The Secret to His Success

The Secret to His Success

Naomi Ragen


I got a ton of responses to my short e-mail “exchange with a reader.” Since then, I have been pondering long and hard what the reason could be for the enthusiastic, nay, evangelistic Jewish cheerleaders for Barack Hussein Obama, despite the many, many red flags that have gone up ever since he decided to run for President of the United States of America. One e-mail, in particular, opened my eyes to what could be the underlying reason. He wrote:

“You may think you are right but if McCain and Palin get elected, the U.S. will continue to go down hill, and if this country gets in worse shape financially this country will eventually blame the Jews …..”

Hmm. I never considered that. Could it be that the Jews of America are really not as comfortable there as they pretend to be? Could it be that the Reverend Wright, that home-grown anti-Semite who went to Libya to meet terrorist Qaddafi, and who gave an award to Louis Farrakhan for “leadership, ” being a heartbeat away from the Democratic nominee for President has scared the Jews of America out of their wits?

Could it be that these Jews are so incredibly grateful to Barack Obama for disassociating himself after 20 years with this anti-Semitic message and so terrified of losing his support, pushing him and his golden oratory back into the arms of people like Wright, that they are hell-bent on currying his favor and showing they are “good Jews?” (Caveat: it Obama’s throwing Wright under the bus is clearly a blatant attempt to improve his chances at gaining the Jewish vote --Farrakhan himself said on Nightline that he “admired“ Obama and understood if he needed to disassociate himself temporarily in order to win the Presidency).

Are Jews now beginning to feel the solid ground of the American haven that has sheltered them shaking beneath their feet? Is that the reason that they have listened to the golden-voiced Obama, who is really nothing more than an evangelical preacher, saying: “ Who are you going to believe, your eyes or me?” and dismissed their own vision? Are they truly so enraptured that they are willing to place all their hopes in this unknown with a very hazy past, to protect them from the Ahmadinejads, to “negotiate” for them their way out of the hellhole being dug out for them by the Muslims, and the European Union, and the U.N. and homegrown Black Antisemitism, and anti-Zionist Peace-Nowers-J-Streeters- let’s-blame-Israel-for-daring-to-existers, the Israel- should- give- up -and -give in-ers? Can it be that some American Jews are ashamed to be Israel supporters, and feel they will be safer if they side against their own people and by supporting a clearly, blatantly anti-Israel candidate they are fulfilling that need? Or is it that Obama is not so much a mesmerizing speaker, as he is a person with a message that is music to Jewish American ears; the foolish idea that they don’t have to take sides in this election. That they can be pro-Israel and elect a candidate that says his is also pro-Israel, despite so much evidence to the contrary, including a belief in “diplomacy” i.e. pushing Israel into suicidal concessions to placate enemies like Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah, and Hamas? He represents a way out of ancient Jew-hatred, a way thousands of generations of Jews hadn’t thought of? Is that the secret to his success among Jews in America?

Who are you going to believe? Your eyes, or Barack Hussein Obama?

Obama: What Do You Really Know About Him?

From http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_man_who_never_was.html

September 24, 2008

The Man Who Never Was

By Tony Blankley

The mainstream media have gone over the line and are now straight-out propagandists for the Obama campaign.

While they have been liberal and blinkered in their worldview for decades, in 2007-08, for the first time, the major media consciously are covering for one candidate for president and consciously are knifing the other. This is no longer journalism; it is simply propaganda. (The American left-wing version of the Völkischer Beobachter cannot be far behind.)

And as a result, we are less than seven weeks away from possibly electing a president who has not been thoroughly or even halfway honestly presented to the country by our watchdogs -- the press. The image of Obama that the press has presented to the public is not a fair approximation of the real man. They consciously have ignored whole years of his life and have shown a lack of curiosity about such gaps, which bespeaks a lack of journalistic instinct.

Thus, the public image of Obama is of a "man who never was."

I take that phrase from a 1956 movie about a real-life World War II British intelligence operation to trick the Germans into thinking the Allies were going to invade Greece rather than Sicily in 1943. Operation Mincemeat involved the acquisition of a human corpse dressed as "Major William Martin, R.M.," which was put into the sea near Spain. Attached to the corpse was a briefcase containing fake letters suggesting that the Allied attack would be against Sardinia and Greece.

To make the operation credible, British intelligence concocted a fictional life for the corpse, creating a letter from a lover and tickets to a London theater -- all the details of a life, but not the actual life of the dead young man whose corpse was being used. So, too, the man the media have presented to the nation as Obama is not the real man.

The mainstream media ruthlessly and endlessly repeat any McCain gaffes while ignoring Obama gaffes. You have to go to weird little Web sites to see all the stammering and stuttering that Obama needs before getting out a sentence fragment or two. But all you see on the networks is an eventually clear sentence from Obama. You don't see Obama's ludicrous gaffe that Iran is a tiny country and no threat to us. Nor his 57 American states gaffe. Nor his forgetting, if he ever knew, that Russia has a veto in the U.N. Nor his whining and puerile "come on" when he is being challenged. This is the kind of editing one would expect from Goebbels' disciples, not Cronkite's.
More appalling, a skit on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" last weekend suggested that Gov. Palin's husband had sex with his own daughters. That show was written with the assistance of Al Franken, Democratic Party candidate in Minnesota for the U.S. Senate. Talk about incest.

But worse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting are the shocking gaps in Obama's life that are not reported at all. The major media simply have not reported on Obama's two years at New York's Columbia University, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter-mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers. Later, they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago. Obama denies more than a passing relationship with Ayers. Should the media be curious? In only two weeks, the media have focused on all the colleges Gov. Palin has attended, her husband's driving habits 20 years ago, and the close criticism of the political opponents Gov. Palin had when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

But in two years, they haven't bothered to see how close Obama was with the terrorist Ayers.

Nor have the media paid any serious attention to Obama's rise in Chicago politics. How did honest Obama rise in the famously sordid Chicago political machine with the full support of Boss Daley? Despite the great -- and unflattering -- details on Obama's Chicago years presented in David Freddoso's new book on Obama, the mainstream media continue to ignore both the facts and the book. It took a British publication, The Economist, to give Freddoso's book a review with fair comment.

The public image of Obama as an idealistic, post-race, post-partisan, well-spoken and honest young man with the wisdom and courage befitting a great national leader is a confection spun by a willing conspiracy of Obama, his publicist (David Axelrod) and most of the senior editors, producers and reporters of the national media.

Perhaps that is why the National Journal's respected correspondent Stuart Taylor wrote, "The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis."

That conspiracy not only has Photoshopped out all of Obama's imperfections (and dirtied up his opponent McCain's image) but also has put most of his questionable history down the memory hole.

The public will be voting based on the idealized image of the man who never was. If he wins, however, we will be governed by the sunken, cynical man Obama really is. One can only hope that the senior journalists will be judged as harshly for their professional misconduct as Wall Street's leaders currently are for their failings.

Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_man_who_never_was.html at September 24, 2008 - 12:56:30 AM PDT

Obama and Harvard

Why Obama is mum about Harvard
Exclusive: Jack Cashill offers reason Barack, Michelle don't talk about editor post

Posted: September 11, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

By Jack Cashill

On the surface, at least, Barack Obama's single most impressive accomplishment has been his 1990 election to the presidency of the Harvard Law Review.

This position also provided Obama his only real executive experience as he supervised the law review's staff of 80 editors.

One has to wonder, then, why neither he nor wife Michelle emphasized this singular honor during the up-by-the-bootstraps biographical sections of their respective speeches in Denver.

In fact, neither of them so much as mentioned Obama's time at Harvard, this despite his vulnerability on the executive experience charge.

Their silence likely derives from one verifiable fact: Obama's record at Harvard was no more authentic than John Kerry's record in Vietnam.

Kerry was justifiably swift-boated because he fraudulently positioned himself as a war hero. Obama seems to have learned from Kerry.

In the age of the Internet, the less said about a dubious credential the better, and Obama's law presidency credential is dubious on any number of levels.

(Column continues below)

For starters, Obama did not do nearly well enough at his previous stop, Columbia University, to justify admission to Harvard Law.

According to the New York Sun, university spokesman Brian Connolly confirmed that Obama graduated in 1983 with a major in political science but without honors.

In the age of affirmative action and grade inflation, a minority in a relatively easy major like political science had to under-perform dramatically to avoid minimal honors. Obama apparently did just that.

The specifics we may never know. As the New York Times concedes, Obama "declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years."

Would that Bristol Palin could get off so easily!

There are any number of possible reasons for Obama's reticence about Columbia: his grades, the courses he took, his writing samples and, of course, his associations.

At that time, for instance, both Bill Ayers and Obama fell within the orbit of left-wing Columbia superstar Edward Said. Just recently out of hiding, Ayers was attending the Bank Street College of Education, which adjoins the Columbia campus.

Five years after leaving Columbia, Obama decided on law school. His lack of resources did not deter him from thinking big. Nor did his B-minus effort at his Hawaii prep school or his equally indifferent grades at Columbia.

As Obama relates in "Dreams From My Father," he limited his choices to only three law schools – "Harvard, Yale, Stanford." (It must be nice to be Obama.) He does not mention his connections.

Harvard Law School is notoriously difficult to get into. Annually, some 7,000 applications apply for some 500 seats. Applicant LSAT scores generally chart in the 98 to 99 percentile range, and GPAs average between 3.80 and 3.95.

If Obama's LSAT scores merited admission, we would know about them. We don't. The Obama camp guards those scores, like his SAT scores, more tightly that Iran does its nuclear secrets.

We know enough about Obama's Columbia grades to know how far they fall below the Harvard norm, likely even below the affirmative action-adjusted black norm at Harvard.

As far back as 1988, however, Obama had serious pull. He would need it. As previously reported, Khalid al-Mansour, principle adviser to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, lobbied friends like Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton to intervene at Harvard on Obama's behalf.

An orthodox Muslim, al-Mansour has not met the crackpot anti-Semitic theory he could not embrace. As for bin Talal, in October 2001, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani sent his $10 million relief check back un-cashed after the Saudi billionaire blamed 9/11 on America.

For an insight into the Khalid al-Mansour connection, see see this video.

These are not connections that Obama would like to see broadcast, which further explains his shyness about the Harvard experience.

There is more. Obama did not make the Harvard Law Review (HLR) the old-fashioned way, the way HLR's first black editor, Charles Houston, did 70 years prior.

To Obama's good fortune, the HLR had replaced a meritocracy in which editors were elected based on grades – the president being the student with the highest academic rank – with one in which half the editors were chosen through a writing competition.

This competition, the New York Times reported in 1990, was "meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review."

It did just that. At the end of his first year, Obama was named, along with 40 or so of his classmates, an editor of the HLR.

Unlike most editors, and likely all its presidents, Obama was not a writer. During his tenure at Harvard, he wrote only one heavily edited, unsigned note.

In this note for the third volume of the 1990 HLR, he argued against any limits on abortion, citing the government's interest in "preventing increasing numbers of children from being born in to lives of pain and despair."

Obama's timing, however, was better than his writing. In the same spring 1990 term that he would stand for the presidency of the HLR, the Harvard Law School found itself embroiled in an explosive racial brouhaha.

Black firebrand law professor Derrick Bell was demanding that the Harvard Law School appoint a black woman to the law faculty.

This protest would culminate in vigils and protests by the racially sensitive student body, in the course of which Obama would compare the increasingly absurd Bell to Rosa Parks.

Feeling the pressure, HLR editors wanted to elect their first African-American president. Obama had an advantage. Spared the legacy of slavery and segregation, and having grown up in a white household, he lacked the hard edge of many of his black colleagues.

"Obama cast himself as an eager listener," the New York Times reported, "sometimes giving warring classmates the impression that he agreed with all of them at once."

In February 1990, after an ideologically charged all-day affair, Obama's fellow editors elected him president from among 19 candidates. As it happened, Obama prevailed only after the HLR's small conservative faction threw him its support.

Curiously, once elected, Obama contributed not one signed word to the HLR or any other law journal. As Matthew Franck has pointed out in National Review Online, "A search of the HeinOnline database of law journals turns up exactly nothing credited to Obama in any law review anywhere at any time."

One more thing: The 1990 Times article about Obama's election notes that the president of the HLR usually goes on to serve as a clerk for a Supreme Court justice.

Not the Mansourian Candidate. Here, oddly, his ambition deserted him. He told the Times that he planned "to spend two or three years in private law practice and then return to Chicago to re-enter community work, either in politics or in local organizing."

In this unlikely surrender to Chicago politics, the realist sees insecurity at best and, at worst, the quid for al-Mansour's quo.

The Obama Voter-Not This Jew

No matter what your religion is this lady sums up all the points that are relevant to this election.


http://www.rightsidenews.com/200809201991/editorial/the-obama-voter-not-this-jew.html

The Obama Voter - Not This Jew


September 20, 2008
by Joan Swirsky
For the most part, American Jews are politically liberal. For decades they have supported leftwing politicians who are antagonists if not outright enemies of Israel. Why does this matter? It matters to me because the Holocaust in which the Nazis wantonly murdered six million Jews in the 1930s and ‘40s has been the defining event of my life - the event against which I measure the political philosophies and actions of both individuals and nations.

I was a baby when that blight on human history took place, but I fully appreciate that if my twin brother and I had been born in Germany during the ghastly Nazi reign, we would have been victims of the unspeakable "experiments" of Dr. Mengele.

It matters to me because the wretched survivors of the Holocaust, against all odds - including ships of refugees that were turned back from our own shores by FDR, only to be returned to the death camps - somehow managed to arrive in their ancient homeland and create one of the most vibrant democracies in the world, whose advanced scientific institutions contribute to research and development of medicines, therapies, technology and cures for the world's devastating horrors

It matters because Israel, the locus of Jewish prayer and survival, is but a sliver of land, not much larger than 8,000 square miles, which is comparable to New Jersey, our 5th-smallest state. This tiny country is populated by six million Jews and one-million Arabs and surrounded by 22 Arab Muslim states with a population of over 300-million - most of them dedicated to Israel's annihilation, the rest sly participants in the charade of a "peace process."

While Israel's Arab minority is accorded full citizenship and education, freedom of speech, congregation, religious autonomy and even participation in Israel's parliament, the Arab nations that surround it - including Jordan and Egypt, which are ostensibly at peace with Israel - afford Jews absolutely no rights and no protection.

Again, why does this matter? It matters to me because, for millennia, "wandering" Jews were deprived of living in their homeland and destined to travel the earth looking for safety and freedom, only to be subjected to - where to begin? - the Crusades, the Inquisition, European pogroms, and the Holocaust. Only America, from its inception a mere 232 years ago, welcomed the Jews, until the State of Israel was born in 1948, becoming the last best hope of a people whose manifest destiny was spelled out to them in the Bible.

Today, there is a worldwide renaissance of anti-Semitism, including on the campuses of our own country, in the ranting of various "religious" leaders, in the literature of some of America's so-called intelligentsia, and, yes, even in the Congress of the United States.

Yet again, why does this matter? It matters to me because unlike the purveyors of Islamic jihad and their brothers and sisters in suicide-bombing, death-adoring ideology, I love life and don't want to see our country succumb to the encroaching horrors of Sharia law (including "honor killings "), Sharia finance (in which money must be donated to Islamic charities, including those that promote Jihad and suicide bombing), or any of the other Islamic-dictated demands that are utterly anathema to and in egregious violation of both U.S. law and the freedoms cherished by all Americans.

It matters to me because while Obama makes the perfunctory and requisite statements of support for America and Israel, his policies - and those who formulate them - would do irreparable harm to both nations.

LET ME COUNT THE WAYS

It would have been enough for me not to vote for Obama, knowing that he is the most liberal politician in the U.S. Congress, as judged by the non-partisan National Journal and based on the cold hard facts of his far-left voting record.

It would have been enough for me not to vote for Obama, knowing that he has zero experience in foreign policy and has never managed or run anything of substance that requires executive experience - not a company, not an agency, not even a senate committee!

It would have been enough to know that Obama makes John Kerry's acrobatic flip-flopping look like child's play.

* He'll pull the troops out of Iraq in 16 months, now he'll "refine" that policy.
* He'll filibuster the FISA bill, but he voted for it.
* He'll campaign with public financing, but he rejected that option.
* He'll renegotiate Nafta, but now he won't.
* He's against gun rights but supported the Supreme Court's Heller decision for gun rights.
* He'll debate Sen. John McCain anywhere, anytime, but he has refused to.
* Iran poses no serious threat, but oops, Iran poses a grave threat.
* He supports an undivided Jerusalem, but 24-hours later said he "misspoke."

It would have been enough to appreciate Obama's sponsorship of the "global poverty" act, which lays the groundwork for the United Nation's draconian tax on America, and also that he fervently supports that cesspool on 2nd Avenue, which for decades has been a consistent purveyor of virulent anti-Semitic bias.

It would have been enough for me to consider Obama's oft-repeated promises to raise taxes to unprecedented heights, open our borders further to the flood of illegal aliens, appoint his socialist cronies to the Supreme Court, reinforce his death-wish for America's unborn babies, institutionalize socialized medicine, and support the anti-free-speech return of the so-called > Fairness Doctrine.

In what Investor's Business Daily calls Obama's "stealth socialism," the Democrat candidate also promises:

* Free college tuition.
* Universal" 401 ks.
* Free job training (even for criminals).
* Wage insurance (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).
* Free childcare and universal preschool.
* More subsidized public housing.
* A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."
* And [again] the Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

It would have been enough for me to witness - with revulsion, I might add - Obama apologizing to a throng of Germans for America's "mistakes."

It would have been enough to learn that Obama's recent, $500,000 overhaul of his 757 included the removal of the American flag and its replacement with a symbol of his own campaign .

All of this, and much more, would have been enough for me not to vote for Obama. But it is not only his florid narcissism and Marxist policies that offend me.

It is his judgment, particularly when it comes to the people he admires, associates with, looks to for mentoring, and especially listens to.

I happen not to inhabit the politically correct world of liberals who believe that a person cannot be judged by his associations. It is precisely Barack Obama's longtime, continuing, and newfound associations that strike fear into my heart - as they should in the hearts of all Americans, Jews and non-Jews alike.

LIE DOWN WITH DOGS, WAKE UP WITH FLEAS

But who are those associations that, as an American and especially as a Jew, I am so worried about? Obama's 300-plus foreign policy advisors include high-ranking people who are known for their undisguised contempt of Jews , in general, and their loathing of Israel, in particular:

General Merrill "Tony" McPeak, who Sen. Obama once considered a potential V.P., was his campaign co-chairman and top military adviser. When asked by The Oregonian to name the problem preventing peace in the Middle East, McPeak said: "New York City. Miami" - code-names for Jews. Obama refused to remove him from his campaign, but he slunk out anyway.

Samantha Power, a former senior policy advisor to Obama (before she resigned for insulting Hillary Clinton) has advocated ending all U.S. military aid to Israel. She has written of her willingness to "alienate a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import [American Jews]...it may more crucially mean sacrificing...billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine."

Robert Malley, a top foreign policy advisor to Obama, left the Obama campaign when it was revealed that he'd been conducting meetings with Hamas. Two years ago, after the terror group won a majority in the Palestinian parliament, Malley advocated international aid to their newly formed government. He stated that the election of Hamas expressed Palestinian "anger at years of humiliation and loss of self-respect because of Israeli settlement expansion, Arafat's imprisonment, [and] Israel's incursions..."

Rashid Khalidi, a longtime friend of and fundraiser for Obama, is a former spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization. According to WorldNetDaily, at a 2003 farewell party for Mr. Khalidi, Obama sat in attendance as a young Palestinian-American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism...and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. Obama has credited Mr. Khalidi with uncovering "my own blind spots and my own biases" regarding the plight of the Palestinians. Obama funneled $75,000 in grants to the Arab American Action Network (run by Mr. Khalidi's wife, Mona), a group that calls Israel's independence Al-Nakba (the catastrophe).

Anthony "Tony" Lake, Obama's top foreign policy advisor, served in the Carter ("Israel practices apartheid") administration, notorious for its animus toward Israel. As national security advisor to President Clinton, Lake shaped the policy that treated Islamic terrorism as a law-enforcement matter, which paved the way for the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombing of our embassies in Africa, the bombing of the USS Cole, and the disaster of September 11, 2001.

Susan Rice, another of Obama's senior foreign policy advisors, was John Kerry's chief foreign policy adviser when he ran for President. Kerry's idea for dealing with the Middle East was to appoint not one but two diehard enemies of Israel - James Baker and Jimmy Carter - as negotiators. Faced with a firestorm of criticism, Kerry backed down and blamed his staff, which consisted of Susan Rice.

Madeleine K. Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, lobbied Congress for increased foreign aid to the terrorist Arafat and arranged for him to become the White House's most frequent guest. She consistently touted negotiations, rather than confrontation, with terror regimes.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's National Security Advisor, has been one of Israel's most consistently hostile critics and Hamas's most ardent supporters, as well as a staunch admirer (both in writing and verbally) of Stephen Walt's and John Mearsheimer's virulently anti-Israel book, "The Israel Lobby," which, among other things, contends that Jewish pressure, and not shared values, binds America and Israel together. Brzezinski's son, Mark, is also among Obama's foreign policy advisors.

Lee Hamilton, a former congressman who served as the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East, waxed adoringly of Arafat, calling him a "moderate" leader.

James {"F... the Jews") Baker, Reagan's former Chief of Staff and the first President Bush's Secretary of State (a department whose Arabist tilt is well-known), is among the harshest detractors of Israel, has often engaged in raw anti-Semitic remarks, is known for coddling Middle East dictators (including Syria's Assad), and has been heavily invested (through the Carlyle Group) in the Israel-hating country of Saudi Arabia. In fact, Baker's law firm defended the Saudi Defense Minister who was sued for alleged complicity by the families of the World Trade Center victims.

Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, was one of James Baker's "Jew Boys," which included, among others who militated against Israel, Dennis Ross (of the Clinton administration). Kurtzer recently said: "It will be impossible to make progress on serious peace talks without putting the future of Jerusalem on the table."

And this is the short list!

MORE DOGS, MORE FLEAS

I haven't even mentioned the terrorists William Ayers and his wife Bernadette Dohrn, his indicted Chicago crony Tony Rezko, his first and most influential mentor, the Communist Frank Marshall Davis; or Father Michael Pfleger, the liberal Chicago priest and longtime friend of Obama, who delivered an explosive, racially charged sermon at Obama's church, which forced the Democrat candidate to - what else? - dispense with him! You can Google these enemies of America!

Nor have I mentioned the hearty endorsements Obama has received from America-reviling Hamas (from whom he receives money ), Hugo Chavez, Farrakhan, Michael Moore, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and "Hanoi" Jane Fonda.

Among the other people Obama has chosen to affiliate himself with are:

George Soros, the multibillionaire, self-hating Jew who has devoted a good part of his life to vilifying Israel and funding groups that work unstintingly to destroy the tiny state. With his 527 groups, he has funded people - like Obama - to shatter the bonds between Israel and America.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for over 20 years, has shrieked his Black Theology anti-American and anti-Semitic "sermons," to which the current candidate for president had not a word of objection! Until, that is, Wright's venom came to light and Obama had to dispense with him in the same way he dispensed with the "typical white woman" - his grandmother - who raised him. Wright, remember, is an ardent supporter of Louis Farrakhan, who called Judaism a "gutter religion" and said Jews are "bloodsuckers".

These are only a smattering of people who, in Obama's "judgment," are worthy of being his mentors and political advisors.

As Ed Lasky of the American Thinker - to whom I am indebted for much of this material - has written: "One seemingly consistent theme running throughout Barack Obama's career is his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates." And, I would add, anti-American advocates!

I ask: Does Obama have any friends, associates, mentors or advisors who don't hate America and Israel? If so, e-mail me. I haven't found one yet!

Any voter - whether Democrat, Republican or Independent - should find Obama's far-left voting record and silly-putty changes-of mind on crucial policy issues reason enough not to vote for him in November.

Certainly, every American Jew should consider his ascension to the presidency a virtual death knell for Israel.

If the corrupt ACORN group he so heartily supported in the Chicago machine - where he "made his bones" - doesn't rig the election with the votes of millions of dead people and convicts, as they have so many times in the past. I trust the electorate will do the right thing.

The right thing, of course, would be vote against Obama, a candidate who has been infested with far more odious things than fleas, specifically the treacherous anti-American, anti-Israel advice that has clearly shaped his worldview.

Obama would make America less safe, and an unsafe America - which is the last, best hope for the survival of the Jews and Israel - would destroy the twin pillars of steadfast Judeo-Christian values. Destroying both nations is the goal of the Jihadists that Obama would sooner chat with than confront.