Topic category:  Other/General

Major media, Fox excepted, have not been properly scrutinizing the 2008 Democrat presidential candidate and even Fox has not done enough of that soon enough.

So...thank God for "Joe the Plumber" (Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher) and "Anita the Mom" (Anita MonCrief) coming forward and exposing the ugly truth about the Obama campaign.

Where Obama comes from really should have been apparent from Obama's statement at that private San Francisco fundraiser that Americans cling to God and guns as a result of bitterness over economic circumstances.

I'm not talking about where Obama was born, be it Hawaii or elsewhere, although it IS astonishing that a person seeking the Presidency of the United States of America has not made his birth certificate public and Obama's refusal to do so suggests he's hiding something.

I'm talking about where Obama comes from philosophically.

Let's be fair to Obama and turn to his autobiography, Dreams from My Father, for Obama on Obama: "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets."

"The Marxist Professors"!

The Soviet Union lost the Cold War to the United States and collapsed, but its allies in America's educational institutions have been teaching our children what to think and preparing the way for the election of an Obama.

America's Founders were NOT Marxists.

Karl Marx, father of Communism, on religion:

Short version:

"Religion is the....opium of the people."

Long version: "Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

The tape of that contemptible comment by Obama should have sunk the Obama presidential campaign, but that campaign is buoyed instead of scrutinized by the liberal media.

Obama surged into a lead, but then "Joe the Plumber" asked Obama a simple question and Obama, unscripted, acknowledged that he thinks the taxing power should be used to spread, or redistribute, wealth.

Obama did not misspeak.

That's what those Marxist professors and Obama believe.

Obama had pined for wealth redistribution on air back in 2001.

Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, issued the following statement on the 2001 WBEZ Chicago radio interview (available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck and here http://www.drudgereport.com) in which Obama said that one of the "failures of the civil rights movement" was that "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society":

Mrs. Long:

"In this very revealing 2001 Chicago radio interview, Senator Obama lamented that he was 'not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change by the courts' -- but not because Obama didn't want to. Rather, he said that the Warren Court 'didn't break free from the essential constraints' in the Constitution -- 'at least as it's been interpreted' -- that do not allow such judicial activism on the part of the Court. But he said that he -- unlike the Warren Court -- could 'craft theoretical justifications' for 'legally . . . bringing about economic legal change through the courts."

"Presumably, an Obama administration would try to interpret the Constitution to advance those radical legal arguments -- and an Obama Supreme Court would presumably uphold them -- that would bring about 'economic legal change through the courts.'"

"To ice the cake, Obama said in the same interview that the Warren Court 'wasn't that radical' ... I think most Americans would certainly disagree with that view of a Court that drastically undermined democracy, expanded rights for criminals with no justification in the Constitution, and implemented the social mores of the 1960s as though they were part of the text of the Constitution."

Mrs. Long is absolutely right.

Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy and author of “Obama and the Supreme Court: What’s really at stake"

"If America’s citizens care to wake up and pay attention before they elect as president a sweet-talking, moderate-posing left-wing ideologue with a history of alliances with anti-American radicals, one of the several matters they ought to think seriously about is the future of the Supreme Court. Simply put, the survival of the historic American experiment in representative government will be in serious jeopardy if Barack Obama is our next president….

"If we look to the future and take seriously the positions and principles that the five living-constitutionalists have already adopted, the Court, as it is now composed, may very well have five votes for, say, the imposition of a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, five votes for stripping 'under God' out of the Pledge of Allegiance and for complete secularization of the public square, five votes for continuing to abolish the death penalty on the installment plan, five votes for selectively importing into the Court’s interpretation of the American Constitution the favored policies of Europe’s leftist elites, five votes for further judicial micromanagement of the government’s war powers, and five votes for the invention of a constitutional right to human cloning….

"Obama’s supporters are clamoring for 'liberal lions' who will redefine the Constitution as a left-wing goodies bag, and a look at some of their leading contenders, like Yale law school dean Harold Koh (champion of judicial transnationalism and transgenderism), Massaschusetts governor Deval Patrick (a racialist extremist and judicial supremacist), and law professor Cass Sunstein (advocate of judicial invention of a 'second Bill of Rights' on welfare, employment, and other Nanny State mandates), shows that there is lots of room for Obama’s nominees to be even worse than Ginsburg and Breyer."

God forbid!

Michael J. Gaynor

Biography - Michael J. Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.

Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.

The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.

Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.

Gaynor's email address is gaynormike@aol.com.