What’s on the rumored Michelle Obama ‘rant’ tape?

What’s on the rumored Michelle Obama ‘rant’ tape?

Thomas Lifson
It’s existence is still not absolutely confirmed, but the Michelle Obama “rant” tape is being described with a fair amount of detail on the pro-Hillary website Hillbuzz.

I mentioned the tape yesterday in my article on Hillary’s next stage of combat. Here are some of the details provided today on Hillbuzz:


The Michelle Obama Rant Tape was filmed between June 26th – July 1st 2004 in Chicago, IL at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Conference at Trinity United Church: specifically the Women’s Event.

Michelle Obama appeared as a panelist alongside Mrs. Khadijah Farrakhan and Mrs. James Meeks. [….]

For about 30 minutes, Michelle Obama launched into a rant about the evils of America, and how America is to blame for the problems of Africa. Michelle personally blamed President Clinton for the deaths of millions of Africans and said America is responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis and other ethnic groups. She then launched into an attack on “whitey”, and talked about solutions to black on black crime in the realm of diverting those actions onto white America. Her rant was fueled by the crowd: they reacted strongly to what she said, so she got more passionate and enraged, and that’s when she completely loses it and says things that have made the mouths drop of everyone who’s seen this.

The “tape” is a DVD that Trinity United sold on its website, and possibly offered free for download up until March 2008 when Trinity’s site was scrubbed and the DVDs were no longer offered for sale.


Hillbuzz notes that obtaining a copy of this clip should not prove terribly difficult should journalists wish to focus on finding it.


Hat tip: Clarice Feldman

War Blog By FrontPage Magazine

Arab-American Psychiatrist Wafa Sultan Blasts Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and Sheik Al-Qaradhawi, and States: When You Criticize Their Prophet, It Is As If You Chopped Off Muslims’ Noses

Britain’s helter-skelter slide into dhimmitude


Britain’s helter-skelter slide into dhimmitude that this story:

Two Christian preachers were stopped from handing out Bible extracts by police because they were in a Muslim area, it was claimed yesterday. They say they were told by a Muslim police community support officer that they could not preach there and that attempting to convert Muslims to Christianity was a hate crime.

The community officer is also said to have told the two men: ‘You have been warned. If you come back here and get beat up, well, you have been warned.’ A police constable who was present during the incident in the Alum Rock area of Birmingham is also alleged to have told the preachers not to return to the district.

The noteworthy point about this incident is that it was a Muslim police ancillary officer who was involved. He did not uphold the law of the land, which gives people the freedom to say in public whatever they want within the law. Instead he upheld the Islamist principle that this particular area of an English city was a Muslim area, within which it was not permissible to do anything contrary to Muslim principles such as preach Christianity.

When the Bishop of Rochester recently warned that Britain was developing Muslim no-go areas, he was denounced the length and breadth of the establishment, with government ministers and bishops falling over each other to declare that they did not recognise the country he was describing. ‘There are no no-go areas in Britain’ they all declared. Well, here it is, in glowing technicolour and flashing lights, in Alum Rock Birmingham. What are they all saying now, those government ministers and bishops of the Church of England, to a situation where in the heart of England a British police support officer, employed by the British state to enforce the law of England, aggressively prevents Christians from preaching the established faith of England on the grounds that this is now a ‘hate crime’?

This is not a one-off. Alert readers will note that it was the West Midlands police force which tried to prosecute the Dispatches TV programme for revealing the true ‘hate crime’ in Britain’s so-called moderate mosques which preach hatred of the west and sedition. This in turn is only the tip of a much bigger iceberg. Up and down the country, police forces led by politically correct imbeciles are recruiting large numbers of Muslims, mainly as police community support officers like the officer in Alum Rock, in order to ‘build bridges’ with the Muslim community, and with minimal or non-existent security vetting in case they upset or offend the said Muslim community. The result is, among other things, the development of Muslim no-go areas enforced by British police officers.

Welcome once again to Londonistan.

Jury: Rezko guilty of 16 counts in corruption case

Jury: Rezko guilty of 16 counts in corruption case

CHICAGO (AP) — A federal jury has found a prominent political fundraiser for Sen. Barack Obama and Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich guilty of 16 of 24 counts in his corruption trial.

Antoin “Tony” Rezko was accused of scheming to get bribes from businesses seeking state contracts.

The jury delivered its verdict Wednesday after a nine-week trial.

Rezko has known Obama since he entered politics and was involved in a 2005 real estate deal with the Democratic presidential candidate, although testimony barely touched on their relationship. Most of the focus was on shakedowns prosecutors say Rezko arranged when he was a top adviser to Blagojevich.

Neither Blagojevich nor Obama has been accused of wrongdoing.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

CHICAGO (AP) — The jury deliberating political fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s fate has reached a verdict.

The verdict is to be read in Chicago’s federal court later Wednesday afternoon.

The 52-year-old Rezko has pleaded not guilty to scheming to get kickbacks from companies wanting state contracts.

The jury has deliberated for parts of 13 days since getting the case May 13.

Jurors had told U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve on Monday they couldn’t agree on one of 24 counts against Rezko. They seemed to indicate they had reached verdicts on 23 of the 24 counts, but didn’t say that specifically.

At the time, St. Eve told jurors to listen carefully to each other and try to reach an unanimous verdict.

McClellan’s Mythology

McClellan’s Mythology

By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | 6/4/2008

Blake Dvorak recently wrote on Real Clear Politics, “The ruckus that Scott McClellan’s book has created – or reintroduced – will probably play out like previous ones in that it will add relatively little to the debate but will cause both sides to come out swinging at each other.”

McClellan’s memoirs certainly added little – because he had little to add. Gerald Ford famously quipped he was “a Ford, not a Lincoln.” As a White House spokesman, McClellan was a drip, not a Snow.  

Unlike Douglas Feith, he was not a policy insider; according to administration officials, McClellan prepped for his wooden briefings by holding silence during nearly every meeting. During those conferences about the War on Terror, which might give his book legitimacy, McClellan’s contributed not merely his silence but his absence. Hardly the Left’s decorated whistleblower, White House colleague Mark Hemingway suspects McClellan harbors “delusions of adequacy.”
If it Doesn’t Fit, You Must Omit

In becoming the Left’s most celebrated chronicler of the Bush White House, McClellan had to ignore a hefty share of inconvenient data, especially about those areas he claimed caused his growing rift with the president: the Valerie Plame leak and the declassification if the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

McClellan’s mendacity has been covered by the very journalist who reported Plame’s identity: Robert Novak. As Novak indicates, McClellan’s newfound pursuit of “my truth” insinuates Karl Rove and Lewis Libby conspired to obstruct justice on the leak case, almost totally omitting the fact that the actual leaker, Richard Armitage, opposed the war and Bush’s foreign policy. Hence, Novak writes, “On page 173, McClellan first mentions my Plame leak, but he does not identify Armitage as the leaker until page 306 of the 323-page book – then only in passing. Armitage, anti-war and anti-Cheney, cannot fit the conspiracy theory that McClellan now buys into.” As I have written extensively, the Plame leak – and her husband’s lies about the “14 words” – refuse to die in leftist mythology, and McClellan’s fables give soothing reassurance to these campfire tales. 
So did McClellan’s
second cleavage from Bush, which “was in early April 2006 when I learned that the president had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the vice president and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters.”

If ever one needed proof that McClellan was not merely a poor historian but incompetent at his White House post, this quotation should suffice. To begin with, McClellan personally cited the NIE on four separate occasions between July and September 2003. President Bush declassified portions of the CIA’s National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in October 2002. (Competent) White House Press Secretary and McClellan friend Ari Fleischer fielded questions about its content on October 9, 2002. White House brass announced the declassification of the NIE’s Key Judgments in a July 2003 press release. That month McClellan himself told the press corps allegations of Iraq seeking uranium from Niger were “based on the national intelligence estimate, which was coming out during the drafting of the October speech.”

The NIE infuriates leftists, as it was produced at the request of Sens. Durbin, Levin, Graham, and Feinstein and compiled by a man who opposed the war. As David Horowitz notes in today’s lead article, few Senate Democrats bothered to read it. Learning the lesson of Desert Storm, they largely voted in favor of the war. Then, months into the effort, they accused the president being a liar, declared war on the war they supported, and demanded American defeat. (The entire sad story is related in the book I wrote with David Horowitz, Party of Defeat.) To defend himself, the commander-in-chief released portions of the NIE, which provided verification for his claims and refuted these assaults on his credibility. Even after former CIA Director George Tenet took into consideration all the caveats and equivocations that he should have put into the NIE, he revealed:

Given what we knew then, the NIE should have said: “We judge that Saddam continues his efforts to rebuild weapons programs, that, once sanctions are lifted, he probably will confront the United States with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons within a matter of months and years. Today, while we have little direct evidence of weapons stockpiles, Saddam has the ability to quickly surge to produce chemical and biological weapons and he has the means to deliver them.”   

More compelling yet, the Silbermann-Robb Commission judged the intelligence the CIA gave to President Bush in his Presidential Daily Briefings more extreme than the intelligence Bush gave Congress.

If anything, he undersold the war.

Embarrassed antiwar Democrats chose to fight back by lying. Since the declassification became public during the Scooter Libby trial, left-wing partisans falsely asserted that, by this act, Bush had declassified Valerie Plame’s name. 

McClellan both lends credence to these fantasies and reasserts that Bush inflated Iraq’s WMD threat by raising concerns over nuclear weapons. However, as Jacob Laksin has demonstrated, the Clinton White House first leveled such allegations.

Audacity Beyond Belief

Despite the bitter partisan battle the Left had waged, McClellan dares to accuse the Bush White House of operating in “perpetual campaign mode.” The opposition party literally refused to allow the campaign to end, dragging the 2000 election to the Supreme Court and blocking the Bush administration from implementing the CIA’s plan for securing the nation against al-Qaeda – a report that landed on Bush’s desk too late to stop the destruction of the Twin Towers.        

Bush, who had tried to reach across the aisle on issues like education and stem cell research, hoped the war would bind the wounds bitter leftists had inflicted. Following 9/11, Bush invited the party leadership of both houses of Congress to regular briefings on the War on Terror. Then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle’s staff promptly leaked that the president was uninformed and disengaged, undermining confidence in the commander-in-chief precisely on his role as wartime leader. Soon, Hillary Clinton would take to the Senate floor brandishing a newspaper proclaiming, “BUSH KNEW” about 9/11.

Relying on Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV’s testimony – ultimately proven fraudulent by the Senate Intelligence Committee – Ted Kennedy would indict Bush of “politicizing intelligence and falsifying facts to justify resort to war” two months into that war. Similarly, in July 2003 Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-CA, told a crowd at the University of California at Berkeley, “This administration took part fact and part supposition…and they shaped it to reach a preconceived conclusion for the use of force, something that they had determined to do sometime well before March of this year.”

The Left’s hate campaign has never ended. Despite all his braying about “transpartisanship,” Scott McClellan’s new book has made sure its noxious lifeblood continues to flow.

Party of Defeat is available from the FrontPage Magazine Bookstore for $15, a 30 percent discount and less than Amazon.com. Autographed and personalized copies are also available; details are on the Bookstore webpage. Please call your local bookstores and ask them to stock the new book Party of Defeat by David Horowitz and Ben Johnson, if they don’t already have it in stock.

Ben Johnson is Managing Editor of FrontPage Magazine and author of the book 57 Varieties of Radical Causes: Teresa Heinz Kerry’s Charitable Giving.

Obama’s Iraq Achilles Heel

Obama’s Iraq Achilles Heel

By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
FrontPageMagazine.com | 6/4/2008

John McCain needs to go on the offensive against Barack Obama over the Iraq war. Polls tell us that his support for the Iraq invasion is one of voters’ chief problems with McCain. Obama’s chief credential, on the other hand, is his early, consistent opposition to the war.

Even with recent successes in Iraq, the war remains a heavy negative for McCain. But he can turn that around; here’s how.

When it comes to Iraq, Obama is most comfortable living in the past. He wants to endlessly replay the day when he castigated the war as unnecessary and cooked up by White House political types and ideologues. He’s far less comfortable talking about Iraq now, and downright antsy when it comes to discussing the future.

It’s a lot easier to oppose a policy than to figure out how to replace it.

Countless Americans remain deeply pessimistic about Iraq; recent successes get judged in the light of past, false optimism.

But that also means voters have no problem envisioning disaster should we pull out our troops too soon – the possible slaughter of pro-American Iraqis, plus police and government officials; perhaps a takeover by Iran; a comeback by al Qaeda and other terrorist operatives.

The key is to force Obama to face these dangers – and explain what he’d do.

* He could deny the possibilities – and come off as a naive, wishful thinker; most unsuitable in a president.

* He could waffle – but then McCain would press. If Obama kept it up, voters would see indecision or evasion – evidence he’s in over his his head on foreign policy and national security.

* He could say that he’d use diplomacy to handle the situation – but Americans are rightfully skeptical about the chances for a diplomatic resolution, especially if the United States pulls out its troops.

As Frederick the Great said, “diplomacy without force is like music without instruments.” McCain could always press and ask, “What do you do if diplomacy fails?”

* Which brings us to the inevitable answer he must give: I will go back into Iraq with troops.

But that begs more questions: Would he keep adequate force in the region? If not, it could take six months of convoys to go back in. And isn’t it inevitable that a new invasion would lead to many more casualties than just staying there?

This gambit narrows the real differences between McCain’s and Obama’s Iraq policies. Obama basically has to say that he’d keep our troops in the region. Voters can be excused for not seeing much difference between keeping them in Iraq and in Kuwait – especially when pulling them even back to Kuwait makes their return to Iraq seem almost inevitable.

You can’t run for president looking in the rear-view mirror and reciting what you said six years ago. You have to offer a plan.

McCain has an easily understood position: Stay in and win. As Iraq improves and Obama is forced to admit the possibility – in Americans’ view, almost the inevitability – of ongoing involvement, McCain’s solution will appear as much the better one.

Dick Morris is a former adviser to Bill Clinton. Eileen McGann is an attorney and CEO of Vote.com. Together, they collaborate on books, columns and foreign political campaigns. To receive free copies of all of their commentaries, please sign up at dickmorris.com.

Saudi King Calls For End To Islamic Extremism

Barack Obama Is Not a Christian

Barack Obama Is Not a Christian


By Cal Thomas
Syndicated columnist/FOX News Contributor

Religion is a topic that makes most journalists uncomfortable, unless they can expose hypocrisy — as in preachers who speak of virtue while carrying on an affair — or outrage such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the doings at Barack Obama’s now former church in Chicago. Most journalists think taking religion seriously might require them to study the claims of various faiths and too many of them have already decided this might lead them to a faith higher than themselves or politics and they don’t wish to take such a journey of personal discovery.

That is too bad, because such an attitude exposes one of the main gaps between most Americans — who believe in God — and most journalists, who don’t.
An exception is Chicago Sun-Times columnist Cathleen Falsani, who interviewed Obama in 2004 for her book, “The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People “and asked him specific questions about his religious beliefs.

“I’m rooted in the Christian tradition,” said Obama, who has declared himself a Christian. But then he adds something that most Christians will see as universalism: “I believe there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”

Falsani correctly brings up John 14:6 (and how many journalists would know such a verse, much less ask a question based on it?) in which Jesus says of Himself, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” That sounds pretty exclusive, but Obama says it depends on how this verse is heard. According to Falsani, Obama thinks that “all people of faith — Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone — know the same God.” (her words)

If that is so, Jesus wasted his time coming to Earth and he certainly did not have to suffer the pain of rejection and crucifixion if there are ways to God other than through Himself.

Here’s Obama telling Falsani, “The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they’re going to hell.” Falsani adds, “Obama doesn’t believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell. But he’s not sure he’ll be going to heaven, either.”

Here’s Obama again: “I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them, and I see that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they’re kind people and that they’re honest people, and they’re curious people, that’s a little piece of heaven.”

Any first-year seminary student could deconstruct such “works salvation” and wishful thinking. Obama either hasn’t read the Bible, or if he has, doesn’t believe it if he embraces such thin theological gruel.

Obama can call himself anything he likes, but there is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn’t meet that requirement. One cannot deny central tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity and uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator between God and Man and be a Christian. Such people do have a label applied to them in Scripture. They are called a “false prophet.”

I hope some national journalist or commentator with knowledge of such things asks Obama about this and doesn’t let him get away with re-writing Scripture to suit his political ends.

Party of Defeat

Party of Defeat

By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | 6/4/2008

Most conversations about the coming elections focus on the question of which candidate is most suited to lead the nation as it confronts the challenges and threats ahead. A better question would be to ask whether there is one party– the Democratic Party — which has demonstrated in word and deed that it is unfit to lead the nation in war at all. Criticism of government policy is essential to a democracy. But in the last five years the Democratic Party has crossed the line from criticism of war policy to fundamental sabotage of the war itself, a position no American party has taken until now.  

Starting in July 2003, just three months into the war in Iraq, the Democratic National Committee ran a national TV ad whose message was: “Read his lips: President Bush Deceives the American People. This was the beginning of a five-year, unrelenting campaign to persuade Americans and their allies that “Bush lied, people died,” that the war was “unnecessary” and “Iraq was no threat.” In other words, for five years, the leaders of the Democratic Party have been telling Americans, America’s allies and America’s enemies that their country was an aggressor nation, which had violated international law, and was in effect the “bad guy” in the war with the Saddam Hussein regime.

The first principle of psychological warfare campaigns is to destroy the moral character of the opposing commander-in-chief and discredit his nation’s cause. Yet this is a perfect summary of the campaign that has been waged for the length of this war by the entire Democratic Party leadership, Joe Lieberman being an honorable exception who was driven out of his party as a result.

The one saving grace for Democrats would be if their charges were true – if they were deceived into supporting the war, and if they had turned against it only because they realized their mistake. But this charge is demonstrably false.

In fact, the claim that Bush lied in order to dupe Democrats into supporting the war is itself the biggest lie of the war. Every Democratic Senator who voted for the war had on his or her desk before the vote a 100-page report, called “The National Intelligence Estimate,” which summarized all America’s intelligence on Iraq that was used to justify the war. We live in a democracy; consequently, the opposition party has access to all our secrets. Democrats sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which oversees all of America’s intelligence agencies. If any Democrat on that committee, including Senator John Kerry, had requested any intelligence information Iraq, he or she would have had that information on his or desk within 24 hours. The self-justifying claim that Bush lied to hoodwink the Democrats is a fraudulent charge with no basis in reality.

The Democrats changed their views on the war for one reason and one reason alone: In June 2003, a far-left Democrat named Howard Dean was poised to win the Democratic Party presidential nomination by running on the claim that America was the bad guy in the war in Iraq, and he would get us out.

The charge that Iraq was no threat is another false claim of the Democratic attack on America’s war to defend itself. Typical of Democratic Party leaders, former vice president Al Gore now says that “Iraq posed no threat” because it was a “fragile and unstable” nation. But if this were true, the same argument would apply to Afghanistan on September 10, 2001. Afghanistan is half the size of Iraq and a much poorer and unstable nation; it has no oil and its government did not invade two countries and use chemical weapons on its own citizens as Saddam did. Yet by providing a safe harbor to terrorists, Afghanistan made possible the murder of 3,000 Americans in half an hour and allowed Osama bin Laden to do what the Germans and the Japanese failed to accomplish in six years of the Second World War: kill Americans on the American soil. That’s why in February 2002, a year before the war in Iraq, Al Gore was saying that “Iraq is a virulent threat in a class by itself” and that President Bush should “push the limit” to do what was necessary to deal with Saddam Hussein.

But the most self-serving and deceptive of the lies told by the Democratic leadership is this: you can support the troops and not support the war. No you can’t. You can’t tell a 19-year old, who is risking his young life in Fallujah and who is surrounded by terrorists who want to kill him, that he shouldn’t be there in the first place; that he’s with the “bad guys” – the aggressors, the occupiers, who have no moral right to be Iraq. You can’t do that and not undermine his morale, encourage his enemies, deprive him of allies and put him in danger. And that is exactly what the Democrats have done – and all the Democrats have done – in five years of America’s war to deny the terrorists victory in Iraq. Such a party is unfit to lead this nation in war. To place it in a position to do so would be to invite a tragedy of epic proportions.


David Horowitz is the author with Ben Johnson of Party of Defeat: How Democrats and Radicals Undermined the War on Terror Before and After 9/11, just published by Spence Publishing.