barack Jr. Seattle's leftist milieu of coffeehouse political debates in Hawaii evolved into long sessions at UH Manoa with other leftist students listening to jazz, drinking beer and debating politics and world affairs.

[…] The hunger for recruits has given the CPUSA a black fetish -- both literally and figuratively. And this fetish has in turn shaped the Communist view of society and of politics. [/] And so, in Obama’s eyes, socialism is “black”. And the definition of race is ideological rather than biological. And this marks the fundamental nature of the “red diaper baby” -- ideology has triumphed and established its dominion over all the natural aspects of life, even love itself [My ellipses and emphasis]

Christian Science Newspaper Goes Internet

A noteworthy event in the histories of both American journalism and American religion. The Christian Science Monitor is currently a much respected national daily newspaper. It was founded 100 years ago by the founder of Christian Science. It is published by the Christian Science Publishing Society.

For me personally, the high point in the paper’s history was an article on President Clinton’s full-time prevarication which appeared early in his presidency. Their reporter wrote that Clinton was impossible to cover. His verbal output was a mixture of spin, stretchers, half-truths, and whoppers. Proper fact checking and analysis would take entirely too much time. The phrases “Clinton clause” and “Slick Willie” were coined earlier by an Arkansas editor. But the Christian Science article remains unsurpassed, in my experience, as an accurate, succinct, yet complete analysis of the peculiarities of Clinton-speak. And it came from a much respected journalistic source.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Christian Science Monitor article, Monitor shifts from print to Web-based strategy:

Monitor shifts from print to Web-based strategy [/] In 2009, the Monitor will become the first nationally circulated newspaper to replace its daily print edition with its website; the 100 year-old news organization will also offer subscribers weekly print and daily e-mail editions. [/] By David Cook | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor [/] posted October 28, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. EDT

The Christian Science Monitor plans major changes in April 2009 that are expected to make it the first newspaper with a national audience to shift from a daily print format to an online publication that is updated continuously each day. [/] The changes at the Monitor will include enhancing the content on CSMonitor.com, starting weekly print and daily e-mail editions, and discontinuing the current daily print format.

This new, multiplatform strategy for the Monitor will "secure and enlarge the Monitor's role in its second century," said Mary Trammell, editor in chief of The Christian Science Publishing Society and a member of the Christian Science Board of Directors. Mrs. Trammell said that "journalism that seeks to bless humanity, not injure, and that shines light on the world's challenges in an effort to seek solutions, is at the center of Mary Baker Eddy's vision for the Monitor. The method of delivery and format are secondary" and need to be adjusted, given Mrs. Eddy's call to keep the Monitor "abreast of the times."

While the Monitor's print circulation, which is primarily delivered by US mail, has trended downward for nearly 40 years, "looking forward, the Monitor's Web readership clearly shows promise," said Judy Wolff, chairman of the Board of Trustees of The Christian Science Publishing Society. "We plan to take advantage of the Internet in order to deliver the Monitor's journalism more quickly, to improve the Monitor's timeliness and relevance, and to increase revenue and reduce costs. We can do this by changing the way the Monitor reaches its readers."

The coming changes, over two years in the planning stage, occur at a time of fundamental transition in news publishing and turn the page on a remarkable chapter in American journalism. The Monitor, which celebrates its 100th anniversary on Nov. 25, was launched at the direction of church founder Eddy, who had been the subject of a searing legal and journalistic attack by Joseph Pulitzer's New York World. Officials of her church had a professional news organization up and running in just over 100 days.

In the Monitor's first edition, Mrs. Eddy defined the scope and tone of the newspaper's journalistic mission, writing that it should "injure no man, but bless all mankind."

Since that time, generations of editorial and publishing workers have devoted themselves to the Monitor. While Mrs. Eddy's paper was initially greeted with skepticism, the Monitor won respect from its journalistic peers; it has been awarded seven Pulitzer Prizes and numerous other journalistic accolades. Three Monitor editors have been elected president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

Monitor editor John Yemma said that while the methods of publishing Monitor journalism have evolved over 100 years, the underlying motives and approach remain constant.

"In the Monitor's next century, as with its first century, it is committed to finding answers to the world's most important problems, asking the questions that matter and getting the story behind the news - all of which is staying true to Mrs. Eddy's unselfish, original vision," he said. "The Monitor's role is right there in its name. It's to monitor the world, to keep an eye on the world from a perspective of hope."

[…] The Monitor has required a subsidy from the Christian Science church for most of its history. In the current budget year ending April 30, the Monitor in all forms is forecast to lose $18.9 million. The church will provide a subsidy of $12.1 million from its general fund, with earnings from the Monitor Endowment Fund and donor contributions to the Monitor's operating fund covering the balance. The changes in strategy are projected gradually to decrease the Monitor's net operating loss to $10.5 million in 2013, so the church general fund subsidy will be $3.7 million, said managing publisher Jonathan Wells.

"Changes in the industry - changes in the concept of news and the economics underlying the industry - hit the Monitor first," given its relatively small size and the complex logistics required for national distribution, Mr. Wells said. "We are sometimes forced to be an early change agent." […] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Biden vs. his Bishop on Abortion

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

We hope Sen. Biden will carefully listen to the Church’s 2,000 years of testimony on abortion and that he will join in the defense and promotion of the sanctity of life. [/] Most Rev. W. Francis Malooly, bishop, Catholic Diocese of Wilmington [My ellipses and emphasis]

From a Delaware Online .com letter to the editor, Catholic Church has made no exception regarding abortion , more follows:

Catholic Church has made no exception regarding abortion since ancient times [/] [From the Catholic bishop of Wilmington] October 26, 2008

In his interview with The News Journal published Oct. 19, Sen. Joe Biden presents a seriously erroneous picture of Catholic teaching on abortion. He said, “I know that my church has wrestled with this for 2,000 years,” and claimed repeatedly that the Church has a nuanced view of the subject that leaves a great deal of room for uncertainty and debate.

This is simply incorrect. The teaching of the Church is clear and not open to debate. Abortion is a grave sin because it is the wrongful taking of an innocent human life. The Church received the tradition opposing abortion from Judaism. In the Greco-Roman world, early Christians were identifiable by their rejection of the common practices of abortion and infanticide.

The Didache, probably the earliest Christian writing apart from the New Testament, explicitly condemns abortion without exceptions. It tells us there is a “way of life” and a “way of death” and abortion is a part of the way of death. This has been the consistent teaching of the Church ever since.

It was also the position of Protestant reformers without exception. It was the teaching of Pope John XXIII as well as Pope John Paul II. It is the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI and the bishops of the Church, including me as shepherd of this diocese.

Some ancient and medieval theologians did see a difference between early abortions and ones that occurred later in term because with the limited medical knowledge of the time they did not know then what we scientifically know now: that a fetus is a living human being from conception. [/] Nevertheless, they universally condemned all abortions.

Of course, we now know that a fetus is a living human being from the very start. Thus, abortions take innocent human lives no matter when they occur. Since there is no gradation in the Church’s teaching on abortion, there is no way the medically obsolete division of pregnancy into three trimesters by Roe v. Wade can have any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Taking an innocent life in the womb is wrong at any stage of pregnancy.

The Declaration of Independence lists life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as God-given rights. Life is listed first, and it is the principal function of the state to protect the lives of citizens. This understanding of the state’s primary obligation to protect human life is also fundamental to Catholic social doctrine to which the senator points. Without life all other rights are meaningless.

This Sunday, all the parishes in the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington will pray the Litany of St. Thomas More, martyr and patron saint of statesmen, politicians and lawyers. We will ask St. Thomas More to intercede so all statesmen and politicians may be courageous and effective in their defense and promotion of the sanctity of human life.

We hope Sen. Biden will carefully listen to the Church’s 2,000 years of testimony on abortion and that he will join in the defense and promotion of the sanctity of life. [/] Most Rev. W. Francis Malooly, bishop, Catholic Diocese of Wilmington [My ellipses and emphasis]

Important AIDS Science Update

Some findings that have slipped under the radar. Valid findings that go against official theory seem to be ignored by media.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a About .com HIV / AIDS forum post, Developments in aids researches Post 2:

Developments in aids researches Post 2 [/] From: DistractibleDan [/] Date: 2/5/08 [/] Here's some fairly recent info from the folks at Alive & Well.

=== [/] The Failure of Viral Load Tests [/] JAMA Study Shakes AIDS Science, Angers HIV Advocates [/] A nationwide team of orthodox AIDS researchers led by doctors Benigno Rodriguez and Michael Lederman of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland are disputing the value of viral load testsa standard used since 1996 to assess health, predict progression to disease, and grant approval to new AIDS drugsafter their study of 2,800 HIV positives concluded viral load measures failed in more than 90% of cases to predict or explain immune status.

Published in the September 27, 2006 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the findings by Rodriguez et al shake the foundation of the past decade of AIDS science to its core, inciting skepticism and anger among many HIV adherents. [...] [/] For further information see: Cohen J. Study says HIV blood levels don't predict immune decline. Science 313(5795):1868, 2006; Rodriquez B, Sethi AK, Cheruvu VK, et al. Predictive value of plasma HIV RNA level on rate of CD4 T-cell decline in untreated HIV infection. JAMA 296(12):1498-506, 2006

===\New Study Questions Reliability of T Cell Counts Finds HIV Negatives with AIDS Defining Numbers [/] Following the news that viral load is not an accurate method of assessing or predicting immune status comes word from the Journal of Infectious Diseases that T cell counts may be less reliable measures of immune competence than previously believed. [/] A study in Africa conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) revealed that HIV negative populations can have T cell counts below 350, a number that would, according to WHO guidelines, qualify for an AIDS diagnosis in HIV positive populations. Another surprising conclusion from the same WHO study: HIV positives that started AIDS drug treatment with low T cell counts had the same survival outcomes as HIV positives that began treatment with high T cell counts.

[===] [/] Check out the conundrums in this November 11 2006 article from New Scientist found online at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10511-are-we-prescribing-hiv-drugs-properly.html [/] Are We Prescribing HIV Drugs Properly? [/] [“]In cash-starved regions of the world, deciding who should get anti-retroviral drugs for HIV is a tough call. Now it seems that one of the main tools for making that decision may be less reliable than it appeared. [/] [...] What's more, when people with low pre-infection cell counts did contract HIV, and received anti-retrovirals, they survived for about nine years - the same as people with high counts (Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol 194, p 1450). [/] [...] But CD4 counts can vary a lot naturally so if you follow the WHO guidelines to the letter, then some people started on anti-retrovirals would not even be infected with HIV, he concludes.

=== [/] Lancet Study Challenges Claims about HAART Treatment Does Not [Equal] Life [/] The surprising conclusion from a recent study published in the medical journal, The Lancet: After starting treatment with HARRT, viral response improved but such improvement has not translated into a decrease in mortality.

[…] Instead of finding data that provide a ringing endorsement of anti-HIV drug therapy, the studys results refute popular claims that the newer anti-HIV meds extend life or improve health. [/] Commenting on the article, Felix de Fries of Study Group AIDS-Therapy in Zurich, Switzerland had this to say: The Lancet study shows that after a short period of time, HAART treatment led to increases in precisely those opportunistic infections that define AIDS from fungal infections of the lungs, skin and intestines to various mycobacterial infections. De Fries also notes that while HAART has led to no sustained increases in CD4 counts, no reduction in AIDS-defining illness and no decrease in mortality rates, its use is associated with a list of serious adverse events including cardiovascular disease, lipodystrophy, lactacidosis, liver and kidney failure, osteoporosis, thyroid dysfunction, neuropathy, and non-AIDS cancers among users. [/] For more information, please refer to The Lancet, issue 368:451-58 and/or The Study Group AIDS-Therapy by telephone or fax at 0041 44 401 34 24 or by email at felix.defries[...] tele2.ch

=== [/] Journal Article Advocates Radical Approach to AIDS Prevention Questions Popular Ideas about HIV in Africa [/] Excerpted from
http://www.health-e.org.za/news/article.php?uid=20031447 […] [/] "Differences in sexual behaviour cannot explain 50-fold differences in HIV prevalence around the world," writes the economics professor from Gettysburg College. "Yet global AIDS policy relies almost entirely on behavioural interventions - abstinence or condoms - for HIV prevention. Southern Africa's very high AIDS rate has been a source of much speculation. President Thabo Mbeki has been the most vocal proponent for poverty to be put on the global AIDS agenda, and has also condemned Western notions of African sexuality in the context of AIDS.

[…] "Policymakers seem to be convinced (without evidence) that Africans are having more sex than Americans. They do not ask why US college campuses, where rates of chlamydia and genital herpes are as high as 30 to 40 percent, do not have high rates of HIV." She argues compelling for a return to "the fundamental causes" of the raid spread of AIDS in poor countries - biological and socio-economic factors. [/] As far as biology is concerned, says Stillwaggon, the immune systems of people in southern Africa are weakened by malnutrition and parasitic illnesses. […] [My ellipses and emphasis]

America Will Remain the Superpower

When the tide laps at Gulliver's waistline, it usually means the Lilliputians are already 10 feet under.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

Exactly how -- and how quickly -- the U.S. does come through is anyone's guess. Recessions are periodic facts of economic life that tend to last anywhere between six and 16 months. Severe recessions or depressions are fundamentally political events that can last a decade or longer -- however long economic policy remains bad.

If the next administration is wise, it will do what it can to help the markets clear, let the recession take its course, and do what it can to preserve intact a financial system that has served us splendidly. If it is unwise, it will embark on several years of grandiose social experimentation.} Either way, {the United States will eventually regain its economic footing and maintain its place.}

From a Wall Street Journal article, America Will Remain the Superpower:

America Will Remain the Superpower [/] When the tide laps at Gulliver's waistline, it usually means the Lilliputians are already 10 feet under. [/] By BRET STEPHENS. [/] GLOBAL VIEW [/] OCTOBER 14, 2008

Constantinople fell to the Ottomans after two centuries of retreat and decline. It took two world wars, a global depression and the onset of the Cold War to lay the British Empire low. [/] So it's a safe bet that the era of American dominance will not be brought to a close by credit default swaps, mark-to-market accounting or (even) Barney Frank.

Not that there's a shortage of invitations to believe otherwise. Almost in unison, Germany's finance minister, Russia's prime minister and Iran's president predict the end of U.S. "hegemony," financial and/or otherwise. The New York Times weighs in with meditations on "A Power That May Not Stay So Super." Der Spiegel gives us "The End of Hubris." Guardian columnist John Gray sees "A Shattering Moment in America's Fall From Power."

Much of this is said, or written, with ill-disguised glee. But when the tide laps at Gulliver's waistline, it usually means the Lilliputians are already 10 feet under. Before yesterday's surge, the Dow had dropped 25% in three months. But that only means it had outperformed nearly every single major foreign stock exchange, including Germany's XETRADAX (down 28%) China's Shanghai exchange (down 30%), Japan's NIKK225 (down 37%), Brazil's BOVESPA (down 41%) and Russia RTSI (down 61%). These contrasts are a useful demonstration that America's financial woes are nobody else's gain.

On the other hand, global economic distress doesn't invariably work at cross-purposes with American interests. Hugo Chávez's nosedive toward bankruptcy begins when oil dips below $80 a barrel, the price where it hovers now. An identical logic, if perhaps at a different price, applies to the petrodictatorships in Moscow and Tehran, which already are heavily saddled with inflationary and investor-confidence concerns. Russia will also likely burn through its $550 billion in foreign-currency reserves faster than anticipated -- a pleasing if roundabout comeuppance for last summer's Georgian adventure.

Nor does the U.S. seem all that badly off, comparatively speaking, when it comes to its ability to finance a bailout. Last month's $700 billion bailout package seems staggeringly large, but it amounts to a little more than 5% of U.S. gross domestic product. Compare that to Germany's $400 billion to $536 billion rescue package (between 12% and 16% of its GDP), or Britain's $835 billion plan (30%).

Of course it may require considerably more than $700 billion to clean out our Augean Stables. But here it helps that the ratio of government debt to GDP in the U.S. runs to about 62%. For the eurozone, it's 75%; for Japan, 180%.

It also helps that the U.S. continues to have the world's largest inflows of foreign direct investment; that it ranks third in the world (after Singapore and New Zealand) for ease of doing business, according to the World Bank; and that its demographic trends aren't headed toward a tall and steep cliff -- as they are in the EU, Russia, Japan and China.

Above all, the U.S. remains biased toward financial transparency. I am agnostic as to whether mark-to-market accounting is a good idea; last month's temporary ban on short-selling financials seemed a bad one.

But a system that demands timely and accurate financial disclosure and doesn't interfere with price discovery will invariably prove more resilient over time than a system that does not make such demands. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were financial time bombs of one kind, then surely China's state-owned enterprises are time bombs of another. Can anyone determine with even approximate confidence the extent of their liabilities?

This isn't to say that the abrupt failure of the SOEs [[State-Owned Enterprises]] would be in anyone's interests, including the U.S.'s. But one of the unremarked ironies of the present crisis is that America's financial vulnerabilities came fully into view months before Europe's (or the rest of the world's) did. That's one reason the dollar has rallied in recent months. It's also why the U.S. is likely to come through the crisis much more quickly than, say, Japan, which spent the better part of the 1990s hiding its own banking crisis from itself.

Exactly how -- and how quickly -- the U.S. does come through is anyone's guess. Recessions are periodic facts of economic life that tend to last anywhere between six and 16 months. Severe recessions or depressions are fundamentally political events that can last a decade or longer -- however long economic policy remains bad.

If the next administration is wise, it will do what it can to help the markets clear, let the recession take its course, and do what it can to preserve intact a financial system that has served us splendidly. If it is unwise, it will embark on several years of grandiose social experimentation.} Either way, {the United States will eventually regain its economic footing and maintain its place.} [/] Write to bstephens@wsj.com [My ellipses and emphasis]

Why Obama's socialism matters!!!

The full article is a worthwhile read. Click the article link.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

And here's something important for you to realize as you think about what happened in that socialist state. While a core group of people, Hitler included, undoubtedly envisioned these extremes as their initial goals, most didn't. They just thought that, after the utter chaos of the 1920s (especially the economic chaos), the socialists would calm the economy (which they did), and simply remove from people the painful obligation of having to make their way in the world. It was only incrementally that the average German bought into the ever-more-extreme demands of the state - and those who didn't buy in were coerced because of the state's unfettered willingness to use its vast, brute power to subordinate individuals to its demand.

From an American Thinker .com article, Why Obama's socialism matters, more below:

Why Obama's socialism matters [/] October 13, 2008 [/] By Bookworm

For conservatives opposed to an Obama presidency, the last few days have brought the wonder of the smoking gun: Obama really was a socialist. Combine that hidden paper trail with his Ayers affiliation, and it's reasonable to believe that Obama still holds these socialist political views.

[…] The only way to explain this disinterest in Obama's past and its relationship to his present is that Americans no longer consider the label "socialist" to be a pejorative. To them, it's just another content-neutral political ideology. In our non-judgmental age, it falls into the same category as Liberal vs. Conservative, or Left vs. Right. To most people, it just means Obama is a more liberal Liberal, or a leftier Lefty, and they already knew that.

In order to stir ordinary Americans to the sense of outrage those of us in the blogosphere feel, we need to remind them that socialism is not simply a more liberal version of ordinary American politics. It is, instead, its own animal, and a very feral, dangerous animal indeed.

[…] It took Marx and Engels to carry socialism to the next level, in which they envisioned the complete overthrow of all governments, with the workers of the world uniting so that all contributed to a single socialist government, which in turn would give back to them on an as needed basis. Assuming that you're not big on individualism and exceptionalism, this might be an attractive doctrine as a way to destroy want and exploitation, except for one thing: It does not take into account the fact that the state has no conscience.

Once you vest all power in the state, history demonstrates that the state, although technically composed of individuals, in fact takes on a life of its own, with the operating bureaucracy driving it to ever greater extremes of control. Additionally, history demonstrates that, if the wrong person becomes all-powerful in the state, the absence of individualism means that the state becomes a juggernaut, completely in thrall to a psychopath's ideas. Herewith some examples:

My favorite example is always Nazi Germany because so many people forget that it was a socialist dictatorship. Or perhaps they're ignorant of the fact that the Nazi's official and frequently forgotten name was the National Socialist German Worker's Party. In other words, while most people consider the Nazi party to be a totalitarian ideology arising from the right, it was, in fact, a totalitarian party arising from the left.

[…] Here's another example: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. […] The fact is that life in the USSR was always horrible. […]Most estimates are that, in the years leading up to WWII, the Soviet socialist state killed between 30 and 60 million of its own citizens.

I've got another example for you: the People's Republic of China, another socialist state. […] Current estimates are that Mao's "visionary" Great Leap Forward resulted in the deaths of up to 100 million people. […] The same pattern, of course, daily plays out on a smaller scale in socialist North Korea.

Those are examples of hard socialism. Soft socialism is better, but it certainly isn't the American ideal. Britain springs to mind as the perfect example of soft socialism. Britain's socialist medicine is a disaster […] [/] The British socialist bureaucracy also controls people's lives at a level currently incomprehensible to Americans, who can't appreciate a state that is constantly looking out for its own good. )

Both history and current events demonstrate that the socialist reality is always bad for the individual, and this is true whether one is looking at the painfully brutal socialism of the Nazis or the Soviets or the Chinese, with its wholesale slaughters, or at the soft socialism of England, in which people's lives are ever more tightly circumscribed, and the state incrementally destroys individual freedom. And that is why Obama's socialism matters.

Regardless of Obama’s presumed good intentions, socialism always brings a society to a bad ending. I don’t want to believe that Americans who live in a free society that allows people to think what they will, do what they want, and succeed if they can, will willingly hand themselves over to the socialist ideology. They must therefore be reminded, again and again and again, that socialism isn’t just another political party; it’s the death knell to freedom. So remember, while McCain wants to change DC, Obama wants to change America. [/] Bookworm is proprietor of the blog Bookworm Room. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama: Stealing Pennsylvania?!? - "Massive ACORN Fraud"!?!

The World-Class Community Organizer Marches On!!!

Say it ain't so, Barry and Michelle!!! (with deepest apologies to Joseph Jefferson “Shoeless Joe” Jackson (3rd highest ML batting av.), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From an American Spectator article, Stealing Pennsylvania: "Massive Fraud":

Stealing Pennsylvania: "Massive Fraud" [/] By Jeffrey Lord [/] Published 10/10/2008 4:09:45 PM

A retired Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice says that she is "not confident we can get a fair election" in the state come November. [/] Justice Sandra Newman, acompanied by Dauphin County District Attorney Edward Marsico and Pennsylvania Republican State Chairman Robert Gleason, expressed her concerns at a Harrisburg press conference this morning. A thick document replete with photo copies of phony registrations and aerial shots of vacant lots used as "addresses" for "voters" was handed out to journalists.

Gleason was even more explicit. [/] "Between March 23rd and October 1st, various groups, including ACORN, submitted over 252,595 registrations to the Philadelphia County Election Board" with 57, 435 rejected for faulty information. "Most of these registrations were submitted by ACORN, and rejected due to fake social security numbers, incorrect dates of birth, clearly fraudulent signatures, addresses that do not exist, and duplicate registrations. In one case, a man was registered to vote more than 15 times since the Primary election."

"Voter fraud is no longer just a Philadelphia problem," Gleason said, with ACORN targeting key counties across the state. Counties specifically cited included:

* Delaware County: […] In one instance, an ACORN employee circulating voter registration forms in Delaware County was featured on the Pennsylvania "Megan's Law" website, described as having been arrested for "aggravated indecent assault" of a child. Other ACORN circulators had prior criminal records for forgery and giving false information to a police officer, among other charges. Gleason has provided copies of complaints from actual Delaware County voters who were notified by the local election board of their "new" registration to vote. […] And another angrily wrote that the "personal information" on a form submitted in her name "IS NOT ME." She added: Please have the county investigate this. I feel my identity is being compromised."
`* Philadelphia County: The situation in the state's largest city is so bad the Philadelphia City Commission, which supervises the registration of Philadelphia voters, voted unanimously to "voluntarily" turn over its extensive records to the United States Attorney's office for prosecution.

* Dauphin County: Dauphin County (the location of the state capital) District Attorney Marsico said the situation was so bad in Harrisburg that one ACORN worker is now being sought by authorities for submitting more than 100 fraudulent voter registration forms. The charge is 19 counts of perjury. […]Marsico said that what was happening with ACORN "affects the integrity of the process" and that the volume of phony registrations made him "sure that others are going on" that have been undetected.

* Allegheny County: Pittsburgh. Here District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. and county police Superintendent Charles Moffatt have just announced, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, that "they are investigating and considering charges against ACORN staffers and other voter registration groups."

* Centre County: The home of Penn State, which enrolls more than 40,000 students at its home campus. Justice Newman said there was a "massive effort" to fraudulently register students, with efforts aimed at "multiple registrations."

* Erie County: The county at the northwestern tip of the state with its largest namesake city, here too students at local colleges are being targeted in "student registration drives" designed to register voters 18 and over "multiples of times." Student registrants, registered to vote in their home states, had "pending absentee ballot applications" submitted so they could vote for president both in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. The Director of Elections in Erie has reported the telltale "same handwriting" on applications, according to Newman.

[…] Marsico added that he believed the attempted fraud was being perpetrated in smaller Pennsylvania counties as well, counties where the resources to investigate simply don't exist.

Asked whether the Pennsylvania State Democratic Party had come forward to work with the GOP on the ACORN voter fraud issue, Gleason tersely shook his head. One source did say that much of the impetus for the fraud was "an Obama effort," as opposed to the Democratic Party as an institution.

All of this brings Pennsylvania into focus as yet another key battleground state where a serious effort is being made to, bluntly put, steal the presidency in a move reminiscent of the attempts made by the 2000 Gore campaign in Florida. Just as ACORN's efforts have been directed at key electoral states such as Florida, Colorado, Missouri, New Mexico Ohio, and Wisconsin, so within Pennsylvania have its efforts been targeted at key Pennsylvania counties.

[…]Is it really possible that the presidency could be stolen for Obama by virtue of a massive voter fraud here in Pennsylvania? And elsewhere? ACORN seems to think so. One so-called "non-partisan" ACORN member, Gleason pointed out, has been captured on video tape saying the group's objective was to "beat McCain down." Not exactly "non-partisan" sounding, is it?

Newman, the retired Supreme Court Justice, was blunt on the evidence: "I don't want a president who does this." [/] ACORN clearly does. Makes you wonder: why? [/] Jeffrey Lord is a Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Vote-Fraud-A-Go-Go!!!

Will one miniscule ACORN grow into a presidential oak?!?

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a New York Post editorial, Vote-Fraud-A-Go-Go:

Vote-Fraud-A-Go-Go [/] October 9, 2008 --

Let every vote count, is the Democratic Party's mantra these days. That slogan might better be: Let every vote count as often as we need to win.

Such, at any rate, are the tactics of ACORN, Barack Obama's favorite "community organizers," and its Project Vote - of which, the Democratic presidential candidate has boasted, "I started working as the director . . . here in Chicago."

ACORN has been implicated in voter-fraud schemes in 15 states - including Ohio, from where The Post's Jeane MacIntosh reports today that a Board of Elections investigation has unearthed evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Two voters told MacIntosh they had been dragooned by ACORN activists into registering several times - one reporting having signed up "10 to 15" times.

ACORN canvassers "would ask me if I was registered," he said. "I'd say yes and they'd ask me to do it again."

Tuesday, Nevada officials raided ACORN's Las Vegas offices as part of a probe into voter-registration fraud - noting that some forms submitted by ACORN workers included the names of Dallas Cowboys players.

Officials in Lake County, Ind. report that fully 1,100 of 2,000 new voter-registration forms delivered by ACORN were "suspicious."

In Washington state, officials recently closed an investigation into ballot cheating that resulted in prison terms.

ACORN submitted more than 800 phony registration forms in Independence, Mo., with one woman registering 10 times, using three birthdates, four different Social Security numbers and six different phone numbers.

And, as The Post reported Monday, another pro-Obama group, Vote Today Ohio, took advantage of a quirk in that state's law, which allows people to register and vote on the same day without having to prove residency, to drive hundreds of people from homeless shelters and drug-rehab centers to the polls.

John McCain's campaign says all this "doesn't pass the smell test." [/] Actually, it stinks. [/] And it's being done by a group with which Barack Obama has proudly been associated.

What, then, would they be able to pull off with a friend in the White House?
[My ellipses and emphasis]

HIV Hoax: Montagnier Gets Nobel

The good news is that the U.S. government scientist who stole Montagnier’s lab results and conjectures and then convinced the U.S. and the U.N. to waste hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives has been dissed.

The bad news is that the Nobel people have added credence to the biggest medical hoax in history.

For reliable background information:

. Inventing the AIDS Virus

. Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?

. Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS

. Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society - Latest News

. Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives

. AIDS Myths 101 - Thread at Delphi “VirusMyth“ Forum

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a National Public Radio article, Nobel Prize In Medicine For Major Virus Discoveries:

Nobel Prize In Medicine For Major Virus Discoveries [/] by Richard Knox and Steve Inskeep

Morning Edition, October 6, 2008 · The 2008 Nobel Prize for physiology or medicine goes to two French scientists for discovering the virus that causes AIDS. A German researcher shares the prize for discovering the viruses that cause cervical cancer.

Half the $1.4 million prize goes to Luc Montagnier and Francoise Barre-Sinoussi for their discovery of the AIDS virus. The other half goes to Harald zur Hausen, who established that most cervical cancer is caused by two types of human papilloma viruses.

In the case of HIV, or the human immunodeficiency virus that causes AIDS, the Nobel committee clearly waited until the dust settled over a bitter controversy over who really discovered the virus in the early 1980s — Americans or the French. The committee apparently accepts the results of an investigation done 15 years ago, which concluded that the American virus was actually a contaminant from the French lab.

U.S. researcher Dr. Robert Gallo was locked in a dispute with Montagnier in the 1980s over the relative importance of their roles in groundbreaking research into HIV and its role in AIDS. Gallo told The Associated Press that he was disappointed at not being included in the prize.

Montagnier told the AP in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, where he is attending an international AIDS conference, that he was still optimistic about conquering the disease. [/] The prize, he said, "encourages us all to keep going until we reach the goal at the end of this effort." [/] Montagnier said he wished the prize had also gone to Gallo. [/] "It is certain that he deserved this as much as us two," he said.

[…] In its citation, the Nobel Assembly said Barre-Sinoussi and Montagnier's discovery was one prerequisite for understanding the biology of AIDS and its treatment with antiviral drugs. The pair's work in the early 1980s made it possible to study the virus closely.

[…] "The combination of prevention and treatment has substantially decreased spread of the disease and dramatically increased life expectancy among treated patients," the citation said.

Barre-Sinoussi said that when she and Montagnier isolated the virus 25 years ago they naively hoped that they would be able to prevent the global AIDS epidemic that followed. [/] "We naively thought that the discovery of the virus would allow us to quickly learn more about it, to develop diagnostic tests — which has been done — and to develop treatments, which has also been done to a large extent and, most of all, develop a vaccine that would prevent the global epidemic," she told the AP by telephone from Cambodia.

Gallo, director of the Institute for Human Virology at the University of Maryland and a prominent early researcher in HIV, said it was "a disappointment" not to be honored along with Montagnier and Barre-Sinoussi.

But he said all three of the award's recipients deserved the honor. No more than three people can share a Nobel Prize.

His dispute with Montagnier reached such a level in 1987 that then-President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Jacques Chirac of France penned an agreement dividing millions of dollars in royalties from the AIDS blood test. The settlement led to an agreement that officially credited the Gallo and Montagnier labs with co-discovering the virus.

In the 1990s, however, the U.S. government acknowledged that the French deserved a greater share of the royalties. The admission solidified the French position that Montagnier had isolated the virus in 1983, a year before Gallo.

Maria Masucci, member of the Nobel Assembly, said there was no dispute in the scientific community that the French pair discovered and characterized the virus.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Maryland, agreed there's no doubt the French scientists first identified the virus. He said they, and zur Hausen, deserved the Nobel. [/] Fauci said that if additional researchers could have been included, Gallo "would have been an obvious choice to be added to that list." [/] That's because of Gallo's roles in showing that HIV causes AIDS and in the technical advance that allowed the isolation of HIV, Fauci said.

[…] Associated Press writers Malcolm Ritter in New York, Malin Rising in Stockholm and Benoit Hili in Abidjan contributed to this report. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Ex Mr. Gay UK In Big Trouble X-RATED

*** WARNING!! ADULT & VERY DISGUSTING DETAILS ***

Oscar Wilde told us that “life imitates art“. This incident seems like a faint echo of Gore Vidal‘s fine novel, “The City and the Pilar“. In the novel, the very sympathetic, successful and popular protagonist ends up headed toward suicide after he rapes a onetime boyhood friend and lover. Reality, however, seems to be a bit more sordid.

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Prosecutor Andrew Stubbs QC, warned jurors that details of the case were 'unpleasant and disturbing.'

From a Daily Mail [UK] article, Former Mr Gay UK 'slit lover's throat […]:

Former Mr Gay UK 'slit lover's throat then marinated his diced flesh with fresh herbs' [/] By Chris Brooke [/] Last updated at 2:32 AM on 07th October 2008

A gay chef murdered his lover, cut out part of his leg, seasoned it with herbs and fried it, a court has heard.

Anthony Morley, 35, chewed one of the pieces before throwing it into his kitchen bin.

Morley, a former holder of the Mr Gay UK title, then walked to a nearby takeaway restaurant and told horrified staff: 'I have killed someone, call the police'.

Officers found the naked body of 33-year-old Damian Oldfield on the floor of Morley's bedroom, Leeds Crown Court was told.

He had been stabbed 20 times and his throat cut.

Morley later claimed Mr Oldfield had tried to rape him.

Prosecutor Andrew Stubbs QC, warned jurors that details of the case were 'unpleasant and disturbing.'

He added: 'In carrying out your task in this trial you must not allow the horror of what took place to cloud your calm assessment of the evidence.'

He said the two men had known each other for some years.

Mr Oldfield was openly gay and worked selling advertising space for a homosexual lifestyle magazine.

He was described as ' flirtatious, promiscuous, naturally outgoing and bubbly'.

Morley was 'less sure about his sexuality' and had had relationships with both men and women.

He had won the first Mr Gay UK contest in 1993.

On the day of the murder, in April, the two exchanged text messages during the afternoon and later met in a bar in Leeds, where they both lived.

In the texts Morley told Mr Oldfield he had 'never been properly happy being gay'. Mr Oldfield replied: 'Try me...I'm not your average poof.'

They exchanged increasingly affectionate messages and arranged to meet, with Morley stressing he 'wanted to take it slow'.

Later that night they ended up in Morley's bedroom, the court heard. They had been drinking beer and were both around three times the legal limit for driving.

Forensic experts later found evidence that there had been sexual activity.

Mr Stubbs said Morley used two knives taken from the kitchen downstairs to kill Mr Oldfield.

He slit his throat, cutting a vein and an artery in the process, stabbed him with great force in the chest and 19 times in the back.

The evidence indicated that Mr Oldfield had been lying under the duvet when he was attacked from behind.

Mr Stubbs said that after Mr Oldfield died Morley cut a section of flesh from his thigh, took it down to the kitchen and cooked it.

The jury heard that Morley was wearing only a bloodstained dressing gown and flip-flops when he arrived at the takeaway. His face and hands were spattered with blood.

He later told police: 'I know what I have done is wrong, he tried to rape me, at least he won't be able to do it again.'

Morley denies murder. The court was told he was 'at the very least' guilty of manslaughter, but the jury would have to consider issues of provocation and diminished responsibility. [/] The case continues. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Pittsburgh Episcopal Diocese votes to secede

The Anglican Communion continues its relentless division into two groups: holders of traditional values and holders of New Age values. The Anglican majority, mostly third world, hold traditional, biblical values. The majority of Anglicans in Britain and North America have advanced beyond the Bible and tradition. The majority in Pittsburg have decided that they are more spiritually akin to the third world majority than to the U.S. majority.

I report and link. You decide. - ToK

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15

From a Pittsburg Post-Gazette article, Pittsburgh Episcopal Diocese votes to secede:

Pittsburgh Episcopal Diocese votes to secede [/] Saturday, October 04, 2008 [/] By Ann Rodgers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The Episcopal diocese of Pittsburgh voted today to secede from the Episcopal Church and realign with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, based in Buenas Aires, Argentina.

Archbishop Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone has named former Pittsburgh bishop Robert Duncan as his Episcopal commissary to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. At least 17 of an original 74 churches are expected to continue with the Episocal Church of the United States. Both dioceses will be calling separate conventions before the end the year to reorganize and elect a bishop. [My ellipses and emphasis]

POLL BJon Does the U.S. Deserve Obama?

Does the U.S. Deserve Obama, that is, “deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career."???

See article below, and: Vote! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!! Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 134249!!!. (Choices and link also given after article below.)

But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.

From a Town Hall .com article, Do Facts Matter?:

Do Facts Matter? [/] Thomas Sowell [/] Friday, October 03, 2008

Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.

Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.

The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.

It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?

Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.

It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.

Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?

We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't.

Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?

Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.

Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs.

Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!

The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.

But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media. [/] Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.

The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose.

But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Poll Question: Does the U.S. Deserve Obama, that is, “deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career."??? | Poll choices:

1. Yes. Rottenest nation on earth! / 2. Yes. Immoral behavior accepted. / 3. Yes. Hogs world resources. / 4. Yes. Payback for oppression of minorities. / 5. Yes. Clings to religion and guns. / 6. Yes. No fairness. / 7. Yes. All or most of 1-6. / 8. Yes. . / 9. Possibly. Repentance needed. / 10. Possibly. Good lesson needed. / 11. Possibly. God will judge. / 12. Possibly. . / 13. No. . / 14. No. But alternatives worse. / 15. No. Most moral nation on earth. / 16. No. U.S. deserves worse. / 17. No. U.S. deserves better. / 18. No. U.S. not quite that bad. / 19. No opinion. Important issues deserve much study.. / 20. No comment. / 21. No opinion. / 22. This poll is worthless. / 23. This poll is of negative value. / 24. Other.

Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 134249! Vote!! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!!!

Obama Youth Drill in Missouri Middle School!!!

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Breitbart TV video clip, Missouri Middle Schoolers Chant with Military-Like Zeal for Obama:

Missouri Middle Schoolers Chant with Military-Like Zeal for Obama [[Click link above for video]]

It is of interest that the session begins with the chant, “Alpha. Omega. Alpha. Omega. Alpha. Omega. …”

Is this a challenge to:

Revelation 21:6 KJVA And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Of course, it could be a prayer to the One who freely gives the water of life to those thirsting. You decide.

POLL BJon Pastors' Political Endorsements Constitutional?

IRS Rules Don't Trump the Constitution!!!

See article below, and: Vote! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!! Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 133469!!!. (Choices and link also given after article below.)

From a Town Hall .com article, IRS Rules Don't Trump the Constitution:

IRS Rules Don't Trump the Constitution [/] Erik Stanley [/] Monday, September 08, 2008

Every election season, the debate over faith in public life is sure to take center stage. It should. [...] [/] The debate is front and center because it embodies the intersection of two of America’s most cherished freedoms: free speech and religious liberty. Americans have long believed that, in a free and healthy society, such debate should continue—inside and outside the church—without government interference. That’s why we have the First Amendment, and that’s why the Alliance Defense Fund has mounted a challenge to a portion of the Internal Revenue Code that violates it.

The ADF Pulpit Initiative will culminate in a sermon delivered Sept. 28 by several dozen pastors nationwide who will evaluate candidates for elective offices and how their positions line up with Scripture. The ADF plan to free pastors from unconstitutional restrictions has been met with misguided opposition,[...] [/] But most who oppose the initiative misunderstand it, including our friend in Columbus. Others, however, understand it too well and prefer the climate of fear under which pastors currently operate.

The truth is, the Pulpit Initiative is not about serving any candidate or political party or turning a church into a political action committee. The initiative is about restoring the constitutional right of pastors to speak freely from the pulpit without any fear of punishment by the government for doing what churches do: speak on any number of cultural and societal issues from a biblical perspective—and that includes commenting on the positions of electoral candidates, if they so choose.

Arguing that a tax agency should hold veto power over sermon content is like arguing that the Department of Transportation should decide a school lunch menu. Pastors spoke freely about the policy positions of candidates for elective office throughout American history, even endorsing or opposing candidates from the pulpit, without anyone ever questioning whether churches should remain tax exempt. It was commonplace—indeed expected—for pastors to speak in support of or in opposition to candidates until the Johnson Amendment was inserted quietly into the tax code in 1954 with no legislative analysis or debate.

Most scholars recognize that the Johnson Amendment had nothing to do with churches. It was a cleverly designed bill to silence some nonprofit organizations who opposed Lyndon Johnson’s Senate campaign. But that hasn’t stopped activist groups from wielding the IRS weapon to silence churches across the country. The tax agency’s rule is unconstitutional because it muzzles free speech and improperly entangles the state in church affairs.

The state cannot demand the surrender of constitutional rights for a church to remain tax exempt. [/] Nonprofit organizations are exempted because they are not profit-makers. If citizens are already taxed on their individual incomes, taxing their participation in a voluntary organization from which they derive no monetary gain amounts to double taxation.

Churches are all the more tax exempt. Church tax exemption is not a gift, nor is it a “subsidy,” as some disingenuously contend. As the U.S. Supreme Court has noted, the power to tax involves the power to destroy, and churches have always been exempt from taxation under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy religion than to begin taxing it.

And how ironic is it that those who publicly wave the “separation of church and state” banner are the loudest voices demanding that the federal government entangle itself in the most intimate church business, namely the content of pastors’ sermons? Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the group that has made its name using the tax man as an axe man, recently wrote, “Constitutional violations do not get grandfathered in simply because of the passage of time.”

AU should listen to its own words. The unconstitutional Johnson Amendment is an axe that’s been around for a half century, but that doesn’t make it constitutional. And neither does the feeling of power the AU enjoys in prodding the IRS to wield it.

This tax rule is a surefire way to destroy the free exercise of religion. It’s time to get the government out of the pulpits of America. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Poll Question: Pastors' Political Endorsements Constitutional? | Poll choices:

1. Yes. Let a thousand flowers bloom! / 2. Yes. Johnson was a crook. / 3. Yes. The ACLU is no good. / 4. Yes. Stand up for Freedom. / 5. Yes. Political speech unfettered. / 6. Yes. Religious opinions unfettered. / 7. Yes. Control government not religion. / 8. Yes. . / 9. Possibly. Political corruption possible. / 10. Possibly. Church corruption possible. / 11. Possibly. Compromise possible. / 12. Possibly. / 13. No. / 14. No. Separate church and state. / 15. No. Tax freeloaders must suffer. / 16. No. Have faith in the IRS. / 17. No. Have faith in the AUSCS. / 18. No. All or most of 14-17. / 19. No opinion. Important issues deserve much study. / 20. No comment. / 21. No opinion. / 22. This poll is worthless. / 23. This poll is of negative value. / 24. Other.

Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 133469! Vote!! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!!!

Obama: Forced To Lie?!?

Confronted about this on CBN, he said the pro-life group was lying. But his campaign has now admitted that he had the legislative history wrong. Obama either didn't know his own record, or was so accustomed to shrouding it in dishonesty that it had become second nature.

Here's a central dilemma of Obama's candidacy. Nothing in his career supports his contention that he's a postpartisan healer. So, as someone as splenetic as Dole might put it, he's forced to lie about his record.

Say it ain't so, Barry and Michelle!!!

(with deepest apologies to Joseph Jefferson “Shoeless Joe” Jackson (3rd highest ML batting av.), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a New York Post article, OBAMA'S EXTREMISM:

OBAMA'S EXTREMISM [/] By RICH LOWRY [/] August 19, 2008 --

Barack Obama had a mini Bob Dole moment after the Saddleback presidential forum the other night. Asked on the Christian Broadcasting Network about a controversy over his opposition to legislation in Illinois protecting infants born alive after surviving abortions, an irked Obama replied, "I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."

Obama's line recalled Dole's plaint on national TV after the first George Bush beat him in New Hampshire in 1988, "Tell him to stop lying about my record." Dole's outburst would live in infamy as evidence of his distemper. Obama's problem isn't his temperament, but the unsustainable exertions necessary to attempt to square his reasonable-sounding rhetoric on abortion with the extremism of his record.

Asked by Pastor Rick Warren when a baby gets rights, Obama said, "I'm absolutely convinced that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue." This is a crashing banality couched as thoughtfulness. If Obama is so sensitive to the moral element of the issue, why does he want to eliminate any existing restrictions on the procedure?

In 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation that he would sign as president. The act would not only codify Roe v. Wade, but wipe out all current federal, state and local restrictions on abortion that pass muster under Roe, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion. This is not the legislative priority of a man keenly attuned to the moral implications of abortion.

At Saddleback, Obama said determining when a baby gets rights is "above his pay grade." Leave aside that presidents usually have an opinion about who deserves legal rights. If Obama is willing to permit any abortions in any circumstances, he'd better possess an absolute certainty about the absolute moral nullity of the fetus.

He told Warren that he favors "limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother's health." But the exception he wants is so broad it makes the restriction meaningless. Obama opposed the partial-birth bill that passed the House and the Senate, 281-142 and 64-34, respectively, and has criticized the Supreme Court for upholding the law.

It's not just partial-birth abortion where Obama is outside the mainstream, but on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act - the occasion for his televised accusation of lying. In 2000, Congress took up legislation to make it clear that infants born alive after abortions are persons under the law. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League opposed the bill as an assault on Roe, but it passed the House 380-15. [/] Back in the Illinois state Senate in 2001, Obama spoke out against and voted "present" - effectively "no" - on a similar bill, aligning himself with the tiny pro-abortion rump of 15 congressmen.

In 2002, Congress considered the legislation again, this time adding a "neutrality clause" specifying that it didn't affect Roe one way or another. The bill passed without any dissenting votes in the House or the Senate and was signed into law. [/] In 2003 in Illinois, Obama still opposed a state version of the law. He long claimed that he voted against it because it didn't have the same "neutrality clause" as the federal version. But the National Right to Life Committee has unearthed documents showing that the Illinois bill was amended to include such a clause, and Obama voted to kill it anyway.

Confronted about this on CBN, he said the pro-life group was lying. But his campaign has now admitted that he had the legislative history wrong. Obama either didn't know his own record, or was so accustomed to shrouding it in dishonesty that it had become second nature.

Here's a central dilemma of Obama's candidacy. Nothing in his career supports his contention that he's a postpartisan healer. So, as someone as splenetic as Dole might put it, he's forced to lie about his record. [My ellipses and emphasis]

McCain: Forced To Be Professional?!? --- Maverick No More?!?

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a New York Times David Brooks op-ed, The Education of McCain:

The Education of McCain [/] By DAVID BROOKS [/] Op-Ed Columnist [/] August 19, 2008

On Tuesdays, Senate Republicans hold a weekly policy lunch. The party leaders often hand out a Message of the Week that the senators are supposed to repeat at every opportunity. Sometimes there will be a pollster offering data that supposedly demonstrates the brilliance of the message and why it will lead to political nirvana.

John McCain generally spends the lunches at a table with a gang of fellow ne’er-do-wells. He cracks jokes, razzes the speaker and generally ridicules the whole proceeding. Then he takes the paper with the Message of the Week back to his office. He tosses it on the desk of some staffer with a sarcastic comment like: “Here’s your message. Learn it. Love it. Live it.”

This sort of behavior has been part of McCain’s long-running rebellion against the stupidity of modern partisanship. In a thousand ways, he has tried to preserve some sense of self-respect in a sea of pandering pomposity. He’s done it through self-mockery, by talking endlessly about his own embarrassing lapses and by keeping up a running patter on the absurdity all around. He’s done it by breaking frequently from his own party to cut serious deals with people like Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold. He’s done it with his own frantic and freewheeling style, which was unpredictable, untamed and, at some level, unprofessional.

When McCain and his team set out to win the presidency in 2008, they hoped to run a campaign with this sort of spirit. McCain would venture forth on the back of his bus, going places other Republicans don’t go, saying things politicians don’t say, offering the country the vision of a different kind of politics — free of circus antics — in which serious people sacrifice for serious things.

It hasn’t turned out that way. McCain hasn’t been able to run the campaign he had envisioned. Instead, he and his staff have been given an education by events.

McCain started out with the same sort of kibitzing campaign style that he used to woo the press back in 2000. It didn’t work. This time there were too many cameras around and too many 25-year-old reporters and producers seizing on every odd comment to set off little blog scandals. [/] McCain started out with the same sort of improvised campaign events he’d used his entire career, in which he’d begin by riffing off of whatever stories were in the paper that day. It didn’t work. The campaign lacked focus. No message was consistent enough to penetrate through the national clutter.

McCain started his general-election campaign in poverty-stricken areas of the South and Midwest. He went through towns where most Republicans fear to tread and said things most wouldn’t say. It didn’t work. The poverty tour got very little coverage on the network news. McCain and his advisers realized the only way they could get TV attention was by talking about the subject that interested reporters most: Barack Obama.

McCain started with grand ideas about breaking the mold of modern politics. He and Obama would tour the country together doing joint town meetings. He would pick a postpartisan running mate, like Joe Lieberman. He would make a dramatic promise, like vowing to serve for only one totally nonpolitical term. So far it hasn’t worked. Obama vetoed the town meeting idea. The issue is not closed, but G.O.P. leaders are resisting a cross-party pick like Lieberman.

McCain and his advisers have been compelled to adjust to the hostile environment around them. They have been compelled, at least in their telling, to abandon the campaign they had hoped to run. Now they are running a much more conventional race, the kind McCain himself used to ridicule.

The man who lampooned the Message of the Week is now relentlessly on message (as observers of his fine performance at Saddleback Church can attest). The man who hopes to inspire a new generation of Americans now attacks Obama daily. It is the only way he can get the networks to pay attention.

Some old McCain hands are dismayed. John Weaver, the former staff member who helped run the old McCain operation, argues that this campaign does not do justice to the man. The current advisers say they have no choice. They didn’t choose the circumstances of this race. Their job is to cope with them.

And the inescapable fact is: It is working. Everyone said McCain would be down by double digits at this point. He’s nearly even. Everyone said he’d be vastly outspent. That hasn’t happened. A long-shot candidacy now seems entirely plausible.

As the McCain’s campaign has become more conventional, his political prospects have soared. Both he and Obama had visions of upending the system. Maybe in office, one of them will still be able to do that. But at least on the campaign trail, the system is winning. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Georgia: US Reaction Shameful?!?

The United States fiddled while Georgia burned, not even reaching the right rhetorical level in its public statements until three days after the Russian invasion began, and not, at least to date, matching its rhetoric with anything even approximating decisive action. This pattern is the very definition of a paper tiger.

Say it ain't so, President Bush!!! (with deepest apologies to Joseph Jefferson “Shoeless Joe” Jackson (3rd highest ML batting av.), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Telegraph [UK] article by John Bolton, After Russia's invasion of Georgia, what now for the West?:

After Russia's invasion of Georgia, what now for the West? [/]
At least for now, the smoke seems to be clearing from the Georgian battlefield. But the extent of the wreckage reaches far beyond that small country. [/] By John R Bolton [/] Last Updated: 2:32PM BST 15 Aug 2008

Russia’s invasion across an internationally recognised border, its thrashing of the Georgian military, and its smug satisfaction in humbling one of its former fiefdoms represents only the visible damage.

As bad as the bloodying of Georgia is, the broader consequences are worse. The United States fiddled while Georgia burned, not even reaching the right rhetorical level in its public statements until three days after the Russian invasion began, and not, at least to date, matching its rhetoric with anything even approximating decisive action. This pattern is the very definition of a paper tiger. Sending Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice to Tbilisi is touching, but hardly reassuring; dispatching humanitarian assistance is nothing more than we would have done if Georgia had been hit by a natural rather than a man-made disaster.

The European Union took the lead in diplomacy, with results approaching Neville Chamberlain’s moment in the spotlight at Munich: a ceasefire that failed to mention Georgia’s territorial integrity, and that all but gave Russia permission to continue its military operations as a “peacekeeping” force anywhere in Georgia. More troubling, over the long term, was that the EU saw its task as being mediator – its favourite role in the world – between Georgia and Russia, rather than an advocate for the victim of aggression.

Even this dismal performance was enough to relegate Nato to an entirely backstage role, while Russian tanks and planes slammed into a “faraway country”, as Chamberlain once observed so thoughtfully. In New York, paralysed by the prospect of a Russian veto, the UN Security Council, that Temple of the High-Minded, was as useless as it was during the Cold War. In fairness to Russia, it at least still seems to understand how to exercise power in the Council, which some other Permanent Members often appear to have forgotten.

The West, collectively, failed in this crisis. Georgia wasted its dime making that famous 3am telephone call to the White House, the one Hillary Clinton referred to in a campaign ad questioning Barack Obama’s fitness for the Presidency. Moreover, the blood on the Bear’s claws did not go unobserved in other states that were once part of the Soviet Union. Russia demonstrated unambiguously that it could have marched directly to Tbilisi and installed a puppet government before any Western leader was able to turn away from the Olympic Games. It could, presumably, do the same to them.

Fear was one reaction Russia wanted to provoke, and fear it has achieved, not just in the “Near Abroad” but in the capitals of Western Europe as well. But its main objective was hegemony, a hegemony it demonstrated by pledging to reconstruct Tskhinvali, the capital of its once and no-longer-future possession, South Ossetia. The contrast is stark: a real demonstration of using sticks and carrots, the kind that American and European diplomats only talk about. Moreover, Russia is now within an eyelash of dominating the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, the only route out of the Caspian Sea region not now controlled by either Russia or Iran. Losing this would be dramatically unhelpful if we hope for continued reductions in global petroleum prices, and energy independence from unfriendly, or potentially unfriendly, states.

[...] Finally, the most important step will take place right here in the United States. With a Presidential election on November 4, Americans have an opportunity to take our own national pulse, given the widely differing reactions to Russia’s blitzkrieg from Senator McCain and (at least initially) Senator Obama. First reactions, before the campaigns’ pollsters and consultants get involved, are always the best indicators of a candidate’s real views. McCain at once grasped the larger, geostrategic significance of Russia’s attack, and the need for a strong response, whereas Obama at first sounded as timorous and tentative as the Bush Administration. Ironically, Obama later moved closer to McCain’s more robust approach, followed only belatedly by Bush.

[...] * John R Bolton is the former US Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Currently a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, he is the author of the recently published “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations” [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama: Infanticide Advocate?!?

>>> "Thrice in the Illinois legislature, [...] Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste."!!!

>>> "Opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act"!!!

>>> "Pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion."!!!

>>> Partial birth abortion: "When Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure."!!!

"How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?"???

Say it ain't so, Barry and Michelle!!!

(with deepest apologies to Joseph Jefferson “Shoeless Joe” Jackson (3rd highest ML batting av.), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Human Events .com article, A Catholic Case Against Barack:

A Catholic Case Against Barack [/] by Patrick J. Buchanan (more by this author) [/] Posted 08/12/2008 ET

In the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama rolled up more than 90 percent of the African-American vote. Among Catholics, he lost by 40 points. The cool liberal Harvard Law grad was not a good fit for the socially conservative ethnics of Altoona, Aliquippa and Johnstown.

But if Barack had a problem with Catholics then, he has a far higher hurdle to surmount in the fall, with those millions of Catholics who still take their faith and moral code seriously.

For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.

Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary."

Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure."

And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women." [/] As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama", the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death."

Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.

How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?

If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath?

How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate.

When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf: [/] "Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous."

Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?

Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right?

Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."

In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion.

What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth.

Before any devout Catholic, Evangelical Christian or Orthodox Jew votes for Obama, he or she might spend 15 minutes in Chapter 10 of Freddoso's "The Case Against Barack Obama" For if, as Catholics believe, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and participation in an abortion entails automatic excommunication, how can a good Catholic support a candidate who will appoint justices to make Roe v. Wade eternal and eliminate all restrictions on a practice Catholics legislators have fought for three decades to curtail?

And which Catholic priests and prelates will it be who give invocations at Obama rallies, even as Mother Church fights to save the lives of unborn children whom Obama believes have no right to life and no rights at all?

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong." [My ellipses and emphasis]

POLL BJon The '04 Obama: Gone Forever?!?

What has happened to the above-partisanship unifier?!?

See article below, and: Vote! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!! Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 132020!!!. (Choices and link also given after article below.)

From a Washington Post article, That Was the Obama We're Still Waiting For:

That Was the Obama We're Still Waiting For [/] By Michael Tomasky [/] Sunday, August 10, 2008; [Page in print edition] B01

As the Democratic convention approaches, it's a safe bet that the cable networks will transport us back in time to late July 2004 by showing clips of Barack Obama's electrifying keynote address to that year's gathering. That was the speech that made him a star (and unlike John McCain's ad team, I mean this as a compliment). But I've sometimes wondered in recent months: Whatever happened to that Obama, to that enemy of excessive partisanship and evangelist of national unity?

You will recall the money sentences: "Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America." These phrases were followed by several deftly chosen images designed to skewer the stereotypes that red and blue Americans entertain about each other. "We worship an awesome God in the blue states," Obama thundered. "And yes," he added, "we've got some gay friends in the red states."

These now-famous lines constituted just a small sliver of the speech; the rest was more standard stuff -- his biography, his concern for workers at a Maytag plant in Galesburg, Ill., (he was running for Senate, after all) and, of course, all the marvelous things that John F. Kerry would do as president. But those lines stood out for a reason: They articulated a deep yearning, held by many Americans of varying beliefs, for less polarization and division. This theme was precisely what cata pulted Obama to the front rank of Democratic poli ticians.

Now ask yourself: Have you heard Obama talk like that lately? [/] Chances are you haven't. The grand 2004 theme of post-partisanship seems to have all but disappeared from the candidate's rhetoric. [/] [...] but I also think that Obama will miss an important opportunity if he doesn't use this month's convention to restate this theme -- and remind voters that a purpler America is still a pretty good idea.

Here are four theories about why Obama has moved post-partisanship to the rhetorical back burner.

Theory No. 1: There's only room in a campaign for one big theme at a time, and the Obama team has settled on "change." [...]

Theory No. 2: Post-partisanship is too abstract. Obama has taken lots of fire from pundits and GOP operatives for supposedly being too highfalutin', a propensity he now feels he must guard against. [...]

Theory No. 3: The Obama team may feel that they've already established the purple theme sufficiently. [...]

Theory No. 4: It could be that the post-partisanship theme is simply less resonant now than it was in 2004. [...]

So perhaps the Obama campaign has good reasons to move away from the theme that made its candidate famous. The Obama people may know exactly what they're doing. After all, they haven't done too badly so far. [...] [/] Even so, I would like to see Obama return to the post-partisan, one-America idea himself. It's an electoral winner and a governing essential, should he be elected. [/] mtomasky@gmail.com [/] Michael Tomasky is the editor of Guardian America, the U.S.-based Web site of the Guardian.

[Links to] Ads by Google: [/] Free Obama Button [...] [/] [...] Full Story on Jesse Jackson's Crude Remark [...] [/] [...] "Barack Obama Exposed" - Free! [My ellipses and emphasis]

Poll Question: The '04 Obama: Gone Forever?!? | Poll choices:

1. Yes. Hypocrisy now obvious. / 2. Yes. Circumstances have changed. / 3. Yes. Times have changed. / 4. Yes. Slamming conservatives now more important. / 5. Yes. It was all a dream. / 6. Yes. It was all media hype. / 7. Yes. Reality has set in. / 8. Yes. / 9. Possibly. / 10. Possibly. Post-partianship too abstract. / 11. Possibly. One theme at a time. / 12. Possibly. Post-partisanship less resonant. / 13. No. . / 14. No. Purple theme established. / 15. No. Hope implies unity. / 16. No. Change implies unity. / 17. No. All will like Obama's changes. / 18. No. Statism brings unity. / 19. No opinion. Important issues deserve much study.. / 20. No comment. / 21. No opinion. / 22. This poll is worthless. / 23. This poll is of negative value. / 24. Other.

Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 132020! Vote!! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!!!