Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Hopium. Soma. Whatever

Hopium helps you forget several unpleasant facts

Hi, my name is John. I'm a hopium addict.

It's true. Yes, I'm a journalist. And that led to the harder stuff. Then one day, Barack phoned the Tribune and called me "bro."

Now, I'm addicted to hopium.

So if you're addicted to hopium, or you're worried that your loved ones might fall prey to its power, then please click on this link for the hard left's commercial for Barack Obama

"I never thought it could happen to me," says a shaggy blond-haired surfer dude in the ad, a guy who should have carried a bong.

"I've been living with it for a while now," says a young woman, talking as if she'd contracted a sexually transmitted disease.

That's how they discuss hopium. Like a disease. But they have nothing to be guilty about. It's not some disease that cranky old Republicans can't get because they stopped having sex.

It's hopium.

Once you see it, you won't be the only one addicted to hope. You'll all become addicted—you, your family and friends, even your pets, except for various crustaceans in your aquarium, which are immune. But you and yours are not immune. You'll all become hope-heads, together.

It's America's most powerful drug. Once on hopium, you won't care if Iran has nukes or if taxes are raised during a recession or whether Obama keeps flipping and flopping on everything from foreign wiretaps to withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Who cares? Relax. Hopium is your friend.

Just ask Republicans. They sure could use some, especially now that Republican Sen. Ted Stevens was indicted on corruption charges on Tuesday. But like lemmings, Republicans are stubbornly jumping off his bridge to nowhere.

Like today's liberals, yesterday's conservatives were also hopped up on hopium. This was years ago, when they yearned to believe in "big government conservatism," the Rule of Law Except for Scooter Libby and the Rovianization of federal prosecutors.

Now, John McCain is suffering the aftereffects, because most journalists are hope-heads who portray him as if he's the angry Scottish janitor guy on " The Simpsons." And most journalists—judging by their frenetic denials about liberal media bias—are obviously too far gone in the grip of hopium to remain rational.

"This is your brain," says a woman in the Obama ad holding a hard-boiled egg. She's an actress who once killed sexy vampires on TV.

"This is your brain on hope!" says an angry fellow sitting next to her, another actor, who played some random guy on "Boy Meets World."

He's still angry, holding a newly hatched chicken. It looks like a Peep, only alive and fluffy.

Alive. It's alive. Hope is alive.

"Hope. It could happen to you," says the narrator with a deep voice.

Then the screen is filled with Obama '08 and you realize it's a campaign commercial for Obama and you start to cry, like when you cry at Kodak commercials, or life insurance spots. We Americans are so emotional these days.

Obama hopium was so powerful, that that first rush of it, well, it sent a tingle up my leg. Or down my leg. Then up. So now, when I read newspaper stories about Obama's political history, like a recent gooey, puffy profile in the Washington Post and it didn't mention Obama as a willing member of Chicago's Daley machine, well, I didn't get angry.

Not anymore.

Why? Because I'm a hope-head.

Now, I don't get upset when foreign and national journalists fail to mention Tony Rezko, or the Daley boys, or how the Chicago machine plans to staff the Department of Justice, and the new Department of Homeland Casinos.

Who cares? I'm numb with hopium.

"I mean, this could happen to anybody," says a man in the ad.

"Anybody," says a doctor in scrubs.

"I'm sorry, Mom, I'm sorry," cries the stoned surfer dude.

For eight years—while the Republicans ran things—they thought hope was gone. Now, they think it's back.

I'm not the only one attending Hope-Heads Anonymous. Millions of us every day—including those 200,000 hope-head Europeans at the Obama rally in Berlin—are caught in its clutches.

One colleague whose blood is clear of hopium watched the ad, and said she wasn't hopeful. Rather, she was disturbed.

"The ad plays on irony, and at the same time, it supports the Obama propaganda about hope," she said. "How is that done? Irony on one hand, while driving the Obama message about hope. It's more than funny."

What is it, then?

"I don't know," she said. "I'm waiting for you to tell me."

I forgot. But then, they don't teach civics in schools anymore, so young people targeted by the ad can't tell me either.

What is this so-called "civics," anyway? Is it a bone near the pelvis? An economy car? Or, is it an Indonesian cat that eats coffee beans from the tree?

Does it matter, really?

Not if you're on hopium.,0,1670850,full.column

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

A German Prof Fact Checks Barry's Berlin Speech

Frederick William Dame

(Dr. rer. pol.; Dr. Phil.; D. Litt.)

Political Scientist, Philologist, Literatus,
Diploma in Cultural Relations,
MA Eng., MS Ed., MA Int. Rel., BA Pol. Sci.,
Academician, Comparativist, Educator,
Technological and Cultural Historian,
Universal Consultant

28 July 2008

SUBJECT: An Exposé of Barack Hussein Obama’s Berlin Speech delivered on 24 July 2008.

To Whom It May Concern

I followed the Barack Hussein Obama Show in Berlin on 24 July 2008. I cringed for shock when I heard the speech. I cringed with more shock when I followed the reporting, heard how enthralled the news media was, and how the person-on the-street was enraptured with what Barack Hussein Obama spoke. All of them elevated Barack Hussein Obama into the heaven, from whence he arrived.

I was and am appalled that the German citizen, the American voter, the American media, indeed, the Democratic Party have allowed Barack Hussein Obama to pull the wool over their eyes.

I became so disappointed that I decided to write an exposé of the speech and show that Barack Hussein Obama is a charlatan. Barack Hussein Obama’s speech proves the fact.

I send my exposé results to you for your information. Consider the paper a learning experience. The italics is what Barack Hussein Obama said. The thick print is my commentary.

I allow you use the content in any manner you may see fit.


Frederick William Dame

An Exposé of the Content and Rhetoric of
Barack Hussein Obama’s Speech
A World That Stands as One
As Prepared For Delivery
Berlin, Germany
July 24th, 2008
Barack Hussein Obama’s Statement
A World That Stands as One

 As one what? The speaker really means united and should have said such.

 Thank you for what? For accepting Barack Hussein Obama as a visitor? Barack Hussein Obama requested, even begged, to come to Berlin. If Barack Hussein Obama came as a visitor, then there was no need to ask permission.

thank you for this welcome.

 CONTENT: Inexact. Who is/are you? The audience?

Thank you to the citizens of Berlin and to the people of Germany. Let me thank Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier for welcoming me earlier today. Thank you Mayor Wowereit, the Berlin Senate, the police, and most of all thank you for this welcome.

 This is too wordy. It could have been stated in a simpler way. Furthermore, saying citizens leaves out all of the foreigners living in Berlin, including Americans!

 I thank the people of Berlin. Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister, Mayor Wowereit, the Berlin Senate, the police and my audience for welcoming me today
I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before.
 Never use a preposition to end a sentence with!

 CONTENT: The overall great majority of Americans who come/came to Berlin are/were either business persons or tourists. They do/did not come as politicians and they do/did not ask if they can/could come.

Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen, a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.

 CONTENT: I speak to you not as a candidate for President is an empty phrase. This statement is not the truth! Has Barack Hussein Obama suddenly decided not to candidate? If Barack Hussein Obama has not come as a presidential candidate, then why all of the fuss?

 CONTENT: Empty phrase. There is really no such person as a citizen of the world. There is no legal term recognizing this status. Citizens belong to countries, to nations. We are citizens of different nations of the world. There is no logic and no legality in the statement. Being a lawyer, Barack Hussein Obama should know this.

 Citizen of the world reminds me of the statement by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the Communist Manifesto: “Workers of the world unite.”

I know that I don‘t look like the Americans who‘ve previously spoken in this great city.

 GRAMMAR: Proper public speeches do not use contractions.

 CONTENT: Is this a reference to Barack Hussein Obama’s being Afro-American? There are many Afro-Americans who have spoken in Berlin. They are too numerous to mention. They include actors, actresses, politicians, businesspersons, sportspersons, etc. Is this an indication of an identity crisis?
The journey that led me here is improbable.
 Improbable is the wrong word. No journey is improbable. A better statement is: a long one.

 A journey does not lead. Reasons and principles lead. Journeys bring something!
My mother was born in the heartland of America, but my father grew up herding goats in Kenya. His father, my grandfather, was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.
 CONTENT: Is Barack Hussein Obama implying that Barack Hussein Obama is different? My father was a machine worker. My mother was a cleaning woman. My grandfather was a lumberjack. My great-grandfather herded cows, goats, and pigs, and had hens. Barack Hussein Obama’s heritage is no different from mine or millions of others.

 What else could Barack Hussein Obama’s father’s father be except Barack Hussein Obama’s grandfather?
At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning his dream required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West.
 CONTENT: This is a false statement at the beginning. The Cold War started shortly after WWII when in November of 1945 a communist-supported uprising broke out in Azerbaijan. In January 1946 the Prime Minister Qavan protested to the UN Security Council. The firm stance of the US government that supported the Iran position caused the Soviets to withdraw their forces in May 1946 and the rebellion was quashed in December, 1946. This is considered to be the start of the Cold War. The term COLD WAR was coined by Bernard Baruch in a congressional debate in 1947. If we consider this the starting year and 1989, the fall of the Berlin Wall as the ending year, then the Cold War lasted 42 years. I do not know when Obama Sr. arrived in Hawaii to study at the university. Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu in August 1952. So Barack Hussein Obama’s father must have arrived no later than 1951. That was only four years into the Cold War. 1951 was surely not the height of the Cold War. That came much later and many experts disagree on the exact years.

 Height of the Cold War is an empty phrase in this context.

 GRAMMAR: yearning his is improper English. One does not yearn something, one yearns for something.

 CONTENT: Why were the corners forgotten? I attended grade school in 1952 and I knew where the African countries were.

 Forgotten corners is an empty phrase.

 CONTENT: West. As far as I know Barack Hussein Obama’s father was interested in attending an American university only. West is misleading.
And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life.
 CONTENT: Prayer. Did Barack Hussein Obama’s father make prayers (5 times a day?) or did he apply for university admission? If he prayed, to whom did he pray? God, Allah, the University of Hawaii? The statement is religiously overloaded.
That is why I‘m here.
 CONTENT: Logic! Is Barack Hussein Obama in Berlin because Barack Hussein Obama’s father yearned for a better life or because Barack Hussein Obama’s father prayed? Barack Hussein Obama came to Berlin not as a politician? Barack Hussein Obama came to Berlin as a presidential candidate? Barack Hussein Obama came to Berlin because of the father’s prayer?
And you are here because you too know that yearning.
 CONTENT: The statement is suggestive and unfounded. I suspect that more than 90% of those who were in the audience do not have that type of yearning. They are already in the West.

 GRAMMAR: The punctuation is wrong. It should be … , too, …

This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom.
 CONTENT: This is hyperbole. Moreover it is an inaccurate statement. It excludes all other cities in the world that would like freedom: Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Peking, Colombo, Rangoon, etc.
And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life.
 CONTENT: Struggle, sacrifice. The use of this word belittles the real fact of history that the struggle was really a war and the sacrifice was the sacrificing of human life.
Ours is a partnership that truly began sixty years ago this summer, on the day when the first American plane touched down at Templehof.
 CONTENT: Templehof is spelled incorrectly. The first American plane did not land at the Tempelhof Airfield in 1948. The first landing of an American plane was immediately after the close of World War II, at least 2-3 years before 1948.

On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin.
 CONTENT: On that day only?
The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall.
 CONTENT: By the time the Berlin Wall was built in 1961, the rubble had been removed from at least West Berlin. Moreover, the Berlin Wall was not built out of rubble. It was built out of concrete blocks.

 CONTENT: Historical inaccuracy par excellence. In connection with what follows about the Berlin Blockade, the underlying tone and insinuation is that the Berlin Blockade and the Berlin Wall are one and the same historical occurrence.
The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade.
 CONTENT: All of this happened on that day of the airplane landing?

 CONTENT: Ponder means consider, deliberate. There was no need to ponder. The fact is that in the West, America, England, France, and even the Soviet Union, as well as other countries, had already decided upon a course of action for a better world with the founding of the United Nations in 1945. They did not want to remake the world. They wanted to make the living conditions and the political existence of nations safer and better.

 USAGE: The use of remade is really Barack Hussein Obama’s emphasis on change and the insinuation that only Barack Hussein Obama is able to execute change.
This is where the two sides met.
 CONTENT: Too ambiguous. What two sides? The United States of America and the Soviet Union? Western Europe and Eastern Europe? The Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic? Communists and Anti-Communists? East Berlin citizens and West Berlin citizens? Or just those who happened to stand on one side vis-à-vis those who happened to stand on the other side?

 Furthermore, did the two sides, whoever they were, meet, or did they stand off?
And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city.
 CONTENT: Now Barack Hussein Obama retreats in the historical sequence.

 CONTENT: The Communists is too inclusive. The Soviet Union (Communists) as the occupying power chose to blockade the western part of Berlin.

 USAGE: Leave out and because it misleads the audience into thinking that the Berlin Blockade and the Berlin Wall are the same.
They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin.
 CONTENT: Historical inaccuracy. The reason for the Berlin Blockade was not to “extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin.” The Berlin Blockade was the Soviet Union’s reaction to the currency reform and the introduction of the German Mark in the west. The goal of the Soviet Union was to stop the establishment of a West German state and to force the other three Allied Occupying Powers out of Berlin.

 CONTENT: The Berlin Blockade cut off the ground transportation, not food and supplies. They could be delivered by air. This is what happened.
The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army
 CONTENT: The statement is misleading. Does Barack Hussein Obama’s use of our mean the United States of America Forces alone? Barack Hussein Obama suggests this but Barack Hussein Obama does not say this. In reality Barack Hussein Obama does not understand the historical situation at the time. It is this: Because of the Allied Agreement on the Four Power Status (1945), American British, and French troops had occupied their given sectors in July of 1945. By the time of the Berlin Blockade these three occupying forces stood vis-à-vis the Soviet Union sector. It is these three Allied forces that is the our.
And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe.
 GRAMMAR: And yet is bad usage. The sentence should begin with Retreat …
Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun
 CONTENT: Historical inaccuracy. It is not the last war, but World War II. There were other wars going on in the world after the collapse of the Third Reich and at the post-WWII-era that Barack Hussein Obama refers: The Arab-Israeli War of 1948-1949; The Communist Revolt in Malaysia in1948-1949; Kashmir in 1948, etc. My goodness! Barack Hussein Obama does not know history!
All that stood in the way was Berlin.
 CONTENT: Inaccurate statement. Berlin did not stand in the way. The Allied Occupation powers and the forming government of West Germany stood in the way. Berlin did not even have a meaning as a capital city at the time. Berlin was not partitioned until November 1948.
And that‘s when the airlift began; when the largest and most unlikely rescue in history brought food and hope to the people of this city.
 CONTENT: The time element is too ambiguous. Does Barack Hussein Obama mean the day when the first American airplane landed at the Tempelhof airport, or does Barack Hussein Obama mean June 24, 1948, when the Soviets started the blockade of Berlin?

 USAGE: largely, unlikely. Exaggeration that insinuates that the Airlift might not be successful.

 CONTENT: Historical inaccuracy. The Berlin Blockade really began on 22 June 1948. The Airlift Operation started on 26 June with the mobilization of Western Allied military aircraft. By 30 September the airfields had been enlarged by the Berlin civilians so that the large military aircraft could land.
The odds were stacked against success.
 CONTENT: Not really! The statement is misleading. According to the military governor of the American Occupation Zone, General Lucius D. Clay, who initiated the Airlift, and the airlift pilots, there was no other alternative but success.
In the winter, a heavy fog filled the sky above, and many planes were forced to turn back without dropping off the needed supplies.
 CONTENT: Fog the whole winter? This is an idiot statement.

 CONTENT: …without dropping off needed supplies. As far as I know some food supplied were parachuted in bad weather. I know of none that flew back (to Frankfurt am Main) with full loads. If any reader knows about airlift planes returning to Frankfurt fully loaded with their cargo, then I would appreciate the information.
The streets where we stand were filled with hungry families who had no comfort from the cold. But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up.
 CONTENT: What are Berliners? Berliners are (jelly-filled) doughnuts without a hole. The Berliner population and the three Allied Occupying Powers did not relent.

 GRAMMAR: Never use a preposition to end a sentence with! give up what? Their hopes!
And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city‘s mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom.
 USAGE: Delete and. Delete here. CONTENT: Barack Hussein Obama is not at the Tiergarten. Barack Hussein Obama is at the Victory Column. Delete fall and use autumn.

 CONTENT: The city mayor was Ernst Reuter. He became mayor in November 1948.

 CONTENT: I do not know how many people were present at Ernst Reuter’s speech. I highly suspect that hundreds of thousands is an exaggeration par excellence.
There is only one possibility, he said. For us to stand together united until this battle is won. The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your duty. People of the world, look at Berlin!
 CONTENT: These are not the exact words of Ernst Reuter. These are Barack Hussein Obama’s words that do not reflect the content of Reuter’s speech, except for the last two sentences.
People of the world look at Berlin!
 USAGE: The statement is in imperative (command) form. The implication is: Do what I tell you to do!
Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle.
 CONTENT: The trust lasted until the German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and the Foreign Minister Joseph Fischer broke it in 2002-2003.
Look at Berlin, where the determination of a people met the generosity of the Marshall Plan and created a German miracle; where a victory over tyranny gave rise to NATO, the greatest alliance ever formed to defend our common security.
 CONTENT: Historical inaccuracy. The German miracle for Germans is the social market economy introduced by the German Chancellor Ludwig Erhard. This miracle was not created in Berlin. It was created in Bonn and executed throughout the Federal Republic of Germany.
 CONTENT: The sentence portion suggests that the Marshall Plan was for Germany only. The Marshall Plan is officially the European Economic Recovery Program. It was not only intended for Germany.

 CONTENT: Historical inaccuracy and a totally false association! The victory of the Berlin Airlift, and thereby the “victory over tyranny” did not give rise to NATO. The historical fact is that NATO was founded in 4 April, 1949. The Berlin Blockade did not end until 12 May 1949, a month later.
Look at Berlin, where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our common humanity.
 CONTENT: Somber. The word means dark, gloomy. I have seen these stones. A better word would have been stolid, impressive. They are not dark . They are not gloomy. Evidently Barack Hussein Obama does not know anything about the subject.
People of the world, look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.
 CONTENT: A continent did not come together in Berlin. The European Union, if this is what Barack Hussein Obama is alluding to, came together in Strasbourg, Brussels, Bonn, Scheveningen, and other European cities, but not in Berlin!
Sixty years after the airlift, we are called upon again
 CONTENT: Called upon by whom and for what?
History has led us to a new crossroad, with new promise and new peril
 CONTENT: History does not lead to anywhere. Superb and inept politicians lead to new promises and new peril.

 CONTENT: The word new promises alludes to Barack Hussein Obama’s penchant for riding the word change. Barack Hussein Obama cannot call for change in Berlin. Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama uses the word new.
When you, the German people, tore down that wall , a wall that divided East and West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope walls came tumbling down around the world.
 CONTENT: … walls came tumbling down around the world. The walls in Tibet and Myanmar (Burma) also?
From Kiev to Cape Town, prison camps were closed, and the doors of democracy were opened.
 CONTENT: Barack Hussein Obama does not know Kiev.
Markets opened too, and the spread of information and technology reduced barriers to opportunity and prosperity. While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history.
The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope. But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers, dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean.
The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil.
 Comment: Except for the content inaccuracies, the whole section is a repetition of policy statements made by Hilary Clinton, John McCain, and other unsuccessful candidates for the American presidency. They are not Barack Hussein Obama’s views on policy. As a matter of fact, I ask: What are Barack Hussein Obama’s views? Barack Hussein Obama’s speeches always contain material collected and collated from other sources than Barack Hussein Obama .

 CONTENT: closeness. What is the closeness here? The historical closeness? The emotional closeness? The geographical closeness?

 CONTENT: an ocean. How many oceans has the world?
As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.
 CONTENT: There is more CO2 pollution in Chicago than is caused by automobiles in Boston. It is not felt because the winds from Canada blow it elsewhere.

 CONTENT: CO2 pollution is only one cause of the environmental change. CONTENT: Drought from Kansas to Kenya. Kansas and Kenya have always experienced drought even before the recordings of it in the 20th century.
Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris.
 CONTENT: … secrets from a scientist. What kind of scientist? This is an attempt at alliteration. What is meant is the efforts of a nuclear scientist.
The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin.
 CONTENT: Do not blame Afghanistan. Blame the idiots who think they need to use heroine, regardless of where they are located.
The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow
 CONTENT: The situation is just the opposite. Terror breeds violence and poverty!
The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all.
 CONTENT: shames the conscience of us all. All in this sense means all of the people, all of the people in the world. Now the genocide in Darfur does not bother the conscience of Robert Mugabe, the Sudanese government, the Arab countries who support the Sudanese and surely not China, a country that regularly delivers/delivered weapons to the Sudanese government.
In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we‘re honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny.
In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe‘s role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth: that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe.
Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more, not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.
 These statements are essentially the same as the ones made by John McCain in the spring, with the exception that John McCain is more exact. The statement is so general that it can be supported by almost every political party of every political color.

 USAGE: we’re honest. We are honest.

 CONTENT: drifted apart. The drift was caused from one direction only, the European direction.

 CONTENT: deride and deny. The statement is too ambiguous. What voices in America deride and deny? The ultra right and the WASPS, of course. But no one can really take them seriously.

 CONTENT: sacrifice. This is too condescending! It is too weak! The correct wording is fight for freedom. The sacrifice is the willingness to be patriotic and possibly give up one’s life for the principles of the American Republic

 CONTENT: change of leadership in Washington. With this statement Barrack Hussein Obama defeats the aforementioned statement that Barack Hussein Obama does not come to Berlin as a politician. Furthermore, if a change in the leadership in Washington will not lift global burdens, then there is no reason to vote for Barack Hussein Obama. In this statement Barack Hussein Obama says that Barack Hussein Obama cannot evoke change and lift the burdens of globalization. Barack Hussein Obama candidates by exploiting the campaign motto: We can. We can change. Does the savior have limits?

 CONTENT USAGE. Delete global citizenship and use globalization. There is not such (legal) status as citizen of the world. Plutarch in Of Banishment states: “I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world.” Plutarch did not know the geographical boundaries and national existences of the world during his time. His world was the Mediterranean. In the 17th century Sir Francis Bacon wrote in Of Goodness and Goodness of Nature: “If a man be generous and courteous to strangers, it shows that he is a citizen of the world; ….” This use of citizenship of the world in this quotation is constrained to emotional feeling, not to an accepted recognition by international law.
That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.
 CONTENT: The greatest danger of all, in the past, in the present, and in the future, is to allow (new) demagogues to build new walls.
The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand
 CONTENT: Barack Hussein Obama is referring to walls that do not exist.
The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand.
 CONTENT: Better is: The economic walls …
The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.
 CONTENT: The order of words is interesting. By placing Muslim between Christian and Jew is visually and vocally suggestive that the Christians and the Jews are walling/have walled in the Muslims. The Muslim Islamists are those who are walling. It is not the Christians and it is not the Jewish people. The Islamists and the Islamic terrorists have the goal of destroying Judaism and Israel and eventually every non-believer, that is to say, every Christian.

 GRAMMAR: These now … Better: These are the walls we must now tear down.
We know they have fallen before.
 CONTENT: Almost always it took a war to make them fall. The Berlin Wall is an historical exception.

 LOGIC: If these are new walls, then they did not exist before.
After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity.
 CONTENT: Better: promise, prosperity, and peace.

Here, at the base of a column built to mark victory in war, we meet in the center of a Europe at peace.
 CONTENT: The Victory Column marks the victory of Germany over France in 1870-1871. The emphasis is not on victory, even though that is the name of the column. More importantly, the Victory Column marks the establishment of the unified German states into one nation, The German Reich. Barack Hussein Obama does not know history.
Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans, where our Atlantic alliance ended wars and brought savage war criminals to justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous people defeated apartheid.
 CONTENT: I do not like the use of walls. The picture often evokes something that does not exist. However, I shall use the word to make my content points clear. New walls have sprung up. The Irish vetoed the European Union Contract. Voilà: a new wall. The founding of Kosovo has brought a new wall between Albanians and Serbs. The refugees from Zimbabwe into South Africa have established new walls based on tribal and heritage discrimination. Barack Hussein Obama does not know present-day world developments.
So history reminds us that walls can be torn down
 CONTENT: History also reminds us that new walls can be built to replace the old ones.
But the task is never easy.
 CONTENT: What task? The fight for freedom? Or the tearing down of walls? Or the erecting of new walls?
True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice.
 No Comment. This appears to be a general statement to which everyone can agree.
They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace.
 CONTENT: Sharing must be equal.
They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other.
 No Comment. This appears to be another general statement to which everyone can agree.
That is why America cannot turn inward.
 CONTENT: There is no tendency in America to turn inward. If America is turning inward, then why is it still conducting foreign relations with other countries and foreign trade? Barack Hussein Obama is suggesting/stating a situation that does not exist.
That is why Europe cannot turn inward.
 CONTENT: There is no tendency in Europe to turn inward. Barack Hussein Obama is suggesting/stating a situation that does not exist. If Europe is turning inward, then why has it expanded to 27 member nations?
America has no better partner than Europe
 CONTENT: And Europe has no better partner that the United States of America. Where is the problem?
Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic.
 CONTENT: There are enough global bridges in place in the form of non-governmental organizations, international organizations, and international agreements and contracts. All that has to be done is to use them properly.
Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
 These commitments are already in existence in a number of meetings on helping developing countries.
It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky above our heads, and people to assemble where we stand today. And this is the moment when our nations and all nations must summon that spirit anew.
 CONTENT: Barack Hussein Obama is calling for something that is intuitively obvious. The spirit must not be summoned anew. The spirit is always present. It must be constantly supported.
This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.
This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO’s first mission beyond Europe‘s borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now.
This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.
 CONTENT: This is a usurping of policy. This is essentially the same position of John McCain and Hillary Clinton, without Barack Hussein Obama’s content inaccuracies. The policy statement is not new with Barack Hussein Obama.

 CONTENT: networks. The word makes the act less terrifying. Use Islamist terrorist networks. Name them what they are. Reads better: who reject the Muslim Islamist extremism…

 CONTENT: stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism … The statement is too one sided. It excludes all other folk groupings and nations who reject extremism.

 CONTENT: No one welcomes war. Inaccurate statement. Islamists welcome war. Certain political groups welcome war, e.g., the Farq rebels in Columbia.

 CONTENT: The goal of a nuclear-free world has never stopped. Consultations and agreements have always occurred.

 CONTENT: The two superpowers did not face each other across the Berlin Wall. The Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic faced each other. The Soviet Union did not build the wall. Furthermore, the people of Berlin faced the people of Berlin every day.
This is the moment when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday. In this century, we need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. In this century, in this city of all cities, we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent.
This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all.
 CONTENT: This contradicts the above statement that Europeans have formed a union of prosperity, progress, etc. It also contradicts the following sentence. The European Union already does everything that Barack Hussein Obama says should be done. Barack Hussein Obama is not up-to-date on current European
Union politics. Policy, and political goals.

 CONTENT: There is no Cold War mind-set in the European Union. Neither is there one in Russia.

 CONTENT: This statement and wish should be communicated to Arabian, African, and other dictators. The Western democratic republican governments do not have to have their hands slapped. They are always doing something to solve the problems.
This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace. And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close.
 CONTENT: This message has been sent more than once by the Bush administration and various Washington officials. It has also been adapted and sent to the Middle East by the European Union. There is nothing new in this section that has not already been stated by John McCain or Hilary Clinton, except the content inaccuracies.
This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations including my own will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere. This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one.
 CONTENT: Many of these disasters are not caused by CO2 problems. Barack Hussein Obama is scapegoating by attempting to argue that there is a singular cause and a singular nation responsible.
And this is the moment when we must give hope to those left behind in a globalized world. We must remember that the Cold War born in this city was not a battle for land or treasure. Sixty years ago, the planes that flew over Berlin did not drop bombs; instead they delivered food, and coal, and candy to grateful children. And in that show of solidarity, those pilots won more than a military victory. They won hearts and minds; love and loyalty and trust not just from the people in this city, but from all those who heard the story of what they did here.
 CONTENT: These are nice words. However, the planes do not drop bombs; bombers do!

 CONTENT: There was no military victory because there was no war in the traditional sense of the word. It was a diplomatic victory backed by concerted military effort. Barack Hussein Obama wants to become President, yet Barack Hussein Obama does not understand what Barack Hussein Obama says.
Now the world will watch and remember what we do here; what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time?
 CONTENT: Now the world is watching. The world did not watch Barack Hussein Obama’s speech in Berlin.

 CONTENT: No corners of the world are forgotten. Empty phrase. The world does not have corners. The points of a compass signify the four directions only. They do not show corners.

 USAGE: who yearn for. Barack Hussein Obama got it correct this time.

 CONTENT: Banish AIDS. No country does more than the USA to banish AIDS, whether the research is government or privately supported. Perhaps Barack Hussein Obama could make contrition from the 300 million dollar campaign fund!
The best way to banish AIDS is to have proper sexual behavior, not aberrations.
Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words never again in Darfur?
 CONTENT: The correct nomenclature is Myanmar.

 CONTENT: Only the blogger in Ira? What about the other Iranians who do not blog.

 CONTENT: According to Robert Mugabe, a person who does not vote for him is not a voter. The problem is not guaranteeing rights to the voter in Zimbabwe. The problem is Robert Mugabe.

 CONTENT: Convince China and the Sudanese-supporting Arabian countries. They are the ones that continue to support the Sudanese government.
Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don‘t look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?
 CONTENT: There is a power that Barack Hussein Obama has forgotten: The Papacy has more ethical and moral power that most countries in the world. The problem is that the majority of nations pay only lip service to morals and ethics.

 USAGE: don’t is a contraction.
People of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment. This is our time.
 CONTENT: This reminds me of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and the Communist Manifesto.
I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we‘ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We‘ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.
 USAGE: we’ve is a contraction.

 CONTENT: No country and no person is perfect. But in the end the democratic republics have always come out on top!
But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived at great cost and great sacrifice to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom, indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares. What has always united us what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America‘s shores is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.
 CONTENT: how much I love America is a statement of degrees. It can also mean the degree to which Barack Hussein Obama loves America does not say anything about Barack Hussein Obama’s patriotism and it can also mean a statement of little quantity, like I do not love my country very much.

 CONTENT: The great sacrifice was fighting for freedom.

 CONTENT: Not every language in the world is spoken in the United States of America. There are 350 languages that are spoken in the city of London alone. There is absolutely not this amount of foreign languages that are spoken in the United States of America.

 CONTENT: more perfect union is a disguised allusion to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, 19 November, 1863. The question thus arises: Is Barack Hussein Obama a modern political conglomerate of Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., or even a political Jesus (Barack Hussein Obama’s messianic tendencies), or Mohammed (Barack Hussein Obama’s heritage emphasis.)? If this is so, that is blasphemy at its greatest.

 CONTENT: I thought that Barack Hussein Obama’s father wanted to study at a western university. Kenya had none.
These are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. These aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart. It is because of these aspirations that the airlift began.
 These aspirations are not why the airlift began. The airlift (see above) was General Clay’s answer to the challenge of the Soviet Union.
It is because of these aspirations that all free people everywhere became citizens of Berlin.
 CONTENT: I am not a citizen of Berlin. I live and have lived elsewhere. I am an American citizen.

 CONTENT: Citizens of Berlin is an allusion to Kennedy’s Ich bin ein Berliner speech and that speech has its problems. But that exposé is another story.
It is in pursuit of these aspirations that a new generation our generation must make our mark on the world.
 CONTENT: New generations do not have to be told that they must make their mark on the world. They make their mark anyway, without being told. They must be allowed the freedom to do so. That is why freedom is worth the fight.
People of Berlin, and people of the world, the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long.
 CONTENT: This reminds me of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and the Communist Manifesto.
But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom
 CONTENT: This is the messianic call.
We are a people of improbable hope.
 CONTENT: Hope is never improbable. Hope is always a probability. If it is improbable then there is no reason to hope.
With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.
 CONTENT: remake the world once again. This statement does not jive with the logic behind hope being improbable. (There is no logic behind the statement in connection with the previous sentence.)

 USAGE: eye toward the future. It is an idiomatic expression. People have two eyes. Better would be: Facing the future…


 The Speech
The speech is spotted with unnecessary repetitions, improper usages, bad grammar, idiomatic expressions, misrepresentation and interpretation of historical facts, and a large number of illogical statements, considering that Barack Hussein Obama is a Harvard University graduate. I did a quick editing of the speech and reduced it by 1000 words without losing the subject matter. A more exact editing would reduce it by another 1000 words. This means that 2000 words are unnecessary. If they are unnecessary, then two-thirds of the speech is filled with empty phrases, causing the speech to have hot air. The speech writer(s) should be fired. Moreover, if Barack Hussein Obama is not capable of proof-reading the prepared speeches and recognizing flagrant mistakes, wrongly stated historical facts, then Barack Hussein Obama should disqualify himself from candidacy for the presidency on the grounds of intellectual incapability. Barack Hussein Obama claims to possess knowledge and skill and the Berlin speech on 24 July 2008 proves the opposite.
The speech has 152 sentences. In these 152 sentences there are 115 instances of content inaccuracies. This gives us a speech content inaccuracy percentage of 75.6 percent. This leaves approximately 24.4 percent that could be considered as containing content substance. This is a percentage rate that is applicable to almost all of Barack Hussein Obama’s speeches.

 Barack Hussein Obama’s Rhetoric
Barack Hussein Obama is considered to be a great orator. If this speech and Barack Hussein Obama’s books are examples of great (written) oration, then I want no part of them. At best Barack Hussein Obama is mediocre. Barack Hussein Obama is not even a good orator. Surely Barack Hussein Obama is not a great orator. Great orators do not make such mistakes. To those readers and future audiences, I strongly suggest that you consider every word, every historical fact, carefully and recognize the use of every flowery phrase for what it is: the inability to communicate in sentences with content, and the suggestion that the user of such empty words is a great orator. Barack Hussein Obama claims to possess knowledge and skill fit for the office of the Presidency of the United States of America. In Barack Hussein Obama’s own speech in Berlin on 24 July 2008, Barack Hussein Obama proved that Barack Hussein Obama does not have these qualities. Barack Hussein Obama is not a great orator. Barack Hussein Obama is not a great politician. Barack Hussein Obama is just a commonplace charlatan. From New England to Alaska, From Chicago to the Hawaiian Islands, Barack Hussein Obama should come down to the ground where all Americans keep their feet. For the person with two feet on the ground who does not accept the messianic air of Barack Hussein Obama, there is only one word that aptly describes such self-presentation, suspicious character, and questionable oratory. Farmers, ranchers, and mainstream America know the word well.

 Political Orientation
My exposé does not present one political party – the Democratic Party, the Republican Party – as being better that the other. My comments are academic and objective. I do have my preferences in this election. I am not an active supporter of Senator John McCain. I am a sympathizer for John McCain because I see in John McCain all of the positive characteristics and values that a President of the United States of America should possess: fabulous leadership qualities, clear thinking, the ability to speak in an understandable, factual manner, and an exceptionally high degree of patriotism are only some examples of presidential characteristics. I am not against a Democrat being President. I was on the side of James Earl Carter. I am not against an Afro-American or a woman being President either. Hilary Clinton would make a good President, although she is not my favorite. Colin Powell would make a good President. I am one-hundred percent convinced that Condoleezza Rice would be a superb President, but not Barack Hussein Obama.
 Change, Hope, and the American Dream
Barack Hussein Obama is sly and not easy to nail down on many issues. Barack Hussein Obama’s drumbeat is change, change you can believe in. Yet, there is never an elaboration on it. How can one believe in change without knowing what it entails? What does Barack Hussein Obama mean with the word change? The United States of America undergoes change constantly, regardless of who is President. Change is effected by many means, fashion, the press, advertising, laws, world events, etc. However, change should not be effected by a charlatan. Every idiot knows that when there is a new American President there will be change. Harvard graduates know it, too. The American electorate knows that Barack Hussein Obama does not have to write the word change on their foreheads. They also know that Barack Hussein Obama does not have the intellectual and rhetorical ability to elaborate and explain the ramifications of Barack Hussein Obama’s change.
I read Barack Hussein Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, Three Rivers Press, New York: 2006. (The book has already been translated into German. This is quite fast turn-over time for a book by an American politician to be translated into a foreign language. It has not become a best seller in Germany as it was in the United States.) Moreover, the book is wordy, bad English, mushy, oriented to a reading public that is accustomed to soap operas, and non-intellectual discussion shows on radio and television. My feeling is that it is directed to a public concerned with fatuity and does not understand false hopes. As a matter of fact, there is no audacity or unrestrained impudence whatsoever in the book. If hope can be audacious, then love and faith be audacious as well. As a stated Christian Barack Hussein Obama should know that for hope to be audacious is completely contrary to the word of God as we read it in I Corinthians, 13: 13, from the King James Version of the Bible: “And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three: but the greatest of these is love.” This passage does not speak of faith, hope, or love being unrestrained impudence. The passage speaks of faith, hope, love in simple word-concepts.
There is a lot of false hope in Barack Hussein Obama’s book. One hope that is in the title is to reclaim the American Dream. From the philosophy of political theory and the principles of logic, the American Dream cannot be reclaimed because it was never disclaimed. A dream to achieve something and keep it is ever continuous. To use a word from Walt Whitman, the American Dream is an eidólon, an image of an ideal that perhaps sometimes, but not completely, can come true. It will always be present. Therefore, it does not have to be reclaimed. I seriously doubt that Barack Hussein Obama knows what the origin of the American Dream is. Moreover, I very seriously doubt that Barack Hussein Obama cares. Barack Hussein Obama is only interested in using flowers of speech without seriously thinking about their content. Thus Barack Hussein Obama’s rhetoric ends up being nothing more than empty phrases. I followed Barack Hussein Obama’s presidential primary show and analyzed Barack Hussein Obama’s speeches. In all of them 50% or more content is meaningless phraseology. This is supported by the fact that on the internet there are a plethora of political commentators who have written about what Barack Hussein Obama really said, or meant to say. As far as I am concerned, Barack Hussein Obama just says what the speeches say, but does not know what they mean, and cannot say what Barack Hussein Obama means, or mean what Barack Hussein Obama says, because to do so would prove that Barack Hussein Obama is an advocate of meaningless, hot-air rhetoric. Barack Hussein Obama is a charlatan.
 Barack Hussein Obama’s Messiah Syndrome
Barack Hussein Obama should also learn that politics is not entertainment. Entertainment is comedy and tragedy. The comedy with Barack Hussein Obama is that Barack Hussein Obama believes what Barack Hussein Obama says without knowing what Barack Hussein Obama says. The tragedy is that there are so many Americans and people from other countries who believe Barack Hussein Obama because it is subtly suggested to them to think that Barack Hussein Obama is on a Godly mission.
Barack Hussein Obama’s foreign policy trip to the Middle East and Europe was self-presentation smacking of false assumption of authority, authority that Barack Hussein Obama does not possess. Underlying Barack Hussein Obama’s self-presentation and in a very undertoned manner throughout Barack Hussein Obama’s public appearances and speeches, is the messianic concept. This is underscored by Barack Hussein Obama’s private airplane that is overloaded with the messianic touch. It comes from the sky (heaven) and brings a savior. The airplane has the logo The rising sun (son) that is bringing the world change we can believe in. The phrases and words like the walls came tumbling down; I have come to you; prayer; believe in,” etc. suggest that Barack Hussein Obama is a messiah. There is also an underlying tone that Barack Hussein Obama is delivering a sort of Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), a teaching to the world. This is extremely dangerous because when Barack Hussein Obama’s messiah/Jesus-orientation is coupled with Barack Hussein Obama’s allusions to Abraham Lincoln, Ernst Reuter, John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr., Barack Hussein Obama is really saying that Barack Hussein Obama is better than all of them because the Sermon on the Mount delivery and presentation suggestion outscores them all. Such conduct is not only the epitome of blasphemy. It is the epitome of sacrilege.
The Barack Hussein Obama megalomania presentation reeks of falsehood and deception to the degree that its putrid stench will never evaporate. I want God to bless America. America does not need Barack Hussein Obama’s false-god blessing. Barack Hussein Obama should have the common sense to accept the truth that Barack Hussein Obama is not a savior. Barack Hussein Obama is not a messiah. America needs a President. America does not need Barack Hussein in the assumed status of a messiah. America does not need a Barack-Hussein-Obama charlatan. America needs God’s guidance and a President who deserves to be respected.

Frederick William Dame

You Have 358,475,231 Friends

Who says the Republicans have no sense of humor?

Monday, July 28, 2008

Jon Voight Is Not Fooled

VOIGHT: My concerns for America

Obama sowing socialist seeds in young people


We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up.

Sen. Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset.

The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.

The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away.

Those same leaders who were in the streets in the '60s are very powerful today in their work to bring down the Iraq war and to attack our president, and they have found their way into our schools. William Ayers is a good example of that.

Thank God, today, we have a strong generation of young soldiers who know exactly who they are and what they must do to protect our freedom and our democracy. And we have the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, who has brought hope and stability to Iraq and prevented the terrorists from establishing a base in that country. Our soldiers are lifting us to an example of patriotism at a time when we've almost forgotten who we are and what is at stake.

If Mr. Obama had his way, he would have pulled our troops from Iraq years ago and initiated an unprecedented bloodbath, turning over that country to the barbarianism of our enemies. With what he has openly stated about his plans for our military, and his lack of understanding about the true nature of our enemies, there's not a cell in my body that can accept the idea that Mr. Obama can keep us safe from the terrorists around the world, and from Iran, which is making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb. And while a misleading portrait of Mr. Obama is being perpetrated by a media controlled by the Democrats, the Obama camp has sent out people to attack the greatness of Sen. John McCain, whose suffering and courage in a Hanoi prison camp is an American legend.

Gen. Wesley Clark, who himself has shame upon him, having been relieved of his command, has done their bidding and become a lying fool in his need to demean a fellow soldier and a true hero.

This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way.

Jon Voight is an Academy Award-winning actor who is well-known for his humanitarian work.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Then Move To the World, You Idiot

It’s America, Obama
A modest dissent to the citizen of the world.

By Victor Davis Hanson

What disturbed me about Barack Obama's Berlin speech were some reoccurring utopian assumptions about cause and effect — namely, that bad things happen almost as if by accident, and are to be addressed by faceless, universal forces of good will.

Unlike Obama, I would not speak to anyone as “a fellow citizen of the world,” but only as an ordinary American who wishes to do his best for the world, but with a much-appreciated American identity, and rather less with a commonality indistinguishable from those poor souls trapped in the Sudan, North Korea, Cuba, or Iran. Take away all particular national identity and we are empty shells mouthing mere platitudes, who believe in little and commit to even less. In this regard, postmodern, post-national Europe is not quite the ideal, but a warning of how good intentions can run amuck. Ask the dead of Srebrenica, or the ostracized Danish cartoonists, or the archbishop of Canterbury with his supposed concern for transcendent universal human rights.

With all due respect, I also don't believe the world did anything to save Berlin, just as it did nothing to save the Rwandans or the Iraqis under Saddam — or will do anything for those of Darfur; it was only the U.S. Air Force that risked war to feed the helpless of Berlin as it saved the Muslims of the Balkans. And I don't think we have much to do in America with creating a world in which “famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands.” Bad, often evil, autocratic governments abroad cause hunger, often despite rich natural landscapes; and nature, in tragic fashion, not “the carbon we send into atmosphere,” causes “terrible storms,” just as it has and will for millennia.

Perhaps conflict-resolution theory posits there are no villains, only misunderstandings; but I think military history suggests that culpability exists — and is not merely hopelessly relative or just in the eye of the beholder. So despite Obama’s soaring moral rhetoric, I am troubled by his historical revisionism that, “The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love.”

I would beg to differ again, and suggest instead that a mass-murdering Soviet tyranny came close to destroying the European continent (as it had, in fact, wiped out millions of its own people) and much beyond as well — and was checked only by an often lone and caricatured US superpower and its nuclear deterrence. When the Soviet Union collapsed, there was no danger to the world from American nuclear weapons “destroying all we have built” — while the inverse would not have been true, had nuclear and totalitarian communism prevailed. We sleep too lightly tonight not because democratic Israel has obtained nuclear weapons, but because a frightening Iran just might.

When Obama shouts,

Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?
it is the world, not the U.S., that needs to listen most. In this regard I would have preferred Sen. Obama of mixed ancestry to have begun with “In the recent tradition of African-American Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice,” rather than the less factual, “I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city.”

I want also to shout back that the United States does stand for the rule of law, as even the killers of Guantanamo realize with their present redress of grievances, access to complex jurisprudence, and humane treatment — all in a measure beyond what such terrorists would receive anywhere else. It is the United States that takes in more immigrants than does any country in the world, and thus is the prime destination of those who flee the miseries of this often wretched globe.

American immigration policies are humane, not only in easy comparison to the savagery shown the “other” in Africa or the Middle East, but fair and compassionate in comparison to what we see presently accorded aliens in Mexico, France, and, yes, Germany. Again, in all this fuzziness — this sermonizing in condescending fashion reminiscent at times of the Pennsylvania remonstration — there is the whiff of American culpability, but certainly not much of a nod to American exceptionalism. Politicians characteristically say to applauding audiences abroad what they wish to hear. True statesmen often do not.

In terms of foreign affairs, I think Americans will finally come to vote for a candidate, who with goodwill, a lot of humility, and a little grace, can persuade the world that universal moral progress, freedom, and material prosperity best advance under the aegis of free markets, constitutional government, and individual freedom, rather than for someone who seems to think, in naïve fashion, that these are necessarily shared and natural human practices, or are presently in force outside the West — or will arise due to dialogue or international good intentions.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Barry naive? Say it ain't so!,0,4923423.story
From the Los Angeles Times

One world? Obama's on a different planet

The senator's Berlin speech was radical and naive.
By John R. Bolton

July 26, 2008

SEN. BARACK OBAMA said in an interview the day after his Berlin speech that it "allowed me to send a message to the American people that the judgments I have made and the judgments I will make are ones that are going to result in them being safer."

If that is what the senator thought he was doing, he still has a lot to learn about both foreign policy and the views of the American people. Although well received in the Tiergarten, the Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States. In addition, although most of the speech was
substantively as content-free as his other campaign pronouncements, when substance did slip in, it was truly radical, from an American perspective.

These troubling comments were not widely reported in the generally adulatory media coverage given the speech, but they nonetheless deserve intense scrutiny. It remains to be seen whether these glimpses into Obama's thinking will have any impact on the presidential campaign, but clearly they were not casual remarks. This speech, intended to generate the enormous publicity it in fact received, reflects his campaign's carefully calibrated political thinking. Accordingly, there should be no evading the implications of his statements. Consider just the following two examples.

First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, "The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together." Having earlier proclaimed himself "a fellow citizen of the world" with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved "that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because "the world stood as one." The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator's own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik -- "eastern politics," a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance -- continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative.

But there are larger implications to Obama's rediscovery of the "one world" concept, first announced in the U.S. by Wendell Willkie, the failed Republican 1940 presidential nominee, and subsequently buried by the Cold War's realities.

The successes Obama refers to in his speech -- the defeat of Nazism, the Berlin airlift and the collapse of communism -- were all gained by strong alliances defeating determined opponents of freedom, not by "one-worldism." Although the senator was trying to distinguish himself from perceptions of Bush administration policy within the Atlantic Alliance, he was in fact sketching out a post-alliance policy, perhaps one that would unfold in global organizations such as the United Nations. This is far-reaching indeed.

Second, Obama used the Berlin Wall metaphor to describe his foreign policy priorities as president: "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn't see all these "walls" as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that "walls" exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.

Tearing down the Berlin Wall was possible because one side -- our side -- defeated the other. Differences in levels of economic development, or the treatment of racial, immigration or religious questions, are not susceptible to the same analysis or solution. Even more basically, challenges to our very civilization, as the Cold War surely was, are not overcome by naively "tearing down walls" with our adversaries.

Throughout the Berlin speech, there were numerous policy pronouncements, all of them hazy and nonspecific, none of them new or different than what Obama has already said during the long American campaign. But the Berlin framework in which he wrapped these ideas for the first time is truly radical for a prospective American president. That he picked a foreign audience is perhaps not surprising, because they could be expected to welcome a less-assertive American view of its role in the world, at least at first glance. Even anti-American Europeans, however, are likely to regret a United States that sees itself as just one more nation in a "united" world.

The best we can hope for is that Obama's rhetoric was simply that, pandering to the audience before him, as politicians so often do. We shall see if this rhetoric follows him back to America, either because he continues to use it or because Sen. John McCain asks voters if this is really what they want from their next president.

John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option."

Friday, July 25, 2008

A Lesson in Reverence

Barry complained about the lack of reverence at the Wailing Wall while just outside his people were plastering the walls with campaign posters.

Senator Elmer Gantry and the Press

End of the Affair

Barack Obama and the press break up.

Gabriel Sherman, The New Republic Published: Thursday, July 24, 2008

Around midnight on July 16, New York Times chief political correspondent Adam Nagourney received a terse e-mail from Barack Obama's press office. The campaign was irked by the Times' latest poll and Nagourney and Megan Thee's accompanying front-page piece titled "Poll Finds Obama Isn't Closing Divide on Race," which was running in the morning's paper. Nagourney answered the query, the substance of which he says was minor, and went to bed, thinking the matter resolved.

But, the next morning, Nagourney awoke to an e-mail from Talking Points Memo writer Greg Sargent asking him to comment on an eight-point rebuttal trashing his piece that the Obama campaign had released to reporters and bloggers like The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder and Politico's Ben Smith. Nagourney had not heard the complaints from the Obama camp and had no idea they were so steamed. "I'm looking at this thing, and I'm like, 'What the hell is this?' " Nagourney recently recalled. "I really flipped out."

Later that afternoon, Nagourney got permission from Times editors to e-mail Sargent a response to the Obama memo. But the episode still grates. "I've never had an experience like this, with this campaign or others," Nagourney tells me. "I thought they crossed the line. If you have a problem with a story I write, call me first. I'm a big boy. I can handle it. But they never called. They attacked me like I'm a political opponent."

So much for "Obama Love." That's the title of John McCain's new web ad, which strings together clips of cable news pundits gushing over Obama like besotted teens. This romance has been a prominent story line of Obama's entire campaign, and clearly elements of it are true: "I felt this thrill going up my leg," Chris Matthews crows in one clip flagged in the ad. But scratch the surface, and you'll find a lot of mixed feelings behind the Obama "love." Reporters are grumbling more and more that the campaign is acting like the Prom Queen. They gripe that it is "arrogant" and "control[ling]," and the campaign's own belief that Obama is poised to make history isn't endearing, either. The press certainly helped Obama get so far so fast; the question is, how far can he get if his campaign alienates them?

Last year, when Hillary Clinton campaigned as a front-runner, Obama provided access to the press corps and won over the media. One night, during a campaign stop in Iowa, he met reporters for off-the-record drinks. He cooperated for magazine profiles and appeared on the cover of GQ. And Clinton's relationship with the press wasn't half as easy. "The difference is the Clinton people were hostile for no reason," a reporter who has covered both Democrats tells me.

But, as Obama ascended from underdog to front-runner to presumptive nominee, the flame seems to have dwindled. Reporters who cover Obama these days grouse that Obama's flacks shroud the campaign in secrecy and provide little to no access. "They're more disciplined than the Bush people," a reporter on the Obama trail gripes. "There was this idea of being transparent, but they're not. They're total tightwads with information."

In June, there was something of a revolt after Obama ditched the press corps on his campaign plane for a secret meeting with Clinton at Senator Dianne Feinstein's house in Washington, leaving the reporters trapped on the flight to Chicago. The D.C. bureau chiefs of half a dozen news organizations, including the late Tim Russert, sent an angry letter to Obama aides Robert Gibbs and David Plouffe and threatened not to reimburse the campaign for the cost of the flight. "The decision to mislead reporters is a troubling one," they wrote. "We hope this does not presage a relationship with the Obama campaign that is not based on a mutual respect for the truth." After the incident, the press corps decided that one pool reporter would keep Obama in sight at all times. "It's a body watch," one reporter jokes.

Meanwhile, there have been widespread complaints over the shortage of spots to accompany Obama on his tour of the Middle East and Europe. A few days before the tour departed, Time magazine was told it couldn't send a photographer along, and, on July 22, NBC foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell complained on-air that the only images the press had received of Obama meeting with the troops was released by the U.S. military. (To be fair, congressional delegations to Iraq are kept secret for security purposes). And there's been widespread grumbling that the campaign revoked New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza's spot on the trip as retribution for the magazine's recent satirical cover. These may or may not be legitimate complaints--the evidence is mixed--but the press is hardly inclined to give the campaign the benefit of the doubt.

Obama's press liaison, Robert Gibbs, has built a particularly large reservoir of ill will. David Mendell, who covered Obama's Senate campaign for the Chicago Tribune and authored the 2007 Obama book From Promise to Power, wrote about Gibbs as "the anti-Obama" and described him as "Obama's hired gun, skillfully trained to shoot at reporters whose coverage was deemed unfair. Mendell tells me, "if [Gibbs] feels you're necessary to achieve a campaign goal, he will give you access and allow you in. But, if he feels you're not going to be of help, he can just ignore you." Mendell has his own specific gripe: Apparently, the Obama team was less than pleased with his biography, on which they cooperated, and Gibbs has since refused to help with the second edition.

One reporter sniffs that Gibbs, a native Alabaman and veteran of John Kerry's 2004 campaign, is the "communications director who doesn't communicate." "If you're getting an interview, and they say ten minutes, it's ten minutes," adds Time's Karen Tumulty, who scored an interview with Obama in June. "Robert Gibbs will cut it off."

Much of this is certainly the run-of-the-mill complaining of campaign reporters who can't get enough access. Still, the campaign hasn't helped itself, approaching reporters with a sense of entitlement. "They're an arrogant operation. Young and arrogant," one reporter covering the campaign says. "They don't believe in transparency with their own campaign," another says.

Reporters who have covered Obama's biography or his problems with certain voter blocs have been challenged the most aggressively. "They're terrified of people poking around Obama's life," one reporter says. "The whole Obama narrative is built around this narrative that Obama and David Axelrod built, and, like all stories, it's not entirely true. So they have to be protective of the crown jewels." Another reporter notes that, during the last year, Obama's old friends and Harvard classmates were requested not to talk to the press without permission.

As tensions escalate, the risk to Obama, of course, is that reporters will be emboldened to challenge his campaign ever more aggressively. At the same time, McCain has demonstrated a longstanding ability to deftly manage the press. After all, it wasn't long ago that McCain, short on cash and trailing in the Republican primaries, re-launched his campaign in New Hampshire by courting the press, "my base," as he once proudly put it. In June, the McCain camp unveiled its redesigned campaign plane, a Boeing 737 that recreates the Straight Talk Express bus, so reporters can assemble with McCain and shoot the breeze.

Now, Obama may be handing McCain a shot at winning back his "base." Of course, making ads that paint the media as Obama's stooges may not be the best way to accomplish that. But the press wants to put its love somewhere, and, right now, that love is up for grabs.

Gabriel Sherman is a special correspondent for The New Republic.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Who Loves Ya, Baby?

[hat tip:]

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

No Sense, No Feeling

It would hurt anyone else but he's the Obamessiah....

An Open Letter to Barack Obama

by David Ha'ivri

We know who you are and who your friends are.

Barack Obama, why don't you just go home?

Barack, your visit here is just a waste of time; you're not wanted or needed here. We'll do just fine without you and you'll probably do better with out us, too. Don't come around here making as if you're looking out for the good of Israel. We know who you are and who your friends are. Zigzagging back and forth about dividing or un-dividing
Zigzagging back and forth about dividing or un-dividing Jerusalem won't clear your history.
Jerusalem won't clear your history.

I'm not talking about your middle name. Any good Christian might have the middle name Hussein (although I can't think of any others). We won't hold that against you. There are worse things than having an Arab name; like for instance being supported by a known Jew-hater, bigot Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, who among other statements has accused the Jews of bringing on the Holocaust through cooperation with Hitler - "They helped him get the Third Reich on the road." But, of course, it would be wrong to hold that against you, because you haven't been rallying for his support (recently).

We can't really blame you for the beliefs of Father Michael Pfleger, who embraces Black Liberation Theology, which claims that Jesus was Black - so the Jews have no claim to Israel and, therefore, the Muslims are the rightful heirs of the Holy Land. Those beliefs have nothing to do with you, aside from the fact that you have coined the man your "moral compass." But one must admit that Pfleger is not your only mentor and also is not alone in looking up to Farrakhan.

Your spiritual mentor is Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who has praised Jimmy Carter for denouncing Zionism. Last year, the /Trumpet Newsmagazine/ of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to Louis Farrakhan and said that he is a man who "truly epitomized greatness." You are a member of that Church and Jeremiah Wright is its leader and your spiritual adviser.

Now you won't go so far as to criticize Jimmy Carter, not even for meeting with the heads of Hamas, because, to paraphrase your words, "It's not your place to criticize him." That is, not until the next day, when you were seeking the support of Jewish leaders. Then you must have found a new place for criticism. Aren't the Jews great for giving a guy a new vision and a sense of self-confidence? Is that what you meant by, "It's time for change"?

Barack Hussein, we won't hold it against you. But can you tell us what you mean by supporting a Palestinian State along side Israel? Do you mean a replay of the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gaza three years ago? Do you foresee soldiers carrying men, women and children away from their homes, which are to be demolished by bulldozers? Palestinian rule brought on the endless rocket fire on Sderot and the thousands of Jewish refugees who have yet to find permanent homes or means of a steady income. Is that your vision of a new hope that Farakkhan's /Final Call/ website praises you for?

Barack Hussein, why don't you just go home? Your visit to Israel this week is not because you're looking out for the wellbeing of Israel and the Jewish people. You're coming to Israel looking for the Jewish vote; your goal is to
Don't use us or our land as a photo-op.
speak with the Jewish American voters through the press coverage of this tour to the holy land. You want them to think that you took the time off from your busy campaign to further peace in the Middle East. Your hope is that enough stupid Jews will misread the message and take it as an act of support for Israel.

Don't use us or our land as a photo-op to transmit a twisted call for support to Jewish-American voters. You don't fool us. We know who you and your friends are.

Barack Hussein, why don't you just go home? But on the way out, remember the words you heard here from the proud Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria: "This is our land!" We are back after two thousand years of forced exile and we are not about to leave it again.
19 Tammuz 5768 / 22 July 08

Barry Perched On Brink of Naming VP!

And the guy makes the news!

Vice Presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards was caught visiting his mistress and secret love child at 2:40 this morning in a Los Angeles hotel by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER.

The married ex-senator from North Carolina - whose wife Elizabeth continues to battle cancer -- met with his mistress, blonde divorcee Rielle Hunter, at the Beverly Hilton on Monday night July 21 - and the NATIONAL ENQUIRER was there! He didn't leave until early the next morning.

Rielle had driven to Los Angeles from Santa Barbara with a male friend for the rendezvous with Edwards. The former senator attended a press event Monday afternoon with L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on the topic of how to combat homelessness.

But a months-long NATIONAL ENQUIRER investigation had yielded information that Rielle and Edwards, 54, had arranged to secretly meet afterward and for the ex-senator to spend some time with both his mistress and the love child who he refuses to publicly acknowledge as his own.

The NATIONAL ENQUIRER broke the story of Edwards' love child scandal last year, when Rielle was still pregnant and Edwards was still considered a strong candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Both parties denied the NATIONAL ENQUIRER report and a close friend of Edwards' came forward and said he was the father of Rielle's baby. But sources told the NATIONAL ENQUIRER a far different story - they revealed that Edwards was engineering a massive cover up of his shocking infidelity.

Sources came forward after that story appeared and told The NATIONAL ENQUIRER that Edwards and Rielle had met secretly several times, so that he could see his baby and continue his relationship with Rielle.
The NATIONAL ENQUIRER learned ahead of time that one such meeting was set for yesterday.
At 9:45 p.m. (PST) Monday Edwards appeared at the hotel, and was dropped off at a side entrance. NATIONAL ENQUIRER reporter Alan Butterfield witnessed the ex-senator get out of a BMW driven by a male companion and stroll into the hotel.
Said Butterfield: "Edwards was not carrying anything. He walked in alone. He was wearing a blue dress shirt with the sleeves rolled up. He was looking around nervously before he entered the hotel.

"Once inside, he interestingly bypassed the lobby and ducked down a side stairs to go to the bottom floor to catch the elevator up - rather than taking the elevator in the main lobby. He went out of his way not to be seen."
Meanwhile, Reille had reserved rooms 246 and 252 under the name of the friend who had accompanied her from Santa Barbara, Bob McGovern. Reille was in one room and McGovern was in another with her baby. This allowed her and Edwards to spend time alone, a source revealed.

Edwards went out of the hotel briefly with Reille, they were observed by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER and then went back to her room, where he stayed until attempting to sneak out of the hotel unseen at 2:40 a.m. (PST). But when he emerged alone from an elevator into the hotel basement he was greeted by several reporters from the NATIONAL ENQUIRER.

Senior NATIONAL ENQUIRER Reporter Alexander Hitchen asked Edwards why he was visiting Rielle and whether he was ready to confirm that he was the father of her baby.
Shocked to see a reporter, and without saying anything, Edwards ran up the stairs leading from the hotel basement to the lobby. But, spotting a photographer, he doubled back into the basement. As he emerged from the stairwell, reporter Butterfield questioned him about his hookup with Reille.

Edwards did not answer and then ran into a nearby restroom. He stayed inside for about 15 minutes, refusing to answer questions from the NATIONAL ENQUIRER about what he was doing in the hotel. A group of hotel security men eventually escorted him from the men's room, while preventing the NATIONAL ENQUIRER reporters from following him out of the hotel.

Said reporter Hitchen: "After we confronted him about seeing Rielle, Edwards looked like a deer caught in headlights!

"He was clearly surprised that we had caught him at this very late hour inside the hotel.

\ "Some guests up at this late hour watched the spectacle in amusement from a staircase nearby."

Meanwhile, Rielle's friend McGovern also refused to answer any questions from the NATIONAL ENQUIRER or offer any explanation for her meeting with Edwards.
The Edwards "love child" scandal drew international press attention after the NATIONAL ENQUIRER published a blockbuster investigation about the politician in our Dec. 31, 2007 print edition.
We reported that Rielle, a woman linked to Edwards in a cheating scandal earlier last year, was more than six months pregnant - and we reported that she told a close confidante that Edwards was the father of her baby!
Edwards denied the affair and that he was the father, and in a bizarre twist, a close friend of his, Alexander Young, said he was the father. Young, 41, was married at the time with three children. The NATIONAL ENQUIRER has learned he still is married.
Sources told the NATIONAL ENQUIRER exclusively that Edwards had engineered a massive cover up of the affair and love child scandal and that Young was taking the blame for his good friend. At the time Rielle had been relocated from the New York area to Chapel Hill in Edwards' home state of North Carolina, where she was living in an upscale gated community down the street from Young. Strangely, Young even had Rielle to his house for dinner with his wife and kids, the NATIONAL ENQUIRER has learned.

Young has been extremely close to Edwards for years and was a key official in his presidential campaign.

Rielle is a self-described filmmaker whose company was hired by a pro-Edwards group called One America Committee. She was paid $114,000 to produce videos for Edwards' campaign and worked with him on those videos.
After story last December, reporters from other media outlets asked Edwards about the report during a campaign stop in Columbia, S.C.
Edwards responded: "The story is false. It's completely untrue, ridiculous," adding: "Anyone who knows me knows that I have been in love with the same woman for 30-plus years."
Rielle issued her own statement, saying in part: "The innuendos and lies that have appeared on the Internet and in the NATIONAL ENQUIRER concerning John Edwards are not true, completely unfounded and ridiculous."
But a source told the NATIONAL ENQUIRER: "Now that it seems to have blown wide open, Rielle may get her wish - all she wants is for John to marry her and for them to live happily ever after with their baby. She's tired of running and living a lie."

A representative for Rielle had no comment on last night's meeting with Edwards.