Barack Obama has set back forty years the relations between the races, predominantly between African-Americans and other groups.  His speech focused on de-legitimizing race hatred by rejecting completely legitimizing Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr.  In the end though he achieved neither.  The Reverend's legitimacy remains after the speech and race is now the most legitimate contentious debate in the presidential race.  In the end, Obama gave justification to Afro-centric Christianity that at base is a hatred for the whites of the world generally and American whites specifically.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not equivalent to the African-American community in the United States.  It is the racism of Chicago blacks represented by Wright's and Farakkan's ideology.  It is also the ideology that has destroyed the Black community of South Chicago and Gary, Indiana.  Wright's and Farakkan's ideology is different; but they do completely agree on the anti-Americanism and anti-white preaching that Wright has been accused, correctly, of stating.  You could take Wright's preaching and give it to Farakkan and it would work well back and forth with either congregation.  One indication of their overlap is that Farakkan's Nation of Islam is not considered to be Muslim (it is a bastardized racist version of Islam).  In the same way, Wright's Christianity is a bastardization of the Hebrew bible and the New Testament.  (Wright's Afro-centric ideology is a bastardized racist version of Christianity). 

It therefore should not surprise anyone that Rev. Wright gave Louis Farakkan and life-time achievement award.  Their two lives are the flip side of the same coin.  Racism and hatred of whites is what drives them and their followers.  Sadly for the nation one of those followers is the presidential candidate Barack Obama.  Obama stayed in the pews for one of two reasons.  One, he believed.  This would be very plausible because he was brought to Christianity that was Afro-Centric.  He sat there and listened and accepted his mentor and lover of Farrakahn.  Second, he joined and became a Christian because he had to for the politics of Black Chicago.  This is necessary to get the black vote for yourself and others to enable Obama to rise up, with Rezko's "under the table" help, the Democratic Chicago Political ladder.

Either reason for his decision to remain an active part of an extremely racist church is plausable.  It actually would seem that his family's, i.e. his wife, reason was the first and Barack Obama's reason may very well been the second.  Either way this is a man whose only principle and certainty is gaining power and election.  Principles are vacuous as many who have examined his campaign and even his latest speech recognized.  Obama can sound wonderful because he has no real substance. 

The real fact of the absence of any real person is his vote, 130 times, present.  "Present" is the act of being there without taking a stand.  Barack Obama sells his self, his blackness, his whiteness, his hope, his loss,  Obama does not present a position as much as he presents whatever you want.  He is the dissenfranchised mirror.  Dissenfanchised is anyone who is unhappy.

Because of Obama, whites will not trust blacks period for years to come.  The fact that there is not a broad rejection of Wright by blacks is making Whites and Hispanics reject African-Americans in greater numbers because of his speech.  When even a presidential candidate will not flatly reject his current mentor Rev. Wright, the message is sends is that hatred of anyone who is not Black is even more important than the greatest office in the land.  Race-hatred is central to Rev. Wright and to Louis Farakkahn.  It is ironic to point out that it is also central to Barack Obama's campaign.  Their hatred is focused on the other, Republicans, other pastors, radio talk show hosts, everyone who disagrees with him. 

Obama bringing his white grandmother into his defense shows his continued inability to integrate his white part into his character.  Did he check with her?  Who is there to defend her?  What type of low-life are you to compare a grown man, Rev. Wright, publicly spewing hatred at his country, its government, its white citizens, its Jewish citizens to one statement his aged grandmother may have made in private?  This is the type of Chicago politician that will sell anything for a vote; the type that should never be allowed close to the White House.

When Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott made a supportive comment to a fellow senator on his 100th birthday, he was forced to resign as majority leader and was further ostercized by Democrats as the personification of evil.  This was because the old senator was Strom Thurman.  For being kind to an old man, even though that person was a known segregationist in his earlier life, Trent Lott paid a significant price.

Barack Obama in his speech now wants the American public to believe that he is above everyone else.  The hate that came out of his close friend, mentor, teacher, and spirtual (read values) leader has not been matched in American public dialogue in forty years.  Because of his support of Jeremiah Wright, Jr., Obama must resign as a Senator and cease his bid for the presidency.

Does not Obama get it?  He is the personification of the race war that he is promoting with the help of his pastor.   His pastor said that  the whites invented AIDS to get rid of the Black race.   This is the ultimate hatred.  No question Wright and Hitler have a lot in common and Obama would justify both if he had to, to become president.

Obama lies again.  No one put Strom Thurman's life in historical context nor even Trent Lott's.  At bottom line, Obama is about all excuses and no responsability.  He did well as a Chicago Democratic politician; this won't sell to the Nation at large.

The official Gallup daily national presidential tracking poll has shown that the Nation is taking seriously the fact the Senator Barack Obama's relationship with his racist, anti-American, anti-Christian pastor is unacceptable, period.  It is more unacceptable in a presidential candidate and Obama's explanations and excuses are not being swallowed whole.  They may be stretching crediblity to such a degree that they may be chocking the American public.

On March 13 Gallup's national presidential daily tracking poll between McCain and Obama, they were tied nationally for the first time at 45% each.  They continued to be tied at 45% on March 14; but on March 15 McCain zipped passed Obama 47% to 44%.  This is at the edge of the margin of error and a big jump in support for McCain in the eyes of normal American Citizens.

The Rasmussan Poll daily national tracking poll shows a worse case for Obama.  McCain and Obama were tied on March 13 at 44% and then McCain started to move forward to increase his lead to 5% points over Obama.  The Rasmussan and Gallup polls confirm each other and the movement of support by the American public towards McCain.

To the credit of the American public, they are rejecting the politics of hatred, racism, and anti-Americans represented by Barck and Michelle Obama.

The Democrats need to understand that this is not just an errant uncle issue nor an issue of some marginal supporter who made an "off the cuff" negative remark.  This is Obama racism and anti-Americanism to the core coming out in its full bloom.  It makes contextual and catagorical sense of Michelle Obama's comment about having no pride in America.  In fact, her racism and anti-Americanism in support of Rev. Wright is a better explanation than the double-speak her husband gave when he tried to explain her comments away.

What Barack Obama wants us to believe, which the Nation seems to reject, is that I should not be held liable for anything before today or before the "gotcha" moment.  I would like to see New York Governor Spitzer try that one.

It is time to not repeat the mistakes of pre-WWII America and reject Nazi, black or white, from our political sphere.  It is time for Obama to be asked to resign from the Senate. 

Senator Barack Obama has now resorted to the World War II defense developed by Albert Speer, Hitler's economic miracle worker, better known as Hitler's architect.   After the  war, Albert Speer contented throughout his life, even after being convicted, that he did not agree with most of the radical and fiery anti-Semitic, anti-Church, and anti-liberty ranting of Der Fuhrer.  He only knew Hitler as the man who saved the economy, got people employed, and made the trains run on time.  Speer specifically denied any personal support for the fiery ideas of the Nazi leader even though he served with him for over seven years.  Just as Barack Obama states: Speer argued that he should not be judged on the negative ideas of the Fuhrer only on the positive achievements he accomplished.

Now Obama has been with Rev. Wright for three times that amount of time.  Nonetheless, he now wants to employ the Speers defense that he had no idea about these radical and fiery ideas of the most honorable reverent.  He, Obama, continues to treat the Rev. Wright as a wholesome individual whose overall record is positive.  Just like Speer defended his leader and his own actions in World War II. 

The dishonesty of Obama is incredible.  Does anyone really credibly believe that Barack Obama was a twenty plus year member of the Rev. Wright's church and had the most personal close relationship with him and yet he did not know what everyone in the United States has known for two months.  The only people who could accept that story would be former member of the Jim Jones club.  It is nonsense. 

The reality has to be one of two choices.  Either Barack Obama is the best flim-flam man in politics or he is the personification of racism and hatred that is embodied in his spiritual savior.  Obama's problem is not that he is a Muslim; his problem is that he is currently a member of a sect of Christianity that is as racist as the KKK was against blacks, Catholics and Jews. 

When it comes to morality this has not been a good week for the Democratic Party.  It is really troublesome when New York's Governor Eliot Spitzer takes the moral high ground in his political decision making when compared to presidential contender Senator Barack Obama.  How is this possible?

Governor Spitzer's central argument for resigning from his office is that the integrity of the office he held be preserved and that he be honest to what he had stood for in principle as a prosecutor.  Although there is no defense for the Governor's actions, neither do I know if this is his "real" reason for resigning or the best face to put on a bad situation; but the fact is, he recognized that American honesty and integrity left him no choice but to resign.

Senator Obama's unfolding overall hatred of America and Americans does not lead him to the same conclusion.  Nor is he even attempting to amend the fact that he was wrong, wrong, wrong, and evil, evil, evil.  This all comes from his own mouth, through his speeches, and from his own hand, in his written autobiography.

Senator Obama's spiritual leader, mentor, and teacher is an unrepentant racist, anti-Semite, anti-American, and an imbecile concerning historical facts.  I am not going to go over all the statements that the so-called preacher has spewed; but, no one of any reasonable thought process would disagree that he is a Black version of the KKK, nothing more and nothing less.  What is really sad is that Senator Barack Obama, unlike New York's Governor, just does not get it.  He has aligned himself his whole adult life with the ultimate evil in this Country and now that he has been "uncovered" the Senator does not recognize that he has lost all integrity and credibility.  The only thing left for him to do is to protect the office. 

In protecting the office, I am speaking of the Democratic Party demanding that Barack Obama remove himself from any connection with the Party itself.  This is consistent with what the Republican Party did when David Dukes tried to run as a Republican.  Although both parties consider themselves "big tents," that inclusiveness does not have to be universal and absolute.  There are always limits.  For example, it is highly unlikely that the Democratic Party would accept Louis Farrakhan as a Democratic candidate if he were to run.  The same must now be true of the Senator.

I would further argue that in the year 2008, the Senate of the United States should censure and remove him if it can, or at least indicate that it disassociates itself from Barack Obama.  This should really be a bi-partisan effort and should have no questions of why.

Obama's situation is analogous to the Governor of New York, not to some uncle in the family or even to Obama's earlier endorsement by The Nation of Islam's Louis Farakkahn.  Obama has clearly stated that his Pastor is him.  He has placed this self-hating traitor in a number of important functions in his campaign.  The most important fact though is that Obama and his wife have clearly said for twenty years, over half their lives, and have written that the most influential day to day person in their thinking has been Pastor Jeremiah Wright.  I did not claim that; the news media did not claim that; the Republican far right-wing "conspiracy" did not claim that; it was the testimony of Senator Barack Obama himself with his wife that made that claim.

This is not a wayward uncle.  Barack Obama sat in his "church" for twenty years.  Obama wrote in his own biography that he took tapes of Pastor Wright's sermons to Harvard and listened to them over and over again to inspire and teach him the proper path.  This pastor according to Obama brought him to Christianity, which I must assume is the Pastor's Christianity, otherwise it does not make sense.  An uncle, or even a brother (like Jimmy Carter's problem), can be avoided and their sins should not be fostered on the rest of the family.  That is absolutely not the case here.  If Obama or the media continue to make that claim, they know that they are lying.  A family members is given to you without your choice.  One also does not claim unequivocally that this family member was the center of you spiritual core; because if he/she was than you can and should be held responsible for their low morals. 

To understand how Senator Barack Obama does not get it, one only has to look at his comments today, Friday.  The only response he had was to repudiate the Pastor's comments about America getting what it deserved on 9/11.  Obama stated that he had never heard Rev. Jeremiah Wright give such sermons in all his twenty years as a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of God.  Of all the hate, racism, and ignorance the Jeremiah Wright spewed, this was the only item Obama repudiated.   It was preached six days after 9/11.  Where was Obama for the last seven years?  These are the only kind of sermons Wright gives.  They are readily available for purchase and it is what is presented on the Church's web site.  Obama had to know and if he did not than how competent is he to be Senator or President?   Obama  and his advisers still think of this as  media control; not one of basic morality.

Obama has proved clearly to be ignorant, a liar, stupid or a plain opportunist; or possibly all four.  He has had to know about these views for twenty years and so must have his wife.  Remember this pastor married them and baptized their daughters.

If he knew, then just like the New York Governor he only apologized when he got caught.  Unlike the Governor, Obama is not doing anything for the integrity of the Office of a United States Senator or for the office of the President.  Worse of all he is tarnishing the name of the Democratic Party by endorsing the rise of a Black KKK within the party represented by Barack Obama.

It is clear that just like the New York Governor, Obama has been a good lier and scam artist to have first fooled the people of Illinois and now to have fooled the Democratic Party and the the citizens of the United States.

For the good of the Country and the Democratic Party all American citizens should call for his resignation from the Senate and withdrawal from the race.

What is sad is that more leaders in this great Country are not calling for his removal.  Geraldine Ferarro's point is well taken.  If Obama was a white candidate or senator he would have been bounced out of the Senate and out of the Presidential primaries in a second, without a second thought.  His only saving grace is the over abundance of liberal guilt and liberal self-hatred.  May we be saved from ourselves.

It is one of the wonders of the current primary seasons, of which there are many wonders, how Hillary Clinton could be behind, overall, and quite likely lose to an unknown, unproven, and insubstantial Senator from Illinois.  There have been numerous, and contradictory, explanations by “talking head” all of which played some role.  Considering that the 2008 Primary season is only about 60 days old, it is Hillary’s complete downfall, which has become almost irreversible, occurred during the past three weeks, that is truly unique.  I would argue that this fall is a consequence of her having in fact two sitting U. S. senators, not just Senator Obama to campaign against.  Her second challenger to whom she is in fact loosing is Senator John McCain.  After the first week of February, she is losing to McCain; not to Obama, even though Obama becomes the immediate beneficiary and may very well become the Democratic nominee.

It would not be far from accurate to say that approximately half the current Democratic primary voters want neither Clinton nor Obama.  In fact in recent polls, most of those who voted for Obama said they would not vote for Clinton if she became the Democratic nominee and vice versa.  It should also be clear that from the beginning in this tight race former Senator John Edwards consistently received a chunk of Democratic votes – voters who consistently indicated that they wanted neither Clinton nor Obama as their candidate.

Clinton’s campaign complete disintegration roughly paralleled McCain becoming the likely choice as the Republican nominee for President.  After Florida, there seemed to be no where Clinton could go to win (and few places McCain could lose).  In talking with many Democrats, it has been clear that there ultimate choice is going to be McCain.  They are all voting in the Democratic primary, as they always have, but when it comes to the “real” election; they will vote for McCain.  It is true that there are a variety of reasons why these individuals will vote for either Clinton or Obama in the primary, while not considering either of them to be of presidential quality.  The November General Election I project will parallel the 1972 Nixon/McGovern race with no Watergate.

Nationally, according to Gallup’s daily tracking polls, Obama passed Clinton in national popularity on February 10 to 11.  That was exactly two days after McCain hit his highest popularity rating on February 9-10.  It has been down hill in national popularity for Clinton ever since.  She and Obama have been essentially trading places; while, McCain has kept his level of popularity nationally statistically steady.

Since the second week of February this primary season has essentially been a three person race for the Presidency, and the winner of the Republican primary will become president.  Although the turnout at the Democratic primaries has been significantly higher than the Republican turnout this has historically generally been the case.  With the general election over 100 million people will vote.  Over half will have not voted in the primaries and most of whom consider themselves independents or either center Democrats or Republicans (i.e. switchable).  The hard-core Democrats, especially African-Americans and Hispanics, have already voted in the primary.  Most will vote for Hillary or Barak whoever is nominated; but, the middle of the road Democrats do not want Hillary or Barak.  They also do not want to “look” sexist or racist in their own eyes.  This will have being taken care of by their primary vote; while they know full well that McCain is waiting in the wings for the real election.

A large part of the Primary Democratic vote is a negative one.  In spite of the Obama hype, very few voter choices are positively oriented toward the candidates.  In discussions with many Democrats their reason for voting is their historical opportunity to vote for a serious women or Black contender for the Presidency.  There is a real hatred for Hilary and the Clintons, which is leading many Democrats to vote to Obama while holding their noses.  This has become particularly true of working class Democrats who have now moved to voting for Obama; but will never support him in the general election.  They moved during the past two weeks from Clinton to Obama because they know they can vote for McCain in the general election.   The gender gap continues to favor Obama in the primary with males of all races.  These are the very voters who will vote for McCain.

One just needs to keep in mind that Obama’s main support began with predominantly the limousine liberal vote, the majority but not all of the African-American vote, and the male sexist vote (women voted for Hillary; men voted for Barak).

Hillary is dropping like a rock in water, almost in an unprecedented way.  This usually only happens if there is some major scandal; but there have been none.  Hillary will likely lose the Wisconsin primary today and new polls are showing here in a dead heat in Texas (a 20 point drop in one week).  The remaining primary states are going to be so close that even if Hilary wins, she will lose in the overall delegate race.  This is the truly unique event of the February, 2008 Presidential primary season.

What is intriguing is that in every case Clinton’s 15+ point lead in the polls evaporates just before the election in that state.  This is unlikely to be a consequence of the Democratic primary voters’ “re-evaluating” the candidates.  From a polling point of view, there is nothing new for the voters to know about the Democratic candidates.  Further, nothing happens “on the ground” to change these patterns; they just change.  It is as though the Democratic voters for some “mystical” reason are deciding to vote for Obama.

That mystical reason is Senator John McCain as a safe choice for everyone in the general election.  Half of all primary voters who think the Iraq war is a mistake still voted for Senator McCain when there were multiple choices.  It can even be seen in the African-American vote, would rather have character than make “so called media history.”  In New York State primary, 8% of all Republican primary voters were African-American and they voted overwhelmingly for McCain.  African-Americans make up 14% of the overall population of the Empire State.  Antidotal input from many African-Americans in my neck of the woods, which is a stone’s throw from Obama home (literally), indicates overwhelmingly that many recognize the dilemma but know that Obama’s oratory is vacuous.  Who would have thought or projected?

 Ironically, Senator McCain is a true American hero in the tradition of President John F. Kennedy (remember PT Boat 109) and that is not only reflective of their rare character similarities but also of similar policy values.  They are both pro-American warriors.

Northwest Indiana's The Times newspaper has finally openly criticized one of their own, Congressman Peter Visclosky, the U. S. Congressman from Northwest Indiana's (NWI) First Congressional District.  The Time's criticism is in the following two articles: Visclosky_at_center_of_Washington_pork_storm.mht and Tech_center_churns_out_Visclosky_campaign_cash.mht. 

It is gratifying that The Times has finally come around shining a light on Visclosky, the dubious (at best) rationale for the Purdue Incubator Tech Center, and the collusion of Purdue University, specifically under former President Jischke, in these events. 

There are three aspects to this story, and they are the following:

• Congressman Visclosky has been getting one of the highest amount of pork barrel legislation through Congress and this has been of little help in developing NWI or even showing up in NWI.
• Congressman Visclosky has been by most reasonable standards and evaluations getting a kick- back, in the form of campaign contributions, from the companies he has provided funds for as a Congressman
• Congressman Visclosky, in collusion with Purdue University, seems to have gotten funds for an incubator tech center which is NOT an incubator and its sole purpose seems to be to help him raise money for his campaign account and enrich his friends and backers in NWI.

Congressman Visclosky is known as Congressman "Oink-oink" by the rest of the Country.  To see his great name in lights (not reported in NWI), I ask you to see this reference: The_freedom_fighter's_journal_oink_oink_i_smell_a_pork_barrel_politician.mht  In this commentary our own Congressman Oink-Oink turns over $2 million of tax payers money to a "natural healing" research laboratory in northern Virginia.  It just, accidentally of course, happens that the family owners of this natural healing emporium have been big donors to Oink-Oink's campaign fund.

Now another of the major commentaries about our illustrious Congressman is presented in this national perspective: Congressman_Peter_Visclosky.htm.  Here we have a new national name for Congressman Oink-Oink, "Rent-a-Congressman."  It seems that although Visclosky claims to be anti-war he has no problem with putting lots of money in defense contractor's pocket if they will line his campaign fund pockets.

"Just ask the good folks at PMA Group, a lobbying firm. They sank $1,333,074 into the campaigns last year of 3 Democratic members of the House defense appropriations subcommittee and walked away with $100.5 million in defense earmarks for PMA clients, Roll Call reported."

The PMA Group provided over 33% of all the funding in our "Rent-a-Congressman's" campaign funds.  Defense contractors of all types were the main source of funding for Visclosky's campaign.  In return, he provided all of them with millions and millions of tax payer dollars with directed earmarked programs for their benefit.  Most of this money did not go to NWI, nor help NWI in economic development or job creation.  (To remind him, NWI is the district he represents.)  Its only purpose, as best as anyone can tell, is to line the campaign fund of the Congressman. The following says a whole lot about the perception of Visclosky's corruption: "Richard Kaelin went from being Visclosky’s chief of staff to lobbying for PMA."

For most people, this behavior doesn't pass the "sniff" test (it smells bad). In my direct opinion what he has done is illegal, unethical, and corrupt.  Can it be proven that there is a direct connection between Visclosky providing millions of dollars to defense contractors with him receiving over a third of his huge campaign funds from them?  Probably not; legally the laws of evidence make it difficult.  But it certainly doesn't pass the "sniff test" -- the "man on the street" test says that it stinks of quid-pro-quo corruption. For 2008, PMA has already committed to providing over $500,000 to Visclosky and two other Democratic Congressman.

Then there is the earmark (your money sent to a contractor) that Congressman Visclosky did not even know whether or not the company actually existed.  Read about Visclosky's easy mis-use of the taxpayer's money in the following:

Pork_barrel_spending:_how_$7000_in_political_contributions_will_get_you_a_$1_million_earmark.mht

You really cannot make this stuff up.  Visclosky is sending a million dollars to a company that he does not even know whether or not it actually exists and he does not care if he admits it publicly.

Finally there is the seemingly obvious collusion between Purdue University and Congressman Visclosky.  The "politico corrupticus" syndrome that afflicts Purdue University Calumet, a regional campus of Purdue University, as manifested in the unholy alliance between its Chancellor, Howard Cohen, and locally elected Democrats is now verifiably known to exist at the highest levels of Purdue University as it made an unholy alliance with our illustrious U.S. Congressman, Pete Visclosky as it relates to the business incubator in south Lake County, Indiana. 

Visclosky claimed that he got the $7.5 million pork barrel Federal funds to create an incubator for new technology businesses.  That seems to be a flat out lie -- some may say f-r-a-u-d-u-l-e-n-t.  Remember, the funds that Visclosky received were both to build the building and to allow for at least one year of operation -- and this is important -- to incubate businesses. 

Why was this a lie and fraud?  Because the businesses were not incubator businesses.  From the beginning, the Technology Center housed representatives of huge defense contractors.  Large established businesses -- like huge defense contractors -- don't really need incubated, do they?  But, as an apparent favor to Visclosky these defense contractors set-up shop at our very own Purdue federally funded business incubator.  And, from the national story in The Times, now we -- in part -- know why: to get large consistent funds into his campaign coffers. This seems like fraudulent use of federal funds to me. Seriously folks, would a business that needs to be incubated have all that excess cash to funnel into Visclosky's campaign coffers?  I think not.   

I have been talking about this since I first saw the list of companies at the Tech Center and instantly recognized them as some of the biggest defense contractors in Washington D. C.  Ever since then, I have been writing and telling about the fraud that was occurring and the fact that it had nothing to do with NWI economic development.  Even the local FBI and the U. S. Attorney are aware of this "problem"; but it seems their hands are tied in actually getting "evidence".  I always argued that Purdue University and its former President, Jischke, was lying to all of us in NWI when Jischke argued that the Tech Center in Merrillville was an engine of economic development.  In fact, no other incubator argued for and developed by Purdue under Jischke located the incubator so far away from the Purdue campus with which it is suppose to be associated.  This makes the association between the incubator and Purdue University meaningless.  But, maybe it had something to do with the $400,000 retention bonus Jischke took home this year from Purdue University's coffers for being President for three years.  This was just reported in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

So you have Purdue University colluding....ah, I'm sorry, cooperating with Congressman Visclosky (Oink-Oink) to build and operate with Federal funds an incubator that does not incubate and a business park that cannot attract business without payola.  Gosh, it all sounds so cozy, doesn't it?

Note: To Congressman Visclosky. Please be sure -- as a duly elected public servant -- who is my public servant, to take a play out of the "political corrupticus" handbook of the local Democrats here in NWI and call Chancellor Cohen and complain.  (This is the play book developed by the NWI mastodon politicians operating under the sociologist Max Weber's Tribal Political Model.)  Or, what the heck, go for the "big" complaint to Purdue's new President Cordova.  Heck, you may even try to get me fired.  Why not?  Your fellow Democratic colleagues here in NWI have tried that as well.  It just would not be fair if you did not get your turn.  (Unless you have already taken it and I have not been "properly" informed.)  Remember, this is exactly what the first amendment is meant to protect: it is meant to ensure that you, as my public servant, are free from any criticism and that you have the G-d given constitutional right to ask fellow State employees such Chancellor Cohen, Dean Dan Dunn or even my acting Department Head Richard Rupp (all bound by federal and state laws as you are) to take my job.  I mean, it would all be for the betterment of our fine Republic and to ensure that democracy lasts.  After all, no elected official in a Democratic society should have to suffer any unwanted criticism.  It's in the Constitution, isn't it?  And, hey, if the outright request doesn't work, fabricating harassment claims just might do the trick.  After all, other NWI Democrats have done that too.

Religion baiting by politicians, political pundits, and academic redeemers has replaced the old race baiting, which is now considered too primitive for the intellectual/political class.  For those who may not recall, according to Wikipedia,  Race baiting is the act of using racially derisive language, actions or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or groups of people, or to make those persons behave in ways that are inimical to their personal or group interests.  This can also be accomplished by implying that there is an underlying race based motive in the actions of others towards the group baited, where none in fact exists.  All liberal groups and most of American society no longer accept race baiting as legitimate political or intellectual discourse in the public sphere.  However, this is not the case with religion.  This was clearly highlighted in the recent discourse on the comments by Ann Coulter during her interview (or baiting by) with Donny Deutsch of MSNBC.

Religion, as was with race, has to be defined with specificity.  It cannot be whatever anyone wants it to mean  As with race baiting, religious baiting has to use one word to mean something else.  In race baiting you would ask a person about crime in their city; knowing full well that crime was a predominantly black phenomena (in that city) and then turning everything the speaker said into an anti-black tirade.  The speaker thinks you are really talking about crime; when you are actually talking about race.  The same is now true about religion.  When baiting religion one must solely be oriented toward people of faith when they speak about religion.  When using the term religion and a speaker of faith answers in accordance with their theology honestly, they are berated for going on a tirade against all religions, i.e. committing the sin of intolerance.  For people of faith when asked a question about religion, they generally answer in accordance with their faith; not in accordance with the requirements of political tolerance, which are entirely different.

The bait (almost a bait and switch) is to use the generic religious reference to goad one to speak of their specific faith as unique.  It is done by switching the unique for the universal and then criticizing the speaker for answering uniquely rather than universally.  That is what makes this succeed and catches the speaker unprepared.  The new attack is on faith itself not on religious background per se.  Since all and any faith will show anyone to be intolerant in some way, the diversity and tolerance activists are prepared to go on the attack right away. 

This is why the continued ongoing negative attitudes toward Evangelical Christians and members of the Church of Latter-Day Saints or Mormons.  This is especially true on university campuses and by enlightened news reporters.  To identify yourself with Evangelicals or Mormons is by definition to claim that you are a person of faith.  Further this faith is of a traditional nature, i.e. a personal God, with revealed word, and all-inclusive, therefore exclusive of others.  Identity with most other religions becomes extremely unclear; is one speaking of cultural heritage, historical background, childhood accident, or possibly faith? 

A good example is Donny Deutsch, (I swear he sounds like someone from the Partridge Family), who is perceived as a cultural Jew.  A statement of no meaning except that it is definitely NOT an identification of faith.  Ann Coulter on the other hand was giving an answer strictly of her faith as a Roman Catholic.  Not a cultural one, not an accident of birth one, or one aimed at diversity (or political correctness).

As a cultural Jew, faith is irrelevant to Deutschs everyday life as it is to most secularists.  You can be an atheist and a Jew, but not a Jew of faith.  A Jew of faith would recognize the superiority of monotheism over polytheism in their beliefs and actions.  What is the place of the seven Noadic Laws required of all none Jews?  They are obligatory on every human.  All polytheists are idolaters, a grave sin; monotheism is truly superior and exclusively correct.

Now the cultural Jew knew this and baited her to give an answer of faith so that he could act horrified and insulted.  He was horrified and insulted not at her answer of faith; but, specifically because she answered from a faith perspective rather than a diversity perspective.  Deutsch and other Jewish critics, including critics from mainline indecisive Protestant denominations, and secular critics were offended at the fact that Coulter took a stand of faith, rather than a stand of encompassing tolerance.  The true political intolerance is not Ann Coulter, but, Deutsch and his fellow travelers who have perfected McCarthyism to a science when it comes to attacking people of faith, whatever their religion might be.

This lack of tolerance offends me and is a threat to me personally because this is how my Universitys fellow academics (so called colleagues) characterize all evangelical Christians, Mormons, and indirectly Jews of faith.  They (Evangelical Christians) are manipulating Christianity, and millions of sincere believers, to build a frightening political mass movement with many similarities with other mass movements, from fascism to communism to the ethnic nationalist parties in the former Yugoslavia (Hedges 2006).  To my academic colleagues there is not any difference between Evangelical Christians and the Nazi or Communist Party.  This is what the Hoosier (Indiana) taxpayers are paying for.  Indiana students are taught how to perform religious baiting while in the social sciences.  Since people of faith are not all inclusive in their belief than we can consider them as we would Nazis and other fascists.

Deutsch on MSNBC showed very well what the academics have been teaching young students in my States campuses at their parents expense: how to bait faith.  Who is the joke on?

How or what did Jews expect a Christian of faith to answer?  Not in any different way than a Jew of faith would answer, which Deutsch is not. 

The sad part is that Ann Coulter fell for it.  However, there will always be someone of faith who will fall for the new Twenty-First Century religious baiting.  What is not recognized is that it is just as much an attack of the faith of Jews as it is on Ann Coulters Catholic faith.  It all began when the haters of faith took over the university and trained the new crop of media experts of hate.

 

Purdue University presents a good example of the partisanship that continues to foster (or fester) on American state supported university campuses.  The university system in the United States is the biggest overall contributor to the Democratic Party.  Unbiased, diverse, balanced it is not.  Now we know that not all fifty states are ninety percent Democratic.  Yet, in all the states€™, taxpayers are funding €through their state-funded universities -- the Democratic Party and its candidates.  It is amazing that with all the Republican legislators and governors, (or even members of university governing boards) not one has dared take control and created more balance and or performance accountability on their university€™s campuses.

Indiana is a great case to illustrate this pitiful condition.  Indiana is a true red state.  The last time it voted for a Democratic president was when Lyndon Johnson was running against Barry Goldwater.  So then, how is it that Purdue University, which is considered a €conservative€ institution, finds itself frequently in collusion with Democratic Party candidates?  How is it that Purdue€™s former president, Martin Jischke was asked and considered running as a Democrat for Governor while he was still President of Purdue?  There has now developed a €new€ collusion for Democratic Mayoral control of the City of Hammond in Northwest Indiana.  This is truly a case of how Purdue€™s collusion with Democratic Office holders is utilized not for the good of Hoosier taxpayers, or the education of their children, but for the individuals involved.

This new collusion between the Mayor of Hammond and the Chancellor of Purdue University Calumet is designed to promote the political future of a Democratic Party elected official through the good offices funded by the Indiana taxpayers.

Almost a year ago, I wrote a column in the Gary Post-Tribune, indicating how the collusion was getting ready to take tax money to fund family, friends, and acquaintances.  I also suggested that the original plan was a cover for getting money to underwrite the misappropriation and incompetence of Father McDermott when his company was running the City's Health Insurance Program, a hole that the City of Hammond still has not dug itself out of.  What was never explained is how did a State institution, Purdue University, get into the act of saving the Mayor and his father?

This was clearly outlined in a recent article in the local newspaper The Hammond Times.  This is the specific story by Susan Brown: grant_paves_way.htm.  First, U. S. Representative Peter Visclosky was able to get $250,000 to start the process. (Remember this is the same Congressman who got $7 million in federal tax dollars for an incubator in Merrillville that is not an incubator.  One of the companies being incubated is SAIC.  One of the Country's biggest defense contractors.  Congressman give me a break.  This incubation has all the earmarks of a Federal investigation).

In the first part of the story, State appointed employee Purdue University Calumet Chancellor Howard Cohen is providing a wonderful political public relations campaign for Mayor Tom McDermott's re-election.  It is amazing that there is no protest from any Republicans in the State for this obvious partisan abuse of power.  Cohen's political presentation is that the goal of the academy sponsored by Purdue University's Board of Trustees is to increase "retention of families" in Hammond, which is ostensibly tied to increased home-ownership (a point McDermott Jr. made in that same article).  First, what is the evidence that this is a primary problem that needs solvin