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

Here in the United States the Communist Party USA has written a glowing editorial about Barack Obama.

Apparently, the Communists see a large number of similarities between their platform, and Obama's positions on the issues. As expected, the farther to the left the groups, the more they like Obama.

The Kremlin likes Obama too, apparently. In a recent radio newscast in Russia, a state-run broadcast I might add, the Russian populace was told the conflict in South Ossetia was part of a plot by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, to stop Barack Obama from being elected president of the United States.

You see, the Russians and Obama have something in common. They both see America as a sinister force in the world. Forget the fact that it is the United States that is first to respond with aid whenever a disaster happens anywhere in the world. Forget the fact that it has been the United States Military that has preserved and protected liberty in the free nations around the world, and have been a large factor in keeping the peace overall. And when Russia says the war in Georgia is purely about the break-away provinces, never mind the fact that Russian forces currently control a third of Georgian territory (much more than the land occupied by the pro-Russian provinces).

Russia has a history of being an expansionist country, and despite all of their claims of democracy and a new system, Russia has reverted to the old habits of the Soviet years. Despite the new age of information transfer available to the citizens should they plug into the internet, the Kremlin is replaying the same old song and dance on government controlled media outlets in Russia.

And, of course, the Obama angle is getting plenty of positive play.

The battle against "smear" tactics is present in any political campaign. More often than not for a candidate a smear is easily defended against because the tactic is so off-key and ridiculous that even a third grader can determine the illegitimacy of it. Usually, the strategy for handling smears is simply to produce evidence that states otherwise, or to make a statement that exposes the smear for what it really is.

Barack Obama, like any other candidate, has been the victim of a number supposed smear tactics, some of which may very well be nothing more than smears, while others may have some credibility. The problem for Barack is, however, often the supposed smear turns out to be closer to the truth than expected by the accusers. And, more often than not, Obama's campaign does not provide proof to the contrary. Or, Mr. Obama himself utters statements that are shaky at best, and sometimes even confirms the alleged smear without him even realizing it.

The so-called smear-tacticians proclaimed that Obama's church of twenty years was one of hate and anti-Americanism. Obama proclaimed that to be false. Then Reverend Wright and Father Pfleger said their peace, and suddenly Barack Obama was back-pedeling, and saying he was never at church when such anti-establishment things were said. When he realized nobody was buying it, Barry proclaimed in an interview that yes, Wright sometimes said things that were controversial, and things he did not agree with. He added, for confirmation he's like everyone else, I suppose, that "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial," and that folks don't always agree with everything their pastor says.

Part of what began the concept of religion, a man-made concept I have a serious problem with (religion is man-made, Faith in Christ is God-made), is because like-minded people tend to congregate together. If you don't agree with your pastor on something, you go out and find a church, or pastor, where you do fully agree, or you just stop attending religious services altogether. However, one basic universal principle of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father. Christ says exactly this in the New Testament Book of John, Chapter 14, Verse 6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

This brings up the next alleged smear. Barack Obama's Christianity has become a topic of consideration. Barack, after slamming Mike Huckabee for wearing his faith on his sleeve in a political campaign, is now doing everything he can to convince the public that he is a devout practicing Christian. However, in line with his good friend Oprah Winfrey, Obama has continually stated that he believes there are "many paths to Heaven." Though there are many who "claim" to be Christian that claim the same, the above verse in the Book of John is quite clear in declaring that Jesus Christ is the Only Way. Call me what you may, I didn't decide personally "that's the way it is." I am simply pointing out the scripture that confirms it. If you have a problem with it, take up your beef with God.

Amidst the questions about Obama's claim to Christianity is another bone of contention. Obama's possible ties to Islam have been the concern of many. Obama has said repeatedly that he is not a Muslim, nor has he ever been a Muslim.

I honestly believe that Obama thinks he is a Christian, firmly believing that all it takes to be a Christian is to attend a church that says it is Christian (regardless of whether or not the doctrine is truly Biblical), read the Bible before you go to bed (even if you think some verses are obscure), be baptized, say a prayer every now and then, and maybe even have an on-going conversation with God that may or may not be performed while on his knees. I don't think he has a personal relationship with Christ, based on things that he has said, but in the end, that is between him and God, so we shall leave it at that.

However, I do not like the fact that he lies and covers up bits and pieces of the "Are you Muslim" question. If he was Muslim at any point in his life, even when he was a young man and didn't have much control of how people listed him, why can't he just fess-up and admit it? I am sure the mainstream media won't give him too much grief, and I am sure folks will understand if he was a Muslim at one point, but decided not to be later. But he lies continuously, calls any accusation of anything regarding him in a manner other than magically messiah-like a smear tactic, and then later the evidence arises that he was full of crap all along. This makes him look worse than if he'd just been willing to say from the start something like, "Yeah, I was listed as a Muslim at a school in Indonesia when I was a kid, and my dad was a Muslim. But as I grew up I realized that's not what I wanted to be, so I decided to try to be a Christian," or perhaps anything along those lines.

Instead, we get from Obama, "I am not, and never have been, a Muslim."

Once again, let me indicate that his statement is a complete lie.

Evidence? The evidence is in black and white, and shown below.

What does that document say?

1. Nama murid (The name of the pupil): Barry Soetoro
2. Tempat dan tanggal lahir (The place and date of birth): Honolulu, 4-8-1961 (August 4, 1961)
3. Bangai: a. Warga negara (Citizenship): Indonesia
b. Ketarunan asing (Foriegn?): (blank)
c. Saku bangra (The pocket?): (blank)
4. Agama (The religion): Islam
5. Alamat murid (Address of the pupil): M*** Dalson? R001/R003
6. Dari sekolah mana (dipiadahkan) dan kelas becapa (From what school (dipiadahkan?) and the class becapa): ?
7. a. Diterima disekedah inl tgl. (Date Accepted): 1-1-1968 (January 1, 1968)
b. Ditermpatkan dikelas (Grade): I (First grade)
8. a. Nama grang tua Alah/Ibu (The name of the parents Mr/Ms): L. Soetoro M A (Lolo Soetoro) b. Pekerdjam (?)
(name ibu dsi, haaja djika ajah sudah meninggal) (Name of the mother ? if died)
c. Alamat (The address): M*** Dalson? R001/R003
9. a. Nama wali (The name of the guardian): (blank)
(hanja diisi, djika orang tua murid tak ada, sudah man’nggal alah karena hal lain)
(? was filled up, ? parents of the pupil were not available, already ? because another thing )
b. Pekerdjaan (???): (blank)
c. Alamat (The address): (blank)
10. Meninggalkan sekolah ini. (Left this school) : (blank)
a. Belam tamat. Keluar dari kelas (? was finished. Outside from the class): (blank) tanggal (The date)
b. Temat, menerima idjarah tanggal (?, recieved ? the date): (blank) No. (blank)
c. Melandjutkan sekolah ke (?? the school to): (blank)
11. Keterangan lsim (Information ???): (blank)

Okay, it says he was born in Honolulu, so that may be some additional evidence to clear up the Birth Certificate fiasco. . . but it lists him as being an Indonesian citizen? I wonder what the current status of that citizenship is.

His name is listed as Barry Soetoro. Does his birth certificate say Barry Soetoro? Did he ever legally change his name from Soetoro to Obama? And why did he later state in writing that his name was never any different than it is now?



So apparently Barack Obama lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names on the above document. Hmmmm, seems like "lying" is nothing new for Barack Obama.

And notice on line four of the first document above his religion is listed as Islam.

Wait, Barry, I thought you have "never been" a Muslim.

I guess his Muslim step-father (oops, that makes two Muslim dads) considered the boy’s religion to be Islam.

Hey, Barry, that's fine. If you aren't Muslim, we'll believe you, but don't lie to us and say you "never have been" Muslim. You see, Barack, in presidential candidates character is an important thing to voters, and your inability to tell the truth repeatedly (not to mention your uncanny ability to hold opposing positions on issues simultaineously) is hardly evidence of moral standards, common decency, or any semblance of strong character.