Why Taiwan Matters

The following speech was given by Gordon Chang (author of The Coming Collapse of China (2001) and of Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World (2006), being delivered last Friday on Capitol Hill at the conclusion of the March for Taiwan. It explains why Taiwan really matters to free countries; that is to what's left of free countries and their freedoms.

Will Taiwan Prevail?
By Gordon G. Chang

Speech given at
March for Taiwan
Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C.
April 10, 2009

By car, by bus, and by foot, you have come here. And there is one reason why you have done so. You have done so because Taiwan is important. It is important to you, it is important to me, it is important to others.

It is, for instance, important to the world’s most powerful—and most important—democracy. The United States needs to defend each and every free society from the world’s authoritarian states. And why do we need to do that? Because autocrats see themselves threatened by the presence of free people anywhere. Unfortunately, they cannot just live and let live. They cannot tolerate people who govern themselves. So the United States cannot defend itself and it allies without also defending the free people of Taiwan.

Taiwan is especially important because that small nation, by its mere existence, bedevils the most important dictatorial government of our time. The nine old men who sit on the Politburo Standing Committee rule the People’s Republic of China, a nation of 1.5 billion souls, but they feel mortally threatened by Taiwan, a country of just 23 million. These 23 million prove that people, some of whom are Chinese, can govern themselves. By governing themselves, they make everything the Communist Party says about itself an obvious lie. Taiwan is important first and foremost because it is an inspiration to people everywhere, proving that a small nation can stand up to a large regime.

Yet today those 23 million people face their most dangerous moment, and we must ask ourselves just one question: Will their young democracy survive?

These days, Taiwan looks weak, and China appears mighty as Beijing goes from strength to strength and from victory to victory. Things are going so well for Beijing that we are told that this is “China’s Century.” What place does Taiwan have in a century belonging to China? Not much of one. If all the experts are right, then an independent Taiwan is doomed. If they have correctly analyzed historical trends, then you, free Taiwanese, have no future. You will be colonized by the People’s Republic.

This imbalance means that we are at a point in history when almost anything can happen.
For many of us, it is inconceivable that a vibrant young democracy would willingly agree to join the world’s largest authoritarian state. Yet some tell us that is exactly what will happen—and that it should occur soon.

Why? Many in the pro-China camp say that Taiwan cannot compete with Chinese industry and therefore should integrate with it. From this point, they then say Taipei should reconcile with the Mainland’s leaders so that the island’s business community can participate in the booming economy across the Strait. Political integration with Beijing is Taipei’s only option, and, should Taiwan fail to unite with the People’s Republic, it will be left with nothing. According to this view, the people of Taiwan have no real choice.

Recent statistics, they argue, prove their point. Taiwan’s economy contracted a stunning 8.4 percent in the last quarter of 2008. This year, exports tumbled 35.7 percent in March,
28.6 percent in February, and 44.1 percent in January.

We are told that, in view of the precipitous fall in the economy, Taiwan needs to sign an economic cooperation framework agreement, or ECFA, with China. In short, the prevailing belief is that Taiwan needs China.

But these experts have it wrong. Taiwan does not need China. And tying Taiwan’s economy to China will be a disaster. Forgive me if the following discussion of the Chinese economy is too detailed, but this is the issue on which almost everything turns.

As bad as the Taiwanese economy appears, China’s is worse. China, at this moment, has the world’s fastest slowing economy.

According to official statistics, gross domestic product, the best measure of national economic performance, skyrocketed 13.0 percent in 2007, and it was, in all probability, higher than that. Poor sampling procedures did not properly take into account the output of small manufacturers, then the most productive part of the economy. So, if you want a figure, China’s economic growth in 2007 was about 15 percent.

Now, although Beijing doesn’t admit it, economic output is contracting. No economy has fallen further or faster than China’s. Not even Taiwan’s.

The reason for the dramatic collapse in China is clear. China has an export-dominated economy, and its exports are in freefall. They have declined every month since November. In January, they fell 17.5 percent. In February, they were down a staggering 25.7 percent. The Chinese government has indicated there was another double-digit fall in March.

And the prospect for the coming months is bleak. Orders for Chinese factories appear to be down by a third to a half this spring, the beginning of high season for the export sector. That’s not surprising because even the optimistic World Bank predicts the global economy will contract this year for the first time since World War II and international trade will decline the most in eighty years. The downturn is resulting in declining consumer demand not only in developed economies but also in emerging ones. That’s especially bad news for a China that is extraordinarily dependent on foreign markets. An exceptionally high 38 percent of its economy is attributable to exports.

In good times, an export economy is a blessing. In bad ones, however, it is a curse. As we saw in the Great Depression, it was the current-account-surplus countries that had the hardest time adjusting to deteriorating economic conditions and, consequently, suffered the most. That is proving to be the case now as well. China’s economic model, which delivered prosperity in a period of seemingly unending globalization, is particularly ill-suited to current conditions.

So Taiwan cannot rely on China to rescue it from this crisis. There is no realistic possibility of exporting more to China to feed China’s export machine because China’s export machine is itself faltering.

Some might argue that Taiwan can tap into the Chinese consumer market. That argument does not hold much water because Chinese consumers, reacting to negative news both from home and abroad, are pulling back at this time. We know that because China’s imports are also falling. They were down 43.1 percent in January and 24.1 percent in February.

Those atrocious numbers are a warning of not only further export falls but also—and more importantly—future declines in consumer spending. Another sign of weak consumer sentiment is the 1.6 percent drop in the consumer price index for February. That was the first fall in more than six years. Deflation is on the way.

Unfortunately for China, in the coming months exports will continue to plunge and consumer spending will decline. Beijing in November announced a $586 billion spending program to stimulate investment, the third leg of the Chinese economy. The plan, however, won’t work to create sustainable prosperity. It will undoubtedly create a “sugar high” in the next few months, but that will be temporary because the spending will be creating a bigger state economy and a smaller private one. In any event, technocrats in the Chinese capital are not going to be using their cash to benefit foreigners, even Taiwanese. That state money is going to state-owned enterprises and state projects.

So China has the world’s worst performing economy, and the prospects this year are dreadful. Further tying Taiwan’s economy to China’s is, quite simply, horrible strategy. It is absolutely the worst thing Taipei can do at this moment.

Yet Taiwan is not the only country that is making a mistake by contemplating a closer relationship with China. So is the United States. There are those in Washington who, in the desire to establish an informal alliance with Beijing, would like to see China absorb Taiwan in order to remove a potential source of disagreement. As Dennis Blair, then an admiral and now director of national intelligence, said in 1999, Taiwan is “the turd in the punchbowl.” Such a view, in addition to being morally repugnant, is also strategically short-sighted.

It is short-sighted for six reasons. First, it is highly debatable that the U.S. can maintain stable relations with a communist superstate that believes it should push aside America and dominate the international system. The Washington-New York axis may buy into the notion of a grand alliance with Beijing, but such an arrangement would go against ingrained American values and would not survive popular opinion in the U.S.

Second, Taiwan is an important country in its own right. It is economically powerful, and it is embedded into global supply chains.

Third, because Taiwan has become an inspiring symbol of the success of representative governance and free markets, to help it fail means gutting our own values and bolstering China’s model of authoritarianism and rigged markets. Unfortunately, many in Washington don’t believe in supporting democracy. They have forgotten every crucial lesson of the 20th century.

Fourth, our Asian policy is anchored on defending Japan. As a quick glance of a map will reveal, the main island of Taiwan and its various outlying islands protect the southern approaches to our Japanese ally. It would, therefore, be difficult for America to defend Japan if Taiwan became the 34th province of the People’s Republic. If we can’t defend Japan, South Korea would become surrounded and would surely fall into Beijing’s lap as well. With its two formal alliances gone, the United States would be out of Asia. The only thing that holds the Chinese in check is America, and Taiwan is the key to keeping the United States in the game.

Fifth, ceding Taiwan would undoubtedly embolden a territorially hungry Beijing. China asserts sovereignty over Japanese islands and the continental shelves of five southeast Asian countries.

Incredibly, it appears to maintain that the entire South China Sea is an internal Chinese lake, thereby impinging on the right of free passage on, under, and over international waters.

And the United States, even though far from Asia, is now becoming China’s target as we saw last month with Chinese ships harassing the Victorious and Impeccable, two unarmed information-gathering vessels.

Giving up Taiwan would only embolden China to press its claims with even more confidence and vigor—and it would bolster Beijing’s weak legal positions by inheriting Taipei’s territorial rights. So the place to stop the Chinese from pursuing their aggressive ambitions is Taiwan.

Sixth, abandoning Taiwan would send a horrible message to American allies, friends, and foes in the region. If we pushed Taiwan into the arms of China, no nation would ever want to help the United States in Asia—or elsewhere—in the future.

In short, America needs something it has not had in decades, a strong Taiwan policy. Instead, we have had the uninspiring equivocation of the Bush administration, which has been continued by Obama’s. Washington policy of “strategic ambiguity” has just encouraged the Chinese to test American resolve.

We have not been able to develop a sound Taiwan policy, even though it is so important for us to do so, largely because of our perceptions of China and our hopes for its future. We are trying to engage Beijing so that it becomes a “responsible stakeholder” in the international system. Yet over time, the Chinese, as they have become more powerful, have become more aggressive. So in pursuit of an unattainable goal—making the Chinese regime our friend—Washington is undermining its own strategic objectives.

It’s time for we Americans to demonstrate that we keep commitments to free peoples. We need to do that especially at this moment because hardline governments are on the march. So defending Taiwan is defending America.

So, let’s do all we can for Taiwan so that it can meet its challenges. And I am confident that it will do so. Why? For one thing, an arrogant China will overstep with one provocation too many. Hardline governments always create their own enemies. But there is a more fundamental reason why Taiwan will prevail. That’s because of you.

For all that you have done in the past and for all that you will do in the days and years ahead, I admire you, I support you, and I salute you.

Let freedom ring. Long live a free Taiwan!

Spinning Taiwan-China for Obama

In his editorial, For America, a welcome thaw between China and Taiwan, Syd Goldsmith, former director of the American Institute in Taiwan's Kaohsiung Office, seems to see the Taiwan-China relationship through "Ma colored" (ostensibly blue) glasses. For him to write, "Taiwan's President Ma Ying-jeou offered to move the process [i.e. agreements providing for direct air, shipping, and postal links, and food safety] forward after taking office in May, and there has been a palpable reduction in paranoia about sovereignty on both sides", is for him to ignore the 34.9% of Taiwanese who indicated in polls last year that immediate or eventual independence, or indefinite extension of the status quo was their preferred resolution of the sovereignty issue.

For this slice of Taiwan's population there is not palpable reduction in paranoia these days. What instead has been palpable (painfully so for those unfortunate people who didn't get the word about the prohibition on free speech--on showing the colors, wearing T-sheets with pro-Taiwan nation messages, and playing Taiwanese music anywhere near the visiting and venerated ARATS official) has been the batons of Ma's police, the forceful removal of the colors (ROC flags), and CDs, from the citizen's possession, and the beatings by Ma's police of some.

Also palpable is the sense that time seems to be going backwards in Taiwan, back to the White Terror period, where the KMT's one party grip on power was maintained by the Chiang family's paranoia and military police iron fists, a paranoia fed by the acquisition of dictatorial power (ostensibly to "take back China") and the requisite intolerance of even a single opposition party. Ma's recent jailing of some members of the opposition DPP party is supportive of this narrative, though certainly the scale is tiny in comparison with the arrests and assassinations in the historical White Terror period. However, modern media offers Ma something that the Chiangs did not have (in it's full form). With the arrest and detention of the big fish, former President Chen Shui-bien, Ma, taking the role of high priest of the Chinese compatriots on Taiwan, has one man on which he can place the sins of the Taiwanese people against the Chinease people. Now that he has Chen Ma can simply let the media do the dirty work of flogging and driving nails. By making an example of Chen, blaming him for all that "evil talk" of independence and for the state of enmity built up between China and Taiwan from 2000 to 2008, Ma can cover over the sins of the "misguided" 35% of the Taiwanese that Mr. Goldsmith doesn't know about or disregards.

"As the ARATS chairman's recent visit shows, we are witnessing a maturing relationship in which the antagonists have agreed to put aside the issue that has divided them for 60 years in favor of getting practical benefits that they want," writes the former AIT director. Hm, "the issue that has divided them for 60 years"?....oh yes, the civil war between those Nationalists, like Ma, comprising maybe 15% of the population of Taiwan and the Chinese Communists. More than eight-five percent of the population were dragged into the war against their will. I thought that that issue, as far as Taiwan is concerned, was put to bed by the 1992 Consensus. Of course since 1992 China has built up a cache of over 1000 missiles targeting Taiwan. So I guess the consensus was a bit one sided. Oh, maybe he means the SOVEREIGNTY issue (that's what the war was really about). Well, if a maturing relationship means China gets its way with Taiwan on the sovereignty question, then my advice to Taiwan is "if it’s inevitable, then relax and enjoy it" cause it's going to last a long long time.

Goldsmith continues, "Beijing's leaders have long acted on the premise that China can bring Taiwan back to the motherland with a gentle but powerful economic embrace that will eventually convince the people of Taiwan where their interests lie. This has been complemented by the never-abandoned threat to take the 'renegade province' back by force if Taipei declares independence."

Kind of gives you goose bumps, doesn't it? "A gentle but powerful embrace" sounds like what I was saying: TAIWAN, YOU ARE BEING FORCED TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH CHINA. If it’s inevitable, then relax and enjoy it. As Goldsmith channels past and present day Chinese Communists, it's as if they are saying, "Taiwan, you will either make love to me freely or I will force you to do so. Either way you're mine." A mature relationship? Sure, in a macabre kind of way.

Goldsmith covers more ground than I wish to comment on here but getting to his main objective in writing the op ed. As the title of the blog alludes to, Goldsmith is putting a spin on the Taiwan-China issue for the comming Obama Administaion. He is trying to make the case that Obama may in fact get a free ride across the Taiwan Strait--that the recent Ma-induced thaw between China and Taiwan might mean that diplomatic capital can be redirected to other hot spots on the globe.

I don't think so. In case they've read Goldsmith's op ed and are reading my blog (yeah, right), let me give Obama and Hilary a little bit of advice. Firstly to Secretary of State apparent, Ms. Clinton, please understand that the eye must always be kept on the ball, no matter what the conditions on the field. And in case you don't already know, the "ball", in terms of our interests, is the democracy, Taiwan, not the communist dictatorship, China. And for you, President-Elect Obama, please note that the bureaucrats in the State Department hold the line between China and Taiwan, not the President of the United States. The ship of State is not easily turned/directed.

Michelle Ma Belle - Obama's Greatest Liability

With Philip J. Berg, Esquire having taken his case against Obama to the US Supreme Court and with other similar law suits challenging Senator Obama's "qualifications" to serve as President of the United States having been filed, it appears that Obama's greatest liability, a liability that may very well undo his bid for the White House, is his wife Michelle's hot temper and loose tongue.


Shocking development: Mrs Obama decides enough is enough: "My husband was born in Hawaii and adopted by his step father, does that make him unpatriotic; she asks", on a direct telephone to API.


The Michelle Obama tapes to be aired any day/time from now: API and Fox News Network (USA) in a final agreement on the airing days/time.


Michelle Obama tapes Reveals: Raila Odinga, Kenya’s Prime Minister is in the Priority list of the First guests to the White House if Obama wins the US Presidency.


The intended release of Michelle Obama tapes stirs trouble in many circles.


API/Fox News deal: Sean Hannity show and Greta Van Susteren’s show “On the Record” to air the Michelle Obama tape in less than 24 hours.


Related Stories

Obama’s campaign manager offers 3 million dollars to API in connection with Michelle Obama tape to be aired by Fox News Network

Obama’s grandmother banned by The Kenya Police from giving interviews that may jeopardise Obama’s Presidential victory on November 4th.

A Black woman crying to the American people: Please give me Barack Hussein Obama as the next President - it is our time to rule you, she seems to be saying.

A Clarion Call for Honest Reporters

Like a breath of fresh air is a man who is committed to proclaiming truth. The article below was written by one such man; by a Democrat, and God bless him for so proclaiming, even at the risk of being ostracized those of his own party.

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

Click here to read the full article.

A Letter Report on Barack "Barry" Hussein Obama, Jr.

Editorial Note: Peggy Bower's original letter report did not include the hyperlinks provided below, had different paragraph break locations, and no section titles. Additionally, minor editorial revisions and one substantive correction to the text has been applied. I have linked names, places, organizations, book titles, etc. to their Wikipedia entries, which may or may not be accurate and/or up to date.

- Timothy E. Bradberry

October, 2008

My 2008 Election Letter

by Peggy M. Bower

I am not in the habit of buying or reading liberal books, but every once in a while I just have to “see for myself.” So I bought one of the most liberal books on the planet—Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. I had heard about the “dedication” page—couldn’t quite believe it, but here it is:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical; from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.

—Saul Alinsky

Saul Alinsky's Book

Hillary Rodham wrote her senior thesis about Alinsky when she was a student at Wellesley College. As soon as her husband became President, the White House requested that the thesis be locked away from public availability. Wellesley complied. After Clinton left office the ban was lifted. Today, a person may enter the archives room to “view” the thesis, but no one can make photocopies.

Barack Obama, as a student at Columbia University, became an admirer of Alinsky, and his first job was to follow in his steps as a “community organizer” in Chicago (ACORN—Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now—hired Obama to train its staff). Saul Alinsky (1909-1972), was a Jew who had enough religious training to quote Scripture when it suited him, while at the same time he claimed to be agnostic. From his book dedication it is obvious that he forsook the faith of his forefathers, and came down on the “dark side” of his religious questions. According to Alinsky, the history of the world is a series of cycles in which groups of people called the Have-Nots find ways of overcoming groups of people called the Haves—so that the Have-Nots can become the Haves. Then the cycle starts over again. The Haves always become evil and they try to keep the Have-Nots down. Overcoming the Haves is therefore a noble cause.

Alinsky was often accused of being a Communist. In an interview with Playboy in 1972, he said, “I’ve never joined any organization—not even the ones I have organized myself....Anybody who tells you he was active in progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds is a *&^#%* liar. Their platform stood for all the right things, and unlike many liberals, they were willing to put their bodies on the line.” He wasn’t referring to "Red State" Republicans. In order to support “change” and the overthrow of the Haves, Alinsky wrote a couple of books, and started training community organizers who would serve as the change agents.

The job of an organizer is to go into a town, or section of town, where the Have-Nots dwell. The job is easier if the Have-Nots are already dissatisfied, and they invite the organizer in to help them overthrow their “suppressors” and obtain power. If the people have not yet realized what their complaints should be, the organizer talks with the people, identifies the problems, and verbalizes the problems in their own vernacular. He wins the confidence of the suppressed, suggests inventive ways of using whatever resources they have at hand, leads them to victory, and becomes their hero. Alinsky doesn’t state that last part, but it is certainly implied and is the obvious net result of the sequence of events.

Barack the Community Organizer

Barack Hussein Obama has made himself the ultimate community organizer hero by expanding his community to the entire United States of America. His vague message of change involves throwing off some of the foundational supports of our blessed nation. In September, as reported by Investor’s Business Daily, Obama said, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

In 1992, Obama helped form an organization, Public Allies, that he plans to use as a model for this national service corps, which he calls “Universal Voluntary Public Service.” Public Allies (PA) strives to place young adults into paid one-year “community leadership positions” with non-profit or government agencies. They are required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats. The training methods mimic Saul Alinsky’s training for community organizers, and its real mission is to radicalize American youth, and use them to bring about “social change.” PA boasts in one of their own documents, “Our alumni are more than twice as likely as other 18-34 year olds to engage in protest activities.” One recruit enthusiastically reported, “I get to practice being an activist and get paid for it.” Our government now funds about one half of PA expenses through Clinton’s AmeriCorps. Obama wants to expand it to a fully tax-payer funded “boot-camp” for radicals that would preempt military service.

Obama's Social Associations

Obama never seems to have spent much time with “normal folks.” His mother, Anne Dunham was a rebellious child who gave her parents a difficult time, and never repented. She had two failed marriages—one to Barack’s father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., who had a Muslim background but did not practice any religion and claimed to be an agnostic (Sound familiar?); and, the other to Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian who was a practicing Muslim and who took Barack (Barry) to mosque with him. After several years in Indonesia, Barack was sent back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. He says in Dreams from My Father that he felt abandoned. He felt less abandoned when he drew close to his first real mentor—poet, former publisher, and writer for newspapers, Frank Marshall Davis—an admitted Communist and member of the Communist Party USA.

Davis was black, and his second wife was a white socialite. They moved from Chicago to Hawaii. Barack’s grandfather sought out Davis to befriend and mentor the boy because he thought that Davis’ mixed race family would be a comfort to him. Davis had many discussions with the boy —not only about race, but about politics. Davis and Barack’s unemployed grandfather enjoyed smoking marijuana together. That may have been why Barack felt free to be open about his own use of drugs in high school and college. And Davis’ talk of his work in Chicago may have played a part in Obama being drawn to Chicago to become a “community organizer” right after college. A former school mate at Punahou High School said that Barack hung out with a group of “druggies.” Obama says in Dreams from My Father, “I had learned not to care, I blew a few smoke rings. . . . Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack though.”

Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al-Mansour (born Donald Warden), who was a mentor to Black Panther founder Huey Newton, asked former Manhattan Borough President, Percy Sutton, who is also a former lawyer for Malcom X, to write for Obama a letter of recommendation to Harvard Law School. Dr. Al-Mansour told Sutton that he was raising money for Obama’s graduate school education. In the same conversation he told Sutton that he (Al-Mansour) represented top members of the Saudi Royal family seeking to do business and exert influence in the U.S. The 88-year old Sutton babbled on about these connections in an interview on a New York all-news cable station early in 2008 (as reported by Investor’s Business Daily, September 5, 2008).

Obama and Tony Rezko

Tony Rezko was born in Syria, but has operated restaurants and developed real estate in Chicago. He was actually a slum lord in Chicago. Obama was finishing law school at Harvard when Rezko sought him out to offer him a job. Though Obama did not accept the offered position, he went to work for the rather sleazy law firm where Rezko was a client, and whose senior partner soon left to become Rezko’s business partner. Why would Obama go to work for such a firm when he had been President of the Harvard Law Review, and could have had a plum job with a prestigious law firm, or probably could have clerked for the U.S. Supreme Court? Rezko helped the Obamas with the financial aspects of buying a large and expensive house right across the street from him. Rezko is now in prison for using his connections to state boards to demand kickbacks from companies that wanted to do business with the state.

Obama and Bill Ayres

Obama has long been friends with unrepentant terrorists Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn (they are a “couple”), who bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, back in the sixties. They escaped going to prison on technicalities. In 2001, Ayers said that he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more.

Ayers and Dohrn hosted a fundraiser in their home when Obama first ran for Illinois State Senator. Obama has served on several boards with Ayres, including the Woods Fund, which made $40,000 and $35,000 grants to the Arab American Action Network, headed by Rashid Khalidi. (Khalidi has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror, and is a harsh critic of Israel. Khalidi also held a political fund-raising event in his home for Obama in 2000.) Obama and Ayers also funneled money to ACORN through the Woods Fund. (ACORN is now under investigation for voter registration fraud in a dozen key states for this election.) Obama dismisses Ayer’s behavior because the actions took place “a long time ago,” and Ayers is now a “respected professor of education at the University of Chicago."

Actually Ayers is simply following one of Saul Alinsky’s teachings—that to be more effective in bringing about “change,” you might have to cut your hair and put on a suit. Ayers is still the same radical that he was back in the sixties, but instead of evoking ire from the public by bombing buildings, he is just teaching his radical ideas to college students and public school teachers! He and Obama have worked together on “projects” for Chicago’s schools, and are of the same ilk.

Obama and the Church

Obama had never attended a church until he became a community organizer in Chicago. He was advised by a liberal Catholic priest that most blacks were associated in some way with a church, and that joining a church would be of benefit to being accepted in the community. He said in a TV interview that I watched that he decided to join the United Church of Christ (perhaps a misnomer) because he didn’t have to change any of his beliefs to join. Jeremiah Wright, his “pastor” of 20 years, used his pulpit to preach Black Liberation Theology, and frequently made complimentary mentions of Louis Farrakhan. He claimed that whites in America created the virus that causes AIDS in order to kill off blacks. After 9/11 Wright said that America deserved such a strike. You probably saw on TV a clip of the sermon in which he raved, “. . . No, no, no, not God Bless America—God *&^#%* America!”

Obama and the Current US Financial Crisis

At least three financial advisors to Obama’s Presidential campaign (snopes.com says it ain't true, but some say snopes is covering for Obama) are tied directly to our financial crisis. Franklin Raines, Chairman and CEO at Fannie Mae, was forced to retire when auditing discovered severe irregularities in accounting. He left with a “golden parachute" valued at $240 million. The Court ordered that he return $50 million. Tim Howard, Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae, “cooked the books,” and “resigned under pressure” taking only $20 million with him. Jim Johnson was a former executive at Lehman Bros., and later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO when it was discovered that his compensation was not accurately reported—it was $21 million, not $6 million. He left with a bonus of $28 million. In addition to being a financial adviser to Obama, he ran his Vice-Presidential Search Committee.

His Liberalness Barack Hussein Obama

Obama has the distinction of being THE MOST LIBERAL MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. His percentage of liberal votes beats those of Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank. When he was in the Illinois State Senate he actually voted twice against a bill to give medical care to babies who were born alive after a botched abortion. (Such babies were being left alone in a room to die.) He testified that giving assistance to such babies would weaken Roe v. Wade.

Conclusion

It sickens me to think that Barack Hussein Obama might be elected President of our country. If we elect him, then we deserve the consequences that will follow. May Americans be alert, attentive, dedicated, and patriotic. May we not be mesmerized by a mellow voice enticing the masses and calling for change—just for the sake of change.

Tale of a Busted Commentator

Below are some heart felt comments I attempted to post to The Huffington Post (THP)on this anniversary of 9/11 regarding this story: Obama References Bush Failings On 9/11: "Let Us Remember That The Terrorists Responsible For 9/11 Are Still At Large"

The Illinois senator added: "Let us remember that the terrorists responsible for 9/11 are still at large, and must be brought to justice."

Excuse me, Senator Obama..sir, the terriorists most directly responsible for the attacks of 9/11 are burning in Hell along with their collaborators and compatriots all around the world; having been killed in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere where, due to the leadership and initiative of Georgia W. Bush and the United States military, elements of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are being systematically hunted down and killed, thus enhancing the security of freedom loving and peaceful people everywhere.

That is the kind of justice that is needed on this anniversary of 9/11. That is the kind of justice that the next administration needs to provide. That is the kind of policy that a McCain-Palin administration would have the courage to pursue. What about a Obama-Biden administration? What kind of justice would you pursue? A long jail sentence?

When I attempted to post my comments in the comment section to the article on the THF website I got the following response:

This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.

Hey, that's cool. I can appreciate that there needs to be some community standards and controls so that obscene material is not published in their blog, even in the comment section of their articles.

Guess what? Those blowhards at The Huffington Post chose not to publish my comments.

Nice censorship job. And on top of that, while I was searching to see if my comment had been approved I was found out by Huffington Post “Security Forces” and in place of my name and a live “post” button, those stinking Stalinists put the following:

Post a comment

Sorry, but you have been banned from commenting

I guess I must have violated community standards, or something. Perhaps in the terms of service it says something like, “you will speak no ill of terrorists and Democratic candidates and you will only use the word H-E-L-L as an expletive, not as a place name.”

Oh well, looks like I’m busted.

How nice and opened minded of those Huff ‘n Puffers. I guess this experience is an example of how free speech will be curtailed and what kind of speech we can expect the Left to censor should, God forbid, Obama win in November.

Palin, a Rare Woman

Saw a bumper sticker yesterday that read,

"Well behaved women rarely make history"

I guess that means Vice-Presidential Candidate Sarah Heath Palin is a rare woman indeed.

Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama

Some on the left and right are saying that Sarah Palin does not have the experience to be Vice-President, that McCain has left the reservation on this decision. Here is a comparison of the top of the Democratic ticket with the bottom of the Republican ticket. Leaving the two senior Senators out of the picture, because they could be considered to cancel each other out in terms of experience, ask yourself which ticket has the right experience for the job. Click above on the title to this post to view the comparison.

Followup: Gov. Sarah Palin for Veep

To read the original post, click here --> Freedom Ain't Free: Gov. Sarah Palin for Veep

I'm not adept at picking stocks and I don't gamble on sports, or anything for that matter. So I figure my political prognosticating might fare similarly.

So when, via this blog and a cross post to the Travis Monitor, I "advised" Senator McCain last week to choose Sarah Palin as his running mate I did not consider my pick as having much of a chance of being selected. Why, I couldn't even pronounce her name right, much less did I think McCain would "listen" to me or any member of his base.

It appears he has "listened" to his base, or at least The Maverick did our will unbeknown. This is perhaps the first time he has "listened" to us. Let's pray it won't be the last. Once he and Sarah win he will have many opportunities to "hear" from us.

Not withstanding Michael Savage's nay saying I think Gov. Palin brings a net positive to McCain's ticket, enough to energize the base and make McCain more than just the lessor or two evils, more than just an alternative to the Obamanation that would make a desolation of the America that so many have sacrificed so much to build.

Too bad I only entertain myself with Intrade rather than being a part of the plotted data.