And, O’Reilly should apologize to Governor Palin. Cameron should name names. O’Reilly should send Griff Jenkins with his camera to confront each McCain staffer, demanding a live interview—putting the attacks on the record, aggressively forcing the critics out of the shadows.

Cameron’s tale of Sarah Palin falling apart after reading negative and critical news reports during the campaign doesn’t connect with what we know about the Governor. Sarah’s life story has numerous examples of taking on challenges greater than the East Coast news bias. A starting high school point guard with a fractured ankle, she plays–through the pain—in the State championship. The small town Mayor confronts the established Republican kingmakers in Alaska and knocks them off one by one. And then, after reading a critical column by Peggy Noonan, she falls apart, quickly decompensating into tears and tantrums? And further, looking at another attack, the story about Sarah not knowing Africa was a continent—hasn’t that one been used before on another political candidate?

Note to Bill O’Reilly: this was an all time low segment, “the folks” deserve better.

This new demographic is the illegal voting bloc: all those who aid or act in illegal voter activity. They register or vote more than once. They feel empowered to violate election laws—by assisting the violators (ACORN employees); by donating money under multiple false identities; by transporting others to vote (busing homeless to another state); by violating privacy laws (accessing state files for information against a citizen who ask a question); and by proudly stealing candidate campaign signs. 

Unfortunately, for America, too many Democrats are unwilling to speak out, unwilling to object. They see this growing demographic as a legitimate constituency, a constituency deserving protection; they support it as an evolving part of their electoral battle plan. Supporting these law violators as core constituents marks a descent for a political party—a pursuit of fool’s gold.

Chris Yavelow, an award-winning composer and author, worked for years developing perhaps the most comprehensive linguistics tool for authorship detection--FictionFixer.

He tested the two books allegedly by Barack Obama, his 1995 Dreams From My Father and the 2006 Audacity of Hope, through FictionFixer, concluding “They were written by different people.”

Yavelow cites a score of characteristics that change too conspicuously from one Obama book to the next. Among the characteristics are 3.8 percent use of the passive voice in 1995 to an 8.3 percent use in 2006, the Flesch Reading Ease score, the use of gender words, sentence starters, adverbs, discouraged words, sensory triggers, average words and syllables for non-dialogue sentences, and any number of other characteristics.

Did Obama write Dreams of My Father?  If he didn’t write his memoir, can we determine who did–-was it Bill Ayers—for example?

There are several persuasive and important updates to my last post (where I collected all the early articles) about the investigation by Jack Cashill into the authorship of Obama’s memoir, including:

·         Extensive analysis using “an expert system – FictionFixer—designed to track and analyze more than 250 characteristics of streams of text, in other words: books.”  This analysis offers a comprehensive report that corroborates Cashill’s research about the writing of “Dreams.”  A convincing and compelling analysis, it is an exhaustive look at the many ways this type of detective work answers the question of literary authorship.

·         A compilation described as “a summary of the evidence columnist Jack Cashill has compiled regarding the true authorship of Barack Obama”(many of his links are collected below). Part 7 of the Cashill compilation provides a link to an independent look at what Obama said about writing his book:

7. The preface

Bruce Heiden, classics professor at the Ohio State University, has done an eye-opening analysis of the introduction and preface of "Dreams from My Father" and found this writing a marvel of evasive postmodernism. The former was part of the original 1995 printing of the book, and the preface was added when it was reissued in 2004.

Heiden argues that neither document ever states that Barack Obama, the credited author of "Dreams from My Father," actually wrote the book. The preface skips straight from Obama saying he "went to work" on the book to the book's publication, while the introduction makes a vague gesture toward a writing-like event in saying that the author's interior journey "found its way onto these pages."

Heiden points out many other anomalies in the introduction and preface to "Dreams," which can be found at his weblog.

·         Excerpts from Jack Cashill’s most recent post, Science points to Ayers authorship of Obama's 'Dreams',

At the heart of my message is that Barack Obama is an impostor, the Milli Vanilli of politics , a man who has been lip-synching for the last 13 years to lyrics pre-recorded by, among others, Bill Ayers.

Exhibit A in my testimony is Obama's 1995 memoir, "Dreams From My Father." The evidence overwhelms the dispassionate observer that Bill Ayers served as chief book doctor on this fulsomely praised persona-builder.

Now, the science is coming in, from a variety of sources, and it confirms a hypothesis that is evident to anyone who cares to look: Obama had substantial help from Ayers.

That much said, there was a general feeling among people interested in this story that the public would need the confirmation of science, and not just from one source.

Fortunately, five different sets of researchers have taken the challenge to test the hypothesis that Ayers was heavily involved in the writing of "Dreams." And although there are admitted limits to this emerging science, the consensus among these researchers is noteworthy.

I am aware of a fifth stylometric analysis, soon to be released, this one from a British scholar of international repute, but here are some quick summaries from the first four. The authors' contact information could be made available on deep background for serious news sources.

"Using the chi-square statistic," observes one professor, "Obama's and Ayers's books were indistinguishable, while Obama's book was easily distinguishable from books by other authors."

Writes another analyst, using his own proprietary software, "There is a strong likelihood that the author of "Fugitive Days" ghost-wrote "Dreams From My Father" using recordings of dialog (either tape recorded or notes). Alternatively, another scenario could be possible: Ayers might have served as a 'book doctor.'"

One systems engineer writes, "The statistical style analysis performed by our research team suggests that the writing style of 'Dreams From My Father' is significantly more similar to the style observed in 'Fugitive Days' than to the style found in other works by Barack Obama such as 'Audacity of Hope.'"

He continues, "Even more interesting, when we extract those sections of 'Dreams From My Father' that Dr. Cashill believes to be Ayers' writing and treat this as a unique document, the style analysis software identifies a stronger correlation between this sample and Ayers' 'Fugitive Days' than we see between this same sample and the remainder of 'Dreams From My Father'! Thus we have reason to believe that 'Dreams From My Father' had at least two authors, and one author's measured style features more closely match those of Ayers than they match those of the other author(s)."

"Under the Q-value statistic," argues one university-based analyst who tested "Dreams" against Ayers' 2001 memoir, "Fugitive Days," "segments of 'Dreams' consistently compared as well with 'Fugitive' segments as it did with other segments of 'Dreams' itself. In contrast, 'Dreams' compared poorly with other documents."

Writes another: "The Ayers-Obama matching shows a measurable and substantial effect. It is easily and objectively distinguishable from comparison to a third document. These results achieved through good methodology should readily stimulate scientists skilled in the particular relevant fields to construct their own tests, place objective metrics on the correlation between the Ayers-Obama documents and publish results."

He adds, and I agree, "We strongly think this bears immediate investigation by the academic community at large as the initial data presented is highly suggestive that these two documents share large portions of authorship."

Here is one of the more user-friendly of the studies in pdf format, as well as my summary of the literary detective work that has taken the project this far. Those readers who have influence the media, now is the time to use it.

Related special offers:

"The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality"

"The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values"

Previous commentaries:

"Ayers' role in Obama's 'Dreams' poised to break out"

"Barack Obama: Ayers' alter ego"

"Test shows Ayers penned Obama's 'Dreams'"

"Nautical metaphors could sink Obama"

"Obama didn't write 'Dreams from My Father'"

"Roots' fraud sets standard for Obama's"

"Obama's poems show real talent level"

"More proof Ayers ghosted Obama's 'Dreams'"

Read Cashill's three-part series on Obama's "Dreams":

Part 1, "Bill Ayers' motive for penning memoir"

Part 2, "Deconstructing the text"

Part 3, "Real author of Barack book: Why it matters"

Over the years, the science of authorship analysis has improved significantly. The details and tests reported in the on-going investigation are fascinating.  These include examining the relative writing skill of Obama and Ayers, the use of distinctive verbs, the use of metaphors and similes, sentence length, and an analysis of the relative life stories of both authors.  Dr. Cashill expects additional testing results based on state of the art technology very soon.  

Mr. Cashill is close to concluding (after a lengthy enquiry, linked below) that Barack Obama had help writing “Dreams of My Father” and Bill Ayers wrote much of “Dreams.”

If Bill Ayers wrote Barack Obama’s “Dreams,” -- what else do we not know about Barack Obama?    

Barack Obama’s allies are attacking “Joe the Plumber,” deprecating his dream to buy a small business, ridiculing his goal to earn more than $250,0000 as a plumber, howling about his qualifications, his financial holdings, his lack of contact with reality; and yet, Barack Obama promises to confiscate money from the goal-oriented achievers, the investors and the savers who accumulate a nest egg likethe “Millionaire Next Door” who lives in the home he was born in, drives a ten year old car, encourages his children to finish college, paying for their education without a government subsidized loan; then Obama will redistribute their hard earned money to the complacent who have walked away from their goals and dreams, the underachievers, the non-producers.

Our community organizer, Barack Obama --  marinated in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, dedicated to Lucifer, may not only be the most liberal candidate ever, but also the least transparent -- calls it spreading the wealth around; others, looking at the number of lottery winners bankrupt one year after winning something for nothing -- call it a fantasy ideology. 

The reality -- Senator Obama is the candidate of fantasy, a fantasy ideology, campaigning on ideas that have failed in the past, ideas that have been rejected, ideas never seen to work in the real world: reforming criminal justice for juveniles by eliminating prison sentences and prosecutorial discretion to prosecute juveniles as adults for serious crimes, open borders, one payer medical care endorsed so unfavorably by all those Canadians heading to the United States every year for medical care not available to them in Canada in time to save their lives, and reforming and radicalizing education as he tried to do in Chicago during his service as Chairman on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and as a board member on the Woods Fund, redistributing tens of millions of dollars without visible student improvement, redistributing money towards programs based on a fantasy by proponents such as Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, teaching about grievances and liberation theology, rubbing raw the red and swollen sores of discontent, building a model, a “revolutionary model whose twin missions are enlightenment and liberation.”

 “Joe the Plumber” is the everyman; he is the early pioneer pushing into new territory, planning how to reach his goal like so many small business owners: the carpet layers and the contractors and the dry cleaners and the franchise food operators and the chefs; all those who plan to start a business and build it into something of substance for their children and family. Barack Obama wants to stymie that opportunity, suffocating their dreams, preventing savers from accumulating the money to take the next step, creating a make believe world where results are equal for all rather than a world where productivity and merit are rewarded based on results. He wants to turn the ship of state in a radical new direction, in a direction possibly chaotic and violent without any historical evidence of past success. Barack Obama, not Joe the Plumber, is the man living in the fantasy world.

As the story goes:

One night, Nasrudin was on his hands and knees searching for his key in a well-lit area in the centre of the street. Some of his neighbors came to see why Nasrudin was on his hands and knees.

“What are you looking for, Nasrudin?” enquired one of his neighbors.

“My door key,” Nasrudin replied.

The helpful neighbors dropped to their hands and knees and joined Nasrudin in his search for the lost key.

After a long unsuccessful search, one of the neighbors asked: “We’ve looked everywhere. Are you sure you dropped it here?”

Nasrudin answers: “Of course I didn’t drop it here, I dropped it outside my door.”

“Then, why are you looking for it here!”

“Because there is more light here!” responded Nasrudin.

For all those shining their torchlight of commentary on Governor Palin’s accent, her familiar conversational style, her colloquial use of “you betcha,” “doggone it,” and “soccer Mom,” they need to move, just like Nasrudin, to where the work is harder – they should focus on Senator Biden’s debate performance - the content of his  answers. 

Senator Obama selected the Delaware Senator to add weight and balance to his ticket. Joe Biden is his foreign policy expert. The 36 year Senator, a member of the Judiciary Committee and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee allows Barack Obama – a candidate with zero foreign policy experience – to claim he offers a balanced ticket. Unfortunately, Senator Biden gave a performance unworthy of a freshman high school civics student, raising numerous questions about his carefulness, thoughtfulness, and judgment. 

The Fox News Special Report commentator Charles Krauthammer noted seven errors on foreign policy in 60 seconds.  And National Review’s Jim Geraghty at his blog: “the Campaign Spot,” continues updating his list of Biden errors from the debate: “The Biden Error/Lie/Hallucination List (UPDATED to 22).”  His list of errors includes such topics as the role of the Vice President under the Constitution; the range of Pakistani missiles; Barak Obama’s role in West Bank Elections; and the relevance of a McCain vote against “Violence Against Women” legislation when the Supreme Court later ruled the legislation unconstitutional.

The number of errors is troubling; the confident assertiveness while giving so many incorrect answers gives pause for concern – this man could have taught P.T. Barnum a thing or two about audacity. When I review the comments about his answers, I ask myself - What has he been doing in Washington, D.C. for 36 years? Has he learned anything? If this is his best after 36 years, wouldn’t I be better off with a proven governor, a fast study, an outsider at the beginning of a learning curve with significant potential for rapid improvement, an over-achiever like the moose-hunting, point guard in the number two spot?

For me, the Senator’s crowning achievement – talk about a confidence booster that he understands my situation - was his rebuttal to the Wasilla mother of five showing he also knows how Middle America feels. His evidence – he talks to the folks at Katy’s restaurant in Wilmington. Unfortunately, the Senator must reside in a parallel universe (could Geraghty be on to something about hallucinations?) or, more troubling, he hasn’t spoken to an average “Joe Six-Pack” or anyone outside his close circle since 1990 when Katy’s Restaurant closed its doors and went out of business.

Not only is Senator Biden in the dark, but so too are many in the media; unwilling, like the Sufi, to move out from under the light and search through Senator Biden’s answers to expose him for what he is – a caricature of a serious public servant, winging it as he goes along, enjoying the ride in the Senate as much as his subsidized Amtrak commute, all the while proving the Peter Principle is alive and well.

Foreshadowing this breakdown in financial discipline, this gross abandonment of duty, this gorging at the public trough, was the Continuing Resolution passed last week for over $600 billion with over 2,200 earmarks attached and totaling over $6 billion. 

If the financial bailout is critical, if we are facing a financial event comparable to the Great Depression,  if we are on the precipice of financial ruin looking into the abyss, then, is this the best the world’s most deliberative body can do – pile on more spending, congratulating themselves for their action ahead of the House, pushing through their pet provisions, preempting the House Republican alternative, involving less debt for the taxpayer?

At this point, how anyone can believe our political class is fit to lead is beyond me. President Bush, as his term of office comes to a close, says, we are facing critical times – it isn’t the bailout that is critical, however, it is the refusal of elected officials to perform their duties in a responsible manner, their unwillingness to curb their appetite for more money at taxpayer expense, their unwillingness to accept a reality that requires fiscal discipline and setting priorities, their belief they are entitled to an unlimited right to draw upon the public’s funds to push any fantasy ideology they can imagine to create heaven on earth based on government largesse. 

Our next President will begin his term with a very different set of givens than most could have imagined just a year ago. If Senator McCain is serious about changing Washington, if he is serious about being a reformer, if he is serious about eliminating earmarks, the Republican Presidential nominee from Arizona needs to start making earmark piggy’s – especially those who have moved beyond earmarks as a gateway drug to an addiction – famous. Now.

Foreshadowing this breakdown in financial discipline, this gross abandonment of duty, this gorging at the public trough, was the Continuing Resolution passed last week for over $600 billion with over 2,200 earmarks attached and totaling over $6 billion. 

If the financial bailout is critical, if we are facing a financial event comparable to the Great Depression,  if we are on the precipice of financial ruin looking into the abyss, then, is this the best the world’s most deliberative body can do – pile on more spending, congratulating themselves for their action ahead of the House, pushing through their pet provisions, preempting the House Republican alternative, involving less debt for the taxpayer?

At this point, how anyone can believe our political class is fit to lead is beyond me. President Bush, as his term of office comes to a close, says, we are facing critical times – it isn’t the bailout that is critical, however, it is the refusal of elected officials to perform their duties in a responsible manner, their unwillingness to curb their appetite for more money at taxpayer expense, their unwillingness to accept a reality that requires fiscal discipline and setting priorities, their belief they are entitled to an unlimited right to draw upon the public’s funds to push any fantasy ideology they can imagine to create heaven on earth based on government largesse. 

Our next President will begin his term with a very different set of givens than most could have imagined just a year ago. If Senator McCain is serious about changing Washington, if he is serious about being a reformer, if he is serious about eliminating earmarks, the Republican Presidential nominee from Arizona needs to start making earmark piggy’s – especially those who have moved beyond earmarks as a gateway drug to an addiction – famous. Now.

Using the states as a laboratory, applying a competitive index to examine 16 variables for ranking the states, Graham and Solon concluded - growth in jobs, income and population were critical elements if a state were to prosper. They learned that the top three states were Texas, Florida and Arizona; noting, remarkably, “a third of all new jobs created in the last ten years were in these three states.” On the other hand, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio were the three least successful states, demonstrating that governance, taxes, and regulatory policy matter. Their conclusion is evident; the title of the article is “If You Like Michigan’s Economy, You’ll Love Obama’s.”

Repeated calls for tax cuts for the middle class are unmasked as unreal and imaginary in “Tax Cuts, Real and Imaginary, Obama's spending programs in disguise.” Gingrich and Ferrara  noting the Obama tax cut for 95% of American’s is a false promise, a deceptive ploy to transfer income from those who pay taxes to the 40% who no longer pay any share of the income tax; the top 10 percent paying 71 percent of the federal income tax though earning just 39 percent of the nation's pretax income; the bottom 60 percent of income earners together, on net, paying less than 1 percent of all federal income taxes while these workers earn 26 percent of national income.

In a third article, “Seeing through Obamanomics,” Jeff Jacoby argues that the declining number of Americans who have confidence that Barack Obama can do a better job handling the economy suggest that more Americans are beginning to understand the confiscatory, compulsory, and corroding effects of an Obama income re-distribution scheme. 

I, reluctantly, recorded the ABC interviews with Governor Sarah Palin from Day 2, despite dissatisfaction with the Charles Gibson Day 1 interview, dissatisfaction due to his demeanor and questionable preparation [my thoughts about the first interview here]. Later I ventured to watch the three programs, ABC News, “20/20,” and Nightline, watching the early news broadcast first, and then watching a portion of “20/20,” identifying issues with two segments that ended my viewing, allowing me to reach a final verdict about ABC News for this political season.

Mr. Gibson’s performance, however, was another matter. His questions about her prayer request in accord with “God’s Plan” for our troops, (described as the “Least Honest Slice of Gibson’s Plain Interview”), and the Bush Doctrine, coupled with his demeanor, were a snapshot of much that was wrong with the first installment of the interview. His questions raised many questions, demonstrating possible journalistic laziness, by failing to prepare; possible intentional deceit, ensuring the Governor of an “exact quote” when in fact it was truncated and misleading; a possible abandonment of journalistic integrity, perhaps intentionally misrepresenting the Governor’s prayer request, and a misreading of “the Bush Doctrine” [There is no Single Clear Meaning…”] [The Gibson version of “the Bush Doctrine” is really “the Daniel Webster Doctrine….”]

When the dust-up concluded, when the dust settled, reflecting back on the interview, the interview told more about Gibson. If auditioning to succeed Keith Olbermann, the recently demoted MSNBC anchor, as Obama’s newest anchor-in-chief, Gibson succeeded. We can fill the vacancy; Gibson is ready, ready to lead the minions, ready to lead “Team Obama,” ready as scold-in-chief.

How long before our current overseas oil expenditure of $700 to $800 billion a year seems like a bargain alongside a future expense of $2 or $3 trillion. Congressional demands for more spending seem limitless. Demagogues’ rail against business thereby suppressing growth and a galaxy of future decisions accumulate. No one seems willing to tackle the highest priorities such as social security and Medicare reform.

If gas is $10 a gallon, what happens to all those boomers ready to enjoy their retirement years? They never expected to spend their declining years living in a Third World country. Oh, won’t it be fun riding the down escalator!

Senator Obama praised the Germans for their courage during the Berlin airlift, but apparently failed to appreciate the perseverance of President Truman in the face of constant criticism. In a recent column, Jeff Jacoby looks at the domestic challenge Truman faced.

For President Truman, retreat was unthinkable. "We stay in Berlin, period," he decreed. Overriding the doubts of senior advisers, including Secretary of State George C. Marshall and General Omar Bradley, the Army Chief of Staff, Truman ordered the Armed Forces to begin supplying Berlin by air.

….

Yet the pressure to abandon Berlin persisted. The CIA argued that the airlift had worsened matters by "making Berlin a major test of US-Soviet strength" and affirming "direct US responsibility" for West Berlin. The airlift was bound to fail, the intelligence analysts warned. Truman didn't waver. "We'll stay in Berlin - come what may," he wrote in his diary on July 19. "I don't pass the buck, nor do I alibi out of any decision I make."

  President Truman pushed forward in the face of severe criticism, second-guessing, and attacks on his judgment by members of his administration. He answered the challenge of his day. What level of criticism would a President Obama endure? How far would he go during a period of adversity to protect America? Is there any reason to think he would he have stood firm against the type of criticism Truman encountered to save Berlin?  Yes, Senator Obama visited Germany and the images were good, but a lesson from the Berlin airlift and history – leadership is about more than images.

Lincoln stood firm during the Civil War against all the criticism while he searched for a winning military team of battle commanders.  Lincoln appeared to have little chance for re-election before he found Generals Grant and Sherman. He persevered despite the criticism.

During the troop surge in Iraq, President Bush stood firm against all the criticism. President Bush also went through a number of military commanders before he found Generals Petraeus and Odierno. He forced a reluctant Congress to support the surge and win the war. 

Senator Obama, on the other hand, opposed the President’s position on the surge. During his Iraq visit, Senator Obama when asked about the success of the surge, breathtakingly refused to admit the surge was the reason for the success in Iraq or that he would change his vote even if he knew then what he knows today.

Senator Obama praised the Germans for their courage during the Berlin airlift, but apparently failed to appreciate the perseverance of President Truman. In a recent column, Jeff Jacoby looks at the domestic challenge Truman faced.

For President Truman, retreat was unthinkable. "We stay in Berlin, period," he decreed. Overriding the doubts of senior advisers, including Secretary of State George C. Marshall and General Omar Bradley, the Army Chief of Staff, Truman ordered the Armed Forces to begin supplying Berlin by air.

….

Yet the pressure to abandon Berlin persisted. The CIA argued that the airlift had worsened matters by "making Berlin a major test of US-Soviet strength" and affirming "direct US responsibility" for West Berlin. The airlift was bound to fail, the intelligence analysts warned. Truman didn't waver. "We'll stay in Berlin - come what may," he wrote in his diary on July 19. "I don't pass the buck, nor do I alibi out of any decision I make."