Ask John McCain

Olavo de Carvalho

November 11, 2008

As a correspondent and weekly columnist for Brazilian newspapers, I have received tons of letters and phone calls from my readers demanding an answer to this question. I don’t know the answer. Only John McCain knows the answer. Only he can solve the most opaque, perhaps the most frightening political mystery of the last few decades. Please help me to obtain from him the answer to this question:

At this very moment, a man in the White House has open access to all of America’s military and diplomatic secrets, while his own life and career remain a locked secret for American citizens. Every American presidential candidate since George Washington has opened his private and professional documents to public scrutiny, making transparency, sincerity and truthfulness the first duties of the American presidency. You followed their example: We know who you are, because you showed us the documents that provided proof for every step of your personal, professional and political life. But who is Barack Hussein Obama? He does not allow anyone to see his original birth certificate, his school report, his medical records, his passport, the agenda of his meetings as a Senator, the list of the clients of his law office, the roster of the minor contributors to his electoral campaign, or even his doctoral thesis, so often alleged, ironically, to be proof of his high intellectual standards. Not even Lenin, Stalin, Hitler or Mao were so obsessively secretive. Why did you accept this living pack of secrets, concealments, veils and camouflage to pose as your normal and respectable opponent, instead of demanding of him, as was your right and your duty, the same transparency the American people have required of every presidential candidate? Why should America reveal all her classified information to a man who will not make her privy to even trivial details of his life? Why did you, to your own detriment, help your adversary sell a political behavior that was obviously uncanny, abnormal and threatening as normal, respectable and safe?

My readers in Latin America and your voters in the U.S.A. thank you for your answer.

Olavo de Carvalho



Miracles of the Obamic faith

Olavo de Carvalho

Mídia Sem Máscara, November 1, 2008

Note—Last Saturday, my son Pedro and a friend of his were verbally abused and threatened with physical aggression by a group of more than twenty Obamaniacs in downtown Richmond, Virginia, for the simple reason that my son’s friend wore a McCain-Palin T-shirt. They were able to escape in my son’s car, but were chased for several blocks by the group of fanatics. This is change we can believe in.

Nothing like this has ever been seen before in human history.

At war with revolutionary Islam, the nearly victorious country is preparing to appoint as its commander in chief a politician enthusiastically supported by Al-Qaeda1, Hamas, the Palestine Liberation Organization, Iranian president Ahmadinejad, Muhamar Khadafi, Fidel Castro2, Hugo Chávez, and by all anti-American, pro-Communist, and pro-terrorist forces of the world, without any visible exception.

It is exactly as if, at the height of the Vietnam War, America had elected a Ho-Chi-Minh sweetheart to the White House.

Yet, if you dare to suggest, even mildly, that so many enemies of the United States are in favor of Obama because he must be at least a tiny bit in favor of them, half of the American voters will say you are a hopeless racist, and a goodly portion of the other half will call you deranged, paranoid, and a conspiracy theorist.

It is forbidden to apply to Obama the old common sense rule, “The friend of my enemy is my enemy.” In order to prove their sanity, Americans must piously believe that Obama will do nothing, absolutely nothing in favor of Communists and Islamofascists who love him, but will do everything to defend the nation that he called “Nazi” and the Constitution, which, according to him, is the cause of terrible evils.

If you think that the wager on the Obamic faith is too high and that it would be more prudent to take a closer look at his life, you should realize that this has become practically impossible. He has blocked access, in the United States and in Kenya, to all his documents,3 even the ones dealing with his public life, from his birth certificate to the list of small donors to his campaign, including his student records at Harvard and Columbia, which are at the same time invoked as definitive evidence of his towering intellectual gifts, denied only, it is clear, by stubborn racists. The media deems an insult and a sick presumption any attempt to examine these papers, and three courts, from Pennsylvania, Washington, and Ohio, have already ruled that the common citizen has no right to question even the nationality of Barack Hussein Obama. One must trust his word or take leave of decent society.

But his words do not elucidate anything. He has already made up so many phony stories about his life (that he was a member of the Senate Banking Committee, that his uncle liberated Auschwitz, that his father was a goat shepherd), he has already omitted so much essential data, (that he was a member of a Socialist party, that the genocidal Raila Odinga is his cousin, that he campaigned for Odinga in Kenya, that his brother is starving in a slum in Mombasa, that his aunt is an illegal alien in the United States), and he has concealed is such a way his connections with ACORN and with terrorist William Ayers, Islamic agitator Louis Farrakhan, and the crook Tony Rezko, etc.—that to try to uncover his true biography is almost an impossible mission. His own book of memories, which won him literary fame, is of dubious authorship. Computerized tests in an authorship investigation concluded that the book was not written by Obama, but by William Ayers.

As a last resort, one can try to find something about Obama through witnesses. It is interesting what they tell. The grandmother says that he was born in Kenya and not in Hawaii, as he claims. His Kenyan brothers say that he is a Muslim and not a Christian as he claims. His sister says that he was born in one hospital, while he claims to have been born in another one. The sponsor of his studies in Harvard says that the money was provided by a well-known pro-terrorism agitator. Old friends say that he was always with Frank Marshall Davis when Davis was selling cocaine. Up to now, the only witness to be seriously disproved was a nutcase from Minnesota who said he had sexual relations with then Senator Barack Obama—which, if true, would not raise a shred of the risk to national security contained in the other depositions.

At this point, you may ask, “But why will voters trust the word of someone who has no credibility, whose birthplace is not known for certain, who hides two-thirds of his life and lies about the other third, who is loved by all those who hate the United States and clumsily conceals his affections for their friends?” In Brazil you can ask that, but if you are in the United States, ask it in a whisper. If you dare to display your suspicions in a very audible way, the government will investigate your records, in search of heinous crimes such as tax dues and unpaid traffic tickets, as it did to Joe the Plumber. Or it will send you to jail, as it did to Brent Garner, from Lawrence, Kansas. You also run the risk of having your garage vandalized4 or of being beaten, as happened to some Republican activists.5

The answer to the question on the motives of such groundless trust comprises four elements:

1. The big media, almost entirely owned by Obama’s supporters and sponsors, does not publish anything grievous that is known about him, but makes an awful uproar about the slightest trivia that may hurt the image of his adversaries.6 The double standard, which began in newspapers and TV, ended up permeating all of whole society as a normal habit. Example I: A hanged dummy of Sarah Palin was greeted by the police itself as an innocent and good-humored prank. In the following day, two kids manufactured a dummy of a hanged Obama—and they were arrested. Example II: The young Republican activist Ashley Todd, after claiming to have been robbed, spanked, and cut with a razor with a letter “B” on her right cheek as soon as her attacker noticed her McCain campaign button, suffered a barrage of insults from the media, and very quickly changed her mind and swore that she had made up the whole story. Ashley did not explain whether she had only been robbed and spanked, and made herself the cut on her face, or if there was only spanking, with no robbery or cuts, or if nothing at all happened, and she hit herself until she got a black eye and, not satisfied with the result, proceeded to carve a “B” on her own face. Even though her brief and inconsistent recantation sounded much more unbelievable than the original story, it was promptly accepted as final truth by the whole media. No more questions were asked, and it was thus proved that Republicans are mean enough to disfigure their own face only to lay the blame on a black man and, indirectly, on the most holy Barack Obama. Example III: Signs of violence against the Obama campaign had been missing, but were soon delivered. Two young skinheads who entertained thoughts of shooting Obama, without taking any action to that purpose, were denounced by their own mother. Even though it is virtually impossible to find a single skinhead in Evangelical assemblies, Catholic masses, Republican conventions, or at the Hudson Institute or Heritage Foundation, the fact is: if you wish to be considered Homo sapiens instead of a Pithecanthropus erectus, you must swear that the plan of those two idiots provides ultimate proof that the American conservative movement is racist, Nazist, and murderous by nature.

2. American society believes in the big media because it is not capable of imagining a general and systematic scam like the one that took place in Brazil when all newspapers and TV stations concealed on purpose, for sixteen years, the existence of the São Paulo Forum, the largest enterprise of political delinquency that ever existed in Latin America. As in the title of the famous Sinclair Lewis’s novel, everybody believes that It Can’t Happen Here. Well, it happened.

3. Whatever one says against Obama meets an automatic response: it is racism. Racial blackmailing is so violent, generalized and systematic that the simple fact of saying that there is racial blackmailing proves that you are a racist. Therefore, the monopoly of verbal violence remains with the Democrats, while Obama’s critics retreat behind self-limiting innuendos.

4. What Obama says does not make sense. His speeches, when not totally devoid of content, unceremoniously contradict themselves, and that is exactly why they work so well. Their content has no importance at all. It is just a filler for the active substance, which is constituted of magic appeals and hypnotic messages, in such a way that after a few minutes everyone’s intelligence is numbed to the point of accepting, without the least critical reaction, statements such as: “You will see a light shining from above. You will experience an epiphany and an inner voice will tell you: ‘I must vote for Barack Obama’.” If he proclaimed this by spontaneous faith, he would be called a madman. But as he says it in the best style of Ericksonian Neuro-Linguistic Programming, people will vote for him for president of the most powerful nation in the world.

The combined effects of these four factors are almost miracles of faith, of an atrocious surrealistic character: polls show that three out of four Americans who live in Israel prefer John McCain, but three out of every four Jews residing in the United States, away from Palestinian bombs and close to a TV tuned to CNN, prefer Obama.7



1. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=79660 and
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE49T76620081030? feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true. [back]

2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/2039018/
Barack-Obama-gets-Fidel-Castro %27s-support.html
and http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93ON3T00&show_article=1. [back]

3. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=79174 and
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines /obama_secrecy/2008/
. [back]

4. http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=203503 and
. [back]

5. http://thesilentmajority.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/
and http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1129748/
black_republican_candidate_gets _burned.html?cat=8

6. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D945SHBG1&show_article=1
and http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=79325. [back]

7. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/10/30/news/ML-Israel-McCain.php
and http://www.jpost.com/ servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017612413 &pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FshowFull.

The candidate of fear

Olavo de Carvalho

Diário do Comércio, October 24, 2008


Called “the Messiah” by radical Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan and “My Jesus” by the college associate editor of a student newspaper, Barack Hussein Obama informs us, “Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger.” What if he did not let us know?

Whatever the case, he has already performed at least one confirmed miracle: he is the first presidential candidate who has won the applause of all the enemies of the United States without it having ever aroused the least suspicion of the American establishment against him. Counted among his enthusiasts are Hamas, Iranian president Ahmadinejad, Muammar Khadafi, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, and the television station Al-Jazeera. I wonder what would have happened to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s candidacy in 1932 if he had received ostensible support from Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini.

It is true that Obama pledges to dismantle the space defense system of the United States, to slow down unilaterally the American program of nuclear research, to turn victory in Iraq into defeat, to ban new oil drilling, and to grant driver’s license and health care to illegal aliens, that patriotic mob which wants to turn Texas and California into Mexican states. But if you insinuate that any of those things is a good reason for Communists and radical Muslims to like him, the media en masse will say that you have “crossed the line” and that you are virtually guilty of a “hate crime.” Ahmadinejad has declared that the victory of the Democratic candidate in the election will give the green light to the Islamization of the world, Khadafi has proclaimed that Obama is a faithful Muslim financed by Islamite millionaires, and Louis Farrakhan, availing himself of the wave of pro-Obama enthusiasm, has announced that the Nation of Islam, the secret society of radical Muslims he presides over, which has been making slow progress for decades, is having a “new beginning,” and will be fully operational soon. The meaning of those facts is clear, but noticing it is immoral: every decent citizen has to swear that the support coming from the enemies of America is only a mistake on their part, since Obama has never given—oh, no!—the least pretext for them to sympathize with him. To insinuate any convergence of interests is to impute to Obama “guilt by association”—an act of perfidy, obviously, loaded with racial “overtones.”

Besides, any stronger word used against the black candidate is pointed out as proof of racism, and the least suggestion that there is racial blackmail in this is double proof. John McCain himself makes a point of confining the debate to the sphere of “ideas,” emphasizing that his opponent is “a decent person and a person you do not have to be scared of.”
This statement is unintentionally ironic. The thing that every American fears most, nowadays, is being suspected of thinking bad things about Barack Hussein Obama. Following the example of their leader, Republican militants are doing their best to show respect and veneration for the person of the adversary. A staffer at the John McCain campaign office in Pompano Beach, California, who posted behind his desk a sign associating Obama with Marx and Hitler was immediately fired. An Ohio citizen, who asked some tougher questions to the Democratic candidate about his tax plan, paid dearly for his boldness. He had his life rummaged through by reporters and was severely criticized for the heinous crimes of working as a plumber without a license and of not having paid a traffic fine he had incurred in Arizona eight years ago. That gives an idea of the exasperated zeal with which the mainstream media protects Barack Obama’s image. Samuel Wurzelbacher, or Joe the Plumber,—the nickname by which he has become known nationwide—draws from his experience an unavoidable conclusion, “When you can’t ask a question to your leaders anymore, that gets scary.”

This fear is not just psychological. Several Republican activists have already reportedly been beaten up by Obama supporters, McCain campaign offices in various states have been broken into and destroyed, and only police action managed to prevent, just in time, hundreds of well-trained Obama agitators, armed with Molotov cocktails, from setting fire to the buses heading to the Republican Convention in St. Paul (even so, the remainder managed to wreak quite some havoc). When a candidate employs terrorist methods, and at the same time the establishment decrees that calling him a terrorist is insanity to the utmost, it is clear that this candidate has unlimited rights. He is allowed to receive $63 million in illegal contributions from abroad, and nothing bad will happen to him. An NGO that patronizes him can flood thirteen states with fraudulent voter registrations, and woe to them who suggest that he bears some guilt in the case. In contrast, McCain was charged with criminal verbal violence for the simple fact of mentioning the widely attested link between Obama and William Ayers. A pro-McCain-Palin march, in New York, was received with every sort of insult and threat. As, on the other hand, no violence could be observed against Obama militants, it was necessary to invent a story that, in a Sarah Palin rally, somebody shouted “Kill him” after hearing Obama’s name mentioned. The police looked carefully into the tapes of the rally and concluded that nobody shouted any such thing at all.

Another intimidating factor is economic superiority. Obama’s campaign collected nothing less than $605 million in contributions. For every McCain ad, four Obama ads come out. Even more overwhelming is the free advertisement provided by the big media for the Democratic candidate.

To this day, the only newspaper of some importance that has reported the lawsuit filed by Democratic attorney Philip Berg against Obama was the Washington Times—nominally Republican—which, nonetheless, categorizes doubts about Obama’s nationality as mere “internet rumors” and, alluding to the lawsuit only in the last lines, as if it were nothing but one more rumor, omit informing that Obama, instead of presenting his birth certificate as requested by the plaintiff, preferred making use of a complex legal argumentation in order to dodge doing so. The second lawsuit on the same issue, filed in the state of Washington, is not even mentioned.

The major newspapers and television companies protect the Democratic candidate not only against his adversaries but against himself. Acts or statements that may show him in an unfavorable light are carefully omitted. In all the American mainstream media one will not find a single word about Obama’s long career as an abortion militant, let alone about the only important activity he undertook on the international level: the campaign set up, with public money, to bring into power in Kenya the anti-American and pro-terrorist agitator Raila Odinga, guilty of ordering the murder of more than a thousand of his political opponents and of conspiring with Muslim leaders to impose the Islamic religion on a Christian-majority nation. Not only did Obama help Odinga with American tax-payers’ money, and introduce him to contacts in the Senate, but spoke in his favor at rallies in Kenya. If there is something that shows the true nature of the international commitments of the Democratic candidate, it is this episode—but even Fox Newsomits touching upon the subject.

Here in the United States everybody says that Obama’s victory is certain. It seems to me that, even if Obama loses the election, he will be a winner. The party of his adversaries was already on its knees at the moment that, instead of an authentic conservative, it chose a typical liberal Republican for a candidate, a sure promise, if he is elected, of a weak administration subservient to critics, exactly like George Bush’s. After this first fit of frenzy, there followed a worse one: from the moment when Republicans, instead of filing a thousand lawsuits like that of Philip Berg, accepted as a legitimate and decent electoral adversary a candidate with no ascertained nationality, with a misty biography full of flagrant lies, aided and subsidized by the most heinous enemies of the country, it became clear that they had abdicated all sense of honor and consented to legitimate a farce. If they lose the election, they will deserve as many tears as those who preferred to allow Lula to win the presidency of Brazil rather than tell what they knew about the São Paulo Forum.

As to Obama’s campaign, its profile is clear. The amalgam of utopian promises, overwhelming advertisement, psychotic beatification of the leader, racial appeal, media control, and systematic intimidations of voters is identical in the least details with Hitler’s electoral strategy in 1933, but in order to say this in public—or even to become aware of it in a low voice—it takes more courage than one can expect from the average voter nowadays.

Translated by Alessandro Cota

Revised by Donald Hank

Veja todos os arquivos por ano