Here beginneth the chronicle of those memorable circumstances of the year 1620, as recorded by Nathaniel Morton, keeper of the records of Plymouth Colony, based on the account of William Bradford, sometime governor thereof:

The Desolate Wilderness

So they left that goodly and pleasant city of Leyden, which had been their resting-place for above eleven years, but they knew that they were pilgrims and strangers here below, and looked not much on these things, but lifted up their eyes to Heaven, their dearest country, where God hath prepared for them a city (Heb. XI, 16), and therein quieted their spirits.

When they came to Delfs-Haven they found the ship and all things ready, and such of their friends as could not come with them followed after them, and sundry came from Amsterdam to see them shipt, and to take their leaves of them. One night was spent with little sleep with the most, but with friendly entertainment and Christian discourse, and other real expressions of true Christian love.

The next day they went on board, and their friends with them, where truly doleful was the sight of that sad and mournful parting, to hear what sighs and sobs and prayers did sound amongst them; what tears did gush from every eye, and pithy speeches pierced each other’s heart, that sundry of the Dutch strangers that stood on the Key as spectators could not refrain from tears. But the tide (which stays for no man) calling them away, that were thus loath to depart, their Reverend Pastor, falling down on his knees, and they all with him, with watery cheeks commended them with the most fervent prayers unto the Lord and His blessing; and then with mutual embraces and many tears they took their leaves one of another, which proved to be the last leave to many of them.

Being now passed the vast ocean, and a sea of troubles before them in expectations, they had now no friends to welcome them, no inns to entertain or refresh them, no houses, or much less towns, to repair unto to seek for succour; and for the season it was winter, and they that know the winters of the country know them to be sharp and violent, subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much more to search unknown coasts.

Besides, what could they see but a hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wilde beasts and wilde men? and what multitudes of them there were, they then knew not: for which way soever they turned their eyes (save upward to Heaven) they could have but little solace or content in respect of any outward object; for summer being ended, all things stand in appearance with a weatherbeaten face, and the whole country, full of woods and thickets, represented a wild and savage hew.

If they looked behind them, there was a mighty ocean which they had passed, and was now as a main bar or gulph to separate them from all the civil parts of the world.

************************

And the Fair Land

Any one whose labors take him into the far reaches of the country, as ours lately have done, is bound to mark how the years have made the land grow fruitful.

This is indeed a big country, a rich country, in a way no array of figures can measure and so in a way past belief of those who have not seen it. Even those who journey through its Northeastern complex, into the Southern lands, across the central plains and to its Western slopes can only glimpse a measure of the bounty of America.

And a traveler cannot but be struck on his journey by the thought that this country, one day, can be even greater. America, though many know it not, is one of the great underdeveloped countries of the world; what it reaches for exceeds by far what it has grasped.

So the visitor returns thankful for much of what he has seen, and, in spite of everything, an optimist about what his country might be. Yet the visitor, if he is to make an honest report, must also note the air of unease that hangs everywhere.

For the traveler, as travelers have been always, is as much questioned as questioning. And for all the abundance he sees, he finds the questions put to him ask where men may repair for succor from the troubles that beset them.

His countrymen cannot forget the savage face of war. Too often they have been asked to fight in strange and distant places, for no clear purpose they could see and for no accomplishment they can measure. Their spirits are not quieted by the thought that the good and pleasant bounty that surrounds them can be destroyed in an instant by a single bomb. Yet they find no escape, for their survival and comfort now depend on unpredictable strangers in far-off corners of the globe.

How can they turn from melancholy when at home they see young arrayed against old, black against white, neighbor against neighbor, so that they stand in peril of social discord. Or not despair when they see that the cities and countryside are in need of repair, yet find themselves threatened by scarcities of the resources that sustain their way of life. Or when, in the face of these challenges, they turn for leadership to men in high places — only to find those men as frail as any others.

So sometimes the traveler is asked whence will come their succor. What is to preserve their abundance, or even their civility? How can they pass on to their children a nation as strong and free as the one they inherited from their forefathers? How is their country to endure these cruel storms that beset it from without and from within?

Of course the stranger cannot quiet their spirits. For it is true that everywhere men turn their eyes today much of the world has a truly wild and savage hue. No man, if he be truthful, can say that the specter of war is banished. Nor can he say that when men or communities are put upon their own resources they are sure of solace; nor be sure that men of diverse kinds and diverse views can live peaceably together in a time of troubles.
But we can all remind ourselves that the richness of this country was not born in the resources of the earth, though they be plentiful, but in the men that took its measure. For that reminder is everywhere — in the cities, towns, farms, roads, factories, homes, hospitals, schools that spread everywhere over that wilderness.

We can remind ourselves that for all our social discord we yet remain the longest enduring society of free men governing themselves without benefit of kings or dictators. Being so, we are the marvel and the mystery of the world, for that enduring liberty is no less a blessing than the abundance of the earth.

And we might remind ourselves also, that if those men setting out from Delftshaven had been daunted by the troubles they saw around them, then we could not this autumn be thankful for a fair land.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!

************************

Annually on Thanksgiving, since 1961, The Wall Street Journal has published two editorials.

“The Desolate Wildnerness” is the opening passage from “the chronicle of those memorable circumstances of the year 1620, as recorded by Nathaniel Morton, keeper of the records of Plymouth Colony, based on the account of William Bradford, sometime governor thereof,” whose bust appears at the upper right.

“And The Fair Land“ is an essay written in 1961 by Vermont Royster, who was then the editor of the Wall Street Journal.

Now, marching into the 2012 election cycle we have “news” that Barack Obama, in March 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama appeared and marched with members of the New Black Panther Party. Included in Obama’s Panther entourage was Malik Zulu Shabazz, the racist group’s “national chief.” Shabazz was one of the Panthers charged in the voter intimidation case that the Obama/Holder Justice Department dismissed in 2009 — even though the government had already won the case (the Panthers defaulted) and the evidence supporting the civil charges was overwhelming.

It’s not surprising as the mainstream press is busy painting Gov. Rick Perry as a racist they missed this story. So much for vetting a candidate to the highest office in the land. Democrats are outraged with the Perry farce but never had a problem with former KKK member Robert Byrd of West Virginia rising to leadership ranks within their party.

At Big Government, Andrew Breitbart reports one of those present with Obama was Najee Muhammed, the Panthers’ “minister of war” who had called for Georgia police officers to be murdered. Andrew also notes that visitor logs indicate that a man identified as “Malik Shabazz” visited the White House two months after attorney general Holder dismissed the Panthers case. The White House has refused to clarify whether that Malik Shabazz is the Panther national chief. Andrew further reminds us that, in March 2008, the Obama campaign website posted an endorsement of Obama by the New Black Panther Party.

J. Christian Adams, the Department of Justice whistleblower in the New Black Panther Party case, will release his new book, Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department. As Adams writes in Injustice:

Somehow, the fact that the future President of the United States shared a podium with leaders of the New Black Panthers, marched with them, and received a public, formal greeting from their party has vanished from the history of Obama’s campaign. Apart from [Juan] Williams’ single dispatch, no other media outlets ever reported it.

Breibart notes he is not suggesting Barack Obama is a member of the New Black Panthers but I would suggest he may be a non-card carrying member staying slightly under the radar until he appears in pictures with them. I did some digging late in the 2008 election cycle as to how the Obama’s could pay for all that education and Snopes “exposed” me as some sort of liar when all they had were quotes from Barack and Michelle with no particular evidence. They say “False” and I continue to say follow the paper trail.

Breitbart is asking some very reasonable and responsible questions:

1. What did he and Malik Zulu Shabazz say when they conversed that day–something that Shabazz has said happened?
2. Did the Obama campaign play any role in having the Panthers travel to support his presidential ambitions?
3. Who posted the Panthers’ endorsement on the Obama campaign’s website, and at whose instructions?
4. Who–finally–was the Malik Shabazz who visited the White House residence on July 25, 2009?

Canada Free Press wasn’t shy at exposing Obama and his radical mentors:

New evidence has emerged that Democratic presidential candidateBarack Obama was closely associated as early as age 25 to a key adviser to a Saudi billionaire who had mentored the founding members of the Black Panthers.

Percy Sutton, the former borough president of Manhattan, off-handedly revealed the unusual circumstances about his first encounter with the young Obama.

“I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him,” Sutton told NY1 city hall reporter Dominic Carter.

“The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas,” Sutton said. “He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.”

Sutton, the founder of Inner City Broadcasting, said al-Mansour contacted him to ask a favor: Would Sutton write a letter in support of Obama’s application to Harvard Law School?

“He wrote to me about him,” Sutton recalled. “And his introduction was there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”

Sutton said he acted on his friend al-Mansour’s advice.

“I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly,” Sutton told NY1.

These are questions the mainstream press never asks but they’re glad to hide the facts. MSM – willing accomplices in electing Barack Obama and destroying the Constitutional Republic known as America. Canada Free Press and Breitbart sites are not “mainstream” media in the sense the report the real news and expose people the American press chooses to protect. (Read the whole Canada Free Press report exposing Obama here.)

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Yesterday at OpinionJournal.com in the Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto announced – Ominous Parallels – Is Michele Bachmann the Barack Obama of 2012?

Mr. Taranto puts a lot of humor into his column and I’ve read it for a long time and I’ve gone after him for things I didn’t like. This time I didn’t want to fill the space in his comments section with my response.

Taranto begins: (all bold emphasis LCs)

Talk to a liberal about Rep. Michele Bachmann, and you’re sure to hear the words “crazy” and “unelectable.” We disagree with the first characterization and doubt the second, which is not to say we don’t have serious misgivings about Bachmann. We worry that she may be the Barack Obama of 2012.

Fair enough but this is beginning to smell like a Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, or Christina O’Donnell hit piece and the odor seeped through. Is it the press all over that feels everyone is unqualified because they don’t have a graduate degree out of the Ivy League or because they are Conservative women who stand up and are heard by the masses. Is this penis envy in reverse?

Taranto continues:

The most obvious parallel is in the quantity and quality of their political experience. On Election Day 2008, Obama was nearing the end of his fourth year in the U.S. Senate; 2012 will be Bachmann’s sixth year in the House. Both came to Washington after stints in their state senates, where Obama served eight years and Bachmann six. Although both quickly gained national prominence as opposition spokesmen, neither is about to be mistaken for Lyndon B. Johnson in terms of legislative acumen or accomplishment.

First off not many in politics had the experience and power of LBJ. Nor did many in politics serve up a war like Vietnam or institute the “Great Society” which is a major piece of legislation that is a huge part of the American experience of big and ever growing government. LBJ helped put “entitlement” on steroids into our society and it remains an enormous drag on American progress.

Both are “diversity” pioneers. Obama was the first serious black candidate for president. Bachmann, assuming she does not fade before the nominating contests begin, will be the first serious female candidate (putting aside the nepotist Hillary Clinton). That brings both of them a certain amount of deference from guilty white males.

Isn’t this a stretch even after catching himself about Hillary Clinton. If Clinton wasn’t the first serious female candidate for President then who was? Then he throws in the “guilty white males” comment.

But Mr. Taranto shows his colors when he sides with colleague Paul Gigot who we believe started comparing Conservatives of the Tea Party stripe as Hobbits. Here Taranto agrees with Gigot about Ms. Bachmann being irresponsible because she doesn’t agree with them. Unfortunately, neither Gigot or Taranto gave full credit for Ms. Bachmann as they skipped over some important facts.

The other big knock on Bachmann has to do with fiscal policy, and it does not come only from the left. Here is Paul Gigot, reviewing last week’s debate:

“Her admirers like her willingness to fight, but her claim that the Standard & Poor’s downgrade of U.S. debt vindicated her refusal to vote for a debt-ceiling increase illustrates why voters will never trust her with the White House and I doubt even the nomination.

Had Republicans forced a post-Aug. 2 shutdown of government services and risked default, Moody’s and Fitch would have joined S&P in downgrading U.S. debt. Either Ms. Bachmann knows this, in which case she is merely playing to the talk radio GOP base. Or she doesn’t know it, which makes her unready to be president.”

Taranto continues:

Bachmann’s position on the debt-ceiling increase was indeed irresponsible, whether foolishly or cynically so. And she was not alone. To quote another member of Congress:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. . . . Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

Taranto gives us the answer to his clue about who made the above quote:

As you might have guessed, that was Sen. Barack Obama, explaining his vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006.

In July Rep. Bachmann did indeed support Rep. Steve King’s House bill Promises Act that would get America on the path to paying off the national debt by first paying the interest.

H.R. 2496, “Payment Reliability for our Obligations to Military and Investors to Secure Essential Stability Act,” or the PROMISES Act. was legislation that ensured spending is prioritized in the case the federal government exceeds its ability to borrow. The PROMISES Act would direct the Treasury to pay down the interest on our national  debt and ensure the Armed Forces are paid for their tireless service.

“The PROMISES Act is about priorities,” Bachmann said. “Even if we reach our borrowing limit, both the President and Congress still have a responsibility to pay the interest on our debt and provide paychecks for members of our military.

There was, in fact, a proposal to ensure the US would not default on its debt but it was too convenient to skip over this to denounce Rep. Bachmann as an Obama clone and unqualified to become President.

Any comparison to Barack Obama would be to say Ms. Bachmann was a community organizer, practices Black Liberation Theology, hangs out with domestic terrorists, was a part-time lecturer in a major university, voted present instead of supporting or introducing legislation at the state or national level and complained on radio and TV about the US Constitution. Ms. Bachmann would also have to support an entitlement society and legislation that ignores the Constitution and invokes bigger government.

Of course none of this is true. A close read of Ms. Bachmann’s resume would say she is not like Barack Obama but completely the opposite. Why Michelle Bachmann even supports the unborn while Mr. Taranto is pro-choice which means he supports a right to choose abortion. Isn’t support for abortion support for legalized murder?

Prior to serving in the US Congress, Rep. Bachmann:

1. Served in the Minnesota State Senate from 2000-2006;
2. As a Minnesota State Senator, she championed the Taxpayers Bill of Rights;
3. Before holding elected office, Bachmann worked on hundreds of civil and criminal cases as a federal tax litigation attorney.
4. A mother of five and foster mother of 23;
5. Started a charter school for at-risk kids in Minnesota;
6. A graduate of Anoka High School and Winona State University;
7. Received her J.D. at the O.W. Coburn School of Law at Oral Roberts University;
8. Received her L.L.M. in Tax Law at the College of William and Mary;
9. With her husband they opened a small business health care practice that employs nearly fifty people.
10. She is admittedly extremely happy to be married for 30 years.

Rep. Bachmann worked in the public and private sector, has raised her children and brought other children into her home to raise, she earned several degrees, started a small business, and started a charter school further supporting at-risk children. Quite accomplished.

Michele Bachmann has a proven and successful record in everything she has done in her private life and in her public life. Barack Obama was unaccomplished before reaching the White House and his record now stands as an abject failure. Barack Obama supported raising the debt limit, he supports raising taxes, he supports increasing entitlement programs, he doesn’t support the US Constitution, he supports government control and reduction of the freedom and liberty for American’s. Barack Obama supports class warfare and redistribution of wealth.

I guess you could honestly say – Barack Obama is no Michele Bachmann and that James Taranto is clueless about the representative from Minnesota.

We could say that Paul Gigot and James Taranto are merely Hobbits but that would be insulting Hobbits everywhere. Maybe they’re simply “Angry White Men.”

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Chicago Cub great Ron Santo will be laid to rest  in Chicago today. Following the services at Holy Name Cathedral, the funeral procession will embark on a route toward Wrigley Field. The procession will leave Holy Name Cathedral and drive north on State Street, east on Chicago, south on Michigan Avenue, and turn around in front of the Wrigley Building before pausing in front of the Tribune Tower. The procession will then go north on Michigan Avenue to inner Lake Shore Drive, west on Division Street, north on LaSalle Drive, north on Clark Street, north on Sheffield Avenue, west on Addison Street followed by a lap around Wrigley.

Ron Santo is probably the best professional baseball player never to voted into the Hall of Fame. This was a terrible injustice to a third baseman who baseball statistics were better than many who are enshrined at Cooperstown.

May Ronnie forever rest in peace as he will forever be in our hearts. We’ll miss your broadcasts in the same way we missed you at the hot corner at Wrigley Field.

The following is an excerpt from “The Stark Truth: The Most Overrated and Underrated Players in Baseball History” by Jayson Stark. Copyright (c) 2007 by the author.

Only about 500 people in the world get to vote in the baseball Hall of Fame election. I’m one of them. So I’m always aware, when I hold that ballot in my hand, that this is about more than a list of names. This is about lives and legacies. Those lives, those legacies, are changed forever by the results of those elections.

So from the day that ballot arrives in the mail to the day I fill it out, those names, those lives, those legacies grab a little chunk of my brain and hold on so tight, you’d think they were stamped on a winning Powerball ticket. They pinball around up there for WEEKS — until I’m finished the momentous debate that revolves around every one of them: Yes or no? Hall of Famer or not?

I’ve learned, in a decade and a half as a voter, not to answer that question too quickly. And I know exactly who taught me that lesson.

Ron Santo.

My first year as a Hall voter was 1989. Santo’s name was on that ballot. I left the box next to his name unchecked. Little did I know it would be a life-altering experience.

At the time, Santo hadn’t played a baseball game in 15 years. His prime had come and gone long before I started covering baseball. So because it was my first year as a voter and I had the Hall of Fame fate of 30 players to weigh, I zipped past Ron Santo faster than I should have. I took a quick look at his numbers, but what I really did was something I’ve never allowed myself to do since: I went by first impression. A voice up there said Santo was only the fourth-best player on a Cubs team that never won anything. So how could he be one of the greatest players ever to play his position?

This is the logic hundreds of voters used for years to rationalize not voting for Ron Santo. But I admit now that I used it myself before I’d ever seriously thought it through. I didn’t even know I’d done that until a couple of weeks later.

So how did I figure it out? Well, let’s just say it’s not usually a good sign when talk radio changes your mind about anything — sports, politics, even your favorite lasagna recipe. But in this case, I was co-hosting a talk show about the Hall of Fame when a caller began grilling me on why I hadn’t voted for Santo. The more I explained myself, the more he thought my logic made less sense than Borat. So he decided to write me a letter, laying out the case for Santo with depth and passion. I’m still glad he did.

Here’s what I know now about Ron Santo that I didn’t know then:

1) It IS possible to be the “fourth-best player on your own team” and still be a Hall of Famer. It’s not as if Santo was the player-GM of the Cubs. He didn’t arrange to be on the same club as Ernie Banks, Billy Williams and Ferguson Jenkins. It just happened. There may be quotas on how many anchovies you can import from France. But there are no quotas on how many Hall of Famers can play on one team. So the only question is whether Ron Santo was a great player at his position in his era — not how his own greatness related to his teammates’ greatness. But before I get to that question, let me remind the skeptics that it was Santo — not Banks, not Williams — who hit cleanup for those Cubs teams, from his third full season in the big leagues (1963) through his 11th (1971). And there was a reason for that. “Any time things started to get tough,” says Dodgers GM Ned Colletti, who grew up a Cubs fan in the ’60s, “you’d find yourself hoping it was Ronnie’s turn to bat.”

2) Ron Santo was almost certainly the greatest all-around third baseman of his time. Name ANY other third baseman from the 1960s you would rather have run out there than Santo. Maybe Brooks Robinson, if you ate a lot of crabcakes. And there’s a case to be made for Ken Boyer, a similar player whose Cardinals teams at least finished first once in a while. But I’d still take Santo. Of the 23 third basemen who got to the plate 3,000 times during Santo’s 15 seasons, he led all of them in homers, RBIs, runs scored, extra-base hits, walks and times reaching base. Only Dick Allen and Eddie Mathews outslugged him — but Allen was so awful defensively, he had to be moved to first base, and Mathews was done as a full-time player by the mid-’60s. Finally, let’s put Santo’s eight straight seasons of at least 25 homers and 90 RBIs in perspective. From the end of World War 2 through the end of Santo’s career, only two players at ANY position had streaks longer than that: Willie Mays and Hank Aaron. This was not an age where 40-homer, 125-RBI seasons were as prevalent as bad sitcoms. So the only fair way to evaluate Santo’s numbers is from the perspective of HIS time, not our time.

3) Ron Santo was even more underrated defensively than he was offensively. I didn’t figure that out right away, either. By the time I became a voter, Mike Schmidt had broken all of Santo’s National League glove-story records. And Brooks Robinson, who played in Santo’s era, probably needed to add a floor to his house to hold all his Gold Gloves. So if you were someone like me, who hadn’t seen Santo leather it up, you had no idea how good he was. But that’s why I now make sure to take a closer look at EVERYONE who appears on the Hall of Fame ballot. During the time Santo was in the big leagues, he not only led all third basemen not nicknamed “Brooksie” in assists, double plays and total chances. He set or tied National League records for most years leading the league in every one of those categories. He won five straight Gold Gloves, in an age when the only other third baseman who did that was Robinson. So he didn’t just have a GOOD glove. He was the dominant glove man in his league at his position.

4) We shouldn’t be keeping Ron Santo out of the Hall of Fame just because his team was allergic to October. No team in most of our lifetimes has been more creative in finding ways to avoid the World Series than the Cubs. But that didn’t keep Jenkins, Banks or Williams from barging into Cooperstown. So what’s the excuse for using that argument to keep Santo out? The only reason to factor that in is that poor Ron Santo never got the opportunity to use that stage to show the masses how good a player he was. And that had a lot more to do with the guys who pitched for his team than with the third baseman who would have given up deep-dish pizza for life to win it all just once.

It’s now more than three decades since Ron Santo played baseball for the Cubs. He’s still as beloved a figure as anybody who has EVER played for the Cubs. In part, I know, that’s because he became the voice of the Cubs. But there is more to that phenomenon than a radio microphone.

Santo may have been “the fourth-best player” on those Cubs. But really, says Ned Colletti, “he was the leader of those clubs. Yeah, he had Williams on one side of him and Banks on the other side, so he was protected in that lineup. But HE also protected THEM. If you want to win, you have to have players who lead. And nobody on those teams played harder, competed harder or cared more than he did. They wouldn’t have been the same team without him. He defined the personality of the club. He was the one everyone looked to.”

Even after he took off that uniform, not even the men who were still wearing those uniforms could possibly have cared more whether the Cubs won or lost than Ron Santo. There is a classic scene in “This Old Cub,” the riveting documentary on Santo’s life, that takes us back to the final week of the 1998 season: Cubs leftfielder Brant Brown dropping a ninth-inning fly ball with the bases loaded. The Cubs losing a game in Milwaukee that they once led, 8-7. And the voice on the radio — Ron Santo’s voice — is summing up the moment in two eloquent words — “Oh nooooooooooooooooooo.” After the game, Santo’s partner, Pat Hughes, heads for the clubhouse. What he finds, he says in the film, is “something that probably has not been ever seen before in a big league clubhouse. I saw the MANAGER trying to cheer up the BROADCASTER after the game.”

All right, I know the compassion many of us feel for Ron Santo — at that moment, at every moment — has nothing to do with whether he’s underrated or not. But I’ve already established that the guy was one of the great all-around talents of his time. His real story, though, is about something larger than that.

For a lot of people in this world, the Cubs are a walking laugh track, a Comedy Central compendium of collapses and calamities and bad billy-goat jokes. But there’s a human side to that tale. And no one embodies it more than Ron Santo. All those great seasons. All that passion. For all those years. And now here he is, in his mid-60s, still waiting for his just reward. He has had to have both legs amputated because of diabetes, a condition he battled his whole career. He has survived cancer and a quadruple bypass. There isn’t much more he asks out of life. Just to see the Cubs win a World Series one stinking time. And to have his amazing lifelong dedication to his team and his sport recognized by the Hall of Fame.

Many years ago, a talk-show caller convinced me to look at Ron Santo’s career from a different, more enlightened place. Hopefully, this tiny slice of baseball literature will cause a lot more people to do the same.

Ron Santo is now gone from this earth but he must now reside in a special Hall of Fame and will be looking down at Wrigley Field, his Chicago Cubs and his Chicago Cubs faithful hoping, just once, the Cubbies play through October and win a World Series, the first since 1908. We’ll miss you Ron Santo, but we will never forget you. Thanks for a lifetime of great memories. Rest in Peace.

More on Ron Santo here.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Barack Hussein Obama defended his decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad as a civilian by declaring that the outcome is preordained: KSM will be convicted and put to death. Attorney General Eric Holder, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, made a similar statement under questioning from Sen. Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat: (Emphasis LCs)

Kohl: Mr. Holder, last week you announced that the department will bring to Guantanamo [sic in transcript] detainees accused of planning the 9/11 attacks to trial in federal court in New York, as we’ve talked about this morning. On Friday you said that you’d not have authorized prosecution if you were not confident that the outcome would be successful. However, many critics have offered their own predictions about how such a trial might well play out.

One concern we have heard from critics of your decision is that the defendants could get off on legal technicalities, in which case these terrorists would walk free. Does this scenario have any merit? If not, why? And in the worst case scenario that the trial does not result in a conviction, what would be your next steps? 

Holder: Many of those who have criticized the decision–and not all–but many of those who have criticized the decision have done so, I think, from a position of ignorance. They have not had access to the materials that I have had access to.

They’ve not had a chance to look at the facts, look at the applicable laws and make the determination as to what our chances of success are. I would not have put these cases in Article III courts if I did not think our chances of success were not good–in fact, if I didn’t think our chances of success were enhanced by bringing the cases there. My expectation is that these capable prosecutors from the Justice Department will be successful in the prosecution of these cases.

Kohl: But taking into account that you never know what happens when you walk into a court of law, in the event that for whatever reason they do not get convicted, what would be your next step? I’m sure you must have talked about it.

Holder: What I told the prosecutors and what I will tell you and what I spoke to them about is that failure is not an option. Failure is not an option. This–these are cases that have to be won. I don’t expect that we will have a contrary result.

“Failure is not an option”? Is Eric Holder aware that Obama friend and confidant domestic terrorist William Ayers was set free because of prosecutorial error?

Obama and Holder make irresponsible assurances that KSM will be convicted (and, according to Obama, “put to death”) make a complete mockery of due process and the US Constitution. Nothing is more fundamental to America’s criminal justice system than the presumption of innocence, and if terrorist detainees are to be treated as criminal defendants, they are entitled to that presumption. Enemy combatants have no rights to the US Constitution while Obama and Holder have more respect for our enemies than regard for US law.

Prosecutorial ignorance, Marxist/Fascists indeed!

See also: Osama bin Laden – You Have the Right to Remain Silent

For the sake of political expediency, Obama and Holder are refusing even to make a pretense of respect for due process. If KSM & Co. are convicted and put to death, America’s critics and enemies will point to Obama and Holder’s assurances in arguing that the defendants were subjected to sham justice. Nice work restoring America’s moral standing, Mr. President.

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) bribed her way to healthcare “reform” and who knows what the mountain of promises must look like after a Saturday night live vote for Socialism. One vote from a RINO in Louisiana and now the Liberals are screaming “bi-partisan.

Maybe Representative Cao (R-LA) should consider a party switch if he thinks his vote for political expediency and fear of a career change required him to vote yea because he was standing up for his constituents with his “yes” vote, citing “exploding” health care costs in his district and the need for more accessible care. We wonder if Mr. Cao ever read the bill or if his political career was more important.

“I have always said that I would put aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people. My vote tonight was based on my priority of doing what is best for my constituents,” Cao said. 

Cao won in an upset election last December, ousting embattled Democratic Rep. William Jefferson — who has since been convicted on federal corruption charges. Mr. Cao should understand that he voted for a corrupt bill and is following corruption in his path in politics.

According to The Times-Picayune, he said over the summer that “voting against the health care bill will probably be the death of my political career.” We’ll do our best to oust him from Congress or at the very least show him the path out of the “big tent” GOP. RINOs need not apply.

“Thanks to the … amendment, taxpayer dollars will not go to supporting elective abortions, and for thousands of my constituents, this was a top priority,” he said. “By incorporating this amendment into the health reform bill, my colleagues and I made this bill better, and that is an achievement of which I will always be proud,” Cao said in a statement.

Who is Cao fooling or his he simply one more fool taken in by Pelosi promises only to realize he has been duped into selling himself and the America taxpayer down the river to hell?

Subsidies will soar, the Federal government will continue to find ways to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions and the government will have no choice but to ration medical care, starting with the aged and grievously ill.

Using abortion as a playing card for votes the House Healthcare bill to hell provides complete power to government if ObamaCare becomes law. Every decision of what to insure or not—when an MRI can be used, or whether a stage-four breast cancer patient can get Avastin or some future expensive drug—will become subject to political intervention over moral disputes or budget constraints. Heretofore, these decisions have largely been made between a doctor and patient.

This is the real “right to life” issue and anyone thinking government healthcare is the correct medical decision is buying into Liberal ambition to power entitlement and increased loss of freedom and liberty as written in the US Constitution.

Blue Dog Democrats who claim to be deficit hawks sold their soul to Pelosi and taxpayers will suffer with loss of quality healthcare and burdening costs as the national deficit climbs faster than Jack’s beanstalk.

North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad called the House bill ”a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of” in an interview with the Washington Post in late October.

In an effort to provide cradle to grave entitlements and massive government takeover of personal decisions one can only hope the future of ObamaCare is the grave. Hopefully as this fiasco moves to the Senate it will be pronounced dead on arrival along with Liberal ambition and RINOs like Rep. Cao who see their political careers before the US Constitution. Indeed!

The following story is from Patriot Post and Mark Alexander. It is too important not to place here for anyone who stops by. The mainstream media picks and chooses what they wish to call news while fawning over Barack Hussein Obama and not engaging in facts.

Here is Mr. Alexander’s essay:

******************

“Equal and exact justice to all men…” –Thomas Jefferson

Editor’s Note: PG suggested — this essay contains graphic descriptions of a brutal crime.

In 1775, John Adams wrote, “There is in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong, a love of truth and a veneration of virtue … if the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice…”

Adams understood that a shared penchant for justice and virtue is essential to liberty, and depends upon the ability of people to discern between right and wrong.

Today, it is evident to every astute social scientist (and most anyone with common sense) that among definable American subcultures the capacity for distinguishing between right and wrong is severely diminished.

The origin of these deteriorating standards for justice and virtue is rooted in the dissolution of the family, and the failure of our places of worship and our schools to instill those values necessary for self-government — self-government being the foundation of family-government and that being the foundation of social responsibility.

U.S. urban centers, and to a lesser extent suburban and rural areas, are now home to generations of sociopaths who do not value your life, simply because they do not value their own.

Making matters worse, the MSM perpetuates a virtual blackout of news regarding select sociopaths, while trumpeting allegations and speculations of others. This results in a distorted popular understanding of the extent of the social degradation around us.

Three years ago (March 2006), the Leftmedia spent a year relentlessly convicting in the court of public opinion three white Duke University lacrosse players for a “hate crime” — the alleged gang rape of a black woman named Crystal Gail Mangum. Millions of dollars in defense-lawyer fees later, it turns out that there was no evidence and that Mangum was a liar. The real victims were, in fact, the accused men: David Evans, Reade Seligmann and Colin Finnerty. (All charges were dropped, but there has been no apology yet from 88 Duke professors who jumped on the bandwagon, condemning Evans, Seligmann and Finnerty in an open letter before the first day of their trial.)

Four weeks ago, Barack Hussein Obama interrupted a live media propaganda confab promoting his administration’s most critical national initiative (nationalizing health care) in order to accuse a white Cambridge, MA, police officer, James Crowley, of “acting stupidly” for arresting Obama’s black friend, Henry Gates. That accusation was followed by similar knee-jerk pronouncements of racism by the black governor of Massachusetts and the black mayor of Cambridge. Under such heavy-handed political and media pressure, all charges against Gates were dropped.

The Gates’ story dominated the national media headlines for a couple weeks, until it was determined that the officer’s actions were, in fact, justified. Obama attempted to make amends by tossing back a few beers with the Gates and Crowley in the Rose Garden, but BO offered no public apology. (Narcissists do not apologize, they just reinterpret the facts.)

This week, there is a trial underway which is racially charged, but, unless you were reading The Patriot back in 2007, chances are you have not heard of this one since it involves a savage black-on-white crime, rather than MSM feeding frenzy accusations of white-on-black crimes.

I am referring to the brutal torture, mutilation and murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom by four black men in Knoxville, Tennessee.

In the event you were not a reader in ’07, allow me to recount this horrendous incident … because you won’t see or hear it from any MSM news outlets.

On 6 January 2007, Channon (age 21) and Christopher (age 23) were out for a Saturday dinner date, after which Channon called her mom to report that they were on the way to visit friends. But Channon and Christopher never arrived at their friends’ house — nor returned home.

The next day, the mutilated and burned remains of Chris Newsom were found along a railroad track. Two days later, Channon’s mutilated body was recovered from a trash bin.

Channon and Chris were in Channon’s Toyota 4-Runner when they were carjacked. They were taken to a nearby house, brutally gang-raped, mutilated and then murdered. They were subjected to lengthy torture in each other’s presence.

Newsom was raped, his genitals were cut off, and then taken to the railroad tracks where he was shot execution-style. The perpetrators soaked his body with an accelerant and burned his body.

Christian was kept alive for a while longer, repeatedly raped, mutilated, had cleaning solution poured down her throat in an attempt to destroy DNA evidence, and then stuffed inside a trash can where she suffocated to death.

This appalling attack is more than a case study in sociopathic evil. It is a case study about which stories the MSM headlines and which they do not. Yes, there are some 17,000 murders committed in the U.S. each year, but this double murder was clearly far more barbaric, far more monstrous, than most.

Regrettably, there is nothing new about the racial aspect of this story, which may explain why it was not national news. Although blacks represent just 12 percent of the U.S. population, black perpetrators are convicted by a jury of their peers in more than half of all murder and manslaughter cases. Additionally, per-capita black-on-white crime is far more prevalent than the inverse.

The underlying social factors contributing to such racially unbalanced crime statistics have been delineated by many conservative black leaders and academicians. However, their solutions — most notably promoting family unity, faith-based programs, better schools and individual responsibility and accountability, contradict leftist political objectives, which seek to maintain black folks’ status as wards of the state. (The modern Democrat implementation of a plantation system.)

Charged in the torture/murder of Chanon and Christopher were Eric Boyd, Letalvis Cobbins, Lemaricus Davidson, George Thomas and Vanessa Coleman.

In April 2008, Boyd was convicted in federal court of being an accessory after the fact, but the MSM was too busy fawning over the candidacy of Barack Obama to report that conviction. (Boyd’s case is on appeal.)

“One down. Four to go,” said Channon’s father, Gary Christian.

He and Channon’s mother, Deena have been present at all the proceedings. “We do this for Channon,” said Deena. “We’ve been through the worst. We and the Newsoms have lost our children. We can endure anything.”

This week, the trial of a second defendant, Letalvis Cobbins, is underway, but it’s safe to say that the prosecution of this defendant will pass without a satellite news-link truck anywhere in sight.

I draw your attention to this case not only to mourn the murder of this young couple, but also to call attention to a despicable political double standard which includes the MSM’s complicity in advancing that standard.

In 1998, three white men in Jasper, Texas, beat a black man, James Byrd, then chained him to the back of a pickup truck and dragged him three miles to his death. Not surprisingly, Byrd’s murder received national media attention — as it should.

Clearly, hate was a motivating factor in the Jasper case, but it was also a motivating factor in Knoxville, though not a “hate crime” as defined by federal law. So, why do white-on-black hate crimes invariably result in a media feeding frenzy, while black-on-white hate crimes receive nary a mention?

What about the double standard when it comes to race-hustling poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (who fabricated the Tawana Brawley rape hoax)? The only difference in racists such as Jackson and Sharpton and those in the KKK is that the latter are not Leftmedia celebs.

To that end, my colleague Walter Williams posited this query: “What have we heard from the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others who rushed to judgment and outrage as they condemned whites in the cases of the ‘Jena 6′ and Don Imus when he referred to the Rutgers ladies basketball team as ‘nappy-headed ho’s'? Where were the national news media and public officials? You can bet the rent money that, were the victims black and the perpetrators white, Knoxville would have been inundated with TV crews, with Jackson, Sharpton and other civil rights spokesmen and politicians from both parties condemning racism, possibly blaming it all on George Bush…”

As for the defendants in this case, Knox County has already paid in excess of $350 thousand to prosecute and defend these monsters. Based on the eyewitness account of defendant Vanessa Coleman, the question before Cobbins’ jury, and those yet to be empanelled for the other defendants, is not one of guilt or innocence, but guilty of what charges.

Those found guilty will be treated to either life imprisonment, with all entitlements, or life on death row for maybe a couple decades — all at a cost to taxpayers of more than $100 thousand per year per convict.

Martin Luther King, in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail, proclaimed, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

The MSM blackout of this crime is a grave injustice.

To the families and friends of Channon and Christopher, we share your grief and will continue this vigil with you until justice is served.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

******************

LC Note: It is unconscionable this is not a national story. When the racial shoe is on the other foot, right or wrong, it becomes 24/7 news. Real journalism is dead. Indeed!

See Also

Barack Hussein Obama told companies on the taxpayer dole not to make trips to Las Vegas and other fancy resorts. Mr. Obama and his Leftist political ilk would like to control all CEO compensation as they meddle in the affairs of private business and take control of some.

Although Obama used three planes, a helicopter and a parade of SUVs for “date night” in New York and spends taxpayer dollars for Democrat/Neo-Socialist fundraisers, his buddies in Congress are enhancing their lives and others at public expense. RINOs in the GOP don’t mind using your money to make life better for themselves either.

Democrat Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings spent $24,730 in taxpayer money last year to lease a 2008 luxury Lexus hybrid sedan. Republican Ohio Rep. Michael Turner expensed a $1,435 digital camera. Democrat Eni Faleomavaega, the House delegate from American Samoa, bought two 46-inch Sony TVs.

The expenditures were legal, properly accounted for and drawn from allowances the U.S. government grants to lawmakers. Equipment purchased with office expense accounts must be returned to the House or the federal General Services Administration when a lawmaker leaves office.

House members get a government expense allowance of $1.3 million to $1.9 million a year. Senators get $2.9 million to $4.5 million.

The U.S. Treasury gives them an allowance to cover “official and representational expenses,” according to congressional rules, and the lawmakers enjoy a fair amount of discretion in how they use the funds. A Wall Street Journal review of thousands of pages of these records for 2008 expenses showed most lawmaker spending flowed to areas such as staff salaries, travel, office rent and supplies, and printing and mailing.

• Democrat Rep. Howard Berman expensed $84,000 worth of personalized calendars, printed by the U.S. Capitol Historical Society, for his constituents.
• Republican Rep. Rodney Alexander of Louisiana paid $20,000 for a 2009 lease on a Toyota Highlander, a hybrid SUV.
• Democrat Rep. William Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat, spent $2,793 on a Panasonic Toughbook laptop, which is marketed to the military, in September, about three months before he lost his re-election bid in a December runoff.

What will happen to the SUVs when Obama outlaws them? What about those bonuses under government scrutiny at private firms?

Capitol Hill bonuses in 2008 were among the highest in years, according to LegiStorm, an organization that tracks payroll data. The average House aide earned 17% more in the fourth quarter of the year, when the bonuses were paid, than in previous quarters, according to the data. That was the highest jump in the eight years LegiStorm has compiled payroll information.

Last year alone, more than 200 House lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, awarded bonuses totaling $9.1 million to more than 2,000 staff members, according to the Wall Street Journal analysis of office-disbursement forms. The money comes out of taxpayer-funded office budgets, and is surplus cash that would otherwise be forfeited if not spent. How about not spending the money and returning it proportionately to taxpayers? How about simply lowering taxes?

Payments ranged from a few hundred dollars to $14,000. Lawmakers, at their own discretion, gave the money to chiefs of staff, assistants, computer technicians, and more than 100 aides who earned salaries of more than $100,000 a year. Doesn’t Obama consider these people “rich”?

A bonus and salary of $100,000 per year? Where’s the outrage? Are these salaries a part of the new redistribution of wealth criteria Obama is demanding?

Disbursement forms show that dozens of aides working for the Financial Services Committee got a bonus from panel Chairman Barney Frank. Spokesman Steven Adamske said the Massachusetts Democrat gives bonuses to staffers because “government workers are pretty low paid.” He said several aides who got bonuses had worked long hours during 2008 on the government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) known as bailout money. $100,000 per year and great healthcare equates to low pay?

Barney Frank doling out taxpayer money and demanding less for the military budget? Barney Frank demanding accountibility from private business and bank loans to people who can’t afford them? That Barney Frank?

Overall in the House, disbursements were roughly evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.

Six lawmakers who lost their re-election races paid more than $300,000 in bonuses to 89 staffers. Thelma Drake, a Republican, gave about $40,000 in extra compensation to about a dozen aides after losing her Virginia seat. Mrs. Drake said the payments were a form of severance to “good staff members who worked their hearts out and who were about to lose their jobs.”

A handful of lawmakers who retired handed out a total of $283,000 in bonuses. After Republican Heather Wilson gave up her New Mexico seat in the House to run unsuccessfully for the Senate, she gave 13 aides bonuses as high as $3,000. “My practice over 10 years in Congress was to give bonuses at the end of the year,” she said.

Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California handed out the largest payments, giving $14,000 apiece to three aides. Spokeswoman Adrienne Elrod said her boss is “proud of the bonuses she is able to give.”

Last fall, Democratic Rep. Tom Udall left the House to run for New Mexico’s Senate seat. Several members of his House staff took leaves from their government jobs to work for his campaign. When Mr. Udall won the race and returned to Washington, his office budget had accrued a large surplus. He decided to spend the surplus funds by increasing salaries for nearly his entire staff for a short time.

An increase in pay for working on a political campaign? Imagine that! Aren’t we all glad we had a small part to play in Mr. Udall’s election, even if we don’t live in the “Land of Enchantment”?

Disbursement forms show that in late December, Mr. Udall temporarily increased salaries for 19 of his 22 employees to an annualized rate of $163,795. Among those who earned the higher pay were staff assistants, a scheduler, an executive assistant and a part-time employee.

The government is now dictating how private business spends their money, what cares they manufacture and planning to tell us how and where we get our healthcare from.

While the politicians spread our wealth amongst themselves Barack Hussein Obama is busy double talking his way to change like never before. Change of individual freedom to dependency on government. Change of a free marketplace to a non-producer state. Change from capitalism to totalitarian regime mandates.

Change from representative government to a Marxist/Fascist hybrid ruling class spending the people’s money on themselves while they dictate the rules for the masses.

This is Democratic government? Indeed!

I have spent many occasion on the campus of Notre Dame University, not for football but for other youth sporting events. Calling the campus during football or basketball season one of the largest taverns in the United States would be an understatement. The Golden Dome in Indiana is now becoming the stage for a teaching moment supporting infanticide. That is an accurate statement based not on opinion by actions.

Notre Dame is following the theme of the Vatican and condoning politicians who favor abortion over life. Notre Dame’s president, the Rev. John Jenkins, announced the university’s choice of Barack Hussein Obama as this year’s commencement speaker. In yesterday’s student newspaper “The Observer,” Jenkins is quoted:

“We hope for this to be the basis of an engagement with him.”

Obama has agendas that do not include engagement or dialogue. Obama favors the Freedom of Choice Act, and has misrepresented his role in killing an Illinois state ban on partial-birth abortion time and again.

Obama has ended restrictions that prevented taxpayer dollars from funding abortions overseas; opened a path for using taxpayer dollars to encourage the destruction of embryos for research; and taken aim at a “conscience clause” designed to protect doctors, nurses and others from being forced to participate in procedures (including abortion) that violate their consciences.

Inviting Barack Hussein Obama to speak at Notre Dame is not engagement or dialogue but providing a forum for Obama to speak and drones to listen. It’s a stage for Obama to continue his support of the murder of unborn children and to further promote infanticide.

The Pope provides politicians like Nancy Pelosi an audience at US taxpayers expense but refuses to excommunicate her from the Catholic Church. Other pro-abortion Catholics are allowed communion while they join their pedophile brethren in escaping the rules of the church in which they participate.

Notre Dame has a history of awarding pro-choice politicians.  In 1984, Notre Dame famously handed its platform over to then Gov. Mario Cuomo, an ardent pro-choice politician and Catholic. A few years later, the university followed up by awarding its Laetare Medal, one of the American Catholicism’s most prestigious, to Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, another Catholic who had long since cut his conscience to accommodate the pro-choice direction of his party.

In this context, the decision to award this year’s Laetare medal to Mary Ann Glendon, a woman of formidable talent and pro-life conviction, appears less a firm stand for life than a cynical PR move aimed at blunting the criticism they no doubt expected if Mr. Obama accepted their invitation to speak, writes William McGurn.

In the end, the result is moral incoherence. It is an incoherence in which abortion-rights advocates have the most to gain, because it demoralizes those who support the cause of life while removing fears of even the slightest social sanction for those who do not. And it is an incoherence we see all across American Catholic life today.

In our intellectual life, this incoherence gives us a college president who tells the campus paper that honoring an abortion-rights president is consistent with the bishops’ statement that such leaders “should not be given awards, honors, or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

In our public life, it has brought us to a day where the most prominent Catholics in America — from Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to virtually every well-known Irish Catholic in the Senate — now defend the snuffing out of tens of millions of innocent human lives as the exercise of a fundamental right.

Notre Dame is providing a stage for a pro-infanticide politician who uses taxpayer dollars to spread his murderous rampage on the unborn across America and in foreign lands. 

Indeed!

President of the United States of America – the most powerful political office in the world. Wouldn’t anyone expect to have all the facts about the person vying to occupy that office or the current occupant? Isn’t a full and accurate vetting process necessary to ensure the voting public knows everything necessary about a person’s past, present and future ideas? The horse has left the barn but the horse’s asses continue to protect Obama from exposure and hide information they deem inappropriate. We call this censorship and a violation of the US Constitution.

I wrote and wrote and wrote again about Barack Hussein Obama, his past, his sordid array of friends, colleagues and associates. What did it get me? I was “sandboxed” by Google, dropped offline throughout the day and evening at varied times by my website host because of server “problems”, wrongfully attacked by a drone who supposedly retired from NASA and was bored. Snopes and FactCheck had a go at my factual posts but to no avail. Why even Obama’s “Fight the Smears” website attacked me in an attempt to refute my words. They even regularly scrub that site.

But this post is not about Liberally Conservative or others in the new media who have exposed Mr. Obama for what he is when the mainstream media refuses to go beyond the fawning and tingles up their collective legs.

Most recently the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, run by volunteers, had a scrubbing project at the reference of Barack Obama and we should presume this little censoring escapade will be ongoing. Well folks, this site is ongoing and we will continue presenting the facts about Obama and misrepresentations at Wikipedia.

What is missing? (Links will be provided for information gone at Wikipedia but still on this blog.)

Eligibility by birth for Office of the Presidency. This one has made the rounds, is highly disputed and we’re told to forget it. Really? Sign this petition to get involved, it’s your right to do so and responsibility as a free citizen. The “birth certificate” on Wikipedia hasn’t been scrubbed; we’re simply offered one stating Obama’s birth to be Honolulu.

Some evidence strongly suggests, including the testimony of two Obama relatives to WND senior staff writer Jerome Corsi who say they were present when he was born in Mombasa, Kenya, in 1961; he was born abroad and merely registered in Hawaii.

Yes, lawsuits have been thrown out of court on technical grounds such as “lack of standing”, but why did Obama have his birth certificate sealed by the Governor of Hawaii?

William Ayers the unrepentant domestic terrorist served with Obama on the Woods Fund and Annenberg Challenge in Chicago from 1994 to 2002. These references have been deleted at Wikipedia.

Mr. Obama also knows Bernadine Dohrn, co-founder of the Weathermen Underground and wife of Ayers. These people gathered for the original meeting or “coffee” at the Ayers/Dohrn residence in Hyde Park near the University of Chicago to launch Obama’s political career.

Jeremiah Wright was Obama’s pastor for at least twenty-years but Wikipedia only has a brief paragraph stating, “Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand ‘the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change. He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades. Obama resigned from Trinity during the Presidential campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public.”

Father Michael Pfleger doesn’t even receive an honorable mention but practices black liberation theology and was a regular guest speaker at Trinity church during Wright’s tenure and Obama’s participation.

Rashid Khalidi fares as well as Pfleger. Khalidi a PLO adviser turned University of Chicago professor has praise lavished him by Obama at a 2003 farewell bash in Chicago. Ayers and Dohrn attended this party as well.

Khalid Al-Mansour, a ‘mentor’ to the founders of the Black Panther party and advisor to ‘one of the world’s richest men,’ Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Relationships between and Obama probably never made it to Wikipedia and the mainstream media has scrubbed the story by not discussing it.

However, former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton said (Video) that Obama had been funded through Harvard law school. We thought Obama could get into Harvard on his own “intellect” and rise to the prominence of Harvard Law Review president without ever writing for the review previous to his selection.

We’ve done our homework for months preceding the last election but Internet technology has allowed disappearing information at many of Obama’s campaign websites, false accusations about blogs who print the truth and so-called volunteers at Wikipedia who censor information based on their own ideology and belief that Obama is untouchable.

As they said in the long running TV show the X-Files, “The truth is out there.” Indeed, we do our best to expose the truth about Barack Hussein Obama but his cohorts and ilk continue to cleanse it from view. The campaign brush is still in use but we will continue scrub away the lies, deceit and cover-up concerning Barack Hussein Obama. Indeed!

See Also: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility and Subversives for Obama