Obama Nation Book by Jerome Corsi Draws Criticism - Corsi is my guest tonight on BTR

Tonight on Political Pistachio Radio Dr. Jerome Corsi must meet controversy head on!

Dr. Jerome Corsi, staff writer for World Net Daily, has suddenly found himself in the midst of a violent storm of controversy. The WND writer, this week alone, has been the object of numerous television and radio shows as the media tries to wade through the information contained in the book, and determine if the book is truly filled with falsehoods, or is a well researched piece of literature that takes a close and hard look at the Democratic Presidential front-runner, Barack Obama.

The book at the center of the controversy is, The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality. The Huffington Post calls the book, “…one of the worst political books ever written. Corsi piles distortion upon innuendo to create a gigantic heap of right-wing garbage, with a seemingly endless parade of basic factual errors running through the text like rats. Corsi’s book is an embarrassment to the craft of journalism, and any of the conservatives who have praised and promoted it should feel humiliated at how bad it truly is.” Media Matters writes that The Obama Nation “contains numerous falsehoods about Sen. Barack Obama.” Even Conservative talk show host and Townhall writer Hugh Hewitt exclaims about the book, “Corsi’s from the fringe. . . the book contains errors.”

Hugh Hewitt, however, also points out that the Obama Campaign has given us an “absurd set of non-responsive responses,” and that, “Now they botch a gimmie — defining Corsi as a nut while not putting attention on the charges he leveled.”

Sean Hannity has stated that The Obama Nation “may have made his [Obama’s] campaign a bit nervous.”

Joseph Farah, founder of World Net Daily, says about the controversy surrounding the book, and Jerome Corsi, “Unlike most of the critics of The Obama Nation, I have actually read the book from cover to cover. It is a thoroughly well-documented piece of first-rate journalism. Are there mistakes in it? Show me a first edition that doesn’t have some – other than the Bible. But is it truthful? Does it add considerably to the public’s knowledge of the front-running candidate for the presidency? Do we know much more about Obama than we would had we relied exclusively for our information from the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press? I offer a resounding ‘yes’ to all three of those questions. I am privileged to call him my friend, colleague and co-worker. I stand with Jerry Corsi today as he is viciously maligned by an attack media that would prefer to aim its potent artillery at a man who dared to do their job when they refused, when they laid down, when they sucked up, when they failed to ask the tough questions, when they took sides.”

In response, Barack Obama’s advisers have been tracking Corsi’s media appearances, quickly telephoning producers to react to the book’s charges, and last night, the Democratic presidential candidate’s campaign issued a 40-page response to the book.

The Democratic National Committee has its own rapid response team to take aim at Corsi’s book, saying, “One of the most vile smear peddlers of the 2004 election has found a new target. We cannot afford to let Corsi get away with the same dirty tricks that fooled so many people in 2004. We can’t rely on the media to hold him accountable – in fact, the sheer brazenness of the lies is attracting even more coverage. The media have shown that they aren’t going to stop him. It’s up to you to spread the truth.”

So, what is the truth? Is this book a classic smear job? Or is Corsi’s book simply caught up in the crosshairs of the leftists because it hits a chord? Is Dr. Jerome Corsi a discredited liar peddling garbage in order to help continue Bush-Cheney politics? Or is he a simply being lynched by the mainstream media and Democratic Party for daring to write the truth? Be the judge yourself. Read the book, and listen to what Dr. Jerome Corsi has to say tonight on Political Pistachio Radio.
The show airs live at 10:00 pm Eastern Time, but will be archived for later listening for those unable to listen live. Access the program HERE.

www.blogtalkradio.com/politicalpistachio

This is my hill

By J.J. Jackson

Eventually, if you want to enact positive change you have to fight for that change. If you don’t, you’ll just get more of the same. Right now America is in full retreat, being chased from each hilltop by anti-American forces touting their weapons of class warfare, rights descendant from bureaucrats and mob rule where the minority is not protected.

I firmly believe that one of the problems we have in our society today is that we are compromised by compromise. At some point people began believing that compromise, much like change, is carte blanche good and never to be questioned. Others though seem to believe that compromise should be questioned, but only as a formality to look like they were seriously considering the consequences. But if you keep compromising with people that don’t agree with you on core issues all you are doing is moving towards their position and away from yours.

And if your position is a core belief what happens when you are no longer upholding it because you have compromised to the point where your opposition has basically gotten their way? It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure it out.

We see where compromise has gotten us on a variety of issues from abortion, where a child isn’t a child if it is only so many weeks old in the womb but magically becomes a child one nanosecond after that, to the second amendment where it is now only ok to keep certain types of government approved arms despite the clear and unambiguous term “shall not be infringed” staring us in the face. We have been led to a place where arbitrary and capricious standards that make absolutely no sense reign. And it has all been in the name of the vaunted goal of compromise.

America has, over the years been a victim of an extreme leftward lean in our policy. Those that have pioneered this policy have played on the desire of Americans to simply want to get along with everyone. They exploited that desire with perfection.

This became blatantly apparent in the years after FDR’s social programs to the point where today the continually modified and expanded FDR plan for socialism is favored by the majority of Republicans where as in the early twentieth century it was favored by the Democrats. Today, after decades of compromise on the Constitution and with the Republicans as a whole filling the position of the Democrats of old, the Democrats have marched solidly even further to the left.

They then cry out for even more compromise with their new and more intrusive government programs such as Hillary Clinton’s plan for socialized medicine. Every election cycle they propose even grander socialist wealth redistribution policies. And why shouldn’t they? They’ve eventually won nearly every battle they have fought when it comes to such ideas by drawing enough people into compromise for compromise sake and promising them a piece of the pie they offer.

Everything has shifted. Because once our decision was made to compromise on the core principles which founded this great nation we have been in a constant state of retreat from the fight for individual liberty, equality and unalienable rights. Americans are in retreat and those that want to turn America into some form of socialist nanny state with themselves at the controls are on the attack.

As we retreat we keep passing up hills and giving them to the enemy.

The hill named “Right to property”? Gone. Overrun by the forces of FDR charging forward with his plans for confiscating the wealth of one American to pay retirement benefits to other Americans.

The hill named “Right to Privacy” with regards to our personal affects and records? Gone with the invention of the income tax because each and every year you are required to lay your personal records bear for the government to scrutinize.

The hill named “Second Amendment”? The daisies on that hilltop were trampled into the ground long ago with laws that infringed on the rights of the people to freely keep and bear arms.

The hill named “First Amendment”? Blown right past when McCain-Feingold became law.

And we just keep retreating and giving ground like it doesn’t matter. I’ve been yelling for years but the generals leading this charge backwards have ignored me. But now my legs are getting tired. In my arms there is a loaded rifle that has been rarely fired under official orders. Although I have fired it many times on my own and with other Americans also fed up with the situations that arise much to the chagrin of those who claim to be our “leaders” of course. And all about me I am watching my fellow Americans retreat as the orders are given time and again.

We are told to rally around our anointed leader, whoever it may be, come election time. We have the specter of a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama presidency thrown in our faces to scare us into voting against them and not for something. We are told not to question. We are told to sit down and shut up. We are told, as conservatives, to vote for whomever the GOP nominee is, even if it is someone like John McCain who is basically using the John Kerry strategy of running on the fact that he served in Vietnam and how dare you question him. Don’t you know he is a war hero?

If you point out that he has a penchant for violating the Constitution and joining arm in arm with some of the most liberal members of Congress you are branded a troublemaker, a racist or whatever nonsensical term he and those that support him think they can get away with.

But there is one problem. The problem is that I am not actually enlisted in this army and I don’t really mind being labeled a troublemaker. I have sworn no deep allegiance to the Republican Party aside from simply registering with the party so that I can vote in their primaries and have a say in who their nominee is. But I am not a good little soldier and I do not recognize their authority to order me to vote for their candidate if I disagree with the ultimate choice. I’ve merely been here as someone that has sought to lend my rifle to defeating bigger foes of America.

But now I am not certain that the Republican Party is my kindred spirit in the quest for restoring this Republic. So I’m stopping; right here. No more running. This hill on which I now come to rest will be my hill. This is where I will make my stand.

And I know we as Americans can do it. We can make this stand. Remember when we were told to accept comprehensive immigration reform and amnesty for illegals? Remember how we were told that stopping that atrocious piece of legislation was impossible? That it was a done deal? Remember what happened when the foot soldiers revolted against McCain and others who did not have America’s best interests in mind?

That’s my point.

I was there for that battle. I fought on the front lines. And I saw what happens first hand when Americans rally even as their leaders cower and retreat. Mere foot soldiers rose to the status of general through battlefield promotions and led the counter attack. So my legs will not run another mile. They don’t have another mile left in them to run.

I will not be blown off this hill. I’m setting myself here, preparing my powder and cleaning my rifle. I am confident in my shot. And make no mistake, I will fire every last bullet at those that are about to come over the rise and try to take this hill from me.

This is my hill; one of the last vestiges of our once great country slowly being ripped from us. And I know that there are many who will stand firm if only they see others willing to stand their ground and know they are not alone.

Sure, others will blindly follow the calls for retreat. I will not.

I am tired of being told to suck it up and grow up and accept the compromise placed before me by those that are worried they will lose if I do not follow. Yet at the same time they are unwilling to compromise with me and my fellow Americans and reveal their own hypocrisy. They don’t want compromise. They don’t want what is best for this country. They want their power. And I will not be party to that folly.

It will not be easy. There will be suffering. There will be pain. There will be blood spilled this day and probably for many days, months and years to come. We may even enter into terrible darkness and the deepest of winters and fear that all is lost. But to make things better I am willing to suffer. If I am not, then the enemy has already won and defeated me.

This is my hill and I claim it for Lady Liberty. This is where I make my stand for what is right. And John McCain? He will never have my vote. Promises today and deathbed conversions cannot undo the history he has.

To Hell with worrying if anyone else has the courage to stand by my side and fight. The only way you are taking this hill is over my dead body. Today is a good day to die, but since I don’t plan on dying on this hill, that means there is only one question to ask of those about to charge over this hill and try to take it. Are you willing to die on this hill trying to take it from not just me but all the other Americans you are about to come face to face with?

Well? Are you?

**********

J.J. Jackson is a conservative/libertarian author writing about events in the United States and around the world. He is the owner of Conservative News & Opinion – The Land of the Free and also The Right Things – Conservative T-shirts & Gifts. His weekly articles can be found at Liberty Reborn

The author of this piece is my guest tonight on Political Pistachio Radio.

UPDATE: Rep. Jim McGovern’s Press Secretary Michael Mershon responded to my requests for additional information.  View his statement in its entirety HERE.

Are Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) bad actors in a tragedy about the Separation of Powers?

In Spring 2007, Speaker Pelosi visited Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad in a highly publicized, and much criticized trip.  She was the poster child for Obama-esque ‘without pre-condition’ foreign policy. But this year, the Speaker chose to avoid the limelight, allegedly preferring to task loyal foot soldier Rep. Jim McGovern with chatting up leftist guerillas closely affiliated with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) - a group identified by the US State Department as terrorists.  Not to mention the talks with Columbian Senator Piedad Cordoba, who remainsunder investigation by the Columbian Attorney General - and who is closely aligned with Venezuelan dictator/President Hugo Chavez.

Much of the main stream media seems content to ignore the Pelosi-McGovern-FARC story.  Too much of a political hot potato.  Brings to mind Pelosi’s own language regarding Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s repeated attempts to impeach President Bush.  Remember?  She told us all that was ‘off the table.’  Until yesterday, when Pelosi indicated that Kucinich’s latest attempt might get hearings.

Insert the uncomfortable pause here.  All is fair in love and politricks.

So I placed a few calls.  Speaker Pelosi’s press staff: delightful but refused to provide on-the-record comments each of the several times we spoke.  I’m still waiting to hear back from McGovern’s office.  Somehow, I am unsurprised by the lack of candor.

In multiple conversations with sources close to Speaker Pelosi, I was told the assertions made in the Wall Street Journal reports are “categorically false” and “without merit.”  (This wins the prize for least original evasive answer)

Gee, I suppose if a Republican stood accused of colluding with a terrorist to undermine the democratically elected government of a US ally that it would be a non-story.  Oh wait… the entire country would be enraged.  And demanding answers.  Hearings. Accountability.

This is where the average American should step in.  Call Speaker Pelosi.  202.225.0100.  The role of Speaker of the House is supposed to transcend partisan politics.  She is a public servant.  Our tax dollars may have funded these misadventures.

Never ask permission to engage in our national dialogue.  Your tax dollars matter.  And Speaker Pelosi should address this Obama-esque policy directly.  Was she engaging with an agent of a foreign government to undermine our ally, the democratically elected government in Columbia?  Did Speaker Pelosi direct Rep. McGovern to tell FARC that all military aid from the US to Columbia would be suspended under an Obama presidency?

If Speaker Pelosi was a pawn in McGovern’s game, where he invoked her name to play-up his own street-cred and power - then Pelosi should promptly throw him from the Democratic train.  Give him a little partisan spanking.   Go public.  Offer a little straight-talk to the American people.

—Media Lizzy

April 2007:

From the Wall Street Journal… House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn’t going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, “without authority of the United States,” to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government’s behavior on any “disputes or controversies with the United States.”

March 2008:

A hard drive recovered from the computer of a killed Colombian guerrilla has offered more insights into the opposition of House Democrats to the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

A military strike three weeks ago killed Raúl Reyes, No. 2 in command of the FARC, Colombia’s most notorious terrorist group. The Reyes hard drive reveals an ardent effort to do business directly with the FARC by Congressman James McGovern (D., Mass.), a leading opponent of the free-trade deal. Mr. McGovern has been working with an American go-between, who has been offering the rebels help in undermining Colombia’s elected and popular government.

Mr. McGovern’s press office says the Congressman is merely working at the behest of families whose relatives are held as FARC kidnap hostages. However, his go-between’s letters reveal more than routine intervention. The intervenor with the FARC is James C. Jones, who the Congressman’s office says is a “development expert and a former consultant to the United Nations.” Accounts of Mr. Jones’s exchanges with the FARC appeared in Colombia’s Semana magazine on March 15. This Mr. Jones should not be confused with the former Congressman and ambassador to Mexico of the same name from Oklahoma.

“Receive my warm greetings, as always, from Washington,” Mr. Jones began in a letter to the rebels last fall. “The big news is that I spoke for several hours with the Democratic Congressman James McGovern. In the meeting we had the opportunity to exchange some ideas that will be, I believe, of interest to the FARC-EP [popular army].”

July 2008:

Last fall, Mr. Chávez and the FARC hatched an audacious plan whereby the Venezuelan would take “proof of life” of Ms. Betancourt to French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris, where the plight of Ms. Betancourt was a cause célèbre. The rebels wrote that Mr. Chávez was sure French pressure for negotiations would cause President Bush to “order Uribe to allow the meeting” between Mr. Chávez and the rebels on Colombian soil, something Mr. Uribe had refused to do. The rebels reported that Mr. Chávez was “super-motivated,” because he viewed the rendezvous as a public-relations coup that would give him and the FARC “continental and world renown.”

That plan flopped, but Mr. Chavez had other cards up his sleeve. One involved Ms. Cordoba, who is currently under investigation by the Colombian attorney general for ties to the FARC. She figures prominently in the captured rebel documents, and is notoriously close to Mr. Chávez.

She met at the Venezuelan presidential palace with FARC leaders last fall. From that meeting the rebels reported that “Piedad says that Chávez has Uribe going crazy. He doesn’t know what to do. That Nancy Pelosi helps and is ready to help in the swap [hostages in exchange for captured guerrillas]. That she has designated [U.S. Congressman Jim] McGovern for this.”

If the speaker of the House was working with Ms. Cordoba in this scheme, her judgment was more than a little misguided. The rebels write that on a trip to Argentina Ms. Cordoba told them, “It doesn’t matter to me the proposal that Sarkozy has made to free Ingrid. Above all, do not liberate Ingrid.” In short, why give up such a useful pawn?

Here is the text of the Logan Act:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

STATEMENT FROM REP. JIM MCGOVERN’S PRESS SECRETARY MICHAEL MERSHON:

It’s important to remember that what INTERPOL determined is that there was no evidence of any tampering of the FARC computers by the Colombian military once the military took possession of those computers. Which is very good news. What INTERPOL did NOT determine, of course, was whether any of the statements in those computers were somehow empirically true. Which, of course, they could not, as we made very clear in our letter to the Wall Street Journal.

As to the Journal column in question which attacked Colombian-based human rights groups for their alleged ties to the FARC (therefore suggesting that the FARC would easily be convinced to turn the hostages over to these groups), we were disappointed to see that one of the Colombian military members involved in the hostage rescue was wearing the insignia of the International Committee of the Red Cross during the mission, in apparent violation of the Geneva Conventions. We were pleased to see that President Uribe has apologized for that error.

As to the specific questions you have asked:

Rep. McGovern met with Sen. Cordoba during the time she was the official mediator (appointed by President Uribe) for a potential humanitarian exchange of the hostages. She also met with high-level U.S. State Department officials during this period.

Rep. McGovern never said that Sen. Obama would win the election. At the time, he was a strong supporter of Sen. Clinton.

Rep. McGovern never ‘ensured’ the end of military aid to Colombia. He doesn’t believe that would be a proper policy position to take. He has argued, and will continue to argue, that a higher percentage of our aid should be used for the building of civilian and judicial institutions in Colombia; for economic redevelopment; and for assistance to the hundreds of thousands of Colombians who have been internally displaced by the conflict.

I have attached a copy of Rep. McGovern’s floor statement from yesterday’s debate on an amendment offered by House Republican Whip Roy Blunt to the intelligence authorization bill. It lays out a lot of his thinking about the way forward, and I hope you find it useful.

I’d be happy to respond by e-mail to any other specific questions you may have.

Regards,

Michael Mershon, Press Secretary
U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA)