Minghui Yu, was killed recently when

black youths violently set upon him, sending him

running into traffic to escape, I think B. Hussein

Obama ought to start referring to the mind-set of the

“typical Asian person.”

As of Wednesday, police had no motive for the

attack, and witnesses said they heard no demand for

money or anything else. The Associated Press reports

that the assailant simply said to his friend, “Watch

what I do to this guy” before punching Yu.

Meanwhile, let’s revisit the story about Obama’s

grandmother being guilty of thinking like a “typical

white person.” As recounted in Obama’s autobiography,

the only evidence that his grandmother feared

black men comes from Obama’s good-for-nothing,

chronically unemployed white grandfather, who

accuses Grandma of racism as his third excuse not to

get dressed and drive her to work.

His grandmother wanted a ride to work at 6:30 in

the morning because, the day before, she had been

aggressively solicited by a homeless man at the bus

stop. On her account, the panhandler “was very

aggressive, Barry. Very aggressive. I gave him a dollar

and he kept asking. If the bus hadn’t come, I think

he might have hit me over the head.”

Even Obama’s shiftless grandfather didn’t play the

race card until pretty far into the argument over

whether he would drive Grandma to work. First, the

good-for-nothing grandfather told Obama that

Grandma was just trying to guilt him into driving her,

saying, “(S)he just wants me to feel bad.”

Next, he complained about his non-work routine

being disrupted, saying: “She’s been catching the bus

ever since she started at the bank. ... And now, just

because she gets pestered a little, she wants to change

everything!”

Only after Obama had offered to drive his grandmother

to work himself and it was becoming increasingly

clear what a selfish lout the grandfather was,

did Grandpa produce his trump card. The reason he

wouldn’t get his lazy butt dressed and drive Grandma

to work was... she was a racist!

As Obama recounts it, on Grandpa’s third try at

an excuse, he told Obama: “You know why she’s so

scared this time? I’ll tell you why. Before you came

in, she told me the fella was black. That’s the real reason

she’s bothered. And I just don’t think that’s

right.” So I guess I’ll be heading back to the sack

now!

That makes sense. It certainly never bothers me

when crazy white people harass and threaten me.

This is Obama’s own account of what happened,

which — as anyone can see — consisted of his slacker

grandfather making a series of excuses to avoid having

to drive the sole bread-earner in the family to

work.

But Obama says, “The words were like a fist in

my stomach, and I wobbled to regain my composure.”

(It was as if he had been punched by an

aggressive panhandler at a bus stop!) And not

because his grandfather’s sorry excuse reminded him

that he came from a long line of callow, worthless

men, both black and white.

No, Obama swallowed his grandfather’s pathetic

excuse hook, line and sinker, leading Obama to a

reverie about his grandparents: “I knew that men

who might easily have been my brothers could still

inspire their rawest fears.” That’s true — assuming

his brothers and sisters were menacing people at bus

stops.

How deranged would you have to be to cite this

incident as evidence that your grandmother thought

like a “typical white person” — as opposed to your

grandfather being worthless and lazy? For those

keeping score, Obama is aghast at his grandmother’s

alleged racism, but had no problem with Jeremiah

Wright’s manifest racism.

If Obama is sent reeling by the mere words of an

elderly white woman, how is he going to negotiate

with a guy like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? What if

Ahmadinejad calls him “booger-face”? Will he run

20

crying from the table?

Your grandmother wasn’t a racist, Barack. Your

grandpa was just a loser. Can we wrap up our

national conversation about race now? I think we’d

like to move onto questions about your stupid plan

to hold talks with Iran.

difficult to miss the circulating e-mails claiming

that Barack Obama attended a Madrassa (an Islamic

school) as a child in Indonesia. Or perhaps the one

informing us that Obama’s middle name is Hussein.

Then there’s the Internet allegation that Obama is

really a “secret Muslim.”

Innuendo about Barack Obama’s faith and

upbringing often dominate discussions regarding

how the likely Democratic presidential nominee

might conduct his foreign policy. That’s a shame,

because it distracts us from more legitimate and far

deeper concerns over Obama’s relationship not with

Islam but with Israel, the principal rhetorical and military

target of that religion’s most extreme adherents.

Of course, as with Obama’s remarks on many

issues, it’s easy to cherry-pick a few of his statements

about Israel that make it seem as if a President

Obama would be a loyal friend of the beleaguered

state. Such as when he says, “peace through security

is the only way for Israel” and “when I am president,

the United States will stand shoulder to shoulder with

Israel.”

What’s not to like, right? Well, a more thorough

examination of Obama’s statements, his background

and previous associations and, most importantly, his

would-be foreign policy team reveals a far different

reality — one that has caused many supporters of

Israel, including me, to worry about what an Obama

presidency might do to the long-term support for the

Jewish State.

First off, Obama demonstrates a deep misunderstanding

of the Middle East when he calls for the

immediate removal of American forces from Iraq,

which would expose Iraq to worse ethnic bloodshed

and embolden the enemies of Israel and the United

States. Senator Obama also voted against legislation

to place the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on the list

of terrorist organizations and criticizes Hillary Clinton

for voting in favor of the legislation, which

passed with the support of over three-quarters of the

Senate. He has also pledged to meet without preconditions

with Iran’s Holocaust-denying leader,

Ahmadinejad.

Just as disturbing are Obama’s statements about

the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which include:

“Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people”

and the clueless remark that “the Israeli government

must make difficult concessions for the peace

process to restart.”

These troubling statements caused my friend and

former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Danny Ayalon

to ask in a recent op-ed, “Who are you, Barack

Obama?” Ayalon wrote that after meeting with

Obama on two occasions, he was “left with the

impression that [Obama] was not entirely forthright

with his thinking [about Israel].”

Ayalon’s skepticism no doubt stems from the fact

that Obama’s more recent pro-Israel statements do

not square with his past sympathy for Palestinian

radicals. Anti-Israel activist Ali Abunimah claims to

know Obama well and to have met him at several

pro-Palestinian events in Chicago when Obama was

an Illinois state senator. In an article, Abunimah

lamented that “Obama used to be very comfortable

speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian

rights and opposing the Israeli occupation.”

“Obama’s about-face is not surprising,” Abunimah

insisted, “He is merely doing what he think is necessary

to get elected and he will continue doing it as

long as it keeps him in power.”

Then there’s Obama’s church, Trinity United

Church of Christ, whose anti-Semitism is now well

known. Among many anti-Semitic documents that

the church has published on its website is a letter that

alleges Israeli “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” of

Palestinians and claims that Israelis “worked on an

ethnic bomb that kills blacks and Arabs.” Trinity’s

former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who Obama

has described as a “spiritual mentor,” gave anti-Semite

Louis Farrakhan an award for being a leader who

“truly epitomized greatness.”

22

Wright even traveled to meet with Libyan terrorist

leader Muammar al-Gaddafi and has compared

conditions in Israel to the apartheid of South Africa.

Of course, you won’t hear much from Wright these

days. As Wright told PBS last year, he understands

that Obama must keep his distance because “he can’t

afford the Jewish support to wane or start questioning

his allegiance to Israel.”

But nothing should concern Israel supporters as

much as Obama’s foreign policy team, which consists

of the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski, a remnant of the

administration of President Jimmy Carter, who, like

Rev. Wright, calls Israel an apartheid state. Brzezinski,

Carter’s national security advisor, has long held

anti-Israel views and supports open dialogue with the

terrorist group Hamas. Other top foreign policy advisors

with avowed hostility toward Israel include

Susan Rice and Robert Malley.

Most recently, it was revealed that Obama military

advisor and national campaign co-chairman Merrill

“Tony” McPeak has a long history of criticizing

Israel and in 2003 alleged that American Middle East

policy is being controlled by Jews at the expense of

American interests in the Middle East. During the

interviewer with the Oregonian, McPeak was asked

why there was a lack of action in the Israeli-Palestinian

peace process. He responded, “New York City.

Miami. We have a large vote — vote, here in favor

of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.”

What’s most worrying about Obama’s foreign policy

team is that given the candidate’s extreme lack of

foreign policy experience (he once declared that the

four years he spent living in Indonesia as a child give

him credibility on the world stage), one would expect

Obama to lean heavily on it for advice. That’s something

that should concern anyone who understands

the value of supporting America’s only reliable ally

from a region in which we are engaged in two wars.

race, I imagine it would sound like B. Hussein

Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams From My Father.”

Has anybody read this book? Inasmuch as the

book reveals Obama to be a flabbergasting lunatic, I

gather the answer is no. Obama is about to be our

next president: You might want to take a peek. If

only people had read “Mein Kampf” ...

Nearly every page — save the ones dedicated to

cataloguing the mundane details of his life — is bristling

with anger at some imputed racist incident. The

last time I heard this much race-baiting invective I

was ... in my usual front-row pew, as I am every Sunday

morning, at Trinity United Church of Christ in

Chicago.

Obama tells a story about taking two white

friends from the high school basketball team to a

“black party.” Despite their deep-seated, unconscious

hatred of blacks, the friends readily accepted. At the

party, they managed not to scream the N-word, but

instead “made some small talk, took a couple of the

girls out on the dance floor.”

But with his racial hair-trigger, Obama sensed the

whites were not comfortable because “they kept smiling

a lot.” And then, in an incident reminiscent of the

darkest days of the Jim Crow South ... they asked to

leave after spending only about an hour at the party!

It was practically an etiquette lynching!

In the car on the way home, one of the friends

empathizes with Obama, saying: “You know, man,

that really taught me something. I mean, I can see

how it must be tough for you and Ray sometimes, at

school parties ... being the only black guys and all.”

And thus Obama felt the cruel lash of racism! He

actually writes that his response to his friend’s perfectly

lovely remark was: “A part of me wanted to

punch him right there.”

Listen, I don’t want anybody telling Obama about

Bill Clinton’s “I feel your pain” line.

Wanting to punch his white friend in the stomach

was the introductory anecdote to a full-page psychotic

rant about living by “the white man’s rules.”

(One rule he missed was: “Never punch out your

empathetic white friend after dragging him to a

crappy all-black party.”)

Obama’s gaseous disquisition on the “white man’s

rules” leads to this charming crescendo: “Should you

refuse this defeat and lash out at your captors, they

would have a name for that, too, a name that could

cage you just as good. Paranoid. Militant. Violent.

Nigger.”

For those of you in the “When is Obama gonna

play the ‘N-word’ card?” pool, the winner is ... Page

85! Congratulations!

When his mother expresses concern about

Obama’s high school friend being busted for drugs,

Obama says he patted his mother’s hand and told her

not to worry.

This, too, prompted Obama to share with his

readers a life lesson on how to handle white people:

“It was usually an effective tactic, another one of

those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so

long as you were courteous and smiled and made no

sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they

were relieved — such a pleasant surprise to find a

well-mannered young black man who didn’t seem

angry all the time.”

First of all, I note that this technique seems to be

the basis of Obama’s entire presidential campaign.

But moreover — he was talking about his own

mother! As Obama says: “Any distinction between

good and bad whites held negligible meaning.” Say,

do you think a white person who said that about

blacks would be a leading presidential candidate?

The man is stark bonkersville.

He says the reason black people keep to themselves

is that it’s “easier than spending all your time

mad or trying to guess whatever it was that white

folks were thinking about you.”

Here’s a little inside scoop about white people:

We’re not thinking about you. Especially WASPs. We

think everybody is inferior, and we are perfectly

24

charming about it.

In college, Obama explains to a girl why he was

reading Joseph Conrad’s 1902 classic, “Heart of

Darkness”: “I read the book to help me understand

just what it is that makes white people so afraid.

Their demons. The way ideas get twisted around. I

helps me understand how people learn to hate.”

By contrast, Malcolm X’s autobiography “spoke”

to Obama. One line in particular “stayed with me,”

he says. “He spoke of a wish he’d once had, the wish

that the white blood that ran through him, there by

an act of violence, might somehow be expunged.”

Forget Rev. Jeremiah Wright — Wright is Booker

T. Washington compared to this guy.

reaction to President Bush’s remarks to the Israeli

Knesset condemning the practice of appeasing terrorists,

one might infer Obama was lying in wait for just

such an opportunity to capture some national security

street cred.

After all, Democrats begin any presidential race

with a national security credibility deficit, and this

one should be no different, notwithstanding the

unpopularity of the Iraq war. Democrats like to think

they gained congressional seats in 2006 because of

the war, but a better read is that Republicans did

themselves in through reckless spending, scandals

and other abandonment of conservative principles.

Despite his puffed-up posturing, Obama probably

recognizes this, as well. Otherwise, why would he

have lashed out so nastily at both Mr. Bush (and Sen.

McCain) for assuring our closest Middle Eastern ally

that we would stand by it?

Obama was so sure Bush’s remarks were aimed at

him that he shed his nice-guy facade and gave the

nation a little glimpse of his inner anger. For those

who insist Obama is all sweet and light, I challenge

you to listen to his tantrums in response to the president’s

non-attack.

Obama shouted: “I’m a strong believer in bipartisan

foreign policy, but that cause is not served with

dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we’ve seen

out of George Bush and John McCain over the last

couple days. They aren’t telling you the truth.”

Let me ask you: Where does Barack Obama get

off proclaiming himself the high arbiter of civility and

bipartisanship while he is engaged in a sputtering

tirade of abject incivility and partisanship? Obama

apparently expects us to assess his civility not on the

basis of his conduct, but solely on the strength of his

distorted self-description.

Like so many other liberals, Obama exempts himself

from behavioral accountability through identification

with liberal policies, which confer upon him

the irrebuttable presumption that he is kind and compassionate.

But those not subject to the self-deluding

spell of liberalism or Obamaphilia will not be fooled

by such hypocrisy. They will judge Obama’s claim to

civility not on his self-elevating but empty words, but

on his self-damning, nasty ones.

Obama’s joining with other Democrats to bear

false witness against President Bush is a perfect example

of the type of incivility for which he disingenuously

excoriates President Bush.

Obama also decried the president’s remarks as

“exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s divided

our country and alienated us from the rest of the

world.”

No, Sen. Obama, what have divided this country

and alienated us from the rest of the world are the

nonstop Democratic assaults against President Bush

— assaults that you not only did not condemn as

uncivil, dishonest and divisive but also have

embraced and echoed.

What has placed America in a falsely negative

light to the world is the Democratic chorus of lies

that President Bush misled us into war in Iraq; that

he is responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands

of Iraqi civilians; that the United States is torturing

and otherwise violating the “rights” of our

enemy prisoners at Guantanamo Bay; that this very

detention center is comparable to a Soviet Gulag or

Nazi prison camp; that the Bush government is spying

on its own citizens; that America, because of its

corporate greed, refuses to lead the world against

apocalyptic global warming; and that the heartland

of America is inhabited by jingoistic, imperialistic,

intolerant, homophobic, xenophobic, racist and reality-

challenged Bible-thumpers.

President Bush is not guilty of leveling a partisan

attack against Barack Obama in Israel. But if he were

to change course after seven long years on the receiving

end and start returning cheap shots at Democrats,

say, at the rate of 10 per day for the remainder of his

term, he still would be behind Democrats in this

department by a sizeable multiple. Truly, it amazes

26

me how civil, composed and un-reciprocal President

Bush has been in the face of this incessant barrage of

partisan vitriol.

Shame on Barack Obama for falsely accusing the

president of behavior he and his party have perfected

through meticulous practice. Shame on him for pretending

that he offers bipartisanship when his actual

record is one of extreme liberalism and is strikingly

bereft of aisle crossing or compromise. Shame on him

for defining bipartisanship and civility, in effect, as

acquiescing to his dictates.

Obama likens his own foreign policy approach to

that of Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, but reality

places him closer to George McGovern or Michael

Dukakis. But there is a method to his madness. He

has assumed the offense against his Republican rivals

to divert our attention from his demonstrable lack of

toughness in the war on terror.

mate to campaign with him, and this national

rookie suggested America had 58 states, repeatedly

used the wrong names for the cities he was visiting,

and honored a Memorial Day crowd by acknowledging

the “fallen heroes” who were present, somehow

alive and standing in the audience. How long would

it take for the national media to see another Dan

Quayle caricature? Let’s raise the stakes. What if it

was the GOP presidential candidate making these

thoroughly ridiculous comments? This scenario is

very real, except it isn’t McCain. It’s the other fellow.

ABC reporter Jake Tapper follows politicians

around for a living. On his blog, he suggested Barack

Obama has a problem: “The man has been a oneman

gaffe machine.”

In Sunrise, Fla., Obama said, “How’s it going,

Sunshine?” He did the same thing in Sioux Falls,

S.D., calling it “Sioux City.” Some of his geographic

struggles seem calculated. When asked why Hillary

Clinton trounced him in Kentucky, Obama claimed

“I’m not very well known in that part of the country

... Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming

from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising

that she would have an advantage in some of

those states in the middle.” But Obama’s home state

of Illinois is more than “near” Kentucky — it borders

Kentucky.

In Oregon, there was a doozy. Obama said of his

long campaign, “I’ve been in 57 states, I think, one

left to go.” No one in the press made much of this.

As former ABC political reporter Marc Ambinder,

now with the Atlantic Monthly magazine, admitted:

“But if John McCain did this — if he mistakenly said

he’d visited 57 states — the media would be all up in

his grill, accusing him of a senior moment.” If you

doubt him, remember how most media outlets noted,

then underlined McCain’s error about al-Qaeda

being trained and funded by Iran.

In New Mexico, Obama suggested he was like a

young Haley Joel Osment in “The Sixth Sense,” with

the ability to see dead people: “On this Memorial

Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen

heroes — and I see many of them in the audience

here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly

strong.” Fallen heroes in the audience? Is this Barack

Potatoe Obama? This is precisely the kind of misstatement

that Dan Quayle-bashers would run ad

infinitum.

But there have also been gaffes on more serious

matters. ABC found that campaigning in Rush Limbaugh’s

hometown of Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama

argued that our military’s Arabic translators in Iraq

are needed in Afghanistan: “We only have a certain

number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s

harder for us to use them in Afghanistan,” he

claimed. But Afghans don’t speak Arabic; they speak

several other languages. That’s a lot like McCain’s

gaffe — except for the degree of media attention,

which in the Democrat’s case was virtually nonexistent.

McCain also would have enjoyed more media

focus on Obama’s completely muddled analysis of

South America last week. He told the Orlando Sentinel

on Thursday that he would meet with Chavez

to discuss “the fermentation of anti-American sentiment

in Latin America, his support of FARC in

Colombia and other issues he would want to talk

about.” But on Friday in Miami, he insisted any

country supporting the Marxist guerrillas of FARC

should suffer “regional isolation.” This left Obama

advisers scrambling to suggest that these two opposing

statements can somehow be put together, that he

can meet Chavez and isolate him at the same time.

Sometimes, Obama invents Bosnia-sniper-style

whoppers about his personal history. In Selma, Ala.,

Obama claimed that the spirit of hope derived from

the civil rights protests in Selma in 1965 inspired his

birth — when he was born in 1961. He also has inaccurately

claimed that the Kennedys funded his

Kenyan father’s trip to America in 1959.

While he was making boo-boos in New Mexico

28

on Memorial Day, Obama also (according to CBS

reporter/blogger Maria Gavrilovic) talked about

post-traumatic stress disorder by claiming he had an

uncle “who was part of the American brigade that

helped to liberate Auschwitz,” and then came home

and spent six months in an attic. Gavrilovic didn’t

note that the prisoners at Auschwitz were liberated

by the Red Army. Obama earlier made the claim on

his campaign site that his grandfather knew American

troops who liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka

(also liberated by the Red Army).

Everyone should grant these candidates a little

room for error in the long slog of presidential campaigning.

But what about some balance? The same

national media that turned Dan Quayle’s name into

an instant joke are now working over time to present

Obama as Captain Competent.