Monday, August 25, 2008

'The Inconvenient Obama'

By Andrew Breitbart
The Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/
August 26, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama has a problem.

And it lives in a hut.

His name is George Hussein Onyango Obama, and he is the 26-year-old half brother of Mr. Obama, the multimillionaire autobiographer who neglected to write that his paternal sibling lives on less than a dollar a month in the outer slums of Nairobi, Kenya.

They have met twice.

Unearthed by Italian Vanity Fair and virtually ignored by the American press, the inconvenient George Obama could emerge as a compelling character in the freshman senator's carefully edited road-to-the-White-House narrative - especially now that his campaign has unleashed a personal attack on Sen. John McCain's station in life.

The Obama hit job on Mr. McCain seizes on his clumsiness in answering a reporter's question about how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own. "I think - I'll have my staff get to you," Mr. McCain fumbled. In a well-funded nationally televised ad spot titled "Seven," Mr. Obama's messenger twice repeats the correct answer as the words on the screen reinforce the meme of class warfare.

"Seven. Worth $13 million."

The Sunday morning shows parroted Mr. Obama's shocking discovery that the McCain family is well-off. Smarting Obamaniacs campaigning for their messiah are now scripted to ask voters in battleground states how many houses they own and participate in an official campaign contest, "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire: McCain Edition." Winners receive hope, change and fist bumps - spoils of the "new kind of politics."

Someone who made $4.2 million last year and lives in a mansion that a mobster helped pay for should not be throwing stones. When Mr. Obama's flesh-and-blood lives in squalor, raising the standard of living of his opponent's extended family is probably not a smart idea.

It's scary to think that this could be a preview of an Obama presidency in which attacking the rich is all the rage, and the rich in the news media pretend it's OK. Hugo Chavez is having a helluva run bringing down his formerly prosperous nation of Venezuela with that formula.

Mr. McCain, of course, would be publicly eviscerated if he funded an ad campaign called "12" - as in the amount of dollars a year Mr. Obama's half-brother subsists on. The message also could accurately point out that Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, have consistently fallen short of the national average in charitable contributions since they entered the highest income bracket - despite their ballyhooed "progressive" religious faith that touts "economic equality."

It would also be fair game now to point out that preaching "social justice" pays better than being a United States senator. The Trinity United Church of Christ is building a mansion for the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that includes an elevator, a butler's pantry, a bar, a rubberized exercise room - and the 10,000-square-foot estate backs up to the Odyssey Country Club. (Memo to wealthy Caucasian Republican members of the golf club: "Fore!")

Attached to Mr. Wright's church-funded property is a peculiar $10 million line of credit - presumably, none of which will be given to George Obama.

Mr. McCain's ad also could highlight that Michelle Obama is on leave from her $317,000-a-year job at the University of Chicago Medical Center, which is now under scrutiny - along with Obama campaign chief David Axelrod and two other staffers - for a scheme that, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, "steers patients who don't have private insurance - primarily poor, black people - to other health care facilities."

"The medical professionals who have come to me are accusing the university of dumping patients on its neighboring institutions," Toni Preckwinkle, alderman for the 4th Ward, told the paper.

Patient-dumping poor blacks may be interesting, but not quite as newsworthy as John McCain marrying a beer heiress 28 years ago.

Does anyone think if Mr. McCain had a sibling living in a trailer park making minimum wage (892 times more than Mr. Obama's half brother's yearly income) that the mainstream media and the Obama campaign wouldn't notice?

In fact, last week National Public Radio ran a piece titled, "Cindy McCain's Half Sister 'Angry' She's Hidden," highlighting that Mr. McCain's wife's half sister was left out of her father's will. The piece was duly filed under the publicly funded network's "conservative compassion deficit" media template.

Yet Mr. Obama has a half brother who lives in Africa on three cents a day, and the story breaks in an Italian magazine and is picked up by a London newspaper and a few others in Australia. Perhaps the story would be carried widely in America if they could figure out how to blame President Bush. But as Bob Geldof pointed out, he "has done more [for Africa] than any other president," and of the press harshly judged, "You guys didn't pay attention."

Nor will they pay attention that the McCains have adopted a poor Bangladeshi child and done untold amounts of humanitarian and charity work.

What makes this story newsworthy for Italians, Brits and Aussies, but not Americans, is that the U.S. free press is free to ignore stories that could take down their preordained president. And after the Internet and talk radio-driven "Swift Boat" story unexpectedly sank their last guy, the mainstream American press is taking extra precautions this time around.

If for some inexplicable reason the media are forced by their online and talk radio betters to run with this outrageous and creepy story, key Obama supporter Oprah Winfrey can come to the rescue at the Democratic National Convention. On Night 3, the billionaire television hostess can synthesize her two best show archetypes: the heart-wrenching family reunion and "Oprah's Favorite Things," the giveaway of material goods.

Imagine the emotional fireworks when 75,000 Obama supporters at Invesco Field witness Barack Obama reconnecting with his destitute half brother as is he lavished with Kai Body Butter & Buffer, Perfect Endings Cupcakes by Williams-Sonoma, Hand-Blown Crystal Champagne Glasses by Deborah Ehrlich and a Pure Simplicity Pumpkin Purifying Mask.

Controversy averted. Because Democrats care more.

Andrew Breitbart is the founder of the news Web site breitbart.com and is co-author of "Hollywood Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon - the Case Against Celebrity."

Investing in Obama

Government favors for Chicago benefactors.

By David Freddoso
National Review Online
http://www.nationalreview.com
August 25, 2008, 5:00 a.m.

Denver — When state Senator Barack Obama cosponsored legislation creating and increasing subsidies for low-income housing developers in Illinois, and wrote letters to get $14 million specifically for two of them (one was Tony Rezko), his official acts benefited several friends and donors in that industry. A similar thing happened when Obama earmarked $200,000 for Jesse Jackson’s investment fund in Chicago and $225,000 for Father Michael Pfleger’s neighborhood ministry.

Those are just a few among dozens of examples of how, when Senator Obama governs, his friends do well. Such arrangements give the lie to Obama’s self-projected image as a reformer who wants to change government and restore America’s faith in politics. But they do not make him especially awful — such arrangements are typical among politicians in both parties. Earmarks and narrowly crafted bills go one way, campaign contributions go the other. Old friends who deliver votes are rewarded with taxpayers’ money. The “right” former staffers get the six-figure lobbying jobs, and the “right” companies get the contracts.

That’s Washington, and it’s definitely Chicago, the city being celebrated tonight at the Democratic convention as various Windy City speakers take the stage. It is the “old politics” that Obama consistently denounces, and which he has consistently practiced throughout his career.

But has Obama ever gone further than that by performing official acts that benefited himself? Has he done favors for people paying him money for his own family’s personal use? The public seems largely unaware of two instances in Obama’s career where that appearance is unmistakable. Both incidents were reported in major newspapers, but have been ignored by the New York and Washington press, which set the tone for our national political coverage.

Michelle Obama, tonight’s big speaker, received a large payday in 2005 from the University of Chicago Medical Center — a promotion with a $200,000 annual raise. It came just after her husband became a U.S. senator. The following year, Senator Obama inserted a $1 million earmark for the hospital. Given that money is fungible, taxpayers are underwriting Mrs. Obama’s raise through 2010, thanks to her husband’s earmark (she is currently on leave from that job).

When the Chicago Tribune asked about this appearance of impropriety, Senator Obama remarked that he should have given the earmark to another senator instead of handling it himself. “When it comes to earmarks, because of those concerns, it’s probably something that should have been passed on to [Illinois senior Senator] Dick Durbin,” he said.

So the “new politics” way to deal with the appearance of impropriety is to hide it — in this case by having someone else insert your earmark for you.

When Obama served in the Illinois senate, the “new politics” prescribed a similar means for dealing with the appearance of impropriety: Bury blatant conflicts of interest in your disclosure forms amid a long list that no one will bother to parse carefully. That’s what Obama did when he used his public office to help get money for a lucrative client in his private law practice — a man whose corporation had just paid him $112,000 over 14 months. The Los Angeles Times reported this explosive story in April, but it was given surprisingly little play. The Obama’s campaign’s explanation of what happened, contained in the news story, is not terribly reassuring.

Robert Blackwell Jr., a Chicago entrepreneur and CEO of two corporations, is a major Obama donor and fundraiser. He contributed $14,000 to Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign and $4,600 to his presidential run this year. He has even given $2,100 to Obama’s 2010 Senate reelection account. Blackwell has also committed to raise between $100,000 and $200,000 for Obama’s presidential run. The employees at his two companies — Electronic Knowledge Interchange and Killerspin — have contributed at least $18,000 to Obama’s campaigns. They had good reasons to give.

In 2001, Obama was serving in the state senate, and his modest salary there (less than $58,000 per year) was not enough. His family made a total of $240,000 in 2000, but he was experiencing serious financial difficulties, in part because of the debt he had racked up in his losing congressional primary against Rep. Bobby Rush. In July 2000, his credit card was even declined when he tried to rent a car at the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles.

In The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that he had been neglecting his private law practice and needed to get back to it. But legal work was also hard to come by. The law firm’s senior partner, Judson Miner, would say of that time that “it was a very dry period here.”

Obama was short of work and short of cash, but Robert Blackwell Jr. came to his rescue. EKI hired him in March 2001 and paid him $8,000 per month in legal retainers, for a total of $112,000. Obama and his staff then helped Blackwell’s other company, a ping-pong apparel company called Killerspin, get $320,000 in state grants. It began in 2002, months after Obama had received his last legal payment from Blackwell. Obama wrote a letter on Senate letterhead, requesting a $50,000 tourism grant for Killerspin for its annual promotional ping-pong tournament.

Blackwell got only a $20,000 grant that year, but he did much better in 2003 and 2004. Dan Shomon, Obama’s longtime aide, helped Killerspin get $300,000 more in taxpayer-funded grants in those two years. The Times reports that Shomon was working part-time for Obama and part-time for Blackwell when he obtained the grants, which is an irregular arrangement all on its own. (Shomon today works as a lobbyist for the University of Chicago.)

The Times reported that Obama, in his required legal financial disclosures for 2001 and 2002, buried this six-figure financial conflict of interest with respect to Blackwell’s companies amid a list of hundreds of other clients represented by his entire law firm. He did not mention in his ethics paperwork that EKI was his largest source of income in 2001 — nor was he required to. Illinois’s legislative ethics laws are extremely weak.

David Axelrod, the Obama consultant who has proven his talents by defending Mayor Daley in his many difficulties, defended Obama thus in the Times article: “Any implication that Sen. Obama would risk an ethical breach in order to secure a small grant for a ping-pong tournament is nuts.” What Axelrod describes would be “nuts,” but it’s not what happened, either. The real question: Would it be “nuts” for a modestly paid public official with personal financial difficulties to risk an ethical breach if there was $112,000 involved?

Last Friday’s Washington Post offered more information on Blackwell, a former partner in his father’s consulting firm, Blackwell Consulting. The brief Post piece, “Contracts Went to Longtime Donor,” mentions that the firm won contracts totaling nearly $650,000 from the University of Chicago Medical Center. It happened because of a minority-owned business outreach program started by the newly promoted Michelle Obama. The elder Blackwell says that without that program, “[t]hey might not have ever thought to include Blackwell Consulting.” It also didn’t hurt that the younger Blackwell had been underwriting Obama’s political and personal life.

In early 2003, after one of the Killerspin ping-pong tournaments he had helped taxpayers subsidize, Obama was interviewed by the Chicago Sun-Times on the subject of the younger Blackwell’s entrepreneurship. “I would never bet against Robert on one of his ideas,” Obama said. “He’s extremely good at coming up with moneymaking ideas and implementing them.”

He sure is. One of his better ideas was to invest in Barack Obama.

— David Freddoso is a staff reporter for National Review Online and author of The Case Against Barack Obama.

Sunday, August 24, 2008

The Obamanation of Desolation

by Thomas Fleming
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/
August 19, 2008

The appearance of John McCain and Barack Obama at Saddleback, California’s "purpose-driven" church marks the ultimate ascent of Rick Warren to the Gantry-in-Chief of the P.T. Barnum Church of America. Warren’s success is living proof of Barnum’s oft-quoted observation that there is a sucker born every minute. In the event, Obama’s imitation of Christianity was so poor that even John McCain—the very model of a Christian divorcĂ©–looked good by comparison. Obama could barely bring himself to stutter out the Scriptural passages he had memorized as his answer to the scripted questions.

Obama needs to establish church-cred, if he is ever going to win the votes of the people he hates and fears. I mean White People. It is true that the majority of Obama supporters are White People, but most of them fall into the category of self-hating Whites otherwise known as liberals. A liberal, as I never tire of quoting (from Robert Frost), is someone who would not take his own side in an argument. Rich liberals naturally support high taxes and extravagant government expenditures on the poor, preferably the undeserving poor. A male liberal—we can hardly call such creatures men—favors women’s rights; heterosexual liberals favor “Gay” “marriage,” and European-American liberals prefer all cultures to that of Europe. And, if these idiots condescend to note their skin color, they hate it or at least they think they do.

Mr. Obama may or may not like the White liberals who burn incense to his TV images that fill up the evening news broadcasts, but he knows he cannot stand the illiberal Whites who do not hate themselves. Obama spent two decades attending Trinity United Church of Christ and claimed its pastor, Jeremiah Wright, as his friend and mentor before discovering that Wright was an anti-White bigot. He even borrowed his book title “The Audacity of Hope from one of Wright’s sermons. Every time I hear that phrase—so redolent of the old stereotype of half-educated blacks who insert pretentious words into their conversation–I imagine how Johnny Lee, aka Algonquin J. Calhoun, would deliver it. Like all the stars of the Amos ‘N Andy television show, Lee was a fine comic actor, and it is some kind of weird racism that has sent immortal comics like Tim Moore (Kingfish) and Spencer Williams (Andy) down the memory hole. The NAACP’s persecution of Amos ‘N Andy does prove one thing, and that is that black liberals (including Barack Obama) hate themselves as much as white liberals do. What is left for them to love? Not much.

Jeremiah Wright not only hates Whites, he does not even pretend he doesn’t. Imagine the SPLC in a parallel case, if it found out that Pat Buchanan regarded the comparatively mild David Duke as his mentor. The DNC and the media can tell any lies they like, but they cannot change the fact that the Democratic presidential candidate hates Whites, including the members of his mother’s family who showed him every kindness. Compared with the average self-proclaimed white bigot who says he loves his ancestors, Obama is one sick and sorry excuse for a human being.

The Wright story does have its lighter side. It is Obama’s membership in Wright’s “church” that has justified his claim to be a Christian, and his claim to be a Christian is his best evidence that he was never a Muslim. No one has called him on this, so far as I know, even Christians who are fully aware that the United Church of Christ has nothing to do with the historical Christian faith taught by the apostles. Some Christians have questioned Obama’s credentials as a Christian because of his support for abortion and infanticide, but in the UCC a woman’s right to kill her children is part of the creed, perhaps the only article of faith (apart from support for “Gay” “marriage”) from which no dissent is permitted. When the UCC says “God is still speaking,” they do not bother to explain why their “God” has been contradicting himself so much. I used to think black people had more sense than to put any stock in the post-Christian conventicles that joined together in the great anti-Church known as the United Church of Christ, but in joining the Middle Class upwardly mobile Blacks have apparently become as gullible as their white counterparts.

If membership in the UCC is the best argument Obama has for refuting the claim he is a Muslim, he would have to explain how the leader of the Nation of Islam came to speak at his “church.” But, I suppose, better Louis Farrakhan than Jeremiah Wright or Rick Warren. No, I do not think Barack Obama worships Allah or any other “god” he cannot see in his own mirror. In the solipsistic universe he makes up from speech to speech, press conference to press conference, there is no god but Barack and Obama is his prophet.

How did we ever reach the point where an Obama could be the presidential candidate of a major party? A political unknown in Illinois until the Republicans, in one of their frequent fits of self-destructive frenzy, decided to run Allan Keyes against Obama. That is how this Marxist nonentity entered the Senate, where he did nothing for a year or so and then decided that he was that any boy in America who could refuse to grow up and become president. And, although he made Hilary Clinton appear to be a conservative or at least a pragmatist, people still voted for him. Who are they?

I understand why blacks vote for a black candidate, though by the same token Germans should revere the memory of Adolf Hitler and Georgians would have a statue of Stalin in his home town. (Oops.) I can also understand why public school teachers, social workers, and other welfare-dependents vote for a politicians who will certainly increase their income and power. But setting aside race-loyalty, greed, and the libido dominandi, how could anyone else hold his nose long enough to vote for anyone who talks in that smarmy adenoidal voice? When Obama gets on his pulpit, it sounds almost like he is swallowing his words in a sea of phlegm. He does not so much speak as (to quote what Alexander Wolcott once said of a theater audience) strum his catarrh. His self-righteous public persona should grate on the sensibilities of normal people–like nails on a chalkboard or the voice of Mariah Carey. And yet, some otherwise normal people voted for him in the primaries and will vote for him again in the general election. Why or rather how?

A few months ago I had a white driver in Texas, who was an enthusiastic supporter of Obama. When I politely asked him why, he explained, anyone will be better than Bush. That is not an easy argument to refute—except in the case of Obama and McCain. The one great comfort of this campaign is that we know the outcome: Whoever wins will turn out to be the worst president in American history. What I wanted to ask him, though, was how could a working white guy vote for a man who so obviously hates him and his people. The driver was, admittedly, not one of those gun-toting religious bigots Obama is so afraid of, but an Obama administration, backed by a Democratic Congress, will certainly do everything possible to enhance the opportunities of everyone who is not white while forcing white taxpayers—and, let us be honest, we do pay most of the taxes because we have most of the money—to fund what might be described as Operation White Out.

Here is an allegedly true story going round the Internet. “Overheard in New York City:

Thug #1: Yo, I can’t wait for Obama to win the election, yo! He gonna make white people illegal!

Thug #2 (stopping dead in his tracks): You one ignorant m-f, ain’t you?”

The first thug, though something of a dreamer, does at least reflect something of the hopes that are entertained in the event of an Obama victory.

The racial logic of the Obama campaign is far from new; it is as old as Affirmative Action programs that ask white parents to take privileges away from their own children to give special assistance to the children of strangers, so long as the strangers belong to a different race. It is one thing to argue that we should practice charity toward the poor or even that we should be selectively more charitable, for one reason or another, to this or that group of poor people, but quite another to ask me to put the needs of my own children—along with those of my nieces and nephews, grandchildren and cousins, neighbors and friends—behind the needs of other people. However you describe Affirmative Action and minority set-asides, they represent a deliberate and systematic policy of discrimination against people like me in favor of people not like me simply because they are not like me. Such disgusting and immoral policies are worse than any form of racism I have encountered because they teach us to hate precisely those whom we are most supposed to love.

An electorate that accepted the Affirmative Action policies imposed on it by the political class had already made a national suicide pact. American Whites simply cannot wait to be marginalized, and in the media they are already reserving places in the internment camps—for you and me and also for them. One of the big news stories this summer was the revised date by which the Whites will be a minority in the United States. News readers and columnists could barely contain their glee and actually took some time off from extolling Obama. On ABC Charley Gibson and the gang were like small children at a birthday party, unable to decide which to eat first—the cake or the ice cream. Oh boy, you could hear their minds turning over, “We’re going to be aliens in our own country.”

At this point, ordinarily, I would say something about the problem of white backlash being worse than the anti-white racism of Obama. But there is no backlash to speak or complain about. Bubba has got better things to worry about than his second-class status. There’s the new truck, American Idol, and, if he is really ambitious, a meth lab. I expected, at least, to see NOBAMA signs—a GOP effort whose creators insist is not racist– cropping up around town, but I have yet to see even one. When I made my first Nobama joke, even before Nobama.com was put up, it was greeted with unease or rather dis-ease, since we are all dying of a surfeit of sensitivity. It may hardly matter at this point who wins the election, because America is already an Obama-Nation (this pun courtesy of the “Christian” “Right”).

Yes, I know. Describing the Obama campaign as an expression of anti-White racism proves I am a bigot. Somebody, call the Southern Poverty Law Center so they can advance me in their rankings. Bigotry these days has nothing to do with the way you treat people or even with what you actually say. Bigotry is what they say you are thinking when the play your speech backward at half speed. As I have said long ago and many times, we have only two choices in America: The first is a society that is legally color-blind, that is, a political and judicial system that does not discriminate on the basis of race though it cannot, on the other hand, prevent people from following their personal whims in private life. This is what I have always advocated, and it may be one of many possible dreams arising from the classical liberal fantasy that must be dear to the hearts of Americans. The other choice is a society that discriminates on the basis of race. If that is the choice–and it is in fact the choice Obama is forcing on us–we are in something of a bind.

The Obamanation is a racist nation that will leave white Americans few honorable options. They can, of course, emigrate, an option that gets more attractive every day. If they stay, they will have to resist the temptation to turn liberal and sign on to the suicide pact. If they refuse to sell out, all too many will lose their souls in a poisonous hatred that may drag them down as low as Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright. In resisting the campaign to "make white people illegal," as every sensible person of any color should, we should not make the mistake of blaming black people for the suicide we continue to inflict on ourselves. We white males are the problem, not blacks, women, homosexuals, or Mexicans. We–at least the liberal part of "we"– turned away from our religion and our civilization; we made war on property and marriage; we rejected Haydn and Sophocles in favor of John Cage and Kate Chopin. We have emasculated ourselves, pithed our brains, destroyed our vision and hearing, and now, all that is left, is to vote for a candidate whose rhetoric at least is telling us to fling our worthless carcasses off the cliff. I blush even to hint at this but John McCain is now the only alternative to suicide.

U.S. reclaims volleyball heritage

By Jeff Miller
The Orange County Register
jmiller@ocregister.com
http://www.ocregister.com/
Saturday, August 23, 2008

BEIJING - AUGUST 22: Philip Dalhausser and Todd Rogers of the United States celebrate their win over Brazil for the gold medal in beach volleyball game at the Chaoyang Park Beach Volleyball Ground on Day 14 of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games on August 22, 2008 in Beijing, China. (Photo by Vladimir Rys/Bongarts/Getty Images)

BEIJING- This city, even after three weeks, still can be confusing.

From the main press center, you can get on a bus that will take you to an arena called Yingdong, a bus that will take you to a hotel called Ling Long or a bus that will take you to a sport called Ping Pong.

These three destinations, naturally, are nowhere near each other.

But, as the Games of the XXIX Olympiad breathe their final breaths, one thing here has become undeniably clear:

We are a volleyball people. We are all set on sets, dig those digs and will kill for a good kill.

We are to this game what China is to restaurants that specialize in serving weasel entrails.

We invented basketball, have a romance going with baseball and are helmet-over-cleats in love with football.

But it is volleyball where we distinguished ourselves here with all the world watching. We, the people of the U.S. generally and the people of Orange County specifically. You can't spell block without O.C.

We won gold in the men's and women's beach game and played for gold in the men's and women's indoor game. That's one more entry than Brazil had in the finals and at least three more than everyone else had.

Surf or turf, it didn't matter to the U.S. volleyball players, who kicked rearends in China like Michael Phelps kicked air bubbles.

BEIJING - AUGUST 21: Kerri Walsh and Misty May-Treanor celebrate during the women's gold medal match against China held at the Chaoyang Park Beach Volleyball Ground during Day 13 of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games on August 21, 2008 in Beijing, China. (Photo by Jamie Squire/Getty Images)

Misty May-Treanor (Costa Mesa) won in beach, her second career Olympic title, and then confirmed she'd now like to go for the gold in diaper-changing.

The silver medal-winning women's indoor team, while assembling the type of Olympic run that occurs every quarter-century or so, featured Heather Bown (Yorba Linda) and Tayyiba Haneef-Park (Laguna Hills).

The men's team, which plays for gold here today, includes Rich Lambourne (Tustin), Kevin Hansen (Newport Beach), Gabe Gardner (San Clemente) and Reid Priddy (Anaheim).

So we beat them inside and outside, on the land and on the sand, using our reach at the beach. We beat them to the point where some reporters lost their minds and began writing like Dr. Seuss.

But even as America's emergence feels like something fresh, this success marks a game returning to its roots.

This sport was invented in 1895 by a man in Massachusetts, a man actually named Vol E. Ball.

A lot of people don't know that – mostly because it's made up. The man's real name was William G. Morgan.

He was a contemporary of James Naismith, who four years earlier had invented basketball, a sport which, by the birth of volleyball, already had stopped calling traveling.

Supporters today claim volleyball is played worldwide by close to one billion people, making it the planet's second most popular sport, after Guitar Hero.

Anyway, no one is playing the game more consistently well right now than Americans are. We have become a volleyball hotbed and home, with our men's national team based in Anaheim.

Gold medalists Kerri Walsh, left, and Misty May-Treanor, of the United States, raise their hands after the United States anthem was played during the medal ceremony for women's beach volleyball at the Chaoyang Park Beach Volleyball Ground at the Beijing 2008 Olympics in Beijing, Thursday, Aug. 21, 2008.

Please remember that the Olympics aren't all about success. Failure, in fact, is what the majority of athletes experience at these events.

And not just regular, lose-a-little-sleep failure, either. This is national disgrace stuff, bringing shame and dishonor to an entire country of people you've never even met.

Take wrestler Rajiv Tomer of India. After he was eliminated, Tomer's coach was not terribly supportive.

Know how people like to say someone threw someone else under the bus? This guy did that, then backed up the bus and parked it on Tomer's neck.

"He did not try very hard and his opponent was better than him," coach Piararam Sondhi explained. "Our expectation was that he would lose. Our wrestler was not very good."

Then there was the fate of the Chinese saber team, which, in the mind of coach Christian Bauer, somewhere underachieved.

Asked afterward for an explanation, Bauer said proudly of his troops, "They are all mentally weak."

Japan's commitment can not be questioned. The nation's sanity, however…

Judo coach Hitoshi Saito was so upset that his team won only two gold medals in a sport it traditionally dominates that he vowed to resign. And that was the upbeat part of his story.

"I have to bear the responsibility," Saito told the Yangtze Evening News, "and I think that I should slit my belly to apologize."

So winning some huge volleyball matches in China should not be dismissed without first giving proper acknowledgement.

It's unlikely Hank Williams Jr. soon will be asking, "Are you ready for some volleyball?" "Volleyball Tonight" isn't coming to ESPN.

But we did just re-establish ourselves on a global stage in a sport we invented more than 100 years ago.

Let's take a moment then to recognize the incomparable success of our athletes in these Olympics.

U.S.A. Volleyball, Beijing '08. Game, set and unmatched.

POSTSCRIPT:
BEIJING-The U.S. ended a 20-year gold medal drought in Olympic men’s volleyball Sunday, knocking off Brazil 3-1 (20-25, 25-22, 25-21, 25-23) victory at Capital Gymnasium.


BEIJING - AUGUST 24: Clayton Stanley of the United States celebrates with his gold medal after the Gold Medal volleyball match between the United States and Brazil held at the Capital Indoor Stadium during Day 16 of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games on August 24, 2008 in Beijing, China. (Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Today's Tune: Bruce Springsteen - Souls of the Departed (Live in Charlotte 2008)



(Click on title to play video)

Review: Bruce Springsteen in Nashville

Springsteen proves himself as 'future of rock' - over and over

By PETER COOPER
Nashville Tennessean
Staff Writer
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
August 22, 2008

Here’s what Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band left out of Thursday night’s show at the Sommet Center:

1. Thirteen of the 18 songs on Springsteen’s greatest hits album.

2. Any pre-recorded video, the likes of which runs at nearly every major concert on every major stage.

3. Even a whit of irony or condescension.

A great Springsteen show – and that’s how we’ll file this one away – isn’t about hits or gags or any of the other staples of modern, big-venue concert life. Every night is unique, nothing is choreographed, and the Boss takes requests from fans who hold up signs with the names of preferred songs.
And, 35 years into his recording career, Springsteen still trades on surprises. While most big-time concerts are like Broadway shows, with little changing from venue-to-venue, Springsteen’s Nashville set list included 14 songs he didn’t play at the concert 48 hours prior in Pennsylvania.

But the set list isn’t the big deal here. The remarkable thing is the way that this man and his band command a stage, playing nearly three hours of material with the kind of intensity that fills chiropractors’ schedules with patients. By the concert’s midway point, Springsteen’s black shirt was heavy enough with sweat to rival the weights of Nashville great Porter Wagoner’s rhinestone suit jackets.

Plenty of musicians, including Kix Brooks of Brooks & Dunn and singer-songwriters Victoria Shaw and Danny Flowers, came to observe, but there was nothing in the set that could be co-opted or lifted. Springsteen opens his doors, invites everyone in and turns his back on his belongings, but his stuff seems too heavy to steal.

Anyone else would look silly doing what makes Springsteen look remarkable. He’s a 58-year-old man running around like an Olympian, shouting in a voice that would make anyone else hoarse after a couple of songs, and insisting on spontaneity and passion. As songs neared their conclusions, he jogs around to the E Street players, shouting out the next song and the key signature like Peyton Manning hollers audibles at the line of scrimmage.

The result of all this is that no one left wondering, “Where was ‘Hungry Heart?” or “Why didn’t he play ‘Darlington County?’” Instead, the audience reveled in rare hearings of “Held Up Without A Gun,” “Loose Ends” and an abbreviated “I Walk The Line.” Springsteen’s show was about the power and importance of individual moments. That’s what rock ‘n’ roll used to be about, as well. Country, too, and R&B.

More than three decades ago, critic Jon Landau declared that Springsteen was the future of rock ‘n’ roll. The Boss proved Landau correct, and all that is in the history books. But what if Landau is still right? What if Springsteen remains the future? What if video synchs and programmed tempos and vocal tuning are phases that can be grown out of? What if audiences re-learn a basic musical truth, which is that beauty and imperfection can, should and do coexist?

Well, then, Springsteen could be a model rather than an aberration. But that's Pollyanna talk. It won't happen. "We made a promise we swore we'd always remember," he sang. "No retreat, baby, no surrender."

Most of them have long since forgotten, and long since retreated. Springsteen put another step forward on Thursday night at the Sommet Center. It was a really good show.

Thursday night's set list

"Out In the Street"

"Radio Nowhere"

"No Surrender"

"Lonesome Day"

"Spirit In The Night"

"Good Rockin’ Tonight"

"Growin’ Up"

"I’m Goin’ Down"

"Held Up Without A Gun"

"Loose Ends"

"Youngstown"

"Murder Incorporated"

Short version of Bo Diddley's "Mona" segues into "She's The One"

"The Promised Land"

"Mary’s Place"

"I Walk The Line" (abbreviated version, accompanied by Nils Lofgren)

"I’m On Fire"

"The Rising"

"Last To Die"

"Long Walk Home"

"Badlands"

ENCORE

"Girls In Their Summer Clothes"

"Thunder Road"

"Born To Run"

"I Fought The Law"

"Rosalita," accompanied by the E Street Band and Dave Bielanko of Marah

"American Land"

"Dancing In The Dark"

Peter Cooper writes about music for The Tennessean. He can be reached at 615-259-8220 or pcooper@tennessean.com.

Players Were Lucky to Have Upshaw as Union Chief

By Michael Wilbon
The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com
Saturday, August 23, 2008; E01


Gene Upshaw and Paul Tagliabue

Gene Upshaw had the most difficult job in professional sports. Represent a group of men who had nowhere near the leverage they fancied against the most ruthless management in the history of the industry. The head of the NFL Players Association needed to have the intelligence and orneriness of a guard, the pride of a champion, the sense of accomplishment of a Hall of Famer and the respect of a giant. The players, though many of them never knew it, were damn lucky to have Upshaw lead them for 25 years.

They were lucky to have him through two chaotic work stoppages, through skillful negotiation that bumped their average salary from $90,000 per year in the early 1980s when Upshaw took over to an average of $1.75 million last year. They were lucky to have not just a union leader but an insider, somebody who had sense and savvy enough to take the only road that was going to improve and maintain the life of the modern day football player.
And the union would be very hard-pressed to find someone with Upshaw's stature and skill to run the operation now that he's gone. In fact, turning to longtime legal counsel Richard Berthelsen, Upshaw's capable lieutenant, beyond the interim basis is probably the way to go.

It was annoying to hear, increasingly in recent years, dissatisfaction with Upshaw from the rank and file, much of it directed at his amicable relationship with commissioners Paul Tagliabue and Roger Goodell. Of course, Upshaw wasn't infallible as a union chief. The NFLPA should have and could have done even more than it has to address pension and health issues for the players of, well, Upshaw's era and before. But this notion that Upshaw had somehow sold out and become too cozy with management was as stupid as it was insulting.

Somewhere along the line, football players took a peek at their professional peers in baseball and basketball and got jealous. They apparently saw the wages and commercial endorsements and no-cut contracts and wanted a bigger slice of the professional football pie, bigger than the 60 percent of the gross cut Upshaw had negotiated.

A bigger slice wasn't forthcoming. In fact, it might get just a touch smaller. Somebody needs to remind today's players of what happened in 1987 when a 24-day strike caved mostly because 89 players crossed the union picket line.

The NFL staged replacement games, and while attendance in some cities was nonexistent and some were hammered with derisive nicknames (like the San Francisco Phoney Niners), other teams (like the replacement Redskins) drew big crowds, the networks were willing to televise it, and the owners, no matter how unseemly the games were, were quite content fielding teams and breaking the union.

NFL owners proved in 1987 beyond a shadow of a doubt that professional football players, with the exception of quarterbacks and a handful of others, are anonymous and that Americans don't care who's in the jerseys as long as somebody is wearing them on Sundays.

The NFL players waved bye-bye to their leverage that fall when 15 percent of them crossed picket lines. Famous and influential players caved, including Hall of Famers Lawrence Taylor, Steve Largent, Tony Dorsett and Randy White. The Cowboys' quarterback, Danny White, even crossed the picket line.

Today's players probably don't know that. But you think the owners have forgotten what kind of leverage they have and how easily the players' resolve melted? Upshaw never forgot. It was a small but meaningful group of players, 21 years ago, who sold out Upshaw. And while he never complained publicly about it, Upshaw went about every future negotiation knowing the owners would put their foot on the players' neck. He knew he could never make the demands Don Fehr could make for baseball players or Billy Hunter could make for basketball players.

You think Upshaw, a Raider, a Hall of Famer, a guard at a time when defensive players enjoyed every rules advantage, was less competitive than Fehr and Hunter? I'd make the counter argument, that Upshaw cared about his league in a way neither cared about theirs because he invested much more than they had in the way of blood and sweat.

He gave so much more of himself physically and emotionally than other union chiefs. As Tagliabue said yesterday, Upshaw "never lost sight of the big picture." Upshaw had to be a partner with the NFL in ways Fehr and Hunter never would have accepted. No matter how it might have looked, Upshaw's constituents were better served.

Players prospered. As former Vikings running back Robert Smith, now an analyst for ESPN, told The Post's Mark Maske: "A lot of people forget there's no such thing as unanimous support in any body you represent. But from a results standpoint, what more could you want? The retired players, some of them are getting four times what they would have gotten if Gene hadn't been there. The stuff about being too close to [Paul] Tagliabue, I'd like to have anyone explain to me how the players haven't been served by Gene. The owners just opted out of this labor deal because it was such a bad deal for them and such a good deal for the players."

Upshaw planned to be front and center for another negotiation, but pancreatic cancer took him Wednesday night at age 63. Nobody knew in recent weeks, perhaps nobody beyond Gene, Terri and their sons, exactly what the weight loss meant, what the back pain meant. A decrease in his usual number of rounds of golf in the summer just meant he probably had too much work on his plate.

Upshaw was one of the former players who seemed physically invincible even in his early 60s. He looked years younger than he was, was fitter and a lot more youthful than most men his age. It didn't seem possible his Hall of Fame career with the Raiders had started more than 40 years ago or that he had been so prominent and devoted a figure in professional football for all his adult life.

Friday, August 22, 2008

Dark Knight of the Soul

By Terry Mattingly
http://tmatt.gospelcom.net/
August 13, 2008

For many years, Marc Newman used a simple test when asking college students if they thought some actions were always right and others were always wrong -- slavery.

Then something strange happened in his philosophy of communication classes. Students began arguing that slavery might be acceptable in certain cultures and under certain conditions. Besides, who were they to judge others?

So here's a new question. What if you had two ferries and each contained a bomb. One ferry is full of criminals, while the other contains ordinary citizens and, there's a catch, each contains a remote control that can trigger the other boat's bomb. Then there is this sick Joker who vows that he will destroy both, if one doesn't destroy the other.

Wouldn't it be moral for the good guys to destroy the bad guys?

This is, of course, a soul-wrenching scene in "The Dark Knight," the Batman sequel that is soaring toward the $500 million dollar mark at the U.S. box office.

"The audience is torn between these two choices and that's the point," said Newman, who teaches courses on the rhetoric of film at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. "You want to see good triumph over evil, somehow. But just look how far these movies have to ratchet up the nature of these violent acts so that the whole audience can agree that they're evil."

Newman believes that one reason that consumers are paying -- over and over -- to see this dark, distressing movie is that they are drawn to its depiction of a culture in which violence has become senseless, random and all but unstoppable.

In one nihilistic sermon, the villain with a death-mask smirk tells the powers that be, "Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I am a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it. I just do things." Later, he proclaims: "Introduce a little anarchy, upset the established order and everything becomes chaos. I am an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It’s fair."

This note of despair fits the times. Thus, the movie strikes a chord.

"We see in 'The Dark Knight a fictional expression of our own world gone mad," argues Newman, at his MovieMinistry.com website. "Under interrogation, The Joker rejects the idea that his is some alien ideology. Providing his analysis of the bastions of rules and laws -- the police department -- The Joker explains, 'You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these civilized people, they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster ... I'm just ahead of the curve.' "

The question religious believers have to ask, he said, is "whether The Joker is right."

Newman is not alone in hailing "The Dark Knight" as -- like it or not -- a must-see epic for clergy and others who want to keep their fingers on the cultural pulse. But there are strong voices of dissent.

No movie I've ever seen has been so emotionally disturbing and spiritually oppressive," warned Brian Fitzpatrick of Human Events. While some claim that the movie's tale of good and evil contains essentially "conservative" values, he argued that it "showcases violence, betrayal and sadism in the name of frivolous entertainment. The movie is morally corrupt."

The key to this tension, noted Newman, is that "The Dark Knight" leaves viewers yearning for its anti-hero -- Batman is aware of his own flaws and mixed motives -- to find a way to remain true to his personal vow to defend the innocent, even if that means bending society's rules.

As this movie lurches to its conclusion, it becomes clear that the Joker has only one goal and that is to strip Batman of his moral convictions, to shatter his belief that good can defeat evil without being corrupted.

This implies that some kind of moral absolutes do exist.

"But we are left," Newman added, "with an important question: Where does Batman get his convictions about what is right and what is wrong? He has a moral vision, but where did it come from? That isn't in the movie. There are no answers there."

The Softer Side of Schools?

Abu Ghraib-i-fying American education.

By Michelle Malkin
National Review Online
http://www.nationalreview.com/
August 22, 2008 12:00 AM

The citizens of the world who hate America are going to love the latest agitprop released this week by Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union. In a document titled “A Violent Education: Corporal Punishment of Children in U.S. Public Schools,” the left-wing groups seek to paint a horrifying portrait of the nation’s classrooms as Abu Ghraib-like torture chambers.

The report compiles sob stories of students humiliated after being disciplined by school officials for unruliness, and claims that minority students are “disproportionately targeted” for punishment. Citing international law and threatening lawsuits, Human Rights Watch and the ACLU are demanding that the White House and Congress ban physical discipline in all public schools.

The report says that “more than 200,000 U.S. public school students were punished by beatings during the 2006-2007 school year,” but makes no distinction between “beatings” that take the form of mere knuckle-rapping versus swats on the backside versus over-the-line violent confrontations. In several of the anecdotes cited, it wasn’t bruised bottoms that upset the supposedly brutalized students. It was bruised egos.

Peter S., a middle-school student from the Mississippi Delta, whined to the researchers: “The other kids were watching and laughing. It made me want to fight them. When you get a paddling and you see everyone laugh at you, it make you mad and you want to do something about it.” How about ending your bad behavior and flying right?

Of course educators must use common sense when punishing bad apples. Of course they should be held accountable if they cause undue harm. But the agenda of these outfits is not to ensure the safety of everyone in the classroom. Their agenda is to demonize unapologetic enforcers of order and to impose international dictates on American public institutions.

The main author of the report is a special fellow with the Open Society Institute, funded by George (America must be “de-Nazified”) Soros. Replete with references to the Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the report declares in sweeping terms: “All corporal punishment, whether or not it causes significant physical injury, represents a violation of each student’s rights to physical integrity and human dignity. It is degrading and humiliating, damaging the student’s self-esteem and making him or her feel helpless.” It’s Gitmo all over again.

As usual, the Human Rights Watch/ACLU activists inject claims of racial discrimination into the mix — repeatedly underscoring that many of the remaining states that allow corporal punishment are in the south. They infer deliberate targeting of black students based on statistics that reportedly show that “in the 13 southern states where corporal punishment is most prevalent, African-American students are punished at 1.4 times the rate that would be expected given their numbers in the student population, and African-American girls are 2.1 times more likely to be paddled than might be expected.”

But that disproportion does not automatically equal discrimination. What they don’t tell you are the races or ethnicities of the victims of the thugs being disciplined. What they don’t bother to mention — because it doesn’t fit the America-as-torturer-of-minorities narrative — is the unmitigated violence perpetrated in American classrooms against minority teachers.

The recent videotaped beating of black Baltimore teacher Jolita Berry by a black female student — as other black students cheered and screamed, “Hit her!” — exposed the continuing chaos in inner-city districts. In that school system alone, 112 students were expelled for assaults on staff members this school year.

Federal education statistics show that between 1996 and 2000, 599,000 violent crimes against teachers at school were reported. On average, the feds say, in each year from 1996 to 2000, about 28 out of every 1,000 teachers were the victims of violent crime at school, and three out of every 1,000 were victims of serious violent crime (i.e., rape, sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault). Violence against teachers is higher at urban schools.

America’s problem isn’t that we’re too tough and cruel in the classroom. It’s that we’ve become too soft and placative, too ashamed and timid to assert authority and take unilateral action to guarantee a secure environment. Exactly where the human-rights groups want us.

Michelle Malkin is author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.

“Hadith of Hate” Banned at USC

By Reut R. Cohen
http://www.frontpagemag.com/
Friday, August 22, 2008

As Muslim Student Association (MSA) chapters have become increasingly influential at universities and colleges around the country, critics have charged that it is a hate group that sympathizes with the international jihad and promulgates an anti-American and anti-Semitic ideology in its campus actions. In response, the MSA has claimed that it is merely another religious and cultural group similar to Hillel, a club for Jewish students, or the Newman Club for Catholics. That deception has been now unmasked at the University of Southern California, where the school’s Provost, Chrysostomos L. Max Nikias, reacting to a call from the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, has ordered the campus MSA to remove a “despicable” hadith calling for Muslims to murder Jews as a condition for redemption from its website.

David Horowitz, President of the Freedom Center, hails this as a breakthrough moment when the double standards that control the political and intellectual culture of most universities have finally been challenged.

“Up to now, the slightest criticism of radical Islam on campus has been slammed as ‘Islamophobia,’ while Muslim groups and their radical fellow travelers have been allowed to say the most hateful things imaginable about Christians and Jews without any reaction from university administrators whatsoever,” Horowitz says. “Provost Nikias has called the hadith on the MSA website for what it is: despicable. Given the atmosphere that prevails on most campuses today, it was an act of integrity on his part to make this call and to demand that the MSA live up to basic standards of civility that should govern the university.”

The hadith (sacred teaching) reads as follows:

“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him….”

Its presence on the MSA website is consistent with other actions the Muslim group has initiated on the USC campus. In 2005, for instance, it hosted a conference featuring a speech by Islamist Ahmed Shama, who praised Hizbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and told his listeners that the terrorists in post-Saddam Iraq were part—as was the Muslim Student Association itself—of a “global Islamic movement” and that it was “necessary to rise up against the occupation there.”

The David Horowitz Freedom Center worked with the Simon Wiesenthal Center to draft a letter to Alan Casden, a USC trustee, about the “hadith of hate,” as it is often called. Disturbed that a call for genocide should be on the USC server, Casden contacted Provost Chrysostomos Nikias to express his concern. Nikias investigated the matter and sent Casden the following letter:

“…The passage you cited is truly despicable and I share your concerns about its being on the USC server. We did some investigations and I have ordered the passage removed.

“The passage in the Hadith that you brought to our attention violates the USC Principles of Community, and it has no place on a USC server.”


The University of Southern California Principles of Community states in part: “No one has the right to denigrate another human being on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, etc. We will not tolerate verbal or written abuse, threats, harassment, intimidation or violence against person or property.” No student group other than the Muslim Student Association has posted any kind of material, religious or otherwise, calling for the destruction of a race or group.

USC’s decision to remove the hadith from the school’s server marks the first time that an American university has acknowledged that the Muslim Student Association’s agenda involves the promotion of ethnic hatred. It is also the first time that an administrator has acted quickly to censure “despicable” material. Rabbi Aron Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center hailed Provost Nikias’ decision: “We commend USC for having the moral courage to stand up against those who hijack speech and religious freedoms and the goodwill of the campus community in order to spread hate and extremist violence.”

“This episode shows that fighting injustice can produce results,” Freedom Center President David Horowitz added. “It also shows what kind of an organization the Muslim Students Association is, which is why the Freedom Center has launched a nationwide campaign, Stop the Jihad on Campus Week, which will culminate the week of October 13.”

The goals of Stop the Jihad on Campus Week are to rally students across the country to sign a petition against the “hadith of hate” and to convince student governments to defund the Muslim Students Association.

For more information, please visit http://www.terrorismawareness.org/

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Obama's Lost Annenberg Years Coming to Light

By Thomas Lifson
http://www.americanthinker.com/
August 21, 2008


Marc PoKempner

LAW SCHOOL FACULTY-
Barack Obama in 1995 in his office at the University of Chicago Law School, where he taught part time. On the wall is a portrait of the late Mayor Harold Washington.

The cloak of media invisibility is slowly beginning to lift from Barack Obama's most important administrative leadership experience, helming an expensive educational reform effort in Chicago that failed to produce any measurable academic gains, according to the project's own final report.

Add in the fact that former Weatherman and admitted terrorist William Ayers (whom Obama described in the Philadelphia debate as merely a "neighbor") was head of the operating arm of the CAC, working with Obama on distributing scores of millions of dollars to grantees in the wards of the city, and you have a topic that the Obama campaign wishes to avoid at all costs. A compliant media has averted its eyes so far. A timeline of Obama's career from George Washington University omits it. Why the McCain campaign has not raised more questions on the subject is a question beyond my pay grade. But there are signs it is on the case.

The four plus years (1995-1999) Barack Obama spent as founding chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) represent his track record as reformer, as someone who reached out in a public-private collaboration and had the audacity to believe his effort would make things better. At the time he became leader of this ambitious project to remake the public schools of Chicago, he was 33 years old and a third year associate at a small Chicago law firm, Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland.

This was a big test for him, his chance to cut his teeth on bringing hope and change to the mostly minority inner city school children trapped in Chicago schools. And he flopped big time, squandering lots of money and the time of many public employees in the process.

Given Senator Obama's lack of any other posts as leader of an organization, someone unschooled in the ways of the American media might expect that for months reporters have been poring over the records of the project to get an idea of how it managed to fail so badly. Examining the track record of the guy who wants to lead the federal government would seem to be part of the campaign beat for media organizations.

But as a matter of fact, until recently, only a few bloggers were looking into the most important organized effort ever led by Barack Obama, prior to his successful campaigns for public office.

The Cover-up

Now, it appears a cover-up is underway, in order prevent journalists and researchers from getting access to the records of this charitable project housed in a taxpayer supported library. And there is a mystery:
The UIC Library says it is acting on behalf of the donor, whom it refuses to name.

It took Stanly Kurtz, of National Review Online to ask permission to see the files held by the publicly-funded University of Illinois Chicago (UIC). After initially agreeing, The Richard J. Daley Library withdrew permission. Kurtz writes:

"The Special Collections section of the Richard J. Daley Library agreed to let me read them, but just before I boarded my flight to Chicago, the top library officials mysteriously intervened to bar access. Circumstances strongly suggest the likelihood that Bill Ayers himself may have played a pivotal role in this denial. Ayers has long taught at UIC, where the Chicago Annenberg Challenge offices were housed, rent-free. Ayers likely arranged for the files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to be housed in the UIC library, and may well have been consulted during my unsuccessful struggle to gain access to the documents."

It is highly unusual and legally questionable for a publicly-funded archive to deny access to records in its collection, particularly when they have a bearing on matters of intense public interest: the qualifications of a man seeking to be Commander in Chief.

But even if the university manages to stall release of the records until after the election, it is only drawing attention to the project. Already, the nation's mainstream media have taken notice (however imperfectly) of the University's unusual actions, albeit without exploring the subject in any depth yet.

In the midst of a heated presidential campaign, it is going to be hard to keep this interest in Obama's Annenberg years contained, now that it has surfaced.

A blogger, Steve Diamond, has put together enough data from public sources to seriously embarrass Obama over the closeness of his association with Ayers in the project, and to describe the wrong-headed and politicized approach taken by the project. Anyone can go to this page and look at the latter half of the very lengthy post to see the data uncovered by this intrepid researcher. At a minimum, it proves that Obama has seriously misled the public about his association with Ayers. And it documents and analyzes some of the complex left wing politics underlying the effort.

As the public begins to notice this outlines of the history of the CAC presented by Diamond, more questions are bound to be asked.

The First Cover-up

Diamond examined public documents, receiving cooperation from the Brown University Library, where the Annenberg Challenge Program national headuarters had been housed. Until, that is, Diamond's requests for further information fell on deaf ears following publication of a post highlighting a grant to one of Ayers' former revolutionary cohorts in the Weathermen. He writes:

"...while the representative from the university I originally corresponded with had been quite friendly and accommodating prior to my June 23 post, afterwards my additional requests for further information went unanswered. I did not pursue it at the time because I felt I had told a significant part of the story already. Thanks to the diligent work of Dr. Kurtz, however, we now know there is much more to know."

So the appearance of a cover-up actually began in June.

If Ayers were the sole point of interest in seeking the Annenberg Challenge files promised to Kurtz, all "132 boxes, containing 947 file folders, a total of about 70 linear feet of material", then the Obama camp might claim it was merely guilt-by association and persuade at least some of its own partisans. But the fact that Obama was in charge of a massive expensive project makes it indisputably a matter of proper vetting to examine his track record at delivering on promises of hope and change.

The Obama camp has already noted that it does not control the archives at UIC. All well and good, though it would be nice for the candidate to plead with the university and the mystery donor to let the sun shine on his track record. After all, he is a new kind of politician.

But even if he doesn't, the Annenberg Challenge is slowly entering the national consciousness, and that's very bad news for Barack Obama.

Thomas Lifson is editor and publisher of American Thinker.

Reign continues for Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh

Dynamic American duo win their 108th consecutive match and second consecutive gold medal in women's beach volleyball.

By Bill Plaschke
Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/sports/
August 21, 2008

BEIJING -- The sand was wet, the bikinis were soaked, the cheers were muffled, the sky was falling.

Amid sheets of morning gray, the only thing that made sense was the gold.

It's around the necks today of Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh, for a second consecutive Olympics, in their 108th consecutive victory.

One day, that medal may even dry.

"This is just another reason why we play in bathing suits," May-Treanor said with a grin.

Just when you thought Southern California's best sports dynasty could spike it no farther, the pair claimed a beach volleyball championship while rolling around under a cold shower with thousands cheering against them.

In a driving rainstorm, the Americans defeated China's Tian Jia and Wang Jie in straight sets, 21-18, 21-18, identical scores for seemingly identical champions.

After playing flawlessly together, Walsh and May-Treanor collapsed in tears together in the sand, hugging for the longest time, one giant white bikini under one giant wet ponytail.

Said Walsh to her teammate: "I don't know what to say, you're so great."

Said May-Treanor later: "Kerri and I love each other."

Then, standing on the podium, just before the playing of the national anthem, Walsh put her hand behind her back and wiggled her fingers.

May-Treanor, standing behind her, reached out and clutched those fingers, the two champions standing hand-in-hand throughout the national anthem.

Said Walsh: "I'm a blessed girl. To have such an amazing partner and do this amazing thing with her . . . so many emotions."

Said May-Treanor: "I thought I wouldn't be as emotional as I was, there's no words to describe this."

Well, here's a word.

Goodbye?

There is some thought that this could be the final act for one of the greatest duos in sports history. Walsh is 30, May-Treanor is 31, both are married and both have said they would like to have children.

Before the Olympics, when asked by Times reporter Chris Hine what they thought they would be doing a year from now, Walsh said, "Hopefully, we'll both be pregnant. Pregnant, but with two gold medals."

Well, now that the pesky medals business has been dealt with, could it be time for the really important stuff?

Watching them work flawlessly together in the worst of conditions -- isn't it dumb that beach volleyball plays in the rain? -- one wonders if this wasn't their farewell.

May-Treanor said afterward she thinks this is her last Olympics, but Walsh wouldn't commit, which means their retirement breakup cannot be official.

But it sure sounds like it.

"I was taking this as my last Games," said May-Treanor. "I was putting everything into it as my last Games. It's too far ahead to look ahead. I would like to come back and have my kids see me play. But I'd like to start a new journey and see my husband too."

If this match was the end of their current journey, it was certainly more fitting than the end of another recent sports dynasty.

The New England Patriots of the beach world didn't blow this Super Bowl, even though most everyone at Chaoyang Park Beach Volleyball Ground was cheering against them.

"Chi-na" shouted the thousands of brightly colored ponchos, their cheers actually led by the public address announcer.

But in the first set, the Americans broke a 17-17 tie to score four of the last five points for the victory, with May-Treanor diving and spiking and dinking.

"They're a lot better than us," said Tian later.

The steady rain worsened in the second set, soaking the leaky facility, water shooting out from underneath the bleachers, drenching the competitors from headband to painted toenails.

Yet the Americans also survived a second-set rally by the Chinese, breaking an 18-18 tie to score the last three points for the match.

"Definitely you didn't want to look up too much," said May-Treanor. "You would lose the ball with rain dropping in your eyes."

The Chinese fans also didn't want to look at their team too much, as Wang and Tian broke the Chinese teamwork tradition by arguing with each other, scowling at each other, and sometimes just ignoring each other.

Walsh and May-Treanor are that good.

When seemingly every spike is returned, when every serve is shot back, when every big effort is rebuffed, well, it's no day at the beach.

"They're too strong," reiterated Tian.

Only in the end did they break down. Perhaps because, for the tough and talented cover girls for Southern California's coolest sport, maybe it really is the end.

"This win really hit me deep, I understand what we did to accomplish this," said Walsh. "We beat China at home. It was so loud out there, and with crazy conditions."

Walsh was so excited, as she walked into the post-match news conference, she screamed. "I apologize for that," she said in her opening statement. "I just had to let it out."

No apology necessary. Of course it was loud. She was screaming for two.

Bill Plaschke can be reached at bill.plaschke@latimes.com. To read previous columns by plaschke, go to latimes.com/plaschke.

BARACK'S FAVORS FOR CORRUPT CRONY

By DAVID FREDDOSO
New York Post
http://www.nypost.com
August 21, 2008

Barack Obama has ad mitted it was "boneheaded" to get involved in a land deal with Tony Rezko, his friend and fund-raiser. But the media's focus on that deal has distracted from the bigger question: Why would Obama become involved in any deal with a man like Rezko, who made his living sponging off taxpayers and corrupting public officials? Because, by the time of the deal, the two already had a long relationship of mutual benefit.

The deal's details are well-known: On June 15, 2005, Obama bought a gorgeous house in Hyde Park for $1.65 million - $300,000 below the list price. Rezko bought the empty but attractive lot next door from the same seller at the same time; Obama would later buy part of Rezko's lot, overpaying him.

The transaction was shady, but not obviously corrupt. The overall Obama-Rezko relationship looks worse.

After Rezko's 2006 indictment on unrelated federal corruption charges, Obama denied unequivocally that he'd ever helped the man: "I've never done any favors for him."



Rezko: Obama backing brought big bucks.

That's simply false. Rezko was a genius of corporate welfare who enriched himself at taxpayers' expense, both legally and illegally, via his multiple political connections. Yes, he went to others for the illegal deals that landed him in prison. But Rezko depended on Obama when he wanted legal access to the state treasury. The arrangement was a far cry from Obama's image of "change and hope."

It's impossible to know Obama's motives. But several of his official acts benefited Rezko, who in turn raised some $250,000 for Obama's campaigns.

In October 1998, Obama wrote city and state officials, urging them to give Rezko $14 million to build an apartment complex outside of Obama's state Senate district. The Chicago Sun-Times noted last year that Obama's request included $855,000 in "development fees" for Rezko and for another developer, Allison Davis, who happened to be Obama's old law-firm boss. Obama's spokesman said it was just a coincidence that the state senator wrote letters to obtain millions of dollars for his two longtime friends.

In fact, Obama was a dependable ally of subsidized developers in the Legislature, giving Rezko and others broader help as well. In "The Case Against Barack Obama," I identify and parse six housing bills with which Obama was closely involved. A few examples:

* In 2001, Obama cosponsored a bill allowing developers to sell state tax credits to others and pocket half of the proceeds.

* In 2002 and 2004, he was chief cosponsor of a bill to authorize a rent-subsidy fund giving "grants . . . directly to developers" of low-income housing. Seventy percent of the money was earmarked for the Chicago area.

* Obama cosponsored the Illinois Housing Initiative Act of 2003, which required the governor to develop a plan for more low-income housing and "provide[d] for funding for housing construction and rehabilitation and supportive services."

* In 2003, Obama voted for the Affordable Housing Planning and Appeal Act, which required Illinois municipalities to make 10 percent of their housing units "affordable" (by definition, this included subsidized housing). This forced 46 communities just outside of Chicago to create more than 7,000 new "affordable" units - a huge boost in demand for area developers. The bill also provided loopholes for developers to circumvent local ordinances and regulations.

After voting for this measure (it passed narrowly), Obama then cosponsored a new bill that moved up its implementation by more than a year.

These and the other Obama-backed bills helped make millionaires of Rezko and other slum developers at taxpayers' expense. The developers - including his former law boss and an adviser to his current campaign - reciprocated, together giving and raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama's campaigns.

To sum up: Obama got them subsidies to build. He secured them a steady income of government rent subsidies. He arranged special tax credits and abatements for them. He backed measures that increased demand for their services, and helped them legally circumvent local laws.

Perhaps Obama acted with only the poor in mind. Yet some of his developer friends weren't so conscientious - especially Rezko.

Notably, Rezko's company claimed that it lacked the funds to heat one of its 11 buildings in Obama's state Senate district from December 1996 to February 1997. But Rezko still managed to write a $1,000 check to Obama's campaign fund on Jan. 14. That month, his tenants shivered as 19 inches of snow fell on northern Illinois.

With his early and large investments in Obama, Rezko helped the Democratic nominee get to where he is today. Obama, meanwhile, helped Rezko with his legislative work and his letter-writing. Given this close working relationship, the Obama-Rezko land deal is far less surprising.

- David Freddoso, a political reporter for National Review, is the author of "The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate."

CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR OBAMA QUESTIONS LEGALITY OF SLAVERY BAN

By Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/
August 20, 2008

This week, Barack Obama's challenge is to select a running mate who's young, hip, and whose accomplishments in life don't overshadow Obama's. Allow me to suggest Kevin Federline.

The only thing we can be sure of is that Obama will choose someone who is the polar opposite of all his advisers until now. In other words, it will be a very, very white male who was probably proud of his country even before being chosen as Obama's running mate.

Obama's got a lot of ground to make up following that performance last weekend at the Saddleback presidential forum with pastor Rick Warren.

After seeing Obama defend infanticide with the glib excuse that the question of when life begins is above his "pay-grade," Rev. Jeremiah Wright announced that although he's known Obama for 30 years, he only recently became aware of how extreme the senator's viewpoints were. Wright, after all, has his reputation to consider.

Network heads responded by dashing off an urgent memo: During the main presidential debates this fall, ask NO questions about abortion, ethics or evil! Morality isn't the Democrats' forte.

Obama's defenders spin his abominable performance in the Saddleback forum by saying he's just too smart to give a straight answer. As Rick Warren charitably described Obama's debate performance: "He likes to nuance things ... He's a constitutional attorney." The constitutional lawyer "does nuance," as Bill Maher said on "Larry King Live," "and you saw how well that goes over with the Rick Warren people."

If that's Obama's excuse, he ought to know a few basics about the Constitution.

Did the big constitutional lawyer whose "nuance" is too sophisticated for Rick Warren's audience see the letter his wife sent out on his behalf in 2004? Michelle Obama denounced a federal law banning partial-birth abortion, writing that "this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional." Clearly!

The Supreme Court later found the law not "unconstitutional," but "constitutional" -- which I believe may have been the precise moment when Michelle Obama realized just how ashamed she had always been of her country.

But most stunningly, when Warren asked Obama if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not "because historically -- because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution."

I don't care if you support a marriage amendment or not. That answer is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say. If marriage were already defined in the Constitution, we wouldn't need an amendment, no?

Say, you know what else was "historically" not defined in the Constitution? Slavery. The words "slavery" and "slave" do not appear once in the original Constitution. The framers correctly thought it would sully the freedom-enshrining document to acknowledge the repellent practice. (Much like abortion!)

But in 1865, the 13th Amendment banned slavery throughout the land, in the first constitutional phrase ever to mention "slavery": "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

On Obama's "historical" argument, they shouldn't have passed the 13th Amendment because the Constitution "historically" had not mentioned slavery.

Do we know for a fact Barack Obama has read the Constitution? Obama's Facebook profile: "I'm pro-infanticide, I love sunsets, and I don't get the 13th Amendment!"

This is the guy who thinks he can condescend to Clarence Thomas? Asked at the Saddleback forum which Supreme Court justice Obama would not have nominated, Obama said ... the black one!

In Obama's defense, he said he thought Thomas wasn't experienced enough "at the time." So I guess Obama thinks Thomas should have to "wait his turn."

By contrast, Obama has experience pouring out of those big ears of his. Asked last year by Robin Roberts on ABC's "Good Morning America" about his lack of experience in foreign policy, Obama took umbrage.

Swelling up his puny little chest, Obama said: "Well, actually, my experience in foreign policy is probably more diverse than most others in the field. I'm somebody who has actually lived overseas, somebody who has studied overseas. I majored in international relations."

He actually cited his undergraduate major as a qualification to be president.

But on Saturday night, Obama said he didn't think Clarence Thomas was a "strong enough jurist or legal thinker" to be put on the Supreme Court.

I bet Thomas has heard of the 13th Amendment!