The widely-reported selection of Eric Holder as Barack Obama’s Attorney General represents another Clinton-era retread and calls into question whether President-elect Obama is committed to “change we can believe in.”

Holder’s biggest drawback is his involvement with the Clinton pardon of billionaire fugitive Marc Rich.

Obama’s selection of Holder follows speculation that Hillary Clinton will be nominated to be his Secretary of State. Obama successfully campaigned on the idea that electing John McCain as the next president would amount to a third Bush term. If Obama keeps selecting from the Clinton “gene pool,” critics might say this is an effort to have a third Clinton term.

Holder’s biggest drawback is his involvement with the Clinton pardon of billionaire fugitive Marc Rich. Rich was the commodities trader who fled the country in 1983 to escape prosecution for tax evasion, racketeering, and trading with the enemy. As reported by Pajamas Media and elsewhere, Rich’s attorneys circumvented normal procedures, took the pardon to the White House attorneys, and gained pardon for their client, whose wife just happened to be a friend and major donor to the Clinton Library, the Democratic Party, and Clinton’s legal defense fund. A firestorm ensued as did congressional investigations in which Democrats as well as Republicans excoriated the Clintons’ conduct.

It is doubtful Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will make much of this but Republicans should — and must — demand more details about that Rich pardon, which have yet to come out.

I’ve read the reports that Hillary Clinton could be tapped by Barack Obama for the post of Secretary of State.

Will she be the one cozying up to the world’s dictators?

More than the person, I want to know the policies she would carry out. Will she be the one cozying up to the world’s dictators and, if so, what would Mrs. Clinton offer them? The only thing they want is our heads!

And since Bill Clinton has been vacuuming up the speaking fees and other monies for himself and his foundation, would the conflicts of interest be too much to tolerate, not to mention possible ethics laws violations? We don’t know the answers yet but we need to.

President-elect Barack Obama. Those are difficult words for a conservative to say. Obama ran a brilliant campaign. He defied all odds — from his lack of experience, to what some believed was the obstacle of his race. That America would elect a person of color to the White House 45 years after Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have  A Dream” speech ought to make us all proud that we are Americans.

Dr. King said people should be judged by the content of their character. We will soon learn — as will those who mean us harm in the world — the strength of Obama’s character. As a strong pro-lifer it grieves me in the extreme that Obama has promised the radical pro-abortionists he will sign “The Freedom of Choice Act,” which will strike down the few restrictions on abortion in this country. Fifty million babies and counting is a horrible price to pay for someone’s “choice.” Pro-lifers must redouble their efforts through pregnancy centers to get the truth to pregnant women that there are far better alternatives than abortion.

First Amendment purists, who have argued against restrictions on pornography and flag-burning as infringements of free speech and expression, will now try to re-instate the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” which was made for another media era in which there were far fewer information outlets. Clearly the Democrats pushing this modern form of censorship are targeting conservative talk radio hosts and certain cable news channels. They are led by New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer.

Obama could not have won without Republican help.

Keep Reading …

This has been another campaign — and election — about faith, not in God, but in politicians. Increasingly, each election cycle focuses more on promises by politicians and on what they supposedly can do for you, rather than inspiring you to do things for yourself. It is a counterfeit faith in which politicians seek to “play God,” but do a poor job of it because the original has been at it much longer and plays the role far better.

So what are we left with when the Republicans or Democrats run government? Usually it is frustration that they didn’t live up to their promises. They are incapable of doing so but that doesn’t stop our blind faith in them because they tell us what we want to hear.

I would vote for the politician of any party who said “I can’t make your life better; that’s your job” and offered me encouragement and direction in doing so. Modern politicians are no different from the snake-oil salesmen of the 19th century who hawked bottles of “miracle cure” they had that mixed that morning in their bathtubs.

The late and great contrarian, H.L. Mencken, probably said it best when he wrote, “Under Democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to prove that the other party is unfit to serve — and both commonly succeed and are right.”

Why would anyone trust a politician to do a better job of improving your life than you could, properly inspired and rightly motivated?

Barack Obama’s expensive looking infomercial was all about government and nothing about you. Oh sure, there were references to “hard working Americans,” but to Obama their hard work is not to be rewarded, especially if it produces prosperity. When that happens, Obama will tax your success and give the money to others who did not follow your example.

The infomercial was slick, but Billy Mays has more content when he pitches me to buy his product du jour. I don’t need government to make my life better. I need government to stay out of my way so I can make it better.

Where were the examples of people who have overcome? There were only those mired in defeat, misery and despair. Barack Obama’s America is a “can’t do” nation. His is not a life of consequence, only manipulation of the power structure. By contrast, John McCain knows what it’s like to be deprived, even of his freedom. His character was tested and found to be solid. Obama’s character is still being defined. It’s a roll of loaded dice to trust him with the presidency.

Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden spoke about his views on abortion in an interview with The News Journal of Delaware earlier this month. He told his home state’s newspaper “I know that my church has wrestled with this for 2,000 years.”

We saw a similar argument come from Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she charged that the Catholic Church has been “bipolar” over the centuries when it comes to abortion. She was rebuked by her bishop and now Biden has experienced the same response from his bishop, who answered him in a Letter to the Editor.

No one forces anyone into faith, but when one embraces it, one should be held accountable according to the tenets of that faith.

Biden and Pelosi are free to believe whatever they wish, of course. But they are not free to misstate doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. The church hierarchy is in charge of doctrine. If one doesn’t agree with those doctrines, one is free to leave that church. Using religion to attract the votes of faithful Catholics while denying church teachings is an affront. Serious Catholics will judge those who do such things accordingly.

Tape of a 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview with Barack Obama surfaced today. In the interview, Obama lamented that the Supreme Court did not intervene to redistribute wealth during the civil rights movement.

The Obama campaign reacted to the release of the radio interview by issuing this statement:

“This is a fake news controversy drummed up by the all too common alliance of FOX News, The Drudge Report and John McCain, who apparently decided to close out his campaign with the same false, desperate attacks that have failed for months.”

This is a case of changing the subject, or trying to. Obama said it –not FOX News, not The Drudge Report and not Sen. John McCain. In light of Obama’s much more recent comment to Joe the Plumber he clearly believes in taking money from people who have earned it and giving it to people who didn’t.

His defense is no defense at all, but a sleight of hand. Obama is being dishonest about his true intentions. That gets to character and tells us that his is flawed.

Editor’s Note: In his October 14 column in the New York Post Amir Taheri quotes from an interview he did with Jesse Jackson when he was in Evian, France last week to attend the World Policy Forum. Jackson told Taheri “although the ‘Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades’ remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.” Jackson says he is not an Obama confidant or adviser, “just a supporter.” But he also describes him as a “member of the family.”

If the quote above is accurate and in context, Jesse Jackson has again exposed himself an anti-Semite at a level far deeper than his reference to New York City as “Hymietown” some years ago.

The blaming of Jews for the world’s problems is a familiar refrain from bigots who seek to shift attention from the more difficult task of finding solutions instead of creating scapegoats. It was Hitler’s first step toward the Holocaust.

Barney Frank, who heads the House Banking Committee, is Jewish. Would Jackson include him among the “Zionists who control American policy,” or is Frank culpable for his regulatory oversight failings irregardless of his Jewishness?

What does Jackson mean that Obama is part of the “family”? Would that be the family of African-Americans, or the family of anti-Semites? If the latter, the public needs to know before the election. And especially American Jews need to know, given their support for Obama in such large numbers.

Changing American policy toward Israel is a major goal of Arab and Muslim groups inside and outside of America. They support Obama in large numbers. Bob Schieffer should ask Obama about Jackson’s remarks in tomorrow night’s debate. He should also ask him to which “family” he belongs.

When there is breathing space, a bipartisan panel from outside the federal government should be created to study the causes of the economic heart attack and recommend solutions and safeguards to guard against a future reoccurrence. Near the top of the reform list should be a prohibition against any government or quasi-government agency, such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, from creating political action committees or “PACs” and contributing money to any candidate, political party or advocacy group. A “wall of separation” must be built between the governors and the governed. The PACs of Mae and Mac were an invitation to conflicts of interest. They made overseers in Congress reluctant to oversee and invited corruption.

The modern version of old Will Rogers, the straight-talking observer of the Great Depression, is “Annie,” who famously warbled in the middle of the Depression: “The sun’ll come out tomorrow.” Optimism has always been the fuel that has driven America’s financial and creative engine. The media are chauffering the Obama limo. If he wins, watch for things to suddenly improve, the waters part and the Hallelujiah chorus to start singing! Where is the leader who will say “suck it up America. We have been through far worse”?