In a just world, the words “From the makers of Airplane!” should be enough to guarantee a blockbuster. Whether An American Carol – which opens nationwide this weekend – will do as well financially as it deserves remains to be seen, but it is a success, not only as a comedy, but on a more fundamental level. An American Carol is an existential triumph: it is the first Hollywood film to receive nationwide distribution while combining hilarity, star power, high production values, and a pronounced conservative message.

This film is thoughtcrime. By rights, it should not exist, and a decade ago could never have been made. Yet it keeps the laughs rolling while enlisting some of the industry’s biggest talents to expose every pseudo-intellectual pillar of Hollywood wisdom about the War on Terror – Samizdat with a smile. It should be celebrated on those grounds alone.

The plot revolves around a retelling of the Scrooge story, this time on Independence Day. A leftist documentary filmmaker named Michael Malone (Kevin Farley) plots, with MoveAlong.org, to abolish the Fourth of July. Soon, he is visited by three spirits who show him what the world would be like if the United States had never waged war. While hostile critics will call it an apology for warmongering, it cannot be stereotyped with such a simplistic, not to mention inhuman, message. One film soldier tells protestors he, too, opposes war, but it is sometimes inevitable. The film’s true message is that there is evil in the world, and it must be opposed by moral good backed by might.

This moral clarity, grounded in the Judeo-Christian ethic, may alone explain why such movies are never made in Hollywood.

However, the real attraction is not the message but the jokes. The trailer does not do the film justice. Producer David Zucker did the audience a favor by not making a conservative film with jokes but a comedy that happens to be conservative. Suicide bombers as a whole are made the object of scorn. One of the terror leaders remarks, “It is getting harder and harder to find suicide bombers, and all the really good ones are gone.” Muslim sexual morés also take a grazing hit. The al-Qaeda recruiting video, done in the style of 1950s and ‘60s educational film strips, is not to be missed. By far the funniest moment is the screening of Rosie O’Connell’s documentary about radical Christians, which makes reference to an Episcopalian suicide bomber.

As in his other films, the jokes come fast and furious and rarely miss their mark. The musical number taking on radical professors is “funny because it’s true.” Zucker is not afraid to break the fourth wall with appropriate moderation. In its one scene depicting the Munich agreement, An American Carol more effectively mocks Hitler than The Producers after two hours’ buildup. And the closing sequence at the naval docks is the equal of The Naked Gun.

The film’s other rapid-fire laughs target:

·         Illegal immigration (“We need the guest worker program, so the Mexicans will do the job the Taliban won’t.”);

·         Michael Moore’s hygiene (But how could one miss that target?);

·         Elite disdain for middle America, especially country music;

·         The personal frustrations and rejections that fuel many leftists’ political views. (Malone only endorses violence against terrorists who mocked him personally);

·         American students’ ignorance of history;

·         Antiwar demonstrators’ signs and chanting;

·         The insignificance of documentaries;

·         Leftists’ personal indulgence and philanthropic penury;

·         The fact that every aspect of the War on Terror has been filmed from an anti-American perspective;

·         The rivalry of the branches of service;

·         The Tinsel Town definition of “courage” as

spouting the party line;

·         The financing of motion pictures; and

·         The Progressives’ claim of ownership of JFK.

The comedy is uplifted by first class comedic performances. Kevin Farley’s portrayal of Malone could have easily degenerated into farce or camp, as have many in films made by Zucker’s imitators. Part of the Zucker-Abrams-Zucker genius is having actors play their parts as straight drama, delivering lines like “Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?” in earnest. Similar flashes come through as Malone tells the press, “Look, I love America – that’s why it needs to be destroyed.” Farley finds the reality in his character more persuasively than Will Ferrell, whose entertaining performances always have an air of winking goofiness.

In a similar vein, Bill O’Reilly gives a fine performance as himself. This has not always been the case with journalists in film. Many others have come across as bad actors trying to play journalists. They seem intent on impersonating themselves, as though on film all their lines must be spoken 20 percent LOUDER and slo-o-o-wer. (See Ivan Reitman’s 1993 film Dave for a few such examples.) O’Reilly succeeds where others have failed.

The “name” celebrities do not disappoint. Kelsey Grammer seamlessly combines steel, easy comedic banter, and resignation in his portrayal of Patton. Jon Voight sounds a sober note as George Washington. James Woods, one of America’s most underrated actors – who tipped off investigators about a dry run for 9/11 – plays another kind of agent with all the warmth and humanity the profession merits. Kevin Sorbo entertains as a George Clooney wannabe. Dennis Hopper gives a too-short cameo as a judge fighting ACLU zombies (in which Patton observes, “They’re not people; they’re the ACLU!”). Robert Davi turns in another pitch-perfect performance as public enemy number one. Country music star Trace Adkins soothes a cool charisma. And Paris Hilton’s participation in this film was a much better choice than the other video she’s known for.

This uproarious comedy makes some serious points, as well. When Malone gets into trouble, it is U.S. soldiers who save him – because that’s what they do. Thus, General David Petraeus defended MoveOn.org when it branded him “General Betray Us.” It is only their service that allows the bloggers to rage as they do. Red State Americans are much friendlier to their political opponents than Blue Staters. The nod Carol pays to the role of religion in American life is – this is probably the only review to use this word in conjunction with any part of this film – subtle.

As a comedy, it reaches two pitches of emotional intensity. In a 15-second sequence depicting U.S. soldiers under Taliban fire in Afghanistan, one sees the bravery and nobility of America’s fighting men. (The moment is broken as Malone shouts, “They’re using real bullets!”) Again at the end of the film, the collective sacrifice of American veterans from the Revolution to the present is shown in one grand historical sweep.

Not bad for a genre often dominated by fart jokes.

An American Carol is so unique it had to be privately financed. Producer, director, and co-writer David Zucker is also an unlikely source of this kind of film. Although he has dabbled in political satire since 1977’s Kentucky Fried Movie, his politics are not right-wing extremism; he took shots at Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford in Airplane! An ardent environmentalist whose home runs on solar energy, Zucker calls himself “a JFK Democrat” and cites laughter as his aim in making the film. “I’m not a crusader,” he demures.

The film, as with his switch in parties, was born on September 11, 2001. He recalled, “I saw the reactions of both parties to 9/11. One party was [saying], ‘How is this our fault? How are we to blame for this?’ The other party [said], ‘Let’s kick their ass. These are our enemies, and they are evil.’”

Perhaps this points to the movie’s most politically consequential motif: it fittingly depicts, in a comic format, how the radical Left has moved into the mainstream of the Democratic Party. In the film, Malone introduces former president Jimmy Carter at a MoveAlong.org rally, just as Michael Moore shared the real-life Carter’s box at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and as Al Gore made his post-9/11 political rebound bellowing red-faced rants at MoveOn.org rallies. For making this point, this author has himself been parodied (but not nearly as well as this ensemble does the Left).

The film is something of a comedic version of Party of Defeat, the new book David Horowitz and I wrote about the Democratic Party’s foreign policy before and after 9/11. In a quick but well-documented read, we demonstrate how the Hate America Left An American Carol thrashes have inflicted damage upon American foreign interests, U.S. soldiers, and our Homeland Security that are anything but funny.

Some may be offended by two children who curse in the film on a total of four occasions. Most Americans, of whatever political persuasion, will be entertained. All should appreciate the intellectual rogues who dared to make a film that exposes the Left for what it is – and their sense of humor in making such a film a joy to watch.

McCain is losing, and Obama is pulling away. Is that concise enough for you?

Oh, you want to know why, do you? Okay, let me lay it on you.

The Republican nominee was always going to be a huge underdog in this cycle because every historical factor is working against the GOP. We’re at the end of a two-term Republican administration that has become vastly unpopular due to the retiring president’s public relations obtuseness and indifference; a twelve-year run of GOP control of Congress ended only two years ago; the success of our war efforts against al Qaeda in Iraq and elsewhere combined with the absence of any 9/11 sequels has muted the natural GOP advantage on foreign policy and national security. Throw in the fact that that Republican nominee was going to have a much more difficult time holding and motivating his party’s base supporters, and you had the fixin’s for a Donk landslide, no matter who the other party put up.

However, John McCain and his campaign braintrust proved themselves to be shrewder than I ever gave them credit for. Between Independence Day and mid-September, they undertook two crucial steps that not only closed the gap between Darth Queeg and B.O, but actually lifted him into a small lead.

First, by employing light-hearted ridicule of Obama’s ego and hyped “messiah” image (the “celebrity” angle, the Britney Speares and Paris Hilton spots, etc.), they were able to define The One as precisely what he is: an empty suit whose self-opinion is at stark contrast with his modest intellect and meager experience. Barry’s thin-skinned reactions, to say nothing of his seemingly endless parade of gaffes, only fueled that dynamic.

Second, he simultaneously thrilled the GOP base and made a play for disgruntled Hillarynistas by selecting Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate. In one fell swoop he locked up and motivated grassroots conservatives (at least vicariously) and further bolstered his appeal to independents by partnering with a fellow “maverick” reformer who also brought to the ticket genuine conservatism and all the charisma and political talent he lacks. A fact that I speculated might make for, shall we say, a lopsided ticket that would throw the man at the top into the deep shade.

Apparently that thought occurred to Team Sith as well, for after the wildly successful launch of Palinmania at the GOP convention, the McCainiacs all but put Governor Palin in solitary confinement with the exception of their two Enemy Media indulgences at the hands of Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. A mode of “communication” guaranteed to deny ‘cuda her ability to follow the Reagan template and talk past the EM directly to the American people. Tellingly, she was completely absent from mainstream media appearances on local and national talk radio programs. No Limbaugh, no Hannity, no Hewitt, no Ingraham, no Medved, no Levin, no Prager, no nothing. Sarah might as well have been on the sides of milk cartons across the country, while the EM was systematically “Quayleizing” her functionally unopposed.

Some unnamed individual supposedly told Bill Kristol that McCain was “unhappy with his staff’s handling of Palin”. What does it say about Maverick that it takes him a full month, in the latter half of which his poll numbers have cratered, to figure out that his best political asset has been not just holstered, but practically bound and gagged? And isn’t it a far more plausible explanation that it was Sailor that did this to Governor Palin because the only reason he picked her was as a sop, a bone, a token to satiate the knuckle-dragging Neanderthal evangelicals he can’t stand but hasn’t a prayer of winning without? Oh, yes, and because she has a second X chromosome?

Look what happened when Sarah was released from the proverbial cone of silence. First Hewitt, then Hannity, and suddenly Palinmania was back. Or, on the other hand, maybe the calculation was that they had to bring her out of mothballs for the veep debate with Joe Biden anyway, and the grumbling on the right about Sailor’s disinclination to “fight” was growing, so like another diamond to Ron White’s spouse, a fresh dose of the ‘cuda would “shut ‘em up”.

Still, McCain was slightly ahead up until three weeks ago. And we all know what financial hypercane hit the country three weeks ago, don’t we? A Wall Street Meltdown that the Arizonan never got out in front of, never defined truthfully before the Dems could smear culpability on Bush, the GOP, conservative free market economics, and therefore McCain. He compounded that folly by absurdly gambling his “reformer/bipartisanist/I can get things done” reputation on the fool’s errand of suspending his campaign to return to Washington to put together a bailout/”rescue” deal on which the Democrats were holding all the cards. They easily ambushed and humiliated him on his “White House summit” idea, then double-crossed the compromise he helped put together a week ago. Now not only do the American people blame McCain and his party for the Democrats’ destruction of the financial sector, but the very core justification of his candidacy has been disemboweled.

And STILL he won’t engage on the origins of the subprime collapse. In God’s Name, WHY?, you ask? Apparently, because placing the blame for this mess where it belongs would be “too partisan“:

Picture the ad:

Barney Frank: “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.”

Announcer: He rolled the dice, and lost. And now you’re paying the bill.

Instead, these are the ads he’s running:

“What a week,” McCain says into the camera. “Democrats blamed Republicans. Republicans blamed Democrats. We’re the United States of America. It shouldn’t take a crisis to pull us together.”

It is tough to win an election, where the public is asked to choose between two parties, on a theme of “bipartisanship.” “My side is no better than theirs” really isn’t a winning rallying cry one month before an election.

And even if it wouldn’t be too partisan, it would be, you know, really hard to explain:

Americans are furious over the financial mess, and eager to blame somebody. The McCain campaign would be doing the nation a service by spelling out exactly whose bad decisions helped get us into this mess and how.

The excuses given by an unnamed source to U.S. News and World Report will not fly, and Spruiell’s objections are spot-on. I might even be harsher - does McCain want to be president and lead on all issues, or does he just want to handle the easily-explained issues? If John McCain doesn’t feel that the Democrats’ refusal to confront mismanagement of government-backed institutions that gambled and lost, requiring a massive infusion of taxpayer dollars, is worth making an argument about, then you might as well let Obama have the presidency. [emphases added]

Gosh, I could have sworn that’s pretty much what the Sith Master is already doing. Almost as if he’d rather run “an honorable [i.e. weak] campaign” and lose than do whatever it takes to win and save his country from a man who would systematically destroy it. Either that or he’s deliberately taking a dive.

Sorry if this is depressing you - think of it as misery loving company. If you want a bucking-up, you can always surf on over to Captain Optimist for a feeling-of-doom-ectomy. He says that the parallel to this campaign is 1976, only with the opposite result. Why….?:

Because the country cannot afford the greatest gamble in its modern history at this moment in time.

A confrontation with Iran looms and instability in Pakistan grows. The Islamist threat has been beaten back in Iraq, but continues to nurse its fanatical hatreds in many other places, from Waziristan to London. Israel is ringed not with an enemy that wants a state but by two enemies that want Israel to be destroyed.

The world’s financial system is teetering, and the estrangement between the American people and their government has never been this deep in modern times.

The cost of energy has soared and will continue to climb. The entitlement trap has only grown worse in the three years since George Bush asked the Democrats to work with him on Social Security and they said no. The corrupt, self-dealing culture of the Beltway has poisoned the decision-making of many bureaucracies and in ways only the burdened know, and the credibility of the big media is shattered even as their audiences shrink and many of their news rooms come close to shuttering.

So, despite the rapture of college students and the registration of the homeless in Ohio, the common sense of Americans will override curiosity about Barack Obama and infatuation with his celebrity, and trust John McCain to pilot the country for the next four years.

Do you recognize the mentality put on display by Double-H here? I do; it’s the same one I had in 1992, and again in 1996. It’s a not-too-distant cousin to the incredulity of the Democrat woman after the 1972 Nixon landslide who lamented, “How could Tricky Dick have won again? Nobody I know voted for him.” It is a myopic focus on one’s own superlatively informed view of the race and the candidates and an accompanying blindness to any recognition that most other voters are either (1) not nearly as informed and/or (2) don’t care in any case. I remember the same things being said about Clinton in ‘92 as Obama now - “He’s the most radically left-wing major party candidate in history; he’s a draft-dodger; he and his wife had radical associations in their past; the common sense of Americans won’t let them REALLY roll the dice on electing this guy….” etc. And yet, they did - twice.

The difference between 1992, or even 1976, and now is, of course, the economic precipice on which the nation is teeteringly perched. A full blast of Obamanomics (higher taxes, bigger government, tighter money, and neoprotectionism) now will take a recession of undetermined strength and length and turn it into a second Great Depression.

But what is McCain still talking about? Earmarks and “Wall Street greed.” And Obama?:

Taking a jab at the deregulation that the market has undergone during the previous eight years, Obama said that, “They wanted to let the market run free, but instead they let it run wild.”

Bullbleep. It was Dems who wrote regulations requiring mortgage lenders to make ruinously risky loans or face equally ruinous federal fines and penalties, fed those loans into Fannie and Freddie and got rich off the resulting real estate bubble, and all the while RESISTED repeated efforts by McCain and the Bush Administration to rein it in with increased regulatory oversight before it could burst.

But most Americans don’t know this is bullbleep, because Darth Queeg isn’t telling them. And like it or not, he’s the only one that can - if, indeed, even he hasn’t already lost the credibility to do so.

Oh, I suppose the “taking another look” factor could kick in over the remaining month of the campaign. Gerald Ford made up all but one point of a thirty-three point deficit in 1976; Bush41, down by over twenty-five points to Mr. Bill after the ‘92 Donk convention, actually caught Clinton by the Friday before Election Day, only to be dirty-tricked out of one of the greatest comebacks in American political history by the frivilous Iran-Contra re-indictment of Caspar Weinberger, which was thrown out just two weeks later. Even Bob Dole cut his eighteen-point 1996 deficit to Sick Willie in half in the final three weeks of that sad, doomed effort. By contrast, Lord Queeg’s deficit is “only” in the mid to high single digits. And we already have evidence from the summer of how brittle and glass a jaw the Chicago Cherubim sports. I simply question whether Maverick has that kind of gumption in him.

Am I calling the man who survived seven years at the Hanoi Hilton a coward? Not as such; in Nam Lieutenant Commander McCain had to endure unimaginable suffering; over the next four weeks would-be President McCain has to politically inflict it, with skill and ruthlessness. He’s got to be the very thing he most rails against: a hyperpartisan. He’s got to “take off the gloves,” which is to say, stop being “civil” and “comitous” and sock Barry in the balls as many times as he possibly can.

As I say, I don’t think he has that in him. Nor the skill, judging by the fact that Team Sith quit Michigan without bothering to inform the ticket’s vice presidential nominee, who had to find out about it during a Fox News interview and clearly did not agree with the decision. That, gentlebeings, is the stink of a campaign in disarray such that one almost doesn’t need to check the Electoral College map and behold that they’ve fallen behind in seven “red” states over the past three weeks and the “purple” ones have all fallen out of reach.

Can McCain-Palin turn this around? Theoretically. Some Jesuslanders must think it doable, because there are suggestions. But that’ll keep until tomorrow when the bailed-out Dow soars back over eleven thousand - right?

[cross-posted at ]

Finally the RNC is getting some testicular fortitude.  We have known about this crap for months now.   Obama has been getting $ millions from overseas donations.   There can be some ex-patriots from some of these places, but the volume of them should make a red flag to be raised.   Obama has not reported who or where many of his smaller donations have come from and McCain has been forthright in reporting all of his campaign donations.

H/T to The Minority Report

RNC to File FEC Complaint on Obama Fundraising Practices

By Matthew Mosk
A lawyer for the Republican National Committee today said the party will ask the Federal Election Commission to look into the source of thousands of small-dollar contributions to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama.

The RNC is alleging that the Obama campaign was so hungry for donations it “looked the other way” as contributions piled up from suspicious, and possibly even illegal foreign donors.

“We believe that the American people should know first and foremost if foreign money is pouring into a presidential election,” said RNC Chief Counsel Sean Cairncross.—Wapo

I saw David Zublick’s most excellent piece and thought to share my piece that I have posted at Digital Journal…vote it up if you like.

If Sarah Palin is a racist due to her spreading Truth about His Royal Caponisms Obama, then the AP hires and supports and condones sexism. How dare they criticize a woman! Have they no shame?

As a friend of mine said earlier today, “The latest argument by the Associated Press is laughable at best and downright predictable at worse. When you cannot dispute the facts, simply scream racism loud enough and pray people will ignore the facts and focus on the bogus charge of racism.” And that sums it up perfectly. When one has nowhere to turn, always accuse someone of being that which you are…a shallow and narrow-minded sloth.

From the Associated Press which most of us call the Assassinated Press:

By claiming that Democrat Barack Obama is “palling around with terrorists” and doesn’t see the U.S. like other Americans, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin targeted key goals for a faltering campaign.

And though she may have scored a political hit each time, her attack was unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret. […]

Not hardly, Douglass K. Daniel of the AP. One has to wonder why he is such a sexist. Perhaps Mr Daniel should conjure up some moral fortitude and perform his own research instead of revealing his sexist remarks about Sarah Palin. Here is another sample of his unhinged rhetoric.

[…] Her reference to Obama’s relationship with William Ayers, a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were “pals” or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career.

Obama, who was a child when the Weathermen were planting bombs, has denounced Ayers’ radical views and actions. […]

As we say in Texas, this dog don’t hunt.

From the sound of things and reading between the lines of the plethora of pieces written and posted today on this particular subject, one would see that the Leftinistra are woefully in love with Bill Ayers. He is their anti-Americanist and anti-military hero. He tried to eliminate it.

We will burn through the white noise and chaffe here and target the cause and perhaps we will have an effect. William Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist. He may have served time for his crimes but he is by no means rehabilitated nor is he satisfied. As Don Surber states:

The reason some on the Left love Bill Ayers is that he’s an unrepentant bomber who attacked the Pentagon to try to “end” the war — which is lefty lingo for losing the war.

Barack Obama was given a job by his friend William Ayers. William Ayers was given approximately $50M by his father to run Annenberg Challenge, which is currently under investigation for all manner of “improprieties”. Barack was on the board with William Ayers.

William Ayers launched Barack’s political career. He also gave him a position and as Chicagoan Politics is infamous for, Barack is guilty by association. There is nothing racist about this unless one is unhinged and in the tank for the beloved Obama.

The Barack Camp just might as well get used to the idea that he is going to be exposed no matter how he tries to stifle constitutional rights of his opposition. Continuing with Don Surber:

They know if the public associates the two as friends, it is fatal to Obama’s campaign. Republican John McCain plans to make that association.

The nonsense that the two did not know each other is disingenuous at best and a flat out lie at worst.

William Ayers began his Hate America campaign in 1970 and ended in 1981. Fast forward to 2001 and in an interview with the Chicago Magazine in published in August 2001, William Ayers bared it all for all to see. He bragged about his activities.

In another inteview with the New York Times, Ayers porclaimed the following:

”I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.” Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970’s as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago. The long curly locks in his Wanted poster are shorn, though he wears earrings. He still has tattooed on his neck the rainbow-and-lightning Weathermen logo that appeared on letters taking responsibility for bombings. And he still has the ebullient, ingratiating manner, the apparently intense interest in other people, that made him a charismatic figure in the radical student movement. […]

The interview was published on 911/01. Barack Obama was 40 years old when Ayers said this and it was 6 years after he met Barack Obama and they did indeed and in fact work together. I cannot be convinced that WIlliam Ayers and Barack Obama never shared social engineering strategies such as Saul Alinsky taught and both embraced.

In another article in the New York Times, the author tried to paint the scene that neither of the two even knew each other. Barack has previously made that statement inane, false and a lie.

Jane Smiley has this to say about William Ayers:

Every time I think of William Ayers, I also think of John McCain, because they are of the same era, and they both believed in the efficacy of violence. According to an article in Friday’s New York Times, McCain once said of Ayers, “How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people?” He had to use that “could have or did” because no one knows if bombs Ayers built actually killed anyone — let’s say that the odds are against it. Likewise, no one knows whether the bombs John McCain dropped on North Vietnam ever killed anyone. According to McCain’s biography, “With the outbreak of the Vietnam War, McCain volunteered for combat duty and began flying carrier-based attack planes on low-altitude bombing runs against the North Vietnamese. …On October 26, 1967, during his 23rd air mission, McCain´s plane was shot down during a bombing run over the North Vietnamese capital of Hanoi.” Let’s say, given those twenty-three bombing runs, the odds are for McCain having killed some innocents. How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people, John?

But, of course, John McCain’s defense is that he was performing his patriotic duty, and that’s what William Ayers would have said, too. I remember the Vietnam War. It was not a war of self-defense that the U.S. had to wage or had to win. It was a war of aggression, a waste of resources, lives, manpower, global good will, and national spirit. And, many would say, it was a war crime. Those who were against it viewed their protests as essential patriotism, a way of correcting terrible choices and profound injustices. […]

So, it was OK for William Ayers to attack his own country and yes, Jane, William Ayers killed people. That is one of the reasons he was a fugitive from justice. He was a terrorist and using Leftinistra-speech, he was trying to stop the war…very similar to the domestic terrorists we have today acting the identical way.

This whole premise that any and all criticisms of Barack Obama is racist is pure gall on the Nth degree. Tell this man he is racist. Never mind. He isn’t a woman.

I suppose this author is a racist as well.

The Associated Press, in an analysis piece regarding Sarah Palin’s attacks on the character of Barack Obama, has labeled her a racist.

Palin was quoted as saying that Obama “palls around with terrorists”, referring to his connections to noted Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers. Ayers is unrepentant for his actions during the Vietnam era, has even stated that they didn’t do enough when this terror group was active.

The AP article claims that Obama’s relationship with Ayers is exaggerated at best, and tries to excuse their association despite that fact that they worked together on community boards, and that Ayers hosted a fundraiser for Obama early in his career.

Obama claims he denounces Ayers for his actions and political views. But one must question the sincerity of Obama’s denunciations, as they always seem to come only after a story regarding his associations seems to become a sticky situation, from which he needs to extricate himself. Reference Jeremiah Wright, with whom Obama had a twenty-plus year relationship. In all the time he belonged to the First United Church of Christ in Chicago, Obama claims he never heard Wright spew the vitriolic hatred of America recorded and sold for not only members of the congregation to see, but for anyone else who might wish to view it. Obama would have us believe he sat in the pews of that church week after week, and never witnessed Wright’s tirades.

Many of us don’t buy it, including the McCain campaign, and we also don’t buy that Obama’s relationship with Ayers was so casual as to be non-existent. But apparently that is what the Associated Press would have us believe.

Sarah Palin’s role in the remaining month of this election is to go on the offensive as the attack barracuda. Part of this is pointing out Obama’s dealings with unsavory characters, and his cozying up with those who hate America and all it stands for. She has indicated that because of these associations, Obama does not see the same America that the rest of us see.

The AP has taken those words and twisted their meaning to imply that she is referring to his race.

The AP article states “Palin’s words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee “palling around” with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn’t see their America?…Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as “not like us” is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.”

Isn’t it interesting that in that last sentence, the AP goes out of its way to point out that Obama is Hawaiian-born (there are still unanswered questions regarding his birth certificate), and Christian (if you call black liberation theology Christianity, not to mention his undeniable Muslim background).

To paint Palin as covertly racist by reminding Americans of Obama’s questionable relationships is patently absurd, and highlights the fact that the mainstream media is in the tank for Obama, and will help him use the race card to fend off any legitimate criticism of him.

The Associated Press should be ashamed of itself.

Listen to America Talks Monday through Friday at 6 pm eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.