Lessons in Government - Page 2

A Black American's Perspective on Why Barack Obama is not Good For America

"I urge you, don't put your race before your principles, before the truth, before your family, and before your country." -- William Owens, Jr.

You've read David Freddoso's "The Case Against Barack Obama."

Then, you read Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation."

NOW you need to read it from a Black American's perspective:

Author William Owens, Jr. uniquely addresses the devastating "mindset" of Black America, which is to abdicate their core principles and beliefs for the addictive "feel good" words of a politician. And, polls are proving this out.

According to one Gallup Poll, an explosive 91 percent of Black Americans support Obama.

Owens argues that electing Obama as president will not only radically impact our society - in terms culture, traditions, and beliefs - and weaken our national security, but he will also set back Black America for decades to come.

"Obama: Why Black America Should Have Doubts" analyzes in depth:
• Who is Barack Obama?
• What does he believe? How does this differ with Black America's interests?
• How does Obama stand up in a side-by-side comparison with Martin Luther King, Jr.?
• What has Obama committed to do if elected?
• How will Obama's tax-laden agenda actually hurt Black America? All America?
• Are Black Americans hurting themselves by being too focused on race?
• How can Black America - and all America - preserve our foundation?

Owens confesses,

"I recognize that I could be branded for the rest of my life for taking an unpopular stand against the first Black American to run for President of the United States. Nevertheless, I willingly accept the mantle that has fallen on me, and I am at peace with my decision because I must speak out."

"Through the writing of this book, my family and I are attempting to speak directly to Black American families. However, let it also be a clarion to all Americans."

With less than 7 weeks to go before the election, this is a "must read" - and "must give" - book.

"For those who suggest that Barack Obama advances the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, I say look again. His politics are anathema to the dream!" -- Dr. Alveda King (Niece to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.)

"The idea that so many Bible believers would consider choosing their racial ethnicity over their Christian ethics is alarming. William Owens, Jr. candidly brings eternal truths into the election 2008 discussion. 'Obama - Why Black America Should Have Doubts' is thoughtful, bold and refreshing." -- Star Parker, Author & Syndicated Columnist

Star-Parker-small

Star Parker

"Dr. King challenged us to judge a man not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. William Owens, Jr. is a rare Black American willing to hold Barack Obama to that necessary standard." -- Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Author of "SCAM: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America"; Founder and President of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny

jesse-peterson-small

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson

"Obama: Why Black America Should Have Doubts" by  William Owens, Jr.

Wm-Owens-Formal-Pic-Small

William Owens, Jr.
(Article & book information: http://www.higherstandardpublishers.com/obamabook.html)
 
Senator Obama’s answer to the ills of society, of higher government spending, weaker national defense, continued tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, and support of gay marriage, are diametrically opposed to everything African Americans truly believe and an anathema to the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. -- from the foreword by Dr. Alveda King (Niece to the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.)
 
William has cognately written this book where words cut like a two edged sword through rhetoric, political illusion and subtle deception. William has put on the glasses of truth like it says in Psalms 119:113 – I hate vain thoughts: but thy law do I love. This book acts like acts as a crucible where rhetoric is separated from truth. We might not like what his book uncovers but we must confront the truth as it is.
Dr. Edward Holliday, Dentist

Your book is excellent!! It's well researched, well written and beautifully published. Congratulations! -- Alice Patterson (Justice at the Gate author)

“Dr. King challenged us to judge a man not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. William Owens, Jr. is a rare Black American willing to hold Barack Obama to that necessary standard.” -- Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Author: SCAM, How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America

As a Black American, I have developed serious doubts about Senator Barack Obama. Based on what I have seen, read and heard, I have come to view him as potentially dangerous – for our country and in particular for Black Americans.

Obama’s handsome features, physical stature, and eloquence combine to make him a charismatic politician. You must admit this can be a deadly combination for us as Black Americans. In my view, we tend to have an addiction to “feeling good.” We are easily satisfied with goose bumps that go no deeper than our first layer of skin. We are often afraid to look deeper – beyond the obvious – because then we would have to be responsible for our choices and refute the belief that a person who looks like us will automatically “take care of us.” It is the Black mindset that presses upon us to say, "Give the brother a chance.”

On one level I confess I understand this tendency, yet we as Black Americans must move beyond this. Would you let someone you did not know enter your family circle to date your daughter in order to “give him a chance?” I doubt you would. Therefore, does it make sense to vote for Barack Obama for the same reason? Do you really want to vote someone into the highest office in the land just to “give the brother a chance?”
 
The purpose of this book is to challenge you as a Black American to look deeper at Barack Obama the man, his voting record, and his position on the important issues facing our country, which, unfortunately, seem to change with the next newscast.

I believe when you take time to look closely and dispassionately – and if you are truly honest with yourself – you will see a politician who is charismatic but seriously devoid of the kind of experience that qualifies him to be President of the United States. I think you will see a young man who is anything but candid about who he is, what he really believes, and who his associates are. Under real scrutiny Barack Obama emerges as a continuously morphing, media-made cyborg candidate.
 
One is left asking “Who or what is behind the Barack Obama phenomenon?” I’m not alone in this assessment. I cannot tell you how many discussions I have had with both prominent and ordinary Black Americans who have expressed serious doubts about Barack Obama and where he will take us as a society and as a nation.

I urge you, don't put your race before your principles, before the truth, before your family, and before your country.

About the Author:
William Owens, Jr. is an accomplished author of seven books. He is president and founder of Higher Standard Enterprise, Inc. a multi-media company that is diversified into publishing, production and vision oriented pursuits. He is also Co-Founder of Black Americans for Real Change (http://www.blackarc.org/). Owens is a proud American and believes that a committed godly standard is imperative to keep Americans free. He and his wife, Selena, have been married for twenty-three years. They are the proud parents of four children and resides in North Carolina.


Idols of Crowds
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, September 16, 2008

columnistsSowell1

"A human group transforms itself into a crowd when it suddenly responds to a suggestion rather than to reasoning, to an image rather than to an idea, to an affirmation rather than to proof, to the repetition of a phrase rather than to arguments, to prestige rather than to competence."

Jean-François Revel was not referring to the United States when he wrote those words, nor to his own France, but to human beings in general. He was certainly not referring to Barack Obama, whom he probably never heard of, since Revel died last year.

To find anything comparable to crowds' euphoric reactions to Obama, you would have to go back to old newsreels of German crowds in the 1930s, with their adulation of their fuehrer, Adolf Hitler. With hindsight, we can look back on those people with pity, knowing now how many of them would be led to their deaths by the man they idolized.

The exultation of the moment can exact a brutal price after that moment has passed. Nowhere is that truer than when it comes to picking the leader of a nation, which means entrusting that leader with the fate of millions today and of generations yet unborn.

A leader does not have to be evil to lead a country into a catastrophe. Inexperience and incompetence can create very similar results, perhaps even faster in a nuclear age, when even "a small country"-- as Senator Obama called Iran-- can wreak havoc anywhere in the world, when they are led by suicidal fanatics and supply nuclear weapons to terrorists who are likewise suicidal fanatics.

Barack Obama is truly a phenomenon of our time-- a presidential candidate who cannot cite a single serious accomplishment in his entire career, besides advancing his own career with rhetoric.

He has a rhetorical answer for everything. Those of us who talk about the threat of Iran are just engaging in "the politics of fear" according to Obama, something to distract us from "the real issues," such as raising taxes and handing out largesse with the proceeds.

Those who have studied the years leading up to World War II have been astonished by how many people and how many countries failed to see what Adolf Hitler was getting ready to do.

Even though Hitler telegraphed his punches, few people seemed to get the message. Books about that period have had such titles as "The Gathering Storm" and "Why England Slept."

Will future generations wonder why we slept? Why we could not see the gathering storm in Iran, where one of the world's leading oil producers is building nuclear facilities-- ostensibly to generate electricity, but whose obvious purpose is to produce nuclear bombs.

This is a country whose president has already threatened to wipe a neighboring country off the map. Does anyone need to draw pictures?

When terrorists get nuclear weapons, there will be no way to deter suicide bombers. We and our children will be permanently at the mercy of the merciless.

Yet what are we talking about? Taxing and spending policies, socking it to the oil companies and rescuing people who gambled on risky mortgages and lost.

Are we serious? Are we incapable of adult foresight and adult responsibility?

Barack Obama of course has his usual answer: talk. Rhetoric seems to be his answer to everything. Obama calls for "aggressive" diplomacy and "tough" negotiations with Iran.

These colorful adjectives may impress gullible voters but they are unlikely to impress fanatics who are willing to destroy themselves if they can destroy us in the process.

Just what is Senator Obama going to say to Iran that has not been said already? That we don't want them to develop nuclear weapons? That has already been said, every way that it can possibly be said. If talk was going to do the job, it would already have done it by now.

Go to the United Nations? What will they do, except issue warnings-- and when these are ignored, issue more warnings?

But what does Obama have besides talk -- and adoring crowds?


Click here to see Obama telling what he thinks of the Bible and the people who read it.

Click here to see a short movie excerpt about people who mindlessly worship policians vs Zombies.


Letter to the Editor from a Cuban
From Richmond Times-Dispatch, Monday, July 7, 2008

Dear Editor, Times-Dispatch:

'Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice.  On June 30 I celebrate my independence day, and on July 4 I celebrate America's. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.

'On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba, and a few months later, I was in the United States to stay.  That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

'I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year.  The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there.  In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right.  So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

'When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him.  They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in.  When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed.  When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said, 'Praise the Lord.' And when the young leader said, 'I will be for change and I'll bring you change,' everyone yelled, 'Viva Fidel!'

'But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away.  By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed.  By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status.  By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes.  You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans.  And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.

'Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change?  How will you carry it out?  What will it cost America?

'Would we?'

Manuel Alvarez, Jr.
---

This really makes you think about November 4th.
I know that many of you are sick and tired of all this political BS but if you read just one more thing between now and next month's election, I urge you to read the following editorial.

To Barack Hussein Obama,

The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008, that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.

The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008, that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko 20 than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.

Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008, about "race" contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America. While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.

In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without "preparations" at lower levels (Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin) while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered "I would" to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without "any" preconditions. While your judgement about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.

On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgement about military strategy as a potential commander-in-chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.

You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal, while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately -- not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim. While your judgment about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.

You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar -- and it failed. The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republic ans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.

In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a "Captain" of a platoon in Afghanistan "the other day" when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan. You lied in that debate.

In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a "professor of Constitutional law" when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you "taught a law class" and never mentioned being a "professor of Constitutional law." You lied last spring.

You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn -- and he was right: corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden. You lied to America.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.

You did not take an active role in the rescue plan. You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn (who all helped cause the financial problems of today, and they all made major contributions to your campaign). While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.

You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator -- and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America.

During your campaign, you said: "typical white person." "They cling to their guns and religion." "They will say that I am black." You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as racist. You divide America.

You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America, but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will cost America $1 trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq) can pay for it. While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America.

The drain to America's economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You are lying to America.

Mr. Obama, you claimed that you "changed" your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republicans (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America.

Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA. They eliminated religion from our history. They teach pro-gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade and encourage sexual and homosexual experimentation -- in fact, an alarming number of teachers are having sex with the students! They bring their personal politics into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves, not America. Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers / professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving America.

Oh, Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else.
Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric. You talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.

1. You lied to America. You lied many times. You distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer.

2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.

3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.

4. You divide America about race and about class.

Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race baiting, and associations to John McCain: War hero. Annapolis graduate with "Country first." Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy officer for 22 years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.

Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated. Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.

Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty.

Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? Of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty?
Because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security -- and you are preying on their fears with empty promises, and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for "change" like the Germans who voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you -- your style has camouflaged your dishonesty -- but many of us see you for who you really are and we will not stop exposing who you are every day -- forever if it is necessary.

Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.

Mr. Obama, America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future.

Mr. Obama, you are not the "change" that America deserves. We cannot trust you.

Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander-in-chief.

Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements. And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race baiting, lack of operational leadership experience, and generally dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention from your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves -- just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon: Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those men lied about the events. False witness, perjury -- your relationships and bad judgements are bad on their own, but your lies are even worse.

Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in America before it is too late. We need to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are before election day.

Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help America if we deserve you.

Michael Master

McLean, Virginia


Catching Wild Pigs

A chemistry professor in a large college had some exchange students in the class.  One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back.  He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?'

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.

The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming.

When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a time.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Also, if you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut!

In this 'very important' election year, listen closely to what the candidates are promising you! Just maybe you will be able to tell who is about to slam the gate on America.

'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.' - Thomas Jefferson

For more on how the "utopian experiment" of communism took the lives of over 100 million innocent souls in the 20th century, see the recently published The Black Book of Communism (Harvard University Press.) for a  precisely documented account of this unprecedented -- and as yet unpunished -- outrage against humanity.
---

The Enemy Within -- Cicero

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
"For the traitor appears not a traitor – he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear." – Marcus Tullius Cicero 42 B.C

---

What is Marxism?

Marxism is an economic and social system based upon the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. While it would take veritably volumes to explain the full implications and ramifications of the Marxist social and economic ideology, Marxism is summed up in the Encarta Reference Library as “a theory in which class struggle is a central element in the analysis of social change in Western societies.” Marxism is the antithesis of capitalism which is defined by Encarta as “an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit.” Marxism is the system of socialism of which the dominant feature is public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

Under capitalism, the proletariat, the working class or “the people,” own only their capacity to work; they have the ability only to sell their own labor. According to Marx a class is defined by the relations of its members to the means of production. He proclaimed that history is the chronology of class struggles, wars, and uprisings. Under capitalism, Marx continues, the workers, in order to support their families are paid a bare minimum wage or salary. The worker is alienated because he has no control over the labor or product which he produces. The capitalists sell the products produced by the workers at a proportional value as related to the labor involved. Surplus value is the difference between what the worker is paid and the price for which the product is sold.

An increasing immiseration of the proletariat occurs as the result of economic recessions; these recessions result because the working class is unable to buy the full product of their labors and the ruling capitalists do not consume all of the surplus value. A proletariat or socialist revolution must occur, according to Marx, where the state (the means by which the ruling class forcibly maintains rule over the other classes) is a dictatorship of the proletariat. Communism evolves from socialism out of this progression: the socialist slogan is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” The communist slogan varies thusly: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

What were the Marxist views of religion? Because the worker under the capitalist regimes was miserable and alienated, religious beliefs were sustained. Religion, according to Marx was the response to the pain of being alive, the response to earthly suffering. In Towards a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1844), Marx wrote, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feeling of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless circumstances.” Marx indicated in this writing that the working class, the proletariat was a true revolutionary class, universal in character and acquainted with universal suffering. This provided the need for religion.

For more information, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Marxism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_Marxism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_communism
---

Barack Obama Lauded by Marxists
by Michael Gaynor
March 16, 2008

The Soviet Union collapsed, but Marxists did not disappear. For example, the Castro brothers still run Cuba, Daniel Ortega is back in charge of Nicaragua and African Marxists are vying for power in their homelands.

Unsurprisingly, Marxists from Africa to the Americas are lauding young Barack Obama as their "agent of change."

In Kenya, Raila Odinga, Barack's cousin, just secured the prime ministership after violent protests of the re-election of his rival, President Kibaki, in a disputed race with Odinga that suggest that Virginia Governor and current Richmond, Virginia Mayor Doug Wilder's warning of rioting if Democrat superdelegates don't rubberstamp Barack should be taken seriously.

The New York Times: "Rono Kibet, an [Odinga] supporter who less than two months ago was burning down the houses of members of Mr. Kibaki’s ethnic group, said: 'We will now stop the fighting. The agreement is very good.'"

"Good" from the perspective of that reported arsonist!

A source familiar with Kenyan politics warns Americans to look into Barack's Kenyan connections before they leap:

"--Raila Odinga is of the Luo tribe to which Obama's late African-Arab Muslim father belonged. Obama's older brother still lives there; Abongo 'Roy' Obama is a Luo activist and militant Muslim who argues that the black man must liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture. He urges his younger brother, Barack, to embrace his African heritage. Barack Obama has a Kenyan grandmother [my note: according to Kenyan usage, not a biological grandmother] and several African brothers and sisters as well.

"--Raila Odinga is Barack Obama's cousin.... Listen to Odinga interview with BBC reporter:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7176683.stm

"--Obama interrupted his New Hampshire campaigning to speak by phone with Odinga, and he did not speak with Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki. Would Obama put African tribal or family interests ahead of U.S. interests? (Investors Business Daily).

"--Odinga explained to another reporter that Obama would call him up to three times a day to check on the election in Kenya. It was controversial, you see. Raila Odinga is a Marxist, and he wants to make a majority Christian Kenya embrace Islamic customs: he wants Sharia law, and he made a pact with an Islamic hard-line group (their terrorist group name is on the Internet) to enforce this law as they see fit. Odinga wants to establish Sharia courts throughout the country; vows to ban booze, pork, and impose Muslim dress codes on women--moves highly favored by Barack Obama's older brother, Abongo 'Roy.'

"--Odinga claimed the election was rigged when he lost, then there were riots and a sort of civil war, but it was the Christians who were getting killed by the Muslims. Christians were burned alive in churches and they were macheted in the streets. It is reported that 1,000 people were killed when all was said and done. Right now, Odinga is claiming the presidency and fighting to be sole president, and in a diplomatic effort, the powers that be allowed him to be co-president until the election is figured out.

"--Odinga also had an interesting political strategist help with his campaign, an American, who used to be a campaign employee of Bill Clinton's. It is the first time that an American poitical strategist has worked on any Kenyan campaign. Recommended by Barack Obama? [Note: That strategist is Dick Morris. Ask him!}

"--Raila Odinga's official presidential website is similar to Barack Obama's, and Odinga's main campaign message and slogan is: CHANGE. Vote for Change. Agent of Change. Look at his website: http://www.raila07.com/

"Furthermore, Raila Odinga has close ties to an oil big shot: Sheik Abdullahi Abdi (oil $) chairs NAMLEF (National Muslim Leaders Forum) which Odinga signed a then secret pact with. (The document is actually available online.) This man has connections to Libyan socialist leader Muammar al-Gaddafi, who financially backed and supported Raila Odinga's campaign.

"--Also, Raila Odinga was educated in communist E. Germany, and his father Oginga Odinga led the communist opposition during the Cold War.

"--With al-Qaida strengthening its beachheads in Africa--from Algeria to Sudan to Somalia--the last thing the West needs is for pro-Western Kenya to fall into the hands of Islamic extremists."

The Castro brothers aren't the only Marxists in the Americas rooting for Barack.

This year International Herald Tribune celebrated Valentine's Day by published an AP article reporting the delight of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega with the Obama campaign.

AP: "MANAGUA, Nicaragua: President Daniel Ortega, who led the 1979 revolution in Nicaragua, says Barack Obama's presidential bid is a 'revolutionary' phenomenon in the United States.

"'It's not to say that there is already a revolution under way in the U.S. ... but yes, they are laying the foundations for a revolutionary change,' the Sandinista leader said Wednesday night as he accepted an honorary doctorate from an engineering university.

"Ortega led a Soviet-backed government that battled U.S.-supported Contra rebels before he lost power in a 1990 election. He returned to office last year via the ballot box.

"In statements broadcast on Sandinista Radio La Primerisima, Ortega said he has 'faith in God and in the North American people, and above all in the youth, that the moment of great change in the U.S. will come and it will act differently, with justice and equality toward all nations.'"

With Marxists speaking of their "faith in God," perhaps even Chris Matthews will think twice about blithely accepting as true whatever someone says about their attitude toward religion.

But don't count of Chris. Check things out for yourself.
---

Thomas Sowell on Marxism
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:42 AM  

This morning, I finished reading Thomas Sowell's Marxism: Philosophy and Economics. In some ways, the book was quite frustrating. The discussion of Marxist philosophy was too basic, while the elucidation of the economics came across as little more than a series of floating abstractions. Although Sowell did offer some interesting arguments about the proper interpretation of Marx and Engles, the first eight chapters weren't all that enlightening by themselves. The ninth chapter on the lives of Marx and Engles was revealing in a disturbing kind of way, but it was the tenth chapter which was most philosophically illuminating.

In that final chapter, Sowell focuses on the great errors in the economic theories advanced by Marx and Engles. He argues that the central concept of "exploitation" depends upon the notion of "surplus value" -- and that this "crucial concept in the Marxian theoretical framework was insinuated rather than explicitly established, either logically or empirically" (190). Sowell writes:

As introduced in the fist volume of Capital, surplus value was defined simple as an "increment or excess over the original value" invested in production. From this definition, Marx glided quickly to the conclusion that labor was the factor responsible for this increment in value or of output... It was an assumption deeply embedded in classical economics... [an assumption] devastated by the new conceptions and analyses introduced by neo-classical economics while Capital was in its decades-long process of being prepared for publication.

As a theoretical system, Marxian economics begins the story of production in the middle--with firms, capital, and management already in existence somehow, and needing only the addition of labor to get production started. From that point on, output is a function of labor input, given all the other factors somehow already assembled, coordinated, and directed toward a particular economic purpose... [But] where there are multiple inputs, the division of output by one particular input is wholly arbitrary (190).

(I love the emphasis Sowell places on the somehow in this passage, as it reminds me of Ayn Rand's own characterization of the economics espoused by the looters in Atlas Shrugged.)

A few pages later, Sowell summarizes thusly: "Once output is seen as a function of numerous inputs, and the inputs are supplied by more than one class of people, the notion that surplus value arises from [the] labor [of the proletariat] becomes plainly arbitrary and unsupported (192)."

In addition to stressing the importance of the "managerial ability and entrepreneurial innovation" ignored by Marx, Sowell also notes the importance of "worker's skills and experience" as a form of capital (194). Thus Marx engages in the "fundamental fallacy" of "narrowly conceiving capital to mean physical equipment rather than the human capital which may be vastly more valuable and far more widely dispersed" (195).

Sowell notes that Marx's method of starting in the middle allowed him to "repeatedly ignore the importance of knowledge and risk in explaining the phenomena of a capitalist economy" (198). How so? Because his analysis began with "surviving capitalist firms," i.e. "firms that had correctly estimated consumer demand" and were now "waiting to hire workers," Marx "ignored the key implication of failing firms (a majority of all firms in the long run)--that risk is inherent in anticipating consumer demand, and that profit derives from successfully assuming that risk, rather than from merely hiring people to perform the mechanical aspects of producing goods (198)." After all, "failing firms also hire workers--but their very failure shows that that is no guarantee of receiving surplus value" (198).

Sowell is careful not to blithely attribute the evils of 20th century communism to the communism advocated by Marx and Engles. But he does draw out a number of significant connections which render them both substantially responsible for the horrors of communism in practice. For example, he notes that "the fact that Marx and Engles refused to draw up details of such a [communist] society in advance constituted virtually a blank check for their successors" (206). In addition, "whatever Marx intended, the actual effect of the doctrine of historical justification was to provide wide latitude for the most sweeping violations of every moral principles and every sense of decency and humanity" (207).

Perhaps the most telling example of Marx's ideas in practice is the results of Lenin's early acceptance of the somehow approach to all but labor, as indicated by this quote from State and Revolution cited by Sowell:

Capitalist culture has created large-scale production, factories, railways, the postal service, telephones, etc., and on this basis the great majority of the functions of the old "state power" have become so simplified and can be reduced to such exceedingly simple operations of registration, filing, and checking that they can be easily performed by every literate person, can quite easily be performed for ordinary "workmen's wages", and that these functions can (and must) be stripped of every shadow of privilege, of every semblance of "official grandeur."

In fact, Sowell observes that:

The early history of the Soviet Union provided the most dramatic empirical refutation of the Marxian assumption that management of economic enterprises is something to be taken for granted as occurring somehow. When economic incentives were drastically reduce or abolished in the heady egalitarian period following the Bolshevik revolution, the Soviet economy ground to a halt. Widespread hunger and a halt to vital services forced Lenin to resort to his "New Economic Policy" that restored the hated capitalist practices. The later nationalizing of all industry under Stalin and his successors did not restore egalitarianism. Quite the contrary. There were highly unequal rewards to management, including today whole systems of special privilege stores to which ordinary Soviet workers have no access. Moreover, the managers of Soviet industry have been disproportionately the descendants of the managerial class of earlier Soviet and czarist times (193).

Then comes the noteworthy conclusion:

Many observers have seen these developments as mere betrayals of Marxist ideals, missing the more fundamental point that a crucial false assumption must be corrected in practice if people are to survive. Its continuing sacredness in theory can only produce hypocrisy. The betrayal may be real, but in Marxian terminology, "no accident." A similar process is occurring in China, to which many Western Marxists transferred their hopes after disillusionment with the Soviet Union. This too is seen as simply a betrayal of Mao by Deng, rather than a nation's painful learning from experience that a key assumption of Marxian economics is false (193-4).

The gross falsehoods of Marx's communism is why the lament commonly heard from so many communist sympathizers -- that "true" communism was never put into practice -- ought to be rejected. In fact, the ideals of communism -- collectivism, dialectical materialism, the evils of capitalism, the idea of labor as the source of all surplus value, the goal of reshaping of man's nature, the principle of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need," and so on -- were substantially put into practice by the communist regimes of the 20th century. The fact that the result was widespread starvation, forced labor camps, unbearable misery, totalitarian police states, and mass death is hardly a reason to think that the more consistent application of these ideas would result in blissful paradise.

Sadly, in spite of the overwhelming evidence provided by the Soviet Union, Red China, Cambodia under Pol Pot, and other countries devastated by communism, far too many Western intellectuals remain in thrall to Marxist ideals. As for the possibility of the honest Marxist professor, if the millions of dead under communist regimes do not constitute reason enough for a harsh look at the ideals of communism, then no facts and no arguments could possibly persuade them to abandon their precious ideology. Facts and reasons themselves have ceased to matter to such a person, however civilized, amiable, or open they may appear.

And this leads me to a final criticism from Thomas Sowell about the ways in which Marxism promotes the rationalizations which help sustain it:

Philosophic materialism, in its social environmental version, also provides ways of dismissing ideas according to their supposed origins--"bourgeois," for example--instead of confronting them in either factual or logical terms. Grandly dismissing opposing views as "outmoded" or consigning them to "the dustbin of history" eliminates the need to think about them or to meet their challenge to one's existing presuppositions. Such practices have spread well beyond Marxists. Much of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many--inside and outside its ranks--to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of its enduring strengths as a political doctrine, as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways (208-9).

In other words, the ideology of Marxism is explicitly hostile to intellectual honesty. So it's no wonder that committed Marxists persist -- at least within the protected walls of academia -- to this day.
---

From Marxism to the Market
by Thomas Sowell  (January 2, 2002)

columnistsSowell

How and why had I changed from a young leftist to someone with my present views, which are essentially in favor of free markets and traditional values? In a sense, it was not so much a change in underlying philosophy, as in my vision of how human beings operate.

Back in the days when I was a Marxist, my primary concern was that ordinary people deserved better, and that elites were walking all over them. That is still my primary concern, but the passing decades have taught me that political elites and cultural elites are doing far more damage than the market elites could ever get away with doing.

For one thing, the elites of the marketplace have to compete against one another. If General Motors doesn't make the kind of car you want, you can always turn to Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, and others. But if the Environmental Protection Agency goes off the deep end, there is no alternative agency doing the same thing that you can turn to.

Even when a particular corporation seems to have a monopoly of its product, as the Aluminum Company of America once did, it must compete with substitute products. If Alcoa had jacked up the price of aluminum to exploit its monopoly position, many things that were made of aluminum would have begun to be made of steel, plastic and numerous other materials. The net result of market forces was that, half a century after it became a monopoly, Alcoa was charging less for aluminum than it did at the beginning. That was not because the people who ran the company were nice. It was because market competition left them no viable alternative.

How you look at the free market depends on how you look at human beings. If everyone were sweetness and light, socialism would be the way to go. Within the traditional family, for example, resources are often lavished on children, who don't earn a dime of their own. It is domestic socialism, and even the most hard-bitten capitalists practice it. Maybe some day we will discover creatures in some other galaxy who can operate a whole society that way. But the history of human beings shows that a nation with millions of people cannot operate like one big family.*

The rhetoric of socialism may be inspiring, but its actual record is dismal. Countries which for centuries exported food have suddenly found themselves forced to import food to stave off starvation, after agriculture was socialized. This has happened all over the world, among people of every race. Anyone who saw the contrast between East Berlin and West Berlin, back in the days when half the city was controlled by the Communists, can have no doubts as to which system produces more economic benefits for ordinary people. Even though the people in both parts of the city were of the same race, culture and history, those living under the Communists were painfully poorer, in addition to having less freedom.

Much the same story could be told in Africa, where Ghana relied on socialistic programs and the Ivory Coast relied more on the marketplace, after both countries became independent back in the 1960s. Ghana started off with all the advantages. Its per capita income was double that of the Ivory Coast. But, after a couple of decades under different economic systems, the bottom 20% of people in the Ivory Coast had higher incomes than 60% of the people in Ghana.

Economic inefficiency is by no means the worst aspect of socialistic government. Trying to reduce economic inequality by increasing political inequality, which is essentially what Marxism is all about, has cost the lives of millions of innocent people under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others. Politicians cannot be trusted with a monopoly of power over other people's lives. Thousands of years of history have demonstrated this again and again.

While my desires for a better life for ordinary people have not changed from the days of my youthful Marxism, experience has taught the bitter lesson that the way to get there is the opposite of what I once thought.

*[Editor's Comment: Capitalism Magazine disagrees with the argument that only if people were more noble enough that socialism would be ideal. The truth is the reverse: it is because people can be rational (and must be in rational in order to be productive), that capitalism is the ideal.]

---
Obama's Marxism
Tue Jul 29, 2008

columnistsSowell

Election '08: A plan by Barack Obama to redistribute American wealth on a global level is moving forward in the Senate. It follows Marxist theology -- from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

We are citizens of the world, Sen. Obama told thousands of nonvoting Germans during his recent tour of the Middle East and Europe. And if the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) he has sponsored becomes law, which is almost certain if he wins in November, we're also going to be taxpayers of the world.

Speaking in Berlin, Obama said: "While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history."

What the 20th century really showed was a series of totalitarian threats -- from fascism to Nazism to communism -- defeated by the U.S. military. Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan and the Soviet Union offered destinies we did not share.

Our destiny of peace and freedom through strength was not achieved by a transnationalist fantasy of buying the world a Coke and singing "Kumbaya."

Obama's Global Poverty Act offers us a global socialist destiny we do not want, one that challenges America's very sovereignty. The former "post-racial" candidate obviously intends to be a post-national president.

A statement from Obama's office says: "With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces. It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter and clean drinking water."

These are worthy goals, but note there's no mention of spreading democracy, expanding free trade, promoting entrepreneurial capitalism or ridding the world of despots who rule and ravage countries such as Zimbabwe and Sudan.

Obama would give them all a fish without teaching them how to fish. Pledging to cut global poverty in half on the backs of U.S. taxpayers is a ridiculous and impossible goal.

His legislation refers to the "millennium development goal," a phrase from a declaration adopted by the United Nations Millennium Assembly in 2000 and supported by President Clinton.

It calls for the "eradication of poverty" in part through the "redistribution (of) wealth of land" and "a fair distribution of the earth's resources." In other words: American resources.

It's a mantra of liberals that the U.S. is only a small portion of the world's population yet consumes an unseemly portion of the planet's supposedly finite resources. Never mentioned is the fact that America's population, just 5% of the world's total, also produces a stunning 27% of the world's GDP -- to the enormous benefit of other countries. Nonetheless, their solution is to siphon off the product of our free democracy and distribute it.

We already transfer too much national wealth to the United Nations and its busybody agencies. Obama's bill would force U.S. taxpayers to fork over 0.7% of our gross domestic product every year to fund a global war on poverty, spending well above the $16.3 billion in global poverty aid the U.S. already spends.

Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development Conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S is expected to meet its part of the U.N. Millennium goals, we would be spending an additional $65 billion annually for a total of $845 billion.

During a time of economic uncertainty, the plan would cost every American taxpayer around $2,500.

If you're worried about gasoline and heating oil prices now, think what they'll be like when the U.S. is subjected in an Obama administration to global energy consumption and production taxes. Obama's Global Poverty Act is the "international community's" foot in the door.

The U.N. Millennium declaration called for a "currency transfer tax," a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources," a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy production -- oil, natural gas, coal ... fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for the airplane use of the skies, fees for the use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels."

Co-sponsors of S. 2433 include Democrats Maria Cantwell of Washington, Dianne Feinstein of California, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. GOP globalists supporting the bill include Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard Lugar of Indiana.

Lugar has worked with Obama to promote more aid to Russia to promote nuclear nonproliferation. Lugar also promotes the Law of the Sea treaty, which turns over the world's oceans to an International Seabed Authority that would charge us to drill offshore and have veto power over the movements and actions of the U.S. Navy.

Obama's agenda sounds like defeated 2004 Democratic candidate John Kerry's "global test" for U.S. foreign policy decisions where "you have to do it in a way that passes the test -- that passes the global test -- where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Obama has called on the U.S. to "lead by example" on global warming and probably would submit to a Kyoto-like agreement that would sock Americans with literally trillions of dollars in costs over the next half century for little or no benefit.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama has said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

Oh, really? Who's to say we can't load up our SUV and head out in search of bacon double cheeseburgers at the mall? China? India? Bangladesh? The U.N.?

In an Obama White House, American sovereignty will become an endangered species. The Global Poverty Act is the first toe in the water of global socialism.

[Note: it's important to remember that the cost of living in those countries is much lower than here, so a statement that people in other countries are living on just dollars a day is irrelevant unless you also take into account the cost of living in those countries. For example, although it varies somewhat country by country, the government just increased the minimium wage in the Philippines to P267/10 hour day ($.60/hour), which buys an equivalent standard of living that the federal minimum wage of $6.55/hour buys in the U.S. Compared with the Philippines, everything costs 50 times more here. Even though it sounds like Americans are rich by comparison to Filipinos because everyone there compares the Foreign Exchange Rate (1USD = P44 today), just like in the RP very few Americans are because everything costs a higher percentage of our wages than they do in the RP (especially now that the government has raised the taxes so much, and is about to raise them quite a bit more!)

The only fair way to compare the cost of living is how long you would have to work to buy a loaf of bread or a small house in the U.S. versus in the Philippines (and that's if you have no taxes or medical bills). For example, a loaf of bread costs 2 to 3 pesos over there, but here it costs 2-4 dollars (about P176). Another example is that a house like my mother-in-laws' would cost about $150,000 here, and you would have to repay the original $150,000 plus another $150,000 interest over 30 years ($300,000 total = P13,200,000 just for a lower-priced house)! If you used all your wages to pay for a house (and if you didn't have to pay for food, clothes, taxes, etc.), it would take 21 years wages to pay $150,000 for the house and $150,000 in interest here, versus 1 year 4 months (P217 per day) to pay for a small house there (P80,000).

Our taxes are much higher here than in the Philippines (and most other 3rd world countries), too (50% tax currently, taking into account all wage, sales, property, and various other taxes, compared with 20% there). The government takes 50 cents from every dollar you make here with all their different kinds of taxes! If there were no tax, you could buy 72 loaves of bread (P3 each) there with 1 day's wages (P217), but only 14 loaves ($4 each) here with 1 day's wages ($56) at minimum wage.

There's no dispute that there is a lot of poverty in the world, but we have to remember that there is a lot of poverty here in the U.S. also; I, for one, don't make anywhere near the $1.6 Million that Obama and his wife make each year, and I'm struggling to make ends meet and buy food, as are many others I know here in America. If some of the rich people here want to donate money to help poor people, that's a noble intent -- BUT to forcibly take money from poor people in the U.S. at gunpoint (they actually do take you in handcuffs at gunpoint to prison if you don't give them your money) in order to give it to people in other countries is criminal! Also, there are many people in many different countries of many races who are starving, such as in the Philippines. It is racist to be so concerned with giving lots of aid to Africa and not equally to people who belong to other races and countries than his father and mother's country, especially when the huge tax increases that he advocates are going to hurt the poor in America even more to accomplish this Marxist "re-distribution of wealth" at gunpoint by the federal government.

You might be interested to know that, with all of the problems facing citizens of this country, one of the main legacies Obama's left us with as a Senator is the bill he co-sponsored to increase the already exhorbitant amount of money that is already being taken from us (many of whom are already having trouble eating) by $50 Billion more and being sent primarily to Africa -- and he wants to increase our taxes by $845 Billion more if he gets elected as president and throw the money away at more of these UN promoted programs. See article: "Obama's $845 billion U.N. plan forwarded to U.S. Senate floor", subtitled: "'Global Poverty Act' to cost each citizen $2,500 or more" below.

The amount of concern for people of other countries (illegal immigrant social progams, sanctuary cities, protecting criminals and not sharing information with federal authorities, prisoners of war being given equal rights as U.S. citizens, along with lobbyists, special interest groups and anyone else willing to kick back money to our policitians, which has gotten way out of proportion, with concerns of Americans being virtually ignored. It has gotten so bad that even with tens of thousands of faxes, phone calls and emails to legislators about various issues day after day, such as illegal immigrants, the politicians use underhanded schemes to pass whatever they want. Our legislators have even resorted to not announcing what was on the agenda so that they could pass it without Americans (remember -- the people they're supposed to represent?) knowing about it and being able to mount a resistance, or tacked whatever they wanted to pass on the end of a voluminous bill that the other legislators admit they never even bothered to read, opting instead for an "executive summary" of the bill by its sponsor -- a summary that either conveniently omits the addition or glosses it over and avoids mention of any of its detrimental effects.

It's really something when the president of a foreign country can come here and dictate U.S. policy and that OUR (not politicians') hard-earned money be spent on social programs for illegal immigrants, and that we not close the border, and legislators listen to him instead of their constituents! Does anyone even remember what the Boston Tea Party was all about?]


If you really want to change America, here are two organizations that you can join that will keep steadily working to change our country beyond just this upcoming election:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty educational site that people join in order to work together and effect positive change in government beyond just this election, and thereby be part of changing our country's future. It costs nothing to become a member!

http://www.freedom-force.org/
Freedom Force International is a network of men and women from all parts of the world who are concerned over loss of personal liberty and expansion of government power. They are not mere complainers. They have a plan to do something about it. They also share a common belief in The Creed of Freedom, which is a statement of principles that guide them in their mission to build a better world.

Totalitarianism is on the rise everywhere because advocates of big government have taken leadership control of the power centers within every society. Power centers are organizations and social groupings – such as political parties, labor unions, church groups, media centers, and professional societies – that hold political power based on their claim to represent their members and on their ability to lead public opinion. It has taken many years for them to achieve this dominance over society, but they have succeeded. It does no good to complain or to theorize about what should be done. As long as advocates of big government hold the power, nothing will change.

WE MUST NOT BE LIKE CATS
One of the most profound differences between dogs and cats is that cats focus on effects while dogs focus on causes. If you toss a pebble at a cat, it will look at the pebble. If you toss it at a dog, it will look at you.

In this respect, too many people are like cats. They are preoccupied with the details of their loss of security, freedom, and privacy, and they flutter like wing-clipped pigeons, complaining about this and that without knowing why these things are happening. By contrast, members of Freedom Force focus on the cause and work to eliminate it. The degeneration of civilization is not the result of blind forces of history operating beyond comprehension or control. It is planned and caused by a small but well defined group of people who believe this decline is necessary for what they fondly call The New World Order but which we recognize as high-tech feudalism in which mankind will be condemned to live in perpetual subservience to elitist rulers.

The identities of these elitists are known. They have names. They belong to organizations. They meet together to create strategies and they work jointly to implement them. They dominate the power centers of society. We will not escape their plans by looking only at what they are doing. We must focus on them and remove them from their present positions of power. Any other plan of action is doomed to failure.

That, however, is not enough. If we focus solely on the identities and personalities of those who are promoting the decline of liberty, we will be stumped by the fact that, even if we should succeed in removing them from their positions of influence, there are many more just like them waiting to step into their places. In the final analysis, it’s not the names and identities or political party affiliations of these individuals that matters as much as what they believe, what ideology they hold. Their ideology has a name. It’s called collectivism, a concept that government is master and people must obey. It’s to no avail to remove one collectivist from power only to replace him with another one – which has been the pattern for all too many years. It is time to stop acting like cats, stop being forever fascinated by the personalities and deeds of our leaders. We must be more like dogs and focus on the ideology of our leaders, because that is the cause of their deeds.

The solution is simple. It is to take back control of the power centers of society, one-by-one, just the way they were captured in the first place. Replace the collectivists with people who have no personal agendas except to defend freedom. This will unleash the vast human potential for prosperity and happiness that can be realized only in the absence of government oppression. However, to reach that goal, it will be necessary for those who cherish freedom to do more than complain and far more than just casting a vote every few years. They must reach for power. That is the reason for the motto of Freedom Force: Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt, which is Latin for “Those without power cannot defend freedom.”

The Freedom Force strategy can be summarized as: Don't fight city hall when you can BE city hall.

The mission of members of Freedom Force is to shape public policy within their respective countries in favor of personal and global freedom. The method is threefold: (1) dissemination of ideological and issue-related information, (2) instruction in how to become influential within community and national organizations, and (3) instruction in how to lawfully and constitutionally convert that influence into public policy. Members seek to become change agents so they truly can make a difference in the world.

Freedom Force is a global brotherhood of the most enlightened and dedicated people in the world. We are building an international network of leaders who, in spite of differences in nationality and culture, are in solidarity with the principles expressed in The Creed of Freedom. We now have members in sixty countries, and the number continues to grow. (See flags below.) Nothing like this has happened before in history. It is a powerful force that cannot be stopped. Welcome to the Brotherhood of Freedom.

Freedom Force came into existence at a meeting on December 12, 2002, in the Dominican Republic where G. Edward Griffin was a speaker at an off-shore investment conference. After the conference, he invited anyone who was interested to attend a private presentation of what he thought would be needed to regain control of our lives and our freedom. About thirty people attended; and, after the presentation, just about everyone enrolled on the spot, including citizens from three countries. Freedom Force International was born.

Although we suddenly had dues-paying members, we were far from being an organization. We had no staff, no facilities, no operational procedures, no bylaws, no accounting system, no means of communicating with members, no web site, no checking account, no code of conduct, no money (except about $200 in donations), and not the foggiest idea of how to proceed.

The next two years were spent primarily getting all of those things in order. We weren’t ready for expansion until about 2005 when our web site finally began to take shape. This gave us global outreach and made it possible for people of like mind anywhere in the world to find us simply by surfing the Internet. Slowly but surely, our membership began to climb; and we added increasing numbers of flags representing countries where members resided. We believe strongly that a successful movement for liberty in today’s world must be international in scope, and it was gratifying to see that aspect of our strategy become a reality right from the beginning.

We have a long way to go before we can fulfill the grand vision shared by our founding members in 2002, but we also have come a long way since then. Although the size of our membership is the only secret we have, we now count them in the thousands – and the number is growing constantly. More important than numbers, however, is the quality of our membership and the leadership they provide. The most prominent among them are featured in the Freedom Force Hall of Honor (featured elsewhere on this page), but that is just the tip of the iceberg. All of our members are influential within their communities and are helping to create a leadership network that will counter and eventually defeat the collectivists who now dominate the power centers of society.


A Wasted Vote
by Chuck Baldwin
Constitution Party
October 10, 2008
contactus@constitutionparty.org

When asked why they will not vote for a third party candidate, many people will respond by saying something like, "He cannot win." Or, "I don't want to waste my vote." It is true: America has not elected a third party candidate since 1860. Does that automatically mean, however, that every vote cast for one of the two major party candidates is not a wasted vote? I don't think so.

In the first place, a wasted vote is a vote for someone you know does not represent your own beliefs and principles. A wasted vote is a vote for someone you know will not lead the country in the way it should go. A wasted vote is a vote for the "lesser of two evils." Or, in the case of John McCain and Barack Obama, what we have is a choice between the "evil of two lessers."

Albert Einstein is credited with saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. For years now, Republicans and Democrats have been leading the country in the same basic direction: toward bigger and bigger government; more and more socialism, globalism, corporatism, and foreign interventionism; and the dismantling of constitutional liberties. Yet, voters continue to think that they are voting for "change" when they vote for a Republican or Democrat. This is truly insane!

Take a look at the recent $700 billion Wall Street bailout: both John McCain and Barack Obama endorsed and lobbied for it. Both McCain and Obama will continue to bail out these international banksters on the backs of the American taxpayers. Both McCain and Obama support giving illegal aliens amnesty and a path to citizenship. In the debate this past Tuesday night, both McCain and Obama expressed support for sending U.S. forces around the world for "peacekeeping" purposes. They also expressed support for sending combat forces against foreign countries even if those countries do not pose a threat to the United States. Neither Obama nor McCain will do anything to stem the tide of a burgeoning police state or a mushrooming New World Order. Both Obama and McCain support NAFTA and similar "free trade" deals. Neither candidate will do anything to rid America of the Federal Reserve, or work to eliminate the personal income tax, or disband the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Both Obama and McCain support the United Nations. So, pray tell, how is a vote for either McCain or Obama not a wasted vote?

But, back to the "he cannot win" argument: to vote for John McCain is to vote for a man who cannot win. Yes, I am saying it here and now: John McCain cannot win this election. The handwriting is on the wall. The Fat Lady is singing. It is all over. Finished. John McCain cannot win.

With only three weeks before the election, Barack Obama is pulling away. McCain has already pulled his campaign out of Michigan. In other key battleground states, McCain is slipping fast. He was ahead in Missouri; now it is a toss-up or leaning to Obama. A couple of weeks ago, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida were all leaning towards McCain, or at least toss-up states. Now, they are all leaning to Obama. Even the longtime GOP bellwether state of Indiana is moving toward Obama. In addition, new voter registrations are at an all-time high, and few of them are registering as Republicans. In fact, the Republican Party now claims only around 25% of the electorate, and Independents are increasingly leaning toward Obama.

Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is headed for an electoral landslide victory over John McCain. John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.

I ask, therefore, Are not conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain guilty of the same thing that they accuse people who vote for third party candidates of doing? Are they not voting for someone who cannot win? Indeed, they are. In fact, conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain are not only voting for a man who cannot win, they are voting for a man who does not share their own beliefs and principles. If this is not insanity, nothing is!

So, why not (for once in your life, perhaps) cast a vote purely for principle! Vote for someone who is truly pro-life. Someone who would quickly secure our nation's borders, and end the invasion of our country by illegal aliens. Someone who would, on his first day in office, release Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean and fire U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. Someone who would immediately, upon assuming office, begin leading the charge to dismantle the Federal Reserve, overturn the 16th Amendment, expunge the IRS, and return America to sound money principles. Someone who would get the US out of the UN. Someone who would stop spending billions and trillions of dollars for foreign aid. Someone who would prosecute the Wall Street bankers who defrauded the American people out of billions of dollars. Someone who would work to repeal NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and stop the NAFTA superhighway. Someone who would say a resounding "No" to the New World Order. Someone who would stop using our brave men and women in uniform as global cops for the United Nations. Someone who would stop America's global adventurism and interventionism. Someone who would steadfastly support and defend the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

"Who is this person?" you ask. Go here to find out: http://www.baldwin08.com/

As John Quincy Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."


A Candidate for President Who Wants to Eliminate Income Tax, Illegal Immigration, Bailouts, NAFTA, the UN and Restore American Jobs to us "The only way to save our great nation to return to Constitutional government envisioned by the Founding Fathers!"

WHY BALDWIN/CASTLE AND THE CONSTITUTION PARTY?
America needs the leadership of the Constitution Party. We pledge to:

· Stop the undeclared wars which are daily costing American lives and billions of tax dollars;
· End America’s dependence on foreign oil;
· Stop reckless spending, including foreign aid, and take care of America’s domestic needs;
· End debt financing of the Federal government;
· Get rid of the Federal income tax, and restore a tariff-based revenue system;
· Immediately terminate international trade agreements such as NAFTA, WTO, and the FTAA, and stop sending high paying American jobs to foreign countries;
· Close the borders to illegal immigration, and stop all government subsidies to illegal aliens;
· Defend America’s moral values; keep God in the pledge of allegiance;
· Protect the right to life of the innocent unborn and the elderly;
· Support high standards in education, including encouragement of private schools and home
schooling;
· Stop judicial tyranny and legislating from the bench;
· Defend Second Amendment rights;
· Restore a debt-free, interest-free money system;
· Uphold traditional marriage and family values.

Close the borders now - no more excuses.
Stop depending on foreign oil.
Use our military justly to protect and defend our liberty.
Stop spending our country into bankruptcy.
No Hillary-Obama-McCain health care solutions.
No more financing the United Nations.
Stop judicial tyranny and legislating from the bench.
End the merging of the USA with foreign countries.
Immediately stop our laws penalizing U.S. Businesses.
Remove all hidden taxes and abolish the IRS.
100% ProLife
100% ProMarriage

BALDWIN for PRESIDENT
Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle are citizens of the United States of America just like you and me, not elected politicians offering the same old political answers. They don’t have a history of flip-flops and they don’t test the wind every time they take a position.

Chuck Baldwin was born in La Porte, Indiana on May 3, 1952. He has been married for 35 years to the former Miss Connie Kay Cole. They have three cherished and wonderful children, all three are married with families of their own.

He attended La Porte High School in Indiana; Midwestern Baptist College in Pontiac, Michigan; and Liberty Bible Institute in Lynchburg, Virginia. He has Bachelor and Masters Degrees in Theology, and has received two honorary Doctorate Degrees.

Chuck is a founder and minister at the Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida; a radio talk show host; accomplished author; and a newspaper/internet columnist.

He has been officially recognized by the Escambia County Florida Sheriff’s Department as an Honorary Deputy Sheriff, has received the “National Medal of Patriotism” award from the American Police Hall of Fame, and is a volunteer chaplain at the State Prison in Century, Florida.

CASTLE for VICE-PRESIDENT
Darrell Castle was born in Kingsport, Tennessee, in 1948. He and his wife Joan have been married for 30 years, and live in Germantown, Tennessee. Their daughter Joanna and her husband Michael Miller serve with the Navigators Ministry at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.

Darrell is a graduate of East Tennessee State University with a B.A. in History and Political Science. He received a J.D. degree from Memphis State University Law School (University of Memphis). He is an attorney in private practice. The Castle Law Firm specializes in Bankruptcy and Personal Injury.

Darrell served as a 1st Lt. in the U.S. Marine Corps and is a veteran of the Vietnam War.

Darrell has served in many capacities within his Church including Chairman of the Deacons. In 1998, he and wife Joan founded Mia’s Children Foundation, Inc. (www.miaschildren.org), a Christian mission in Bucharest, Romania which ministers to homeless gypsy children.

VOTE CONSTITUTION PARTY

“Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power to coin money and regulate its value, thus the Constitution gives Congress control over the U.S. monetary system.

With the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Congress unconstitutionally transferred control of the U.S. monetary system to a consortium of twelve private banks collectively known as the Federal Reserve System or “The Fed”. This system allows The Fed to print money or create it on a computer screen and exchange it for government debt instruments. This means that a group of private banks are authorized to create money out of nothing, and lend it to the government with interest that has to be repaid by the American people through the income tax. The Fed then controls the supply of money, expanding or contracting the supply at will, thus creating constant boom-bust cycles of inflation followed by contraction. The swings in the economic cycle can be gentle or violent depending on whether The Fed is competent or whether it has some other agenda.

In order to affect any real economic reform we must restore the money of the Constitution. When we do, all other necessary reforms will be possible. The money of the Constitution, or a sound money system, means money based on something or tied to the value of something. The Constitution contemplates that the “something” that money should be based on is gold and silver. If our money supply were tied to a standard of gold and silver, then our government would have to spend within its means or borrow only “real money”. Those loans would be redeemable in gold or silver. This would prevent devaluation of the currency, i.e. inflation, because the government’s ability to create new money at its discretion would be limited.

The Fed’s control of the money supply of the American people should be ended immediately and control returned to Congress as the Constitution requires. Congress could then act in place of The Fed on it’s way to returning us to a system of sound money.”

www.baldwin08.com
www.Constitutionparty.com
866-99-BALDWIN

Are You Worried about the economic future of our nation? Are you worried about what lies ahead for you and your family?

You Should Be!

America needs to change direction now! In 2008, vote as if your world depends upon it, because it does!

Summary of Chuck Baldwin's (Constitution Party) positions on things:

http://baldwin08.com/IssuesList.cfm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Baldwin (Wikipedia article on Chuck)

http://baldwin08.com/Get-Stuff!.cfm(signs, position summary handouts, bumper stickers)

Constitution Party presidential candidate argues that the $700 billion bailout is bad for taxpayers: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/baldwin_bailout_09_27_08.html

Article by Chuck Baldwin -- No Amnesty For Wall Street: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin471.htm

Other articles by Chuck Baldwin: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwina.htm


Obama’s $50 Billion AIDS Bill
AIM Column  |  By Cliff Kincaid  |  July 13, 2008

More support for the extravagant spending has come from the liberal media, led by the New York Times.

Fighting the liberal media, Senate Democrats, some fellow Republicans and the Bush Administration, three conservative Republican senators are continuing to raise the alarm about the federal government’s out-of-control AIDS spending. Senators David Vitter (La.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), and Jim DeMint (S.C.) are making a last-ditch attempt to block the irresponsible and budget-busting $50 billion global AIDS bill (S. 2731).

Debate on the bill, which would even permit entry into the U.S. of HIV-positive aliens, begins on Monday afternoon. The legislation doubles funding for the U.N.-affiliated Global Fund, which disregards U.S. policies on abortion and “needle exchange.”

“The [Global] Fund has serious policy problems, drug quality problems, administrative corruption, and [it] operates programs not bound by U.S. laws on abortion, needle exchange, prostitution/trafficking policy and others,” several senators had declared in a letter to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Senate offices can be reached by calling 202-224-3121.

Officially known as PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, this reauthorization bill will increase the dollar amount originally allotted from $15 to $50 billion. The bill “triples PEPFAR’s original budget,” noted one congressional source with alarm.

Senator Barack Obama was one of the original sponsors of the bill, but so was Senator John McCain. In fact, the Global AIDS Alliance issued a June 20 press release headlined, “Presidential Hopefuls Add Support to Landmark Global AIDS Bill,” referring to Obama and McCain.

Paul Zeitz of the Global AIDS Alliance has declared that AIDS is comparable to the threat posed by Hitler’s regime and wants international taxes to fight the “AIDS holocaust.” A variation of such a tax, imposed on international airline travel, has been implemented in 8 countries and proceeds are going to UNITAID, whose partners include the Clinton Foundation and several U.N. agencies. (The eight countries are France, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Congo, Republic of Korea, Madagascar, Mauritius, and Niger.)

However, the United Nations over the years has greatly exaggerated the number of those with HIV/AIDS and it is still difficult to get accurate estimates of the problem. 

Some lawmakers have been intimidated by liberal special interest pressure and AIDS activists coming to Washington to deliver funeral wreaths to those standing in the way of the passage of the legislation. Opponents of the bill have been labeled as “Global AIDS Super villains” by the homosexual lobby.

More support for the extravagant spending has come from the liberal media, led by the New York Times, which published a July 7 editorial accusing a “tiny group of Republicans” of obstructing this “worthy bill.” 

It is officially described as “A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to provide assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and for other purposes.”

But since the announced discovery of the AIDS virus, known as HIV, the federal government has already spent $200 billion on HIV/AIDS. No cure or vaccine has been discovered and there are increasing doubts about the effectiveness of anti-AIDS drugs.

Increasingly unpopular because of a deteriorating economy, President Bush seems to think that massively increasing spending on foreign aid, especially AIDS in Africa, will create a “legacy” for him. But conservatives argue that excessive federal spending will only make the economic problem worse.

Nevertheless, congressional sources say that the White House has joined Congressional Democrats and the HIV/AIDS “community” in aggressively pushing the bill and trying to force Vitter, Sessions, and DeMint to back down in their opposition.

Unless senators hear from their constituents in strong opposition, the bill could pass quickly.

Senate sources said that the bill would not prohibit funding for HIV/AIDS programs in countries like China, Russia, and India, which have enough money to pay for those programs themselves. 

“These countries are wealthy enough that they have active programs in both nuclear weapons and space exploration,” a source said. “Russia is awash in petrodollars, while China has hundreds of billions of dollars in its foreign currency reserves, and has an exploding military budget.”

Yet the American taxpayers are being called upon to pay for HIV/AIDS programs in those countries. 

The bill even includes funding for studying the value of male circumcision in AIDS prevention and educating males about the dangers of visiting prostitutes. It diverts funding from AIDS treatment for purposes that include providing substance abuse and treatment services and legal services to AIDS victims. 

Richard Darling of the FAIR Foundation told AIM on Friday that federal funding for most diseases is being cut back while spending on AIDS is continuing to rise. He said HIV/AIDS was receiving a “disproportionate” amount of money. In terms of National Institutes of Health research money budgeted per death, figures show that HIV/AIDS gets $206,906, versus $13,365 for diabetes and only $2,639 for heart and stroke.

In addition to official federal funding, Darling pointed out that Hollywood, TV programs like “American Idol,” rock star Bono, and billionaire Bill Gates have been raising and spending tens of millions of dollars on HIV/AIDS.

Other diseases, he pointed out, don’t benefit from such attention and interest. 

Daniel
July 14  at  10:33 am  |  #1  |  Link
As an American citizen I do not approve of United states citizens footing the bill for peoples diseases in African countries or any other countries for that matter. I am ashamed to discover such elected officials would take on the worlds private illnesses; when millions of senior citizens cannot afford their daily required medications here at home. Sen. OBama and Sen. McCain need to restrain themselves from trying to pay for the world’s responsibilities with the tax-paying citizens hard-earned money without their approval. That they are considering such a bill is nothing but a disgrace, an affront, and a betrayal of our elected official, monetary-trust policies to our unsuspecting Americans. Wake-up senators!!!

UN Anger Over Uganda's Successful Abstinence Program Fueled by Loss of Funds Says Researcher

UNITED NATIONS, October 13, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The United Nations' envoy to Africa, Canadian Stephen Lewis, is highly critical of an abstinence campaign that has downplayed the role of condoms but been hugely successful at reducing HIV transmission in Uganda.  Population Researcher Institute's Joseph A. D'Agostino suggests that the success in combating AIDS in Uganda "isn't good enough for UN officials, whose love affair with condoms knows no bounds, and who are also angry with America for funding her own AIDS initiative in Africa instead of giving the money to them."

Uganda, whose abstinence campaign has been so successful as to be likened to a highly effective vaccine, has reduced HIV transmission rates from 18% to 5-7%. "No other nation in the world has achieved such success," writes D'Agostino. "Most sub-Saharan African nations, following the pro-condoms model, continue to suffer from rising HIV infection rates. Ugandan surveys show a reduction in premarital sexual activity among Ugandan youth and a reduction in extramarital activity among adults," D'Agostino added. "The result: less AIDS."

Lewis is highly critical of the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which has drawn the focus of AIDS prevention away from condoms to the successful abstinence model adopted by Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni and his wife Janet. "There is no doubt in my mind that the condom crisis in Uganda is being driven by PEPFAR," Lewis said. "To impose a dogma-driven policy that is fundamentally flawed is doing damage to Africa."

"This is a bizarre inversion of the truth, and threatens to do grievous harm to the one HIV/AIDS prevention approach that has actually worked," writes D'Agostino. Even Ugandan Health Minister Jim Muhwezi denied there is no "shortage" of condoms. "There seems to be a coordinated smear campaign by those who do not want to use any other alternative simultaneously with condoms against AIDS," he said.

In 2003, the UN itself (United Nations AIDS agency - UNAIDS) admitted that condoms have a disconcerting failure rate. The study revealed that condoms are ineffective in protecting against HIV an estimated 10% of the time. The admission from the UN, which is far lower than some studies which have shown larger than 50% failure rates, is a blow to population control activists which have aggressively and misleadingly marketed condoms in the third world as 100% effective.

"The UN's approach has failed, and its own statistics show it," D'Agostino emphasized. "HIV rates keep rising, to over 30% in some countries.  Two decades of pornographic sex education and massive shipments of condoms have sent millions of young Africans to an early grave."

"Apparently, achieving results isn't good enough for international grandees," D'Agostino concluded. "It's death by condom or nothing.  But we think the Bush Administration will stay the course."

More support for the extravagant spending has come from the liberal media, led by the New York Times.

Fighting the liberal media, Senate Democrats, some fellow Republicans and the Bush Administration, three conservative Republican senators are continuing to raise the alarm about the federal government’s out-of-control AIDS spending. Senators David Vitter (La.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), and Jim DeMint (S.C.) are making a last-ditch attempt to block the irresponsible and budget-busting $50 billion global AIDS bill (S. 2731).

Debate on the bill, which would even permit entry into the U.S. of HIV-positive aliens, begins on Monday afternoon. The legislation doubles funding for the U.N.-affiliated Global Fund, which disregards U.S. policies on abortion and “needle exchange.”

“The [Global] Fund has serious policy problems, drug quality problems, administrative corruption, and [it] operates programs not bound by U.S. laws on abortion, needle exchange, prostitution/trafficking policy and others,” several senators had declared in a letter to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Officially known as PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, this reauthorization bill will increase the dollar amount originally allotted from $15 to $50 billion. The bill “triples PEPFAR’s original budget,” noted one congressional source with alarm.

Senator Barack Obama was one of the original sponsors of the bill, but so was Senator John McCain. In fact, the Global AIDS Alliance issued a June 20 press release headlined, “Presidential Hopefuls Add Support to Landmark Global AIDS Bill,” referring to Obama and McCain.

Paul Zeitz of the Global AIDS Alliance has declared that AIDS is comparable to the threat posed by Hitler’s regime and wants international taxes to fight the “AIDS holocaust.” A variation of such a tax, imposed on international airline travel, has been implemented in 8 countries and proceeds are going to UNITAID, whose partners include the Clinton Foundation and several U.N. agencies. (The eight countries are France, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Congo, Republic of Korea, Madagascar, Mauritius, and Niger.)

However, the United Nations over the years has greatly exaggerated the number of those with HIV/AIDS and it is still difficult to get accurate estimates of the problem.

[Note: instead of urging people to remain faithful and stop promiscuity, like Uganda's successful program -- which costs very little -- this program insists upon encouraging promiscuity and attempting to avoid the consequences with condoms. Also, a growing number of scientists are having increasing doubts about HIV leading to AIDs: On July 20, the New York Times reported from Amsterdam that AIDS is "generally thought to be caused" by HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus. Earlier, the virus had been identified as the undoubted cause. But reports, circulating at the Amsterdam conference, of AIDS-like diseases with no trace of HIV triggered a moment of short-lived doubt. The next reaction was to assume a new, hitherto undetected virus was the culprit. Like Ptolemaic epicycles, hypothetical viruses began to multiply.

Another possibility is that HIV doesn't have anything to do with AIDS. This is what Peter Duesberg of UC Berkeley has been saying for five years: that HIV doesn't attack the immune system, doesn't cause AIDS, and is in fact harmless. A professor of molecular biology, Duesberg is one of the world's leading experts on retroviruses. I called him at his Berkeley lab and asked what he thought of the news from Amsterdam, and the possibility that we may now have one more lethal virus to worry about. "How many different viruses are we going to have that all evolved in the last ten years and all cause the same disease?" Duesberg asked. "Viruses have been around for billions of years and now they're coming out for the latest AIDS conference." (see http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/tbcould.htm and do a Google search for many more articles about these scientists.]

Some lawmakers have been intimidated by wliberal special interest pressure and AIDS activists coming to Washington to deliver funeral wreaths to those standing in the way of the passage of the legislation. Opponents of the bill have been labeled as “Global AIDS Super villains” by the homosexual lobby.

More support for the extravagant spending has come from the liberal media, led by the New York Times, which published a July 7 editorial accusing a “tiny group of Republicans” of obstructing this “worthy bill.” 

It is officially described as “A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to provide assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and for other purposes”, but since the announced discovery of the AIDS virus, known as HIV, the federal government has already spent $200 billion on HIV/AIDS. No cure or vaccine has been discovered and there are increasing doubts about the effectiveness of anti-AIDS drugs.

Increasingly unpopular because of a deteriorating economy, President Bush seems to think that massively increasing spending on foreign aid, especially AIDS in Africa, will create a “legacy” for him, but conservatives argue that excessive federal spending will only make the economic problem worse.

Senate sources said that the bill would not prohibit funding for HIV/AIDS programs in countries like China, Russia, and India, which have enough money to pay for those programs themselves. 

“These countries are wealthy enough that they have active programs in both nuclear weapons and space exploration,” a source said. “Russia is awash in petrodollars, while China has hundreds of billions of dollars in its foreign currency reserves, and has an exploding military budget.”

Yet the American taxpayers are being called upon to pay for HIV/AIDS programs in those countries. 

The bill even includes funding for studying the value of male circumcision in AIDS prevention and educating males about the dangers of visiting prostitutes. It diverts funding from AIDS treatment for purposes that include providing substance abuse and treatment services and legal services to AIDS victims. 

Richard Darling of the FAIR Foundation told AIM on Friday that federal funding for most diseases is being cut back while spending on AIDS is continuing to rise. He said HIV/AIDS was receiving a “disproportionate” amount of money. In terms of National Institutes of Health research money budgeted per death, figures show that HIV/AIDS gets $206,906, versus $13,365 for diabetes and only $2,639 for heart and stroke.

In addition to official federal funding, Darling pointed out that Hollywood, TV programs like “American Idol,” rock star Bono, and billionaire Bill Gates have been raising and spending tens of millions of dollars on HIV/AIDS.

Other diseases, he pointed out, don’t benefit from such attention and interest. 

Daniel
July 14  at  10:33 am  |  #1  |  Link
As an American citizen I do not approve of United states citizens footing the bill for peoples diseases in African countries or any other countries for that matter. I am ashamed to discover such elected officials would take on the worlds private illnesses; when millions of senior citizens cannot afford their daily required medications here at home. Sen. OBama and Sen. McCain need to restrain themselves from trying to pay for the world’s responsibilities with the tax-paying citizens hard-earned money without their approval. That they are considering such a bill is nothing but a disgrace, an affront, and a betrayal of our elected official, monetary-trust policies to our unsuspecting Americans. Wake-up senators!!!

UN Anger Over Uganda's Successful Abstinence Program Fueled by Loss of Funds Says Researcher

UNITED NATIONS, October 13, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The United Nations' envoy to Africa, Canadian Stephen Lewis, is highly critical of an abstinence campaign that has downplayed the role of condoms but been hugely successful at reducing HIV transmission in Uganda.  Population Researcher Institute's Joseph A. D'Agostino suggests that the success in combating AIDS in Uganda "isn't good enough for UN officials, whose love affair with condoms knows no bounds, and who are also angry with America for funding her own AIDS initiative in Africa instead of giving the money to them."

Uganda, whose abstinence campaign has been so successful as to be likened to a highly effective vaccine, has reduced HIV transmission rates from 18% to 5-7%. "No other nation in the world has achieved such success," writes D'Agostino. "Most sub-Saharan African nations, following the pro-condoms model, continue to suffer from rising HIV infection rates. Ugandan surveys show a reduction in premarital sexual activity among Ugandan youth and a reduction in extramarital activity among adults," D'Agostino added. "The result: less AIDS."

Lewis is highly critical of the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which has drawn the focus of AIDS prevention away from condoms to the successful abstinence model adopted by Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni and his wife Janet. "There is no doubt in my mind that the condom crisis in Uganda is being driven by PEPFAR," Lewis said. "To impose a dogma-driven policy that is fundamentally flawed is doing damage to Africa."

"This is a bizarre inversion of the truth, and threatens to do grievous harm to the one HIV/AIDS prevention approach that has actually worked," writes D'Agostino. Even Ugandan Health Minister Jim Muhwezi denied there is no "shortage" of condoms. "There seems to be a coordinated smear campaign by those who do not want to use any other alternative simultaneously with condoms against AIDS," he said.

In 2003, the UN itself (United Nations AIDS agency - UNAIDS) admitted that condoms have a disconcerting failure rate. The study revealed that condoms are ineffective in protecting against HIV an estimated 10% of the time. The admission from the UN, which is far lower than some studies which have shown larger than 50% failure rates, is a blow to population control activists which have aggressively and misleadingly marketed condoms in the third world as 100% effective.

"The UN's approach has failed, and its own statistics show it," D'Agostino emphasized. "HIV rates keep rising, to over 30% in some countries.  Two decades of pornographic sex education and massive shipments of condoms have sent millions of young Africans to an early grave."

"Apparently, achieving results isn't good enough for international grandees," D'Agostino concluded. "It's death by condom or nothing.  But we think the Bush Administration will stay the course."


ACORN Could Cause Obama's Fall
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

As Obama lengthens his lead, the Republicans are praying that the election becomes close enough for the Democrats to steal. But meanwhile, ACORN, the radical community group, is becoming an embarrassment for Obama.

It is not as if its shenanigans are likely to tip the result, with the Democrats so far ahead. But as it is raided by the FBI in state after state (11 so far), it is becoming identified as the electoral equivalent of Greenpeace, extremists who will stop at nothing to get their way.

What makes ACORN particularly embarrassing for Obama is that he used to be one of them. He served as general counsel for ACORN in Illinois, channeled millions to the organization from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (whose funds he distributed) and has lately spent $800,000 of his campaign money to subsidize the group's activities.

For this emolument, ACORN has registered voters 15 times over, canvassed the graveyards for votes, and prepared to commit electoral fraud on a massive scale.

With friends like this, Obama doesn't need enemies. As their radical activities make headlines every day, Obama's intimate involvement with these radicals becomes more and more of a political liability.

The other Obama scandals have no topical relevance. The Rev. Wright no longer spews hatred from the pulpit and has apparently been persuaded to stay away from media interviews. William Ayers is likewise making himself scarce, and the Obama/Ayers relationship, whatever it may have been, is clearly in the past.

Rezko is facing sentencing in his own corruption case, but isn't likely to turn on the one man who may acquire the power to pardon him.

But, as Election Day approaches and early balloting proceeds in many states, ACORN's tactics will get more and more media attention. As election officials discover ACORN frauds, the association will become more injurious to Obama, particularly when it is his own campaign that is funding many of the fraudulent activities.

At the very least, the negative publicity ACORN will attract will paint Obama as a radical with questionable judgment. At the most, it might cause voters to wonder if he is not himself involved in electoral fraud.

The recent book by Wall Street Journal editor John Fund, "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy," discusses the prevalence of voter fraud, made newly possible by lax enforcement of laws requiring identification to vote. As Fund indicates, the motor/voter laws have encouraged waves of new voters, many of them ineligible to participate. Let us remember that eight of the Sept. 11 hijackers were registered to vote!

So ACORN is the gift that will keep on giving as its activities attract attention while Election Day nears. But are these McCain attacks on Obama going to work?

Clearly they have not so far. Obama has lower negatives than McCain, and his unfavorable rating has not risen despite the avalanche of attack advertising to which he has been subjected.

Possibly, voters are just inured to the attacks and disregard them. But more likely they are just distracted by the financial meltdown all around them. We have never had a presidential race, since 1944, where the contest was not the most important news in the four weeks before the election. (In 1944, the war overshadowed the election, much to the frustration of the Republican candidate, Thomas E. Dewey.)

The candidates seem unable to get a word in edgewise as the financial news dominates. People follow the Dow Jones more than the Gallup, Rasmussen, or Zogby polls.

If the presidential race remains an afterthought, crowded out by the financial news, Obama will waltz into the White House by a comfortable margin. But if the stock market stops its gyrations for a while and no new household name/corporation or bank goes broke, the negatives against Obama will compel attention at last.

And then the race may close swiftly and dramatically.
---

Obama Distorts ACORN Ties
Amanda Carpenter
Monday, October 13, 2008

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign has been forced to revise statements about their candidate's work for the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, a liberally-leaning non-profit roiled in allegations of voter registration fraud.

Obama's website "Fight the Smears," designed to counteract misinformation about the candidate's record, contained false information about Obama's connections to ACORN.

Before news outlets reported Obama worked as an ACORN trainer in 1992, the website said, "Fact: Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity."

The website later revised their "fact" to say: "Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as trainer, organizer, or any type of employee."

The conservative leaning blog Gateway Pundit published archived screenshots of the Fight the Smears site showing the discrepancy: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/oops-obama-camp-caught-scrubbing-its.html

As a presidential candidate Obama has extensive ties to the group currently being accused of voter registration fraud in 11 states. He is the first national candidate ever to hire ACORN for get-out-the-vote activities. Obama's campaign paid $800,000 to a subsidiary of the liberally-leaning non-profit Association of Community Organizers for Reform called Citizens Services Incorporated campaign to increase voter turnout, but initially did not properly disclose this information on financial disclosure reports.

The Obama campaign said it hired CSI to do "polling, advance work and staging events" according to reports submitted to the FEC during the Democratic primary. The FEC later said the Obama campaign needed to disclose ACORN was engaging in get out the vote activities last August. At the time the Obama campaign called the mistake a "clerical error."

Obama sought ACORN's endorsement in the Democratic primary telling ACORN members, "Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work." "Project Vote" is the name ACORN's voter registration drives are called. Obama worked for Project Vote for a period of roughly seven months in 1992.

ACORN endorsed Obama for president in February 2008.

Before becoming a member of the Illinois State Senate, Obama represented ACORN in a lawsuit to help push for "Motor Voter" laws to make it easier for low-income persons to vote.

Later, as director of the Woods Fund and Chairman of the Board of Chicago Annenberg Challenge Obama helped steer funds to ACORN through various grants.
---

ACORN's Rap Sheet
Amanda Carpenter
Monday, October 13, 2008

The Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now has compiled an irrefutable record of voter registration fraud in recent elections.

The non-profit is accused of submitting fraudulent voter registration applications in 13 states this election cycle. Seven of those states have already launched investigations into ACORN's activities.

During the 2006 election cycle, ACORN submitted false applications to election officials in Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington.

Several of their organizers have already landed in jail. Seven ACORN workers were indicted for voter registration fraud in Washington last year for submitting nearly 3,400 fraudulent forms in King and Pierce County, which included applications for "Veronica Mars" and the deceased Army Ranger and NFL player Pat Tillman. Three of the workers eventually pled guilty and ACORN was ordered to pay a $25,000 settlement fee.

After the 2004 election, two former ACORN workers were convicted of perjury for submitting false voter registration forms in Denver, Colorado.

But ACORN continues to submit fraudulent voter applications.

A prosecutor in Ohio's Cuyahoga County interviewed two witnesses who were harassed by ACORN officials on Monday. A 19-year old named Freddie Johnson said ACORN officials convinced him to register to vote 73 times. "They would come up with a sob story when they needed a signature," Johnson told the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections Monday.

Christopher Buckley, a Domino's pizza delivery driver, also witnessed to the board. He said ACORN workers told him, "I could help them hold onto a job" by signing multiple registration forms.

State and federal authorities in Nevada announced they were launching a task force to investigate voter registration fraud in Clark County last week. Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax told the Las Vegas Review-Journal he believes ACORN has submitted somewhere between 2,000-3,000 fraudulent applications a week, some of which have included forms for the entire starting line-up of the Dallas Cowboys.

Officials in Bridgeport, Connecticut say ACORN has cost their county thousands of dollars in overtime because their workers have been forced to sift through ACORN's false applications. ACORN fired a worker in Seminole County, Florida after the group admitted filing fraudulent registration forms.

Lake County, Indiana Election Board Director Sally LaSota said she received nearly 2,000 new voter applications from ACORN workers that 1,100 of which were "no good" and appeared to be taken directly from a telephone book. Election officials have reported similar activity in Michigan. Oakland County officials have discovered more than 33,000 duplicate voter registration applications, mostly submitted by ACORN workers.

The FBI is making plans to investigate in Kansas City, Missouri after a Jackson County election worker identified nearly 300 suspicious voter registration forms submitted by ACORN.

ACORN's fraud extends to their highest offices of well. The New York Times reported ACORN hid the $1 million embezzlement by ACORN founder Wade Rathke's brother Dave Rathke. Founder Rathke told the New York Times the embezzlement was kept a secret because he did not want conservatives to use the crime as a "weapon" against ACORN.

ACORN receives federal funds each year from the Federal Housing Finance Agency through various grants.

Republican Sen. John Ensign (Nev.) wrote a letter to FHA last week calling on the agency to suspend funding for ACORN due to "recent news tying ACORN with voter fraud."

The letter was signed by Republican Sens. Michael Enzi (Wyo.), David Vitter (La.), Pat Roberts (Kans), Tom Coburn (Okla), John Thune (S.D.) and Jim DeMint (S.C).
---

Voter Hatred of Wall Street
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Monday, October 13, 2008

If the crash of 1929 and that of 2008 are similar, then let's study the voter anger that 1929 kindled to inform our understanding of what is going on today. In the thirties, voters turned sharply against their former Wall Street heroes and the name of big business20became mud for millions who felt misled by greedy financiers and took it out on the Republican Party.

To grasp what happened then and is happening now, look at the first inaugural address remarks of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He gave voice to the angst and anger of the times and gave us a clue to understanding what is going on today.

"Plenty is at our doorstep," he began, "but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply." Then he assigned blame. "Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the minds and hearts of men." He continued "true they have tried but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition." Then, in remarks that could have been aimed squarely at the Hoover-esque bailout bill, he said "faced by failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence." Then, reaching across the decades to articulate an ancient truth he said "They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision and when there is no vision the people perish."

Finally, he came to his peroration. "The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths." In a barb that could have been aimed at the golden parachutes that spread their bounty across Wall Street this month, he said "the measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit."

While our opinion leaders debate how long the markets will remain in flux, those who follow public opinion or run for office must realize that the rupture of faith between the leaders of our capitalist system and the investors who followed them with their hard earned money is deep, bitter, and long lasting. Those who so abused our trust as to lend money to people who could never dream of repaying it and who bought paper, with our money, backed by such shady loans have abdicated their positions of leadership. In their drive to expand home ownership so as to placate an ever larger constituency of minorities and poor people, the Democrats have saddled us with an unbelievable burden of government insured debt. And in their desire to reap profits from these enterprises, the Republican barons of Wall Street have inveigled us all into buying their stocks based on values inflated by fraudulently obtained loans. The natural reaction of voters is to wish for a plague on both the parties. Their animosity and hatred will not soon disappear and any who think themselves exempt are in for a rude awakening.

But all of this anger is being played out against the backdrop of a presidential race entering its last month. How will it affect the vote? In normal circumstances, it would impel a Democratic landslide. After all, the malefactors who made out like bandits were Republicans, the Administration and the regulators were Republican, and for most of the time the Congress was Republican.

But voters face a choice between a Republican Party whose image has been destroyed by its Wall Street allies and a Democratic nominee whose spiritual advisor is Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Whose financial backer is Rezko. The man who provided the money for his first real job was William Ayers. And, now it appears, that the object of his financial largesse and the organization for which he was Illinois general counsel was ACORN, massively implicated in voter fraud, funded, in large part, by Obama's presidential campaign funds. Are we to elect such a man president? Are we to trust the party of Wall Street with four more years at the till? That is the dilemma that makes this election unstable and unpredictable. May the least worst man win!
---

Negative Advertising
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, October 14, 2008

One of the oldest phenomena of American elections-- criticism of one's opponent-- has in recent times been stigmatized by much of the media as "negative advertising."

Is this because the criticism has gotten more vicious or more personal? You might think so, if you were totally ignorant of history, as so many of the graduates of even our elite universities are.

Although Grover Cleveland was elected President twice, he had to overcome a major scandal that he had fathered a child out of wedlock, which was considered more of a disgrace then than today. Even giants like Lincoln and Jefferson were called names that neither McCain nor Obama has been called.

Why then is "negative advertising" such a big deal these days? The dirty little secret is this: Liberal candidates have needed to escape their past and pretend that they are not liberals, because so many voters have had it with liberals.

In 1988, Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts called himself a "technocrat," a pragmatic solver of problems, despite a classic liberal track record of big spending, big taxes, and policies that were anti-business and pro-criminal.

When the truth about what he actually did as governor was brought out during the Presidential election campaign, the media were duly shocked-- not by Dukakis' record, but by the Republicans' exposing his record.

John Kerry, with a very similar ultra-liberal record, topped off by inflammatory and unsubstantiated attacks on American military men in Vietnam, disdained the whole process of labeling as something unworthy. And the mainstream media closed ranks around him as well, deploring those who labeled Kerry a liberal.

Barack Obama is much smoother. Instead of issuing explicit denials, he gives speeches that sound so moderate, so nuanced and so lofty that even some conservative Republicans go for them. How could anyone believe that such a man is the very opposite of what he claims to be-- unless they check out the record of what he has actually done?

In words, Obama is a uniter instead of a divider. In deeds, he has spent years promoting polarization. That is what a "community organizer" does, creating a sense of grievance, envy and resentment, in order to mobilize political action to get more of the taxpayers' money or to force banks to lend to people they don't consider good risks, as the community organizing group ACORN did.

After Barack Obama moved beyond the role of a community organizer, he promoted the same polarization in his other roles.

That is what he did when he spent the money of the Woods Fund bankrolling programs to spread the politics of grievance and resentment into the schools. That is what he did when he spent the taxpayers' money bankrolling the grievance and resentment ideology of Michael Pfleger.

When Barack Obama donated $20,000 to Jeremiah Wright, does anyone imagine that he was unaware that Wright was the epitome of grievance, envy and resentment hype? Or were Wright's sermons too subtle for Obama to pick up that message?

How subtle is "Goddamn America!"?

Yet those in the media who deplore "negative advertising" regard it as unseemly to dig up ugly facts instead of sticking to the beautiful rhetoric of an election year. The oft-repeated mantra is that we should trick to the "real issues."

What are called "the real issues" are election-year talking points, while the actual track record of the candidates is treated as a distraction-- and somehow an unworthy distraction.

Does anyone in real life put more faith in what people say than in what they do? A few gullible people do-- and they often get deceived and defrauded big time.

Barack Obama has carried election-year makeovers to a new high, presenting himself a uniter of people, someone reaching across the partisan divide and the racial divide-- after decades of promoting polarization in each of his successive roles and each of his choices of political allies.

Yet the media treat exposing a fraudulent election-year image as far worse than letting someone acquire the powers of the highest office in the land through sheer deception.
---

Still Time for Voters to Wake Up
David Limbaugh
Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Strapped to a polygraph on national TV, I would assert quite confidently that I would strongly condemn thuggish and criminal tactics by a candidate I supported. The ends do not justify the means for me and most other conservatives I know. I wish I believed the same were true for liberals, far too many of whom are deliberately turning their backs on the corruption defining Obama's campaign.

It would be bad enough if the Stalinesque stench engulfing the messiah's campaign were limited merely to its efforts to elect him. But what we fear is that these campaign tactics are of a piece with his policy agenda and his vision for America.

Sincerely intending no melodrama here, it's hard not to conclude that Obama aims to change America in fundamental ways, the common denominator of which would be to diminish individual liberties, the most distinguishing feature of the unique American system. Sadly, most Obama supporters have no clue what Obama is ultimately about or how his innocuous-sounding ideas could permanently destroy our freedoms.

It's inconceivable that even a low-level Republican candidate could have Obama's associations and employ his campaign tactics without being driven from the race. And yet we've got a man running for the highest office in the land surrounded with anti-American allies and covert election burglars, all protected by an unprecedented mainstream-media cover-up.

Democrats tell us they place the highest possible value on the integrity of the election process, yet their uniform response to ACORN's systematic assault on the voter registration process is unmitigated indifference and denial.

They also cavalierly dismiss Obama's undeniable connection to ACORN, as detailed by Mark Levin at "The Corner" blog on National Review Online. Obama worked for and represented ACORN and has given $800,000 to it from his campaign. Remember how Democrats were ready to hang Republican politicians who might have gone to lunch with lobbyist pariah Jack Abramoff? You want to talk to me about guilt by association? But Obama's deep associations with corrupt people and organizations don't so much as flicker the liberal eyebrow.

We now know about the investigations of ACORN-related voter registration fraud in 10 states. But have you heard some of the particulars about its nefarious activities in Pennsylvania?

The American Spectator's Jeffrey Lord reports: "'Between March 23rd and October 1st, various groups, including ACORN, submitted over 252,595 registrations to the Philadelphia County Election Board' with 57,435 rejected for faulty information. 'Most of these registrations were submitted by ACORN, and rejected due to fake social security numbers, incorrect dates of birth, clearly fraudulent signatures, addresses that do not exist, and duplicate registrations. In one case, a man was registered to vote more than 15 times since the Primary election.'"

There's no innocent explanation for any of this in Pennsylvania or for similar ACORN activities in other states. Why aren't honest Democrats joining Republicans in crying foul? How can they be so willfully blind to these threats to our system? I guarantee that if you ask, they'll give you their favorite liberal dodge, "Both sides are doing it." Dream on.

Just as alarming as the Obama left's direct assaults on the electoral process are their totalitarian tactics to chill their opponents' political speech. Don't think it's just Democratic attorneys in St. Louis misusing their power and the law as speech-suppressing weapons. Investor's Business Daily's editorial writers bullet point a number of egregious examples.

Lawyers for Obama wrote intimidating letters to television and radio stations that aired National Rifle Association ads in Pennsylvania detailing Obama's anti-gun record.

The Obama campaign complained to the Department of Justice when the American Issues Project had the audacity to run an ad tying Obama to violent revolutionary William Ayers, which scared some stations out of airing the spot.

Obama's army of supporters inundated radio station WGN with harassing phone calls and e-mails to disrupt its interviews of conservative writers investigating Obama's sordid background. This was the Obama campaign's chosen alternative to sending a representative to debate the conservatives, which they were invited to do.

As IBD points out, this is just a glimpse of what's in store for free conservative speech in an Obama administration, starting with the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine, which is designed to emasculate conservative radio, the last best hope to prevent a full-blown socialist revolution.

It is no coincidence that the alarming tactics of the Obama campaign are compatible with Obama's policy agenda, which he's promised ACORN a role in crafting. The campaign's efforts to steal the election, if necessary, and suppress the constitutionally protected expression of its opponents aligns with its plans for government to subsume the health care industry and to use the tax code to punish success and further erode private property, the backbone of liberty.

If I sound like an alarmist, then mission accomplished. People better wake up before it's too late.
---

McCain's Prospects Depend on Telling Truth About Obama
Phyllis Schlafly
Tuesday, October 14, 2008

The media are piling on against John McCain and some pundits are predicting it's all over, that Barack Obama has somehow won the election. As the old saying goes, it's not over until the fat lady sings, and it's high time for the fat lady to sing about Obama's scary agenda and the many reasons why it is too risky to elect him president.

We need to hear more about ACORN, the special-interest group that would like to steal this election by registering people who are not eligible to vote, such as registering ghost voters in Nevada under the names of the Dallas Cowboys. Obama's years of close association with ACORN need to be known to the public.

We should hear more about Obama's political friend William Ayers, the unrepentant bomber and Ward Churchill-type professor, who has a really scary plan to remake the curriculum of public schools in order to turn kids into radical socialists like himself. Obama helped deliver big bucks to Ayers' radical education project in Chicago.

Obama has already introduced one bill in the U.S. Senate called "Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Act," which would implement Ayers' social-outcome notions, and another to teach kindergartners Al Gore's propaganda about climate change. Voters should be reminded that Obama has called for making "sure your child can speak Spanish."

We need to have further explanations of the hateful attitudes Obama expressed in his autobiography "Dreams from My Father." We need further investigation of author Jack Cashill's evidence that this book was actually ghost-written by William Ayers.

The media have carefully crafted the several presidential debates to avoid two issues that are helpful to John McCain and hurtful to Obama: immigration and abortion. Let's get those issues out on the table.

Voters need to know that Obama favors giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. This practice is so unpopular with the voters that it brought down the political career of New York's recent unlamented Gov. Eliot Spitzer and caused the recall of California Gov. Gray Davis.

The one debate where the abortion issue was discussed was at Saddleback Church where Obama revealed his unacceptable attitude with the stupid statement that a discussion of the personhood of an unborn baby is above his pay grade. What's really above his pay grade is the job of U.S. president and commander in chief.

Four-dollar gasoline at the pump and the need for energy independence by drilling for American oil could be the No. 1 issue in the 2008 election. It should be hammered home to the voters that McCain and Sarah Palin are on the right side of this issue and Obama is wrong.

American voters need to be told that the current financial crisis was caused by the liberal policies of men who are mostly Democrats. A September 30, 1999, news article in the New York Times explained how Fannie Mae, under its then chairman and Clinton-appointee Franklin D. Raines, took on "significantly more risk" by demanding that the banks give subprime mortgages to low-income people who could not afford the houses they were buying.

By the end of the Clinton administration, 44 percent of the loans purchased by Fannie Mae were these risky mortgages. ACORN accelerated this practice by getting unemployed people to demonstrate in bank lobbies, demanding that more mortgages be given to people without adequate credit.

Good U.S. manufacturing jobs were moving overseas years before the current financial crunch. The Clinton administration globalists, the policies of Clinton's Wall Street friends such as Robert Rubin, and the trade agreements that discriminate against American workers and products are all part of our current economic distress.

The American people should be reminded that everything Barack Obama proposes will require higher taxes. Only tax reduction and the encouragement of good U.S. jobs will promote economic recovery, not tax increases or taxpayer bailouts of the billions lost by avoidable mistakes.

State amendments for traditional marriage are repeatedly adopted by the voters. The public should be reminded that Obama opposes these amendments and said he "respects" the outrageous California same-sex marriage decision.

The Democratic Platform adds, "We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act." DOMA is one of the most popular laws ever passed by Congress; it protects us from judges who try to force other states to accept the gay mischief of Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut.

The voters should be reminded that Barack Obama is promising all kinds of costly benefits to be paid for by the already burdened taxpayers, such as his bill to implement "the U.S. Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015" and "double" our annual spending for this goal.

Voters, not polls or pundits, will decide this presidential election. It's time to make sure the voters have as much information as possible about the candidates.
---

The Christian Game Plan
Nathan Tabor
Monday, October 13, 2008

Recently, Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden made the observation that past is prologue. Perhaps that's why the Obama camp is courting Christians so hard this election year.

Certainly, there is evidence from the past showing clearly that evangelical Christians can make the difference in the Presidential race. Back in November of 2004, the Washington Post ran a story that included this telling statement: "…Christian activists led the charge that GOP operatives followed and capitalized upon."

Staff writers Alan Cooperman and Thomas B. Edsall noted that grassroots activists in Ohio, Michigan, and Florida praised President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove, with insisting that, in order to win, the President needed to attract four million more evangelicals to the polls than he managed to do four years before.

In that critical 2004 election, in key battleground states, churches conducted voter registration drives and millions of voters' guides were handed out by Christian and pro-life organizations. Christians were energized and motivated to take part in the political process in an enthusiastic way.

As the Washington Post writers observed, "…Bush's conservative Christian base was essential to his victory."

Some political pundits had predicted that evangelical Christians would sit out this election, disenchanted with some of John McCain's maverick ways. Those fears were heightened when McCain seemed to be leaning toward a pro-abortion running mate.

But then, along came Sarah. And evangelical Christians roared back.

In Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Christians see one of their own -- a faith-filled woman of traditional values, who's not ashamed to pray for Divine guidance. Sarah sees the Bible as a blueprint for life and she's not afraid to talk about her desire to have a "servant's heart." The excitement among Christians for Sarah's candidacy is palpable.

This may be the most important election of our generation. It is a referendum on Barack Obama -- one of the most liberal candidates for President we've ever seen. Obama has said his first order of business as President would be to sign the radical Freedom of Choice Act, which would wipe out virtually all restrictions on abortion. In one outrageous act, Obama could eliminate decades of progress by the pro-life movement.

Obama can claim that his faith is important to him, that he prays to do God's will -- but actions preach louder than words. His policies speak volumes -- and they are contrary to the wisdom imparted by the Bible. If he really believes what the Bible says -- that before He created us in the womb, God knew us -- how could he possibly support abortion on demand? His appeals to Christian voters ring hollow as a result of his anti-Christian stands.

Both civic duty and Biblical imperatives demand that Christians show up at the polls in force this November. Despite what the polls may say, evangelicals can, indeed, turn the tide in the right direction. We have the power to elect a ticket that will be in keeping with God's game plan. After all, the only poll that counts is the one on Election Day.
---

There Are Two Irreconcilable Americas
Dennis Prager
Tuesday, October 14, 2008

It is time to confront the unhappy fact about our country: There are now two Americas. Not a rich one and a poor one; economic status plays little role in this division.

There is a red one and a blue one.

For most of my life I have believed, in what I now regard as wishful thinking, that the right and left wings have essentially the same vision for America, that it's only about ways to get there in which the two sides differ. Right and left share the same ends, I thought.

That is not the case. For the most part, right and left differ in their visions of America and that is why they differ on policies.

Right and the left do not want the same America.

The left wants America to look as much like Western European countries as possible. The left wants Europe's quasi-pacifism, cradle-to-grave socialism, egalitarianism and secularism in America. The right wants none of those values to dominate America.

The left wants America not only to have a secular government, but to have a secular society. The left feels that if people want to be religious, they should do so at home and in their houses of prayer, but never try to inject their religious values into society. The right wants America to continue to be what it has always been -- a Judeo-Christian society with a largely secular government (that is not indifferent to religion). These opposing visions explain, for example, their opposite views concerning nondenominational prayer in school.

The left prefers to identify as citizens of the world. The left fears nationalism in general (this has been true for the European left since World War I), and since the 1960s, the American left has come to fear American nationalism in particular. On the other side, the right identifies first as citizens of America.

The left therefore regards the notion of American exceptionalism as chauvinism; the United Nations and world opinion are regarded as better arbiters of what is good than is America. The right has a low opinion of the U.N.'s moral compass and of world opinion, both of which it sees as having a much poorer record of stopping genocide and other evils than America has.

The left is ambivalent about and often hostile to overt displays of American patriotism. That is why, for example, one is far more likely to find American flags displayed in Orange County, Calif., on national holidays than in liberal neighborhoods in West Los Angeles, Manhattan or San Francisco.

The left subscribes to the French Revolution, whose guiding principles were "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." The right subscribes to the American formula, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." The French/European notion of equality is not mentioned. The right rejects the French Revolution and does not hold Western Europe as a model. The left does. That alone makes right and left irreconcilable.

The left envisions an egalitarian society. The right does not. The left values equality above other values because it yearns for an America in which all people have similar amounts of material possessions. This is what propels the left to advocate laws that would force employers to pay women the same wages they pay men not only for the same job but for "comparable" jobs (as if that is objectively ascertainable). The right values equality in opportunity and strongly believes that all people are created equal, but the right values liberty, a man-woman based family and other values above equality.

The left wants a world -- and therefore an America -- devoid of nuclear weapons. The right wants America to have the best nuclear weapons. The right trusts American might more than universal disarmament.

The left wants to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples for the first time in history. The right wants gays to have equal rights, but to keep marriage defined as man-woman. This, too, constitutes an irreconcilable divide.

For these and other reasons, calls for a unity among Americans that transcends left and right are either naive or disingenuous. America will be united only when one of them prevails over the other. The left knows this. Most on the right do not.
---

The End of 'We the People'
Cal Thomas
Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Anyone desiring a preview of what the federal judiciary would look like under a Barack Obama administration need look no further than a narrow ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court allowing same-sex "marriage."

By a 4-3 margin, the high court deprived Connecticut citizens of the right to limit marriage and, thus, societal approval, to the legal and covenantal relationship between a man and a woman.

The ruling cannot be appealed, in keeping with the dictatorial mind-set of the majority.

The court majority bought the legal pabulum served up by attorneys for the plaintiffs that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is akin to once prevalent laws prohibiting interracial marriage, as well as laws that discriminated against women for certain jobs and relegated blacks to "separate but equal" schools and other public venues.

Writing for the majority, Justice Richard N. Palmer revealed his acceptance of the liberal doctrine of a "living Constitution" constantly in need of updating in keeping with the times: "Å our understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection." Using such a standard, if the "understanding" of the endowed rights of blacks were to devolve to a pre-civil rights-era acceptance of black inferiority, would Justice Palmer argue that blacks would then have to give up their rights in order to serve "contemporary appreciation"? And what else would Justice Palmer and his three colleagues allow to be determined by contemporary whim?

Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, accused the majority of behaving like "robed masters" and "philosopher kings." He added, "This is about our right to govern ourselves. It is bigger than gay marriage." He is correct, of course, but such notions are beginning to fade as more of us either don't care, or are willing to trade a ruling class - in this case the courts - for individual freedom and the right to shape societal norms and mores from the bottom up, not the top down.

Connecticut becomes the third state - Massachusetts and California are the others - to sanction same-sex marriage. California has a measure on its November ballot, Proposition 8, to reverse a state Supreme Court ruling and preserve marriage between men and women.

An indication that the objectives of the gay rights movement go far beyond what any two individuals wish to do with each other can be seen in what California has tried to impose on heterosexuals wishing to marry. According to Focus on the Family's Citizen Link Web page, some county clerks exchanged the words "bride" and "groom" on marriage licenses for "Party A" and "Party B." One clerk rejected the application of Rachel Bird and Gideon Codding because they wrote in the traditional designations for themselves. It took a lawsuit by the Coddings, decided in their favor on Oct. 3, for the state to back down on its "Party A" and "Party B" requirement. Couples will now be allowed the "option" to designate themselves however they wish.

Under an Obama administration, it is not far-fetched to see the day when liberal federal judges decide that religious organizations must lose their tax exemptions should they refuse to employ homosexuals or others they regard as engaging in deviant behavior.

Court challenges against those who believe homosexual behavior is sinful seem to be occurring with greater frequency. According to Citizenlink, The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in New Jersey, which is affiliated with the United Methodist Church, "lost part of its property tax exemption for refusing to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its property." The state is also investigating the organization after it was charged with violating New Jersey's nondiscrimination statutes. New Jersey has a religious exemption law that is supposed to protect churches and religious organizations, but it hasn't in this instance, which raises questions about their effectiveness. The aim of the gay rights lobby is to destroy all remnants of biblical values and societal norms.

Gay rights advocates will take their agenda to federal courts as soon as sufficient numbers of liberal judges are there to give them what they want. Watch them vote in overwhelming numbers for Barack Obama. He is their future. This election is, among other things, about the future of the majority and whether we want this country to be shaped by the courts, or by "we the people."
---

John McCain Can Still Win
Bill Steigerwald
Monday, October 13, 2008

Catching up with author and syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan during this election season is almost impossible. Up at 5 a.m. weekdays and still up many nights at midnight, commuting multiple times to Washington and sometimes to New York City, he's always on the move -- and yet he's a near-permanent presence on MSNBC, where he has become the house conservative in a den of liberals.

I caught up with Washington's consistently jovial pundit by telephone from his Northern Virginia home on Thursday, Oct. 9.

Q: Do you think it's over for John McCain because of this economic meltdown that seems to know no floor?

A: I just sent out a column that said I don't think it's over. McCain and (Sarah) Palin were winning this election for two weeks after the Republican convention. Since then we've had the worst market crash worldwide since 1929-1930 and we've had it in a telescoped four-week period. That has taken McCain from 2 points, or 3 points or 4 points up to around 8 or 10 behind in some polls, 11 in one tracking poll and an average of 6.

Is it over? No. I think McCain can still do it. But what he has to do is find a way to make Barack Obama no longer credible as an individual who can be president of the United States in a time of war and economic catastrophe. He has got to impeach his ideas, his record, his agenda and his judgment.

Q: Do you think these polls are accurately gauging support for Obama or do you think there is a "Bradley Effect" hidden in there?

A: I do believe that if the race turned out to be 48-48 with 4 undecided on Election Day, McCain would win. Look: People voting on the issue of race have already made up their minds. African Americans, I saw one poll, are 94-1 behind him. Of white Americans, there's a minority who are going to vote for him because he's African American and a small number who are going to vote against him for that reason.

Now is there a hidden factor in there? I don't know. I don't know the reason why, but Obama does not do well when he is closing. Hillary Clinton, as you know, beat him by 10 or 9 percent in Pennsylvania and about the same amount in Ohio and then by 41 in West Virginia and 35 in Kentucky. I think part of that is the Scots-Irish and those folks out there who don't cotton to Obama not simply because of reasons of race, but class. He really is not one of them. I think Colin Powell would do far better, for example.

Q: You have roots of sorts out this way. Your mom was from the Mon Valley, right?

A: They're all gone now. But my mom and uncles and grandparents were from Charleroi, Pa. I've got German-American cousins in Southeastern Ohio. They're all German-Americans and I did very well. I was endorsed by the union at the steel plant over in Weirton. So those are sort of our folks. Barack Obama is too exotic. He's too Harvard. He's too Hyde Park, University of Chicago -- riding around on his bike with his little hat on. And then you get a picture of Sarah leaning back on a Harley-Davidson (laughs).

Q: Can Palin still help McCain or is she starting to lose some of her appeal?

A: She's still got a tremendous appeal in getting the crowds out, there's no question about that. She's enormously exciting but she's also been under vicious attack, savage attack, ever since she was nominated. She's holding up well. She can grab the media at any time and she's still a tremendously attractive commodity. But there's no doubt that under fire she has been hurt a bit.

Q: Do you think Obama is playing it maybe too cool?

A: Obama may be playing it too cool. With Sarah Palin beating him up and McCain starting to work on him now, he better not come off as a wimp -- complaining about "they're attacking me" and "they're saying these terrible things about me" -- because wimps don't win.

Q: Do you think Obama really believes all the neo-New Deal domestic policy and all the big spending programs and all the big-government things he's talking about doing or does he just have to say that to win his party's nomination and the presidency?

A: I think Barack Obama at core is a quintessential pragmatist who is interested in advancing the career of Barack Obama. I think he's a nice guy. I think he's got a nice personality. I think he's a friendly sort. I think he's a guy who does not like confrontation. But I do think he's a pragmatist. He's been moving very swiftly away from the left, where he was out there with his crowd in Chicago -- ditching Rev. Wright, dumping Bill Ayers and that crowd, agreeing with (Supreme Court Justice Anton) Scalia on the right to own a handgun in D.C., agreeing with Scalia that child rapists, even in non-capital cases, could be executed.

He's moved steadily to the center of the Democratic Party because he knows that's where the election is going to be won or lost. He's moved out of the far left of the party. He's much tougher on talking with the dictators than he was to begin with. So he's changed on a variety of issues.

Q: Do you think an Obama victory will really make that much of a difference in our foreign policy -- he's an interventionist on everything but Iraq?

A: My guess is Barack Obama is looking on the idea of any war with Iran with less enthusiasm that John McCain and Joe Lieberman would. Look, while he's taken this hard line in foreign policy, I think he'd be far less likely to get us into another war over there than John McCain on that issue. Even though he's talking hawkish, I get the sense that he's doing that because he's got to satisfy some of those Hillary Democrats and conservative Democrats who want a tough president.

Q: Are we witnessing the end of the Republican Party's 40-year cycle of power, as Chalmers Johnson says in The Nation?

A: I've written that. I think what is killing the Republican Party is the alteration of the electorate. You have to remember when we put this Nixon coalition together, probably 92 percent of the electorate was white. African-Americans were probably 7 percent, if that, because they didn't vote in the South, and the rest was 1 percent. Now the white population is down to 66 percent and in voting terms it's probably not much more than say 75 percent.

Republican (strategy) is (based on winning) the white vote. Nixon and Reagan won it by 67 and 64 percent and that simply was enough to win the election. But now you've got to do more than that. You've got to start getting some of these other minorities to put together a coalition and eventually, by the time as we move closer to the center of the century, if you got every white vote in the country, you couldn't win on that alone. (laughs) And we can't get them all! (laughs) Let me tell you this to make a flat statement: Foolishly, the Republican Party is condoning the importation of a brand new electorate which will doom the Republican Party.

Q: And that is?

A: This new electorate? Ninety percent of the immigrants coming in are from Third World countries and every single minority population which comes from the Third World votes Democratic -- anywhere from 60 percent to 95 percent. These folks are predominately poor -- and they believe in government. And the reason they believe in government is the best of reasons for them; they get more out of it than they pay in. The bottom 30 percent in income in the United States doesn't pay any income taxes at all, I don't think. When Barack Obama says we're going to hit the top 5 percent (of income earners), the top 5 percent pay 60 percent of all income taxes.

Q: Is there anything John McCain can say or do to pull this off -- besides trying to out-promise Barack Obama with things like his promise to pay off our bad mortgages?

A: I don't know why I paid my mortgage off (laughs). ... The main thing he has to do -- as the country desperately wants change and, as I write (in today's column), the Republican brand party is on the same shelf as the Chinese baby formula right now -- is he and his campaign and Sarah Palin have got to raise doubts in the public mind that Barack Obama has the ideas or the record or the judgment or the character to be president of the United States in a time of two wars and the greatest economic collapse maybe since the Great Depression -- to raise those question marks over Barack Obama's head. Barack Obama's assignment in those first two debates was to remove those question marks.

Q: And he didn't do it yet?

A: I think he did it partly but I don't think he's closed the sale yet. That's McCain's opportunity.

Q: Which state will ultimately determine the race?

A: It could be Ohio or Florida. But it could be other ones. One could be Pennsylvania, if McCain could win that. But it could be Virginia, it could be Colorado, it could be North Carolina. Look, I'll say this: If McCain doesn't win Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia and Florida -- and Colorado -- I think he loses the election. He's got to win all five of those and they are all up for grabs now.

Q: Intrade, the online "Prediction Market" where you can buy or sell shares of McCain or Obama based on who you think will win, shows Obama ahead 74 percent to 26 percent. Where would you put your money?

A: I think it's very close to what I would put it. Yep, I wouldn't disagree with that.


The $50 billion bipartisan AIDS boondoggle
By Michelle Malkin

The Left is cheering Senate reauthorization of the bipartisan global AIDS bill. Supported by President Bush and the Republicans, it triples spending on HIV/AIDS to $48 billion over five years–with $18 billion more in spending than Bush had requested.

Only 16 Senators voted against the massive spending package that comes in the midst of the stimulus-palooza frenzy and the continued dysfunctional state of federal entitlement programs.

Also in the bill: a provision lifting the long-time HIV/AIDS travel ban.

Is this the right time to be heaping the world’s AIDS health care bill on American taxpayers? The White House and the Democrat leadership apparently think so.

Compassion comes at a steep cost. Sen. Jeff Sessions cites Congressional Budget Office estimates that the new AIDS/HIV-infected immigrants entering after the travel ban is lifted could cost the government more than $80 million over a 10-year period. And that’s just the start.

“Most people just don’t want to talk about that.” Nope. Because you’ll risk getting called a bigot or homophobe for daring to bring it up.
 
The outcome, which included the addition of water projects for Indian reservations, demonstrated the complicity of both major political parties in out-of-control spending designed to benefit a powerful special interest group.

However, the $200 billion already spent by U.S. taxpayers on HIV/AIDS here and around the world has not resulted in any cures or a vaccine, and anti-AIDS drugs are coming under increased scrutiny for their ineffectiveness and side-effects.

In addition to spending $50 billion at a time of growing economic difficulties in the U.S., the bill lifts the ban on entry into the U.S. of AIDS-infected aliens, who could end up adding to the costs of the health care system.

Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that providing federal disability, health and nutrition benefits to aliens with HIV/AIDS and their children could cost the government $83 million over a 10-year period.

Among those speaking out against the “reckless” overspending in the bill was Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky, who declared, “When so many Americans are facing economics problems at home, I have a hard time needlessly tripling the funding for this program.”

Bunning also declared, “We need to ensure that these funds reach the neediest countries and not those that can afford their own space and nuclear programs, such as China and Russia. At a time when China is tripling their defense budget and manipulating their currency, I have a hard time sending billions of dollars over there…”

Yet, Senator DeMint’s amendment to limit the countries in which the AIDS money could be spent was defeated 70-24.

Hans Bader at Openmarket.org shakes his head at warped priorities:

U.S. immigration law is full of contradictions. On the one hand, U.S. immigration laws keep out skilled immigrants who would help our economy, by sharply limiting the number of H-1B visas, and making legal immigration a very difficult and lengthy process. (Economists overwhelmingly support allowing more skilled immigrants to come to the U.S.)

Yet, simultaneously, Congress has just voted to repeal a ban on AIDS-infected people becoming permanent residents of the U.S., even though the Congressional Budget Office says doing so will cost taxpayers many millions of dollars. Health care costs associated with AIDS often exceed $100,000 per person per year. Permanent residents, like citizens, can be eligible for Medicaid, as well as the many taxpayer-subsidized health-care programs aimed specifically at people with AIDS. (We wrote earlier about the counterproductive effects of some taxpayer-funded AIDS programs overseas).

Meanwhile, an amnesty for illegal aliens is likely in the next Congress, which will have a bigger liberal majority than the current one.
Crikey.

***

Update: Sen. Jon Kyl’s statement…

“I supported PEPFAR when it was authorized five years ago, and because of its success, I would have voted to extend the original funding and policy for another five years. I could have even considered doubling the original authorization to $30 billion as the President requested, but the level of funding provided in this bill was far too excessive for me to support.

“The bill also made a number of bad changes to existing PEPFAR policy, like removing the requirement that at least 55 percent of the money actually goes to the treatment of AIDS patients rather than to corrupt governments.

“The dramatic increase in funding will also come at a time when Americans are feeling pain at the gas pump, in the housing market, and at the grocery store. Is this really the time to ask Americans to spend $48 billion more on foreign aid? Congress must be mindful of its obligations to American citizens before it funds multi-billion dollar programs abroad.

“For the United States to have the resources to continue funding its responsibilities to its citizens and to help others around the globe, we need a strong economy that creates wealth. I can think of a lot of other things we could do with part of the $48 billion to improve our economy so that we would be better able to help others in the future.”


Another Obama Marxist
By Lance Fairchok

Barack Obama has a thing for Marxists. He befriends them, listens to their counsel, and he even hires them to work in his campaign.  And they seem to feel the warmth.  President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, who led a revolution there in 1979,  says Barack Obama's presidential bid is a "revolutionary" phenomenon, and Americans are "laying the foundations for a revolutionary change." A captured computer revealed that an unknown person chatted with Marxist FARC guerillas on Obama's behalf (they believed), stating he would be the next President and US policy towards Columbia would change. Frank Marshall Davis, a dear Obama friend and mentor was as a member of the Communist Party USA. Barack Obama just seems to attract Marxists.

If the people he surrounds himself with are any indication of his core beliefs, a higher capital gains tax to punish the rich, even if it diminishes actual tax revenue, may be only the beginning. Obama's Official campaign blogger, Sam Graham-Felsen, a former writer for the leftist Nation magazine and a contributor to the Socialist Viewpoint, is certainly a believer in class warfare.

The capitalist ruling class of the United States exercises a virtual dictatorship not only over American society, but also over the entire world. This capitalist class rule is the basic cause of the poverty, wars and the degradation of the natural environment.

After being expelled from Socialist Action in 1999, we formed Socialist Workers Organization in an attempt to carry on the project of building a nucleus of a revolutionary party true to the historic teachings and program of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. -- Socialist Viewpoint (info@socialistviewpoint.org)

The product of a Harvard education, Sam is an admirer of anti-American academic Noam Chomsky, a hypocrite and fraud masquerading as a political philosopher. Mr. Chomsky, perhaps admired by Obama as by his official blogger, is fond of visiting dictators and terrorists and giving speeches blaming all the worlds' ills on America. All while accepting money from military contacts at MIT. Chomsky was an ardent supporter of Pol Pot, and to this day denies a holocaust occurred in Cambodia (1.67 million died). He is unrepentant about the horrors his vile ideology encouraged and supports Hamas and Hezbollah with the same willful blindness today.

In an article in the Harvard Crimson, Sam writes of his hero:

For me, hearing Chomsky speak for the first time was a life-changing experience. His ability to take preconceptions and destroy them-to completely remodel one's understanding of reality with cold, hard facts-blew me away. When I left what was then the ARCO Forum last fall, I felt as though I had been through the Matrix and back. Chomsky really has this effect because he bombards you with evidence and logic, not empty rhetoric. It is nearly impossible to hear him or read him-once you've actually checked his facts yourself (he even cites page numbers in public addresses)-and deny what he's saying.

For anyone who has actually endured one of Chomsky's muddled rants or tried to verify the claims in his books, young Sam's praise is comical; and a clear indication he has never actually read one. You find very quickly Chomsky is not overly concerned with "facts," as he fabricates them with abandon. He cites page numbers, to his own books, which recycle themselves with astonishing success. Hardly an example of a towering intellect, his tired canards are sufficient to impress the worshipful Sam Graham-Felsen, and endear himself to the same leftist academics that so easily embraced dictators such Ho Chi Min and Pol Pot, idolize Chavez and Castro and legitimized terrorists like Yasser Arafat. Chomsky is the master of post-modern moral relativism, quick to excuse atrocity with obfuscation.

On the day after 9-11, Chomsky wrote:

"The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people."

It may be simple self-aggrandizing hypocrisy that inspires Mr. Chomsky's comments, though I suspect, more likely he mistakes the accolades of twenty year old activists as confirmation of his own genius. He plays what works with the crowd. Here are some other nihilistic gems gleaned from his pedantic and incomprehensible writing:

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied today, then every Post-War American president would have to be hanged."

"Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state."
"Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media."

"The United States is unusual among the industrial democracies in the rigidity of the system of ideological control - "indoctrination," we might say - exercised through the mass media.”

"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."

"I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system."

Sam Graham-Felsen, hired to run Obama's blog, writes about Noam Chomsky in a Marxist publications that openly calls for revolution against the American government. This is a Presidential candidate's choice to run the on-line portion of his campaign. That speaks volumes of his character and worldview. Contradicting what he says in public, Obama is surrounding himself with poeple who never seem to learn that their absurd ideologies end in misery and ruin. 

Sam is young and has much to learn, so we can forgive his silly hagiographies, the ones about Chomsky and the ones about Obama. His hero worship is eager and emotional and completely without substance, much as Obama's campaign promises are without substance. Obama is a community organizer in the Saul Alinsky mold, and knows where to get people like Sam who have energy and drive. His staff is nothing if not energetic. He even cut his activist teeth in Chicago, the stomping grounds of Alinsky and so many others in the "progressive" community. One wonders why the windy city still has a murder rate higher than Baghdad, after so many years of enlightened activism.

The adults in the Obama campaign expect us to believe that a campaign staff filled with Marxists and radicals does not reflect the candidate. We are supposed to believe that ideologues who distain America and Americans can improve the system that has brought humanity more prosperity and well-being than any nation before it. Speaking out of both sides of their mouths, they tell us we are great, and then insist we must change because we are responsible for all the bad things that happen in the world. That alone should anger the electorate enough to defeat them. The change Obama will bring will not be the change America needs or expects. It will be the change of naive adolescents, which think Noam Chomsky wise.

We continue to have an optimistic outlook about the revolutionary potential of the world working class to rule society in its own name-socialism. We are optimistic that the working class, united across borders, and acting in its own class interests can solve the devastating crises of war, poverty, oppression, and environmental destruction that capitalism is responsible for. - The Socialist Viewpoint
---

Why Exposing Obama Marxism Won’t Work
by Joel Gaines
June 16th, 2008

Of late, there have been a number of articles and blog posts pointing to the evidence of Barak Obama’s Marxist political theory. It is interesting, to say the least, but it is also going to be completely ineffective as a tool to defeat him in November.

I am not debating that Obama is a Marxist. His own words and associations reflect a long-held belief in class struggle, liberation theology, and alienation of those who produce vs. the owners of the production. I am also not trying to define Obama’s Marxism - mostly because we don’t call it Marxism anymore. Marx himself has become irrelevant to the 31 flavors of “Marxism”, which have evolved in various places across the world. That Obama leans toward a “Marxist” view of the world is easy to see for anyone who chooses to remove the rose-tinted lenses.

The issue at hand is more about whether Obama’s Marxism is a relevant criticism of his policy ideas with a goal of using the criticism as a means to expose and defeat him. To my mind, the answer is no.

Most Americans really have no idea what Marxism is. Some may equate it with the former Soviet Union, but Marxism was dead there within a few years of the 1917 revolution. Soviet policies and world view were based upon Communism and Leninism, which is an entirely different animal.

Additionally, the impact of calling someone a Marxist in America is trivial. It will be seen as nothing more than a rhetorical name-calling with the intent of smearing the senator. This isn’t because people can’t believe it is true; it is more because Americans have never been exposed to Marxism as a threat to the nation, as have countries in Europe. It is an undefined experience in the minds of most Americans - the word has no value in America to cause the shock and investigation that it should.

Those who consider themselves Marxist also don’t understand the criticism. Most who define themselves as such are folks who study Marxism - and are more likely to be “classic Marxists”. Obama is certainly not one of those. His political theory is borne in a hybrid - Neo-Marxist tendencies to be certain, but Barak Obama has lived in the cultural Marxist environment of Reverend Wright. Indeed, his Marxist theory - instilled in Barak by his activist mother - was the basis for seeking out Revered Wright’s church as a place to organize blacks for social and economic revolution.

However, many Americans have been blissfully ignorant, and some by choice, at what Barak Obama espouses as his defining world view. The vast majority of these folks are as ignorant about the threat Obama’s Marxist political theory is to what they know today. In the 21st century, Marxism simply doesn't mean anything to most Americans because they lack a knowledge of history and an understanding of what Marxism is, how it has been the foundation of horrific, oppressive governments in the past that we should have learned from and remembered, but unfortunately have already forgotten.

So, calling Barak Obama a Marxist is a great way to define him as applies to his policy beliefs. As a criticism, it just doesn’t work.

Regarding the above, Chris says:
I must say that I understand what you are trying to convey. I’ve often thought the same thing many times. Calling someone a Marxist is almost a badge of honor. Some may even reply ‘Thank you’. They do not understand the history of what they believe in. However I don’t think that it won’t have any effect. There are many people hear who have read The Communist Mannifesto and understand the philosophy and that it doesn’t sound very American. There are also many older people who were alive during the World Wars and the Cold War. They will appreciate the connection. And there are many people here who are migrants from Europe and Asia who know very well what Marxism is and what the real results have been throughout World history. Education is crucial. We can’t miss a beat. Marxism is but one piece of the puzzle. By itself it won’t win an election. But it is needed in order for the other pieces to make sense later on.


Obama, Black Liberation Theology, and Karl Marx
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
May 28, 2008

What is the secular basis of Judaism?  Practical need, self-interest.  What is the worldly religion of the Jew?  Huckstering.  What is his worldly God?  Money.
Very well then!  Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time."
  - Karl Marx; essay, The Jewish Question; 1844

Not having a theology degree, nor even a Ph.D., and being, too, a bit naïve regarding matters of high-brow philosophical currents throughout the ages, I have to admit that when I first read Karl Marx' essay, The Jewish Question, I was actually stunned by its contents. 

First off, my rather cursory education in various philosophies and in Marxism, particularly, did not prepare me for the bitter thrust of old Karl's potent anti-Semitism.  In fact, until reading this particular essay, I would have never, in a million years, connected much of anything whatsoever Marxian with Jew hate.

Who would?

After all, Karl Marx, himself, was a Jew. Hitler and many others blamed the Jews for Communism, thanks to the number of Jews who played prominent roles in the Russian Revolution. I naturally associated twentieth century Anti-Semitism with Adolph Hitler and the Nazis.

Ironically, if Karl Marx had still been alive and residing in Germany or any of the Nazi-occupied countries during WWII, he would have perished along with his brethren, despite his own "self-loathing-Jew" status.

Marx envisioned a society "which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering," because this classless society "would make the Jew impossible."

Personally, I find the opinion of some that Marx was a genius, to be downright laughable.  Regarding his opinions on the Jews, one is left to ponderously consider which ones were dumb, and which were dumber.

Evidently Karl Marx was as utterly ignorant of the true tenets of Judaism (Self-sufficiency does not equate to "huckstering.") as he was of the diabolical possibilities inherent in his own words, once they were in the hands of one Adolph Hitler.

This atrocious irony might be merely a historical oddity if old Karl's words were not still bouncing around in the heads of those who wish to lead new revolutions based upon them.  But Marx' words still dominate much of what happens on the world stage today, even in our own republic.

The word emphasis has changed a bit. The industrial proletariat is no longer the focus. But as a newly prominent American politician is wont to remind us:  words do matter.

Yes, of course, words matter, as many leaders of ambitious movements have mightily declared.

...the power which has always started the greatest religious and political avalanches in history rolling has from time to immemorial been the magic of power of the spoken word, and that alone.

Particularly the broad masses of the people can be moved only by the power of speech.   - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf.

The Oppressed Vs. the Oppressors

Just words. 

But where do they come from, and what do they mean in America today?

I might never have delved into the subject of the oppressed vs. the oppressors if I had not gone to Chicago in January seeking answers about a man who would be president.

When I visited Obama's church, still under the directorship of Jeremiah Wright, I came away with far more questions than answers, and one thing leading to another, have spent the last several months trying to fathom how Marxist political philosophy wound up emblazoned with a cross and a pulpit, and pretending to rely on the Bible for its authority.

It is somewhat difficult to imagine a more contorted blasphemy, with the single possible exception of Hitler himself claiming to be acting by divine decree in the interests of Christianity -- which is precisely what Hitler did do, while hoodwinking the German people into electing him Chancellor.

Hitler sprinkled Mein Kampf with Christian language, most likely to fit with the predominantly Christian German population, and appealed to voters on the strength of his Christian "calling":

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

As most junior-high Sunday schoolers know, however, a Christian is judged on actions, not words, and Hitler was no Christian.  He was a bamboozler of the lowest imaginable order.

Jeremiah Wright is the tiny tip of Obama's spiritual iceberg.

The phenomenon that raised so many questions for me in January, when I visited Trinity United Church of Christ, was not Jeremiah Wright's sermon, which turned out to be just a call for all good congregants to support Barack Obama for President.  It wasn't the sermon that caught me off guard; I was prepared for that.  I had watched video of Wright, giving five of his fiery sermons. 

The thing that really got me to thinking, reading and searching for answers was the church bookstore.

Having been a practicing Christian for more than 40 years now, and a practicing Catholic for 26 of those years, I have visited perhaps 100 various Christian bookstores, both Protestant and Catholic.  In all of those places, one thing tied together the books for sale:  Christianity.

Not so in Obama's church bookstore.

I spent more than an hour perusing available books, and found as many claiming to represent Muslim thought as those representing Christian thought.  Black Muslim thought, to be specific.

And the books claiming to support Christianity were surprisingly of a more political than religious nature.  The books by James H. Cone, Wright's own mentor, were prominent and numerous.

Now that I have read a number of the books that presumably Wright's congregants (including Barack Obama) have also read, I can only conclude that the thing tying these volumes together is not Christianity, nor any real religion, but the political philosophy of Karl Marx.

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."  - Marx and Engels; The Communist Manifesto; 1848

If Marxism can be summed up in only a couple of phrases, now familiar to nearly every modern person, they would be "class struggle" and "oppressed vs. oppressors."

James H. Cone, the unquestioned modern-day mentor of all the black power preachers, claims to have created a new theology, uniting the Muslim black power tenets of Malcolm X and the Christian foundations of Martin Luther King, Jr.

All he has really done, in my opinion, is take original liberation theology from Latin America, developed in the early 1960s by Catholic priests, and painted it black.

Liberation Theology vs. Traditional Christianity

The teaching authorities of the Catholic Church, have for more than 20 years now, been attempting to stamp out these heretical liberation theologies, denouncing them as vehemently antithetical to the Catholic Christian faith, and have been strenuously combating this Marxist counterfeit Christianity on many fronts within the Church herself.

Of course, the Medieval, iron-fisted clamp of the Catholic Church's authority, even within the Church herself, is routinely overstated, and there are renegade priests all over the place (more on another of Obama's spiritual mentors, a liberation theology Catholic priest in Chicago, in Part Two next week). 

Not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church has no authority whatsoever over those claiming to represent protestant interpretations of the Christian faith, such as Cone and Wright.

But it is important to note here that liberation theology, including black liberation theology, has not gone unnoticed by the learned biblical scholars within the Vatican, and liberation theology has been roundly denounced as both heretical and dangerous, not only to the authentic Christian faith, but even more so to the societies which come to embrace it.

Just one nugget from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Instruction on Certain Aspects of the ‘Theology of Liberation':

"...it would be illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites them (liberation theologies), and to accept elements of the Marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the (Marxist) ideology, or to enter into the practice of the class-struggle and of its Marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads."
  - (Author:  Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, now Pope Benedict XVI; written in 1984)

Understanding that black liberation theology is Marxism dressed up to look like Christianity helps explain why there is no conflict between Cone's "Christianity" and Farrakhan's "Nation of Islam."  They are two prophets in the same philosophical (Marxist) pod, merely using different religions as backdrops for their black-power aims.

As Cone himself writes in his 1997 preface to a new edition of his 1969 book, Black Theology and Black Power:

"As in 1969, I still regard Jesus Christ today as the chief focus of my perspective on God but not to the exclusion of other religious perspectives.  God's reality is not bound by one manifestation of the divine in Jesus but can be found wherever people are being empowered to fight for freedom.  Life-giving power for the poor and the oppressed is the primary criterion that we must use to judge the adequacy of our theology, not abstract concepts.  As Malcolm X put it:  ‘I believe in a religion that believes in freedom.  Any time I have to accept a religion that won't let me fight a battle for my people, I say to hell with that religion'."   (p. xii)

And, to drive his Marxist emphasis even further, Cone again quotes Malcolm X:

"The point that I would like to impress upon every Afro-American leader is that there is no kind of action in this country ever going to bear fruit unless that action is tied in with the overall international (class) struggle." (p. xiii)

(Ironically, considering the formal Church teaching regarding liberation theologies, this book of Cone's was published by Orbis, owned and managed by The Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America, a Maryknoll religious entity -- so much for the totalitarianism of the Catholic Church.)

It is this subjugation of genuine Christianity to the supremacy of the Marxist class struggle, which marks the true delineation between traditional Christianity and black liberation theology, as Pope Benedict XVI (writing in 1984 as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) sums up thusly:

"For the Marxist, the truth is a truth of class:  there is no truth but the truth in the struggle of the revolutionary class."

Which is precisely why Cone and his disciples are able to boldly proclaim that if the Jesus of traditional Christianity is not united with them in the Marxist class struggle, then he is a "white Jesus," and they must "kill him." (Cone; A Black Theology of Liberation; p. 111)

And Cone brings it all the way home with this proclamation of liberation from traditional Christianity itself:

"The appearance of black theology means that the black community is now ready to do something about he white Jesus, so that he cannot get in the way of our revolution."

Move over Jesus and make way for Cone, Wright and Obama.

The revolution is at hand.

And presto-chango, once we've followed Marx, Cone, Wright and Obama down the yellow brick road to revolution, Christianity as we've known it for millennia ceases to exist. 

Obama was raised by his mother, the agnostic anthropologist, to regard religion as "an expression of human culture...not its wellspring, just one of the many ways -- and not necessarily the best way -- that man attempted to control the unknowable and understand the deeper truths about our lives." (Audacity of Hope; p. 204)

However, when Barack Obama met Jeremiah Wright in the mid-eighties, between his years at Columbia and Harvard Law, he found a "faith" perfectly accommodating to his already well-formed worldview. 

From The Audacity of Hope:

"In the history of these (African people's) struggles, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; rather, it was an active, palpable agent in the world." (p. 207)

As Obama explains further, it was Wright's (and presumably Cone's, as required of new members at Trinity) peculiar form of Christianity that Obama found palatable:

"It was because of these newfound understandings (at Trinity under Wright) -- that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice...that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity...and be baptized."

Wright's vision of Christianity was perfectly appetizing to Barack Obama; he didn't need to change a thing.

Liberation Theology and the New Order of Things

James Cone devotes many words in all of his books to instructing his disciples to beware of those resistant to the necessary change in the power structure, warning that, "Those who would cast their lot with the victims must not forget that the existing structures are powerful and complex...Oppressors want people to think that change is impossible." (James H. Cone; Speaking the Truth; p. 49)

Pope Benedict XVI (writing as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) gives an equally stringent message to Catholics about liberation theology regarding the perversion of the Christian understanding of the "poor":

"In its positive meaning the Church of the poor signifies the preference given to the poor, without exclusion, whatever the form of their poverty, because they are preferred by God...But the theologies of liberation...go on to a disastrous confusion between the poor of the Scripture and the proletariat of Marx.  In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle."

According to Pope Benedict's instruction on liberation theology, our understanding of the virtues, faith, hope and charity are subjugated to the new Marxist order:

Faith becomes "fidelity to history." 

We are the ones we've been waiting for, to bring about the final fruition of the class struggle.

Hope becomes "confidence in the future." 

Yes, we can change the world; we don't need God.  Our collective redemption comes when we engage in the Marxist class struggle.

Charity becomes "option for the poor."

All are not created equal.  Special political privilege for the oppressed, socialism, will set us free.

It's the dawn of a new age.

Comments
Kayle-Ann,

I'm not sure that the logical progression you're eloquently presenting is, in fact, logical.

Tying Obama to Wright, Wright to Cone, Cone to Marx and Marx to Hitler requires leaps of logic that would essentially validate the sermon that the Reverend John Hagee gave saying the Holocaust was ordained by God as part and parcel of prophecy.

I think a more even-handed approach to this would be to allow Senator Obama to present what his Christian beliefs entail, rather than making a complex argument that he is a Marxist, which is what I think your article presents.
Posted by: Dan Luther | May 28, 2008 02:07 AM

Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is at heart a Marxist that if elected will change the U.S. much as Hitler did Germany.
Posted by: D. LeBeau | May 28, 2008 02:13 AM

Regarding the Pope and Hitler: just a month ago, the Pope had warned against all politicians who claim to have all the answers. As a youngster, he lived in a country governed by such a regime.

Yet too many people of all age groups continue to be infatuated with Obama, who is a cult figure. They STILL believe that 'Yes, we can! The Federal Government can solve ALL of our problems! Our families, our clergy, our local authorities and our state governments have no roles to play!'

Duh.

Obama is lying to the gullible. His claim that the US Federal Government is omnipotent is a lie because since its foundation, the USA has been a Union, the members of which all have played some roles. Each American, as well as his/her own family, clergy, local government and state government has a role to play, as does the Fed Government. The Fed Govt. is not a silver bullet, contrary to Obama's claim. It does not have 'all the answers', and neither does any other INDIVIDUAL component of the American society.

What Pope Benedict XVI wants is a very decentralised Union, whereas what Obama wants is a savior Fed Govt. But no Fed Govt. can be a savior - only Jesus can be.
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | May 28, 2008 04:14 AM

Marx was a over rated windbag and those who see him as the messiah are losers plain and simple. In fact, socialism strives for a world without risk for the masses and empowers the flawed who are somehow endowed with a vision for all humanity that never actually transpires. What a boring world they envision. Ever seen or read about the Soviet Union? China during Mao? Cuba today? All for what? Some imaginary utopia where no risk, no failure, no challenges exist? How many generations must these idiots persist if "only the right people are in charge"? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting the outcome to be different. Socialists are a prime example of insanity. Personally I think Marx was like most liberals today: a bitter unhappy person who was guilty of the Seven Deadly Sins;

Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.

Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.

Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.

Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.

Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.

Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.

Could this not describe liberals more perfectly?
Posted by: DaveT | May 28, 2008 04:56 AM

The first major accomplishment of John Paul II was to go to Medelin and inform the worldly Jesuits who swapped rosaries for rifles -that it was over. (liberation theology)
Posted by: Don L | May 28, 2008 06:27 AM

This will be short and for many leftists not so sweet. It will be unequivocal. There are no PhD’s, no laymen, no person on this Earth who understand Karl Marx's Marxism. Marx himself said he was not a Marxist...how messed up is that?
Oh yes, one can easily use all of the definitional phrases and buzzwords, and at one time or another every socialist group does so, but other than to sound intellectual, Marxism to them is a socialism. It is too all who study it. Why?

Karl Marx failed to establish anything close to a coherent philosophy. To one scholar it means one thing, to another something entirely different. It is the noir Gumby of the political philosophies.

One of the most noted Marxist scholars Thomas Sowell stated; "Marx at different times believes different things, he changes his mind, he will contradict himself", a recognition that Marx's work consists largely of works of criticism and diatribes against his enemies. Thomas Sowell rightly points out that "because many of these doctrines have disappeared...later interpreters... have not fully understood the real thrusts and limits of [his] words."

One thing is for sure. When you get a noir a la carte, anti capitalists, limned philosophy it is made use of by every socially misfit faction with a grievance against mankind's freedom -- say like the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Habu | May 28, 2008 07:14 AM

Great article: never have I seen it more eloquently stated that the four big "Axis of Evil" philosophies of the last century - Marxism, Nazi-style fascism, Black Power militancy, and Islam - are intimately intertwined, and collectively must be stamped out in order for the American way of life to survive.
Posted by: Dave D | May 28, 2008 07:25 AM
---

WHY AREN'T WE ALL KEYNESIANS YET?
SYNOPSIS: Celebrates Keyne's pivotal role in saving Capitalism

 This year is the 150th anniversary of Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto - and the effort to rehabilitate the discredited prophet is in full swing. Never mind the dismal track record of Marxism as a governing ideology; article after article proclaims that today's turbulent world economy is just what the great man predicted. One writer in The New Yorker even proclaimed Marx 'the thinker of the future'.

 I say phooey. Sure, Marx wrote about economic upheavals; so did lots of people. What he never managed to do was offer either a comprehensible explanation of why such upheavals happen, or any suggestions about what to do about them (except abolish capitalism). By my reckoning, Karl Marx made about as much contribution to economics as Zeppo Marx made to comedy. Or as John Maynard Keynes, rather more elegantly, put it, 'Marxian Socialism must always remain a portent to the historians of Opinion - how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised so powerful and enduring an influence over the minds of men, and through them, the events of history.'

 Harsh words - but Keynes earned the right to say them, for it was Keynes, not Marx, who cracked the code of crisis economics - who explained how recessions and depressions can happen. And as Japan and the rest of Asia have gone into an economic tailspin, it is Keynesianism, not Marxism that offers useful guidance about how they might save themselves.

 I have often wondered why Keynes - unlike, say, Freud - has never become a pop cultural icon. His life surely was interesting enough. Before the First World War he was a member of the free-thinking, Bohemian cluster of artists and writers known as the Bloomsbury Group (Trent Lott would not have approved of his private life). After that war he became famous as the author of The Economic Consequences of the Peace, an eloquent condemnation of the vindictive terms imposed on the defeated Germans; his concern was vindicated by the rise of Adolf Hitler, and the memory of his warnings helped convince a victorious America to aid, not punish, its prostrate enemies after World War II. As that war was drawing to a close, Keynes arrived in New Hampshire as the most important member of the British delegation to the famous Bretton Woods conference - which established an international monetary system that provided the world economy with much-needed stability for a generation.

 But however colorful his resume, only one item on it really matters: his 1936 publication of The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, which was to depression economics what The Origin of Species was to biology. Before the General Theory, economists could not explain how depressions happen, or what to do about them. (I've tried going through the pre-Keynesian business cycle literature; it's a vast wasteland). After 1936, they could.

True, there was a long stretch - around 25 years - when many economists turned their backs on Keynes. They claimed, with some justice, that he made assumptions that could not be rigorously justified - and purists argued that a theory whose microfoundations are based on observation rather than axioms should be regarded as illegitimate, no matter how well it might work in practice. The devaluation of Keynes was helped by the non-Keynesian nature of the problems facing the world in the 70s and 80s - inflation rather than deflation (although in the early 20s it was none other than Keynes who provided the first coherent explanation of the hyperinflations then consuming many of Europe's currencies), inadequate saving rather than deficient demand. And for a while various anti-Keynesian ideas - ranging from mathematically impeccable academic demonstrations that recessions can't happen (or if they do it's only because people rationally choose to enjoy more leisure), to popular crank doctrines like supply-side economics - seemed to have crowded Keynes off the stage. But just take a look at Japan - an economy that clearly suffers from a lack of demand, not supply, where the clear and present danger is deflation, not inflation - and tell me that Keynesian ideas are no longer relevant.

So why isn't Keynes a household word? Perhaps because we want our gurus to look and sound the part. Our savior is supposed to look like an Old Testament prophet, and rage against the evils of the world; a bowler-hatted member of the Establishment, who wants to rescue the system rather than destroy it, can't make it past the casting department, no matter how unconventional his private life - or his ideas. Keynes also had an off-putting belief that good economics is the product of hard thinking - 'Economics', he once wrote,'is a difficult and technical subject, but nobody will believe it.' Worst of all, instead of presenting depressions as a morality play, with villains and heroes, he portrayed them as a dangerous but treatable disease in an otherwise healthy patient, one that should be curable with a little minor surgery. Indeed, he once expressed the hope that economists might someday be thought of like dentists - that they would be regarded as apolitical professionals brought in to resolve technical problems.

Now I'm not saying that Keynes was right about everything, that we should treat The General Theory as a sort of secular bible - the way that Marxists treat Das Kapital. But the essential truth of Keynes's big idea - that even the most productive economy can fail if consumers and investors spend too little, that the pursuit of sound money and balanced budgets is sometimes (not always!) folly rather than wisdom - is as evident in today's world as it was in the 1930s. And in these dangerous days, we ignore or reject that idea at the world economy's peril.


Some radio people went to Harlem and ask people who they supported—John McCain or Barack Obama. The twist is they presented McCain's views as Obama's. Listen to the results below. These are the caliber of people that ACORN was paid to get registered to vote by the Obama campaign. These people are blinded by color and if they were white, they would be getting attacked by people calling them rednecks. These people are not concerned with ideology -- they are more concerned with skin color. The whites who I have heard that oppose Obama are opposed to him because of his ideology and not skin color. Being in lock-step is not free-thinking. http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3

Some Comments From the Blogs:
The Republican Cool Aid drinkers are more of a puzzle to me than the Democrats. The conservative movement that was revitalized by Reagan is in shambles due to being leaderless for over 2 decades. There are 2 liberal candidates who want to replace free will & liberty with government intervention & control. They both want to socialize our medical, energy, transportation & economic systems. They both believe that government should rule & sustain the populace instead of the other way around as America was founded. McCain & his party will never appeal to blacks because that would mean Jesse Jackson & freddy Sharpton would have to accept more money from them than from the Dems & they would have to reverse their positions. that might cost them income. Their income is based on continuing "racism". The Democrat party has kept the blacks & other minorities enslaved since they brought them here to own as slaves. The Republicans freed the slaves but seeks to enslave all for the government's purposes. As I've said, a Republicrat is a Republicrat is a Republicrat. Chuck Baldwin is getting my vote.

Historically the Democrats have taxed the middle class to death, yes, they claim they will only punish the rich for having worked hard and attained a fortune, but the reality is that there is only a small percentage of the population that falls in that category, the reality is that the working middle class supports the country, the Democrat's social programs cost money and the money has to come from someplace and it is definitely not going to be enough to milk the rich.

The data is in history and there is nothing in Obama's rhetoric that tells me he is going to be any different, on the contrary.

Can you please list some specifics as to how Obama is going to help the working middle class? Not his rhetoric, but real facts as to how he is going to pay for all the programs he promises to institute?
---

Re: Time for CHANGE -- "They who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Ben Franklin

"Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

"Liberty has never come from the government; it has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it." -Woodrow Wilson

"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" - James Bovard

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money" - Alexis de Tocqueville

"Despotism may govern without faith, but Liberty cannot" - Alexis de Tocqueville

"Big government is not the solution to our problems. Big government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan

"Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried" - Sir Winston Churchill

"Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy" - Margaret Thatcher

"To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches" - Margaret Thatcher

"we need to educate our children, but in order to educate our children we need to educate ourselves"

I am voting Republican this year because I can think for myself.
I am voting Republican this year because I refuse to be brainwashed by a person like David Geffen and his Hollywood Elite.
I am voting Republican this year because I believe in Private property and private enterprise.
I am voting Republican this year because I believe in the Rule of Law.
I am voting Republican this year because I AM Not a Racist.
I am voting Republican this year because I believe in Personal Freedom.
I am voting Republican this year because I don't want to be on the same side as Fidel Castro, Hamas, Jeremiah Wright, Luis Farrakahn, and Hugo Chavez, the Communist Party of America, Street gangsters, people who wear their pants below their ass, extremely intelligent kids who still live at home with mommy or those who are supported by a trust fund. These are just a few tyrants who've endorsed Obama for President.
I am voting Republican this year because I favor Capitalism over Communism.
I am voting Republican this year because I am proud to be an American.
- joaquin murrieta


It is important to keep in mind that Reagan was not anti-government. As he said in that first inaugural, "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work - work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."

It is as true today as it was when Reagan first said it in January 1981: "Big government is not the solution to our problems. Big government is the problem."

When Whittaker Chambers left the Communist Party, he said Communism would triumph because conservatives could never match the Communists' intensity of faith. The only hope, he said, was for the free world to discover "a power of faith which will provide man's mind, at the same intensity, with the same two certainties: a reason to live and reason to die." After he wrote those words, a Hollywood actor read them and would soon register as a Republican for the first time. Some three decades later, that actor would become president of the United States. In his first press conference as president, Reagan said of the Soviet Union: "The only morality they recognize is what will further their cause, meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat." Reporters were duly mortified by such gaucherie and asked Reagan if he wouldn't like to clarify his remarks. He did, but not the way they had in mind. He continued, saying the Soviets "don't subscribe to our sense of morality; they don't believe in an afterlife; they don't believe in a God or a religion, and the only morality they recognize, therefore, is what will advance the cause of socialism."

Reagan's victory was more than a dry calculation of throw-weighs and ICBMs and nuclear bombs: he did nothing less than transform America's mission. Under Reagan, Kissinger wrote, "America's goal was no longer relaxation of tensions but crusade and conversion." After receiving mash notes from the New York Times for forty years, the Soviets were ill-prepared of Reagan's moral assault. In one of the great speeches of Western Civilization, on March 8, 1983, Reagan addressed the National Association of Evangelicals and said America was at war with an "evil empire." Echoing Whittaker Chambers, Reagan said the Cold War would "never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might." It was America's belief in God that would "terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave their fellow man." We would prevail because our strength "is not material but spiritual."

Sovietologist Seweryn Bialer reported that by 1984, Reagan's rhetoric had "badly shaken the self-esteem and patriotic pride of the Soviet political elites." The Reagan administration's "self-righteous moralistic tone, its reduction of Soviet achievements to crimes by international outlaws from an evil empire'--such language stunned and humiliated the Soviet leaders." Bialer said the Kremlin was astounded to discover that Reagan seemed "determined to deny the Soviet Union nothing less than its legitimacy and status as a global power." This was something "they thought had been conceded once and for all by Reagan's predecessors."

For twenty years the country had been on a downward spiral of defeat and demoralization. Race riots, civil rights battles, rampant drug use, sexual promiscuity, Vietnam--all these had crushed the moral certainty that the free world could win or even that it should. Reagan's invincible faith in God and freedom ignited the will of the American people to defeat Soviet totalitarianism. He said Communism was not merely an improbable economic system, but evil. The final lines in Reagan's 1987 speech at the Berlin Wall were these: "Across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith. It cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom." Reagan supplied the intensity of faith that Whittaker Chambers despaired of the free world ever mustering. "The Western world does not know it," Chambers said, "but it already possesses the answer" to Communism--but only if its faith in God "is as great as Communism's faith in man." In 1984, Reagan posthumously awarded Whittaker Chambers the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor.

Liberals still don't understand the role religious faith played in the West's victory over Communism. Reagan's moral crusade is smirkingly dismissed as if it amounted to nothing more than bright and sunny optimism-the equivalent of a peppy Madison Avenue jingle selling dog food. It wasn't just military might or a preference for the materialist bounty of capitalism that drove Reagan's victory over Communism. It was Americans choosing faith in God over faith in man. Only Reagan could give Americans "a reason to live and reason to die." He wasn't lucky; he was indispensable.

The above is an excerpt from Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism by Ann Coulter, an excellent book that explains how Liberals have been trying to make America a Marxist/Communist/Socialist country since before Roosevelt; how Truman and Roosevelt knowingly and intentionally placed Soviet spies in high positions in the State Department and elsewhere within their administrations; how they were aided by the primarily socialist liberal media including the New York Times; and how they may finally succeed totally destroying the Republic that our founding fathers fought and died to give us during this upcoming election.
---

The Socialist Party candidate for president during the time of FDR, Norman Thomas, stated that the Democrat Party had adopted the Socialist Party platform. His actual quote was: “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”


Obama: Healthcare for Illegals
Monday, July 21, 2008
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Democrats' single most important domestic proposal — universal health insurance — may blow up in Barack Obama's face when voters are exposed to the deadly details.

Obama has said, proudly and often, "I am going to give health insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without coverage." But are they "Americans?"

That 47 million statistic includes illegal immigrants, who virtually all lack insurance. In fact, about one in four of those lacking insurance is here illegally. And they are, by far, the group most in need of health insurance.

About 15 million of the remaining uninsured are eligible for Medicaid but haven't signed up, mainly because they haven't gotten sick. When they do, they enroll in Medicaid and we pick up the full tab for their health care relatively cheaply. (About 80 percent of each Medicaid dollar goes to nursing-home care for the elderly, only about 20 percent for the medical needs of the poor.)

The rest of the uninsured pool? Virtually all the children are eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Some aren't enrolled because the parents haven't bothered, but most are eligible. That leaves about 20 million uninsured adults who are US citizens or legal immigrants. There are far better ways to handle their needs than to turn our entire health-care system upside down.

Care for illegals is the biggest unmet medical need in our nation, and Obama's program targets it squarely. But do we really want to give them federally paid coverage equal to what US senators get, as Obama proposes?

Covering illegals adds dramatically to the cost of any program - and would encourage more folks to enter America illicitly.

Obama's plan will likely have a horrific effect on some local health-care systems.

Illegals now get free emergency-room treatment for life-threatening conditions, as any other American who's entered an ER in an area with lots of illegals recently well knows. (Three-quarters of the illegal-immigrant population is concentrated in five states: California, New York, Florida, Texas and Illinois.)

But now they'd be eligible for the entire range of medical services, all free of charge. That would trigger severe rationing: bureaucrats deciding who gets to see an oncologist, who can have an MRI - and even who can have bypass surgery and who'd die for lack of it.

These decisions would be made not on the basis of legal status but on the brutal facts of triage: Treat the 37-year-old illegal with his whole life to live before you spend scarce resources on an overweight, diabetic, 80-year-old citizen with high blood pressure who smokes.

John McCain hasn't raised this issue, perhaps for fear of offending the Latino vote. But polling suggests the case against rationing of health care would be as persuasive to Hispanic-American citizens as it is to the rest of us. Nobody wants to die waiting in line - especially not behind someone who snuck in ahead of us.

McCain needs to hit the Obama plan for treating illegal immigrants to free, federally subsidized health insurance — and hit it hard.


Obama's $845 billion U.N. plan forwarded to U.S. Senate floor
'Global Poverty Act' to cost each citizen $2,500 or more
Posted: July 25, 2008
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily

The U.S. Senate soon could debate whether you, your spouse and each of your children – as well as your in-laws, parents, grandparents, neighbors and everyone else in America – each will spend $2,500 or more to reduce poverty around the world.

The plan sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is estimated to cost the U.S. some $845 billion over the coming few years in an effort to raise the standard of living around the globe.

Barack Obama

S.2433 already has been approved in one form by the U.S. House of Representatives and now has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar for pending debate.

WND previously reported the proposal demands the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.

Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media has published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels of U.S. foreign aid spending "subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years, he said, would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

A recent statement from Obama's office noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.

"Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued.

Another critic, however, has been commentator Glenn Beck, whose YouTube video critique can be seen here: ( http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70308)

"Not one dime would go to fixing America," the commentary said.

Obama has continued to lobby for such massive expenditures on his campaign stops. During an address as recently as last week, he said, "I'll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease."

Beck and Kincaid pointed out that the plan not only commits the U.S. to the anti-poverty spending proposal, it also adopts for the U.S. the United Nations Millennium Development Goal, which includes a variety of treaties and protocols advocated by the U.N.

Objections have remained strong. Duane Lester, writing at the All American blogger, warned that the U.S. has yet to be able to win its own war on poverty.

"On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson declared "all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States." This "all-out war" would last through the presidencies of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush. We have spent billions of dollars fighting this war, and what have we achieved?"

He continued, "Very little. In 1964, there were 36 million Americans living in poverty, or about 19 percent of the population. In the 40 years between 1964 and 2004: ... poverty never measured less than 11 percent of the population. In 1983, under President Reagan, poverty registered 15.2 percent; in 1993, at the beginning of Bill Clinton's presidency, poverty was measured at 13.7 percent of the population. In 2004, under George W. Bush, a president often accused by the political Left as not caring about the poor, the poverty rate declined to 12.7 percent. Still, some 37 million Americans remain poor."

Despite that performance, "Obama is ready to take the fight global," said Lester.

"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child," he wrote.

Tom DeWeese at NewsWithViews said the plan "is very telling" about what Obama would do as president.

DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, warned the over-arching plan includes the ideals of consolidating all international agencies under the U.N., regulation by the U.N. of all corporate environmental issues, license fees charged by the U.N. to use air, water and natural resources, a restructuring that would give hand-picked non-governmental organizations huge influence, authorize a standing U.N. army and require registration of all arms.


Are Facts Obsolete?
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, July 15, 2008

In an election campaign in which not only young liberals, but also some people who are neither young nor liberals, seem absolutely mesmerized by the skilled rhetoric of Barack Obama, facts have receded even further into the background than usual.

As the hypnotic mantra of "change" is repeated endlessly, few people even raise the question of whether what few specifics we hear represent any real change, much less a change for the better.

Raising taxes, increasing government spending and demonizing business? That is straight out of the New Deal of the 1930s.

The New Deal was new then but it is not new now. Moreover, increasing numbers of economists and historians have concluded that New Deal policies are what prolonged the Great Depression.

Putting new restrictions of international trade, in order to save American jobs? That was done by Herbert Hoover, when he signed the Hawley-Smoot tariff when the unemployment rate was 9 percent. The next year the unemployment rate was 16 percent and, before the Great Depression was over, unemployment hit 25 percent.

One of the most naive notions is that politicians are trying to solve the country's problems, just because they say so-- or say so loudly or inspiringly.

Politicians' top priority is to solve their own problem, which is how to get elected and then re-elected. Barack Obama is a politician through and through, even though pretending that he is not is his special strategy to get elected.

Some of his more trusting followers are belatedly discovering that, as he "refines" his position on various issues, now that he has gotten their votes in the Democratic primaries and needs the votes of others in the coming general election.

Perhaps a defining moment in showing Senator Obama's priorities was his declaring, in answer to a question from Charles Gibson, that he was for raising the capital gains tax rate. When Gibson reminded him of the well-documented fact that lower tax rates on capital gains had produced more actual revenue collected from that tax than the higher tax rates had, Obama was unmoved.

The question of how to raise more revenue may be the economic issue but the political issue is whether socking it to "the rich" in the name of "fairness" gains more votes.

Since about half the people in the United States own stocks-- either directly or because their pension funds buy stocks-- socking it to people who earn capital gains is by no means socking it just to "the rich." But, again, that is one of the many facts that don't matter politically.

What matters politically is the image of coming out on the side of "the people" against "the privileged."

If you are a nurse or mechanic who will be depending on your pension to take care of you when you retire-- as Social Security is unlikely to do-- you may not think of yourself as one of the privileged. But unless you connect the dots between capital gains tax rates and your retirement income, you may fall under the spell of the well-honed Obama rhetoric.

Obama is for higher minimum wage rates. Does anyone care what actually happens in countries with higher minimum wage rates? Of course not.

Economists may point to studies done in countries around the world, showing that higher minimum wage rates usually mean higher unemployment rates among lower skilled and less experienced workers.

That's their problem. A politician's problem is how to look like he is for "the poor" and against those who are "exploiting" them. The facts are irrelevant to maintaining that political image.

Nowhere do facts matter less than in foreign policy issues. Nothing is more popular than the notion that you can deal with dangers from other nations by talking with their leaders.

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain became enormously popular in the 1930s by sitting down and talking with Hitler, and announcing that their agreement had produced "peace in our time"-- just one year before the most catastrophic war in history began.

Senator Obama may gain similar popularity by advocating similar policies today-- and his political popularity is what it's all about. The consequences for the country come later.


15 Things You Should Know About "The Race"
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Only in America could critics of a group called "The Race" be labeled racists. Such is the triumph of left-wing identity chauvinists, whose aggressive activists and supine abettors have succeeded in redefining all opposition as "hate."

Both Barack Obama and John McCain will speak this week in San Diego at the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza, the Latino organization whose name is Spanish for, yes, "The Race." Can you imagine Obama and McCain paying homage to a group of white people who called themselves that? No matter. The presidential candidates and the media have legitimized "The Race" as a mainstream ethnic lobbying group and marginalized its critics as intolerant bigots. The unvarnished truth is that the group is a radical ethnic nationalist outfit that abuses your tax dollars and milks PC politics to undermine our sovereignty.

Here are 15 things you should know about "The Race":

15. "The Race" supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens.

14."The Race" demands in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students that are not available to law-abiding U.S. citizens and law-abiding legal immigrants.

13. "The Race" vehemently opposes cooperative immigration enforcement efforts between local, state and federal authorities.

12. "The Race" opposes a secure fence on the southern border.

11. "The Race" joined the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in a failed lawsuit attempt to prevent the feds from entering immigration information into a key national crime database -- and to prevent local police officers from accessing the data.

10. "The Race" opposed the state of Oklahoma's tough immigration-enforcement-first laws, which cut off welfare to illegal aliens, put teeth in employer sanctions and strengthened local-federal cooperation and information sharing.

9. "The Race" joined other open-borders, anti-assimilationists and sued to prevent Proposition 227, California's bilingual education reform ballot initiative, from becoming law.

8. "The Race" bitterly protested common-sense voter ID provisions as an "absolute disgrace."

7. "The Race" has consistently opposed post-9/11 national security measures at every turn.

6. Former "Race" president Raul Yzaguirre, Hillary Clinton's Hispanic outreach adviser, said this: "U.S. English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks." He was referring to U.S. English, the nation's oldest, largest citizens' action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States. "The Race" also pioneered Orwellian open-borders Newspeak and advised the Mexican government on how to lobby for illegal alien amnesty while avoiding the terms "illegal" and "amnesty."

5. "The Race" gives mainstream cover to a poisonous subset of ideological satellites, led by Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA). The late GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood rightly characterized the organization as "a radical racist group: one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West."

4. "The Race" is currently leading a smear campaign against staunch immigration enforcement leaders and has called for TV and cable news networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves -- in addition to pushing for Fairness Doctrine policies to shut up their foes. The New York Times reported that current "Race" president Janet Murguia believes "hate speech" should "not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights."

3. "The Race" sponsors militant ethnic nationalist charter schools subsidized by your public tax dollars (at least $8 million in federal education grants). The schools include Aztlan Academy in Tucson, Ariz., the Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Ariz., Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in St. Paul, Minn., and La Academia Semillas del Pueblo in Los Angeles, whose principal inveighed: "We don't want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don't need a White water fountain: ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction."

2. "The Race" has perfected the art of the PC shakedown at taxpayer expense, pushing relentlessly to lower home loan standards for Hispanic borrowers, reaping millions in federal "mortgage counseling" grants, seeking special multimillion-dollar earmarks and partnering with banks that do business with illegal aliens.

1. "The Race" thrives on ethnic supremacy -- and the elite sheeple's unwillingness to call it what it is. As historian Victor Davis Hanson observes: "[The] organization's very nomenclature 'The National Council of La Raza' is hate speech to the core. Despite all the contortions of the group, Raza (as its Latin cognate suggests) reflects the meaning of 'race' in Spanish, not 'the people' -- and that's precisely why we don't hear of something like 'The National Council of the People,' which would not confer the buzz notion of ethnic, racial and tribal chauvinism."

The fringe is the center. The center is the fringe. Viva La Raza.
---

The ACORN Obama Knows
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, June 25, 2008

If you don't know what ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is all about, you better bone up. This left-wing group takes in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers -- you and me -- and has leveraged nearly four decades of government subsidies to fund affiliates that promote the welfare state and undermine capitalism and self-reliance, some of which have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and encouraging voter fraud. A new whistleblower report from the Consumer Rights League claims that Chicago-based ACORN has commingled public tax dollars with political projects.

Who in Washington will fight to ensure that your money isn't being spent on these radical activities?

Don't bother asking Barack Obama. He cut his ideological teeth working with ACORN as a "community organizer" and legal representative. Naturally, ACORN's political action committee has warmly endorsed his presidential candidacy. ACORN head Maude Hurd gushes that Obama is the candidate who "best understands and can affect change on the issues ACORN cares about" -- like ensuring their massive pipeline to your hard-earned money. Let's take a closer look at the ACORN Obama knows.

Last July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State. Seven ACORN workers had submitted nearly 2,000 bogus voter registration forms. According to case records, they flipped through phone books for names to use on the forms, including "Leon Spinks," "Frekkie Magoal" and "Fruto Boy Crispila." Three ACORN election hoaxers pleaded guilty in October. A King County prosecutor called ACORN's criminal sabotage "an act of vandalism upon the voter rolls."

The group's vandalism on electoral integrity is systemic. ACORN has been implicated in similar voter fraud schemes in Missouri, Ohio and at least 12 other states. The Wall Street Journal noted: "In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a congressional hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained ACORN's practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier."

In March, Philadelphia elections officials accused the nonprofit advocacy group of filing fraudulent voter registrations in advance of the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary. The charges have been forwarded to the city district attorney's office.

Under the guise of "consumer advocacy," ACORN has received money from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD funds hundreds, if not thousands, of left-wing "anti-poverty" groups across the country led by ACORN. Last October, HUD announced more than $44 million in new housing counseling grants to over 400 state and local efforts. The White House has increased funding for housing counseling by 150 percent since taking office in 2001, despite the role most of these recipients play as activist satellites of the Democratic Party. The AARP scored nearly $400,000 for training; the National Council of La Raza ("The Race") scooped up more than $1.3 million; the National Urban League raked in nearly $1 million; and the ACORN Housing Corporation received more than $1.6 million.

As the Consumer Rights League points out in its new expose, the ACORN Housing Corporation has worked to obtain mortgages for illegal aliens in partnership with Citibank. It relies on undocumented income, "under the table" money, which may not be reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Moreover, the group's "financial justice" operations attack lenders for "exotic" loans, while recommending 10-year interest-only loans (which deny equity to the buyer) and risky reverse mortgages. Whistleblower documents reveal internal discussions among the group that blur the lines between its tax-exempt housing work and its aggressive electioneering activities. The group appears to shake down corporate interests with relentless PR attacks, and then enters "no lobby" agreements with targeted corporations after receiving payment.

Republicans have largely looked the other way as ACORN has expanded its government-funded empire. But finally, a few conservative voices in Congress have called for investigation of the group's apparent extortion schemes. This week, GOP Reps. Tom Feeney, Jeb Hensarling and Ed Royce called on Democrat Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, to convene a hearing to probe potential illegalities and abuse of taxpayer funds by ACORN's management and minions alike.

Where does the candidate of Hope and Change -- the candidate of Reform and New Politics -- stand on the issue? Barack Obama, ACORN's senator, is for more of the same old, same old subsidizing of far-left politics in the name of fighting for the poor while enriching ideological cronies. It's the Chicago way.


Obama’s Plan: Mohamed Atta Gets His Driver’s License

Dear Fellow American:

We have just weeks to go before Election Day . . . time is running short for us to avert a major disaster for our country. That disaster’s name is President Barack Obama.

But this disaster can be averted. I’m confident about this — even though the slanted media are overstating Obama’s inevitability.

But the numbers don’t lie.

The latest Zogby poll had John McCain trailing Obama by two points. Just two points!

Despite the full-court press to destroy McCain and Sarah Palin, Katie Couric’s antics against her, and a daily onslaught of media spin . . . McCain is still within striking distance.

The stakes have never been higher for the future of the country.

We either patriotically turn the country over to a man who has proudly served his nation in war time and peace — or we face electing a man who has a checkered past, a man who has counted domestic terrorists among his friends, and a man who spent 15 years in a church where his pastor regularly damned and condemned the United States.

Barack Obama is not simply a risky choice as our next president — He is a dangerous one.

Here’s the plan: We will tell the American people the truth about Barack Obama!

Every time John McCain or Sarah Palin tries to tell the truth about Obama, they are painted as mean-spirited and negative.

The latest reports show Obama outspending McCain by 3-to-1 in key states.

Millions of dubious new voters with the help of groups like ACORN are being registered to put the most extreme liberal in the history of the presidency in the White House.

But I’ll shock you: that’s OK!

Let them spend millions in getting new “voters” and millions more in TV ads.

I believe truth is more powerful than lies. How powerful?

Well, so powerful, in fact, that I believe one airing of our TV ads will equal at least 10 airings of theirs.

This issue will nail him.

In the closing weeks of this election, Obama is trying to remake himself as a moderate to win over lower-income, white, Democratic and independent voters.

He wants to hide the facts about his record. He is the most extreme liberal ever to be nominated by a major party.

We all know his 100 percent liberal rating in Congress, his support for the TOTAL gun ban in Washington, D.C., his opposition to protecting babies born alive, and his support for tax increases.

But there is one issue almost all Americans agree on: Illegal aliens should not be given driver’s licenses.

Mohamed Atta's Florida driver's license.

Not after 9/11.

Did you know that Mohamed Atta, the 9/11 ring leader, had a valid Florida driver’s license?

Did you know 13 of the 19 hijackers had obtained valid driver’s licenses? Armed with these licenses, eight of the hijackers even registered to vote!

Here is the shocking fact: Obama strongly supports giving illegal aliens in America driver’s licenses.

He said as much during two Democratic debates earlier this year.

The head of Homeland Security said such thinking was dangerous for national security.

Even Hillary Clinton backed away from Obama’s radical driver’s license plan.

Obama’s position is not a new one: We discovered that Obama has been a major proponent of driver’s licenses for illegals since his days as an Illinois state senator.

We have no doubt that, as president, Obama will also champion this radical plan.

With Osama bin Laden still at large, with al-Qaida promising “spectacular” attacks on the U.S homeland, with the threat of them using weapons of mass destruction against our cities — biological, chemical, and nuclear — can we risk putting such a man in the Oval Office?

Doesn’t he remember what happened on 9/11? More than 3,000 Americans were murdered.

Doesn’t he want to prevent that from ever happening again?

If he supports driver’s licenses for illegals, the answer is clear.

We need to inform millions of Americans about this man and his risky judgment.

We are days away from our new TV ad exposing Obama’s support for driver’s licenses for illegals.


More ACORN Fraud Exposed: ACORN Whistleblowers
Monday, October 13, 2008
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

New testimony obtained by a consumer advocate group from former employees of ACORN paints a startling picture of the apparent misuse of taxpayer dollars to further the group's left-wing political agenda.

Four former employees of ACORN and of ACORN Housing Corp. have supplied sworn affidavits to the Consumer Rights League that provide eyewitness accounts of how the two organizations have commingled funds and resources, in apparent violation of federal law.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) bills itself as a non-partisan group, supported by tax-exempt contributions from individuals and corporations.

The ACORN Housing Corp. (AHC), an ACORN affiliate, receives more than 40 percent of its funding from government sources, ostensibly to promote affordable housing to low- and middle-income families.

But according to CRL, internal documents obtained from whistleblowers suggest that ACORN has failed to maintain the proper distinction between its tax-exempt housing work and its aggressive political activities.

"ACORN and its offshoots take in millions of dollars in government grants under the guise of 'consumer advocacy' to line their own pockets," said Jim Terry, CRL's chief public advocate.

The new testimony, from four former ACORN and AHC employees, provides "hard confirmation" that ACORN and its affiliate are in fact one in the same, Terry told Newsmax.

"Here are people who have been in the room, testifying to the criminal intent of the people involved" in shuffling ACORN resources from tax-exempt purposes to political activities, he said.

"Everything they do and say, with the exception of filing their government reports, treats this family of organizations as one cohesive unit. They operated as one organization, controlled from the top down," Terry said.

One former employee, who was with ACORN for six years, including in a management position, testified that she has "knowledge that AHC has subsidized and believe that AHC continues to subsidize ACORN activities," in apparent violation of the law.

"AHC subsidies to ACORN include office telephone service, fax, supplies and rental space paid for by AHC funds," she added.

In addition, AHC management routinely treated federal grants as money that could be shared with ACORN, Terry told Newsmax.

"Between 2004 through 2006, AHC transferred $4.6 million to ACORN in grants and fees, according to their tax returns. This is inherently wrong."

Since 40 percent of AHC funds came from government grants, that means that U.S. taxpayers were in effect paying for ACORN's partisan political activities, he added.

AHC required employees to "solicit funds and cash from clients and real estate professionals to pay for AHC operations," one of the whistleblowers said, detailing what amounted to a "shakedown" operation.

Another former AHC employee said he would testify in court to the fact that "AHC and ACORN have operated as one entity," and quoted internal e-mails detailing how federal grants were shared between the organizations.

The whistleblowers also stated that:

AHC employees were instructed to hide documents from federal auditors with the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

AHC employees were instructed on "steering" loans to partner banks, including Chase (for loans in the New Orleans area) and Bank of America for other areas around the country.

AHC National Field Director Lee Trujillo stated in the presence of several of these witnesses that "AHC and ACORN would be funded out of the same account."

AHC and ACORN have also shared "voter initiative money."

Internal AHC e-mails and other documents "clearly show that AHC is paying for lease space occupied by ACORN."

All of these are potential violations of the laws governing non-profit organizations.

ACORN is currently under investigation for fraudulent voter registration and related activities in at least 11 key battleground states.

Election officials in several states have said that 50 percent of ACORN voter registrations are fictitious.

Just last week, for example, ACORN's offices in Nevada were raided by state law enforcement officials after reports that ACORN had registered the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys to vote in Las Vegas.

In Connecticut, a 7-year-old girl was found to have been registered to vote by ACORN, which changed her age to 27.

ACORN announced last week that it had just completed "the largest, most successful nonpartisan voter registration drive in U.S. history," by helping "1.3 million low-income, minority and young voters across the country register to vote."

The group insisted that the allegations of voter fraud are "bogus," and "aim to camouflage voter suppression," a term used by many groups on the left to describe alleged police roadblocks in black neighborhoods in Florida during the 2000 campaign.

Despite a two-year investigation by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission under the direction of Jesse Jackson protégé Mary Frances Berry, not a single eyewitness stepped forward who could corroborate the allegations of voter suppression or police roadblocks in Florida during that election.

ACORN has paid more than 13,000 workers to sign up new voters this election season, and admits that "there are always some people who want to get paid without really doing the job."

In any large voter registration operation, ACORN said last week, there will always be "a small percentage of workers who turn in bogus registration forms." But discrepancies in voter registration documents "has nothing to do with 'voter fraud,'" the group insisted.

AHC gets U.S. government grants to provide free advice and counseling services to low and mid-income consumers on how to qualify for a mortgage.

In the advice it offers consumers, AHC warns about "predatory" lending. And yet, CRL alleges in a report issued earlier this year that AHC engages in many of the same practices it condemns.

"ACORN's 'financial justice' operations attack lenders for 'exotic' loans, but AHC has recommended ten-year interest-only loans (which deny equity to the buyer) and reverse mortgages (which can be detrimental to senior citizens)," the report states.

AHC also has worked to obtain mortgages for undocumented workers, and has advised intake officers to counsel consumers how to use "under the table" income not reported to the Internal Revenue Service in order to increase their borrowing ability.

ACORN has devoted $50 million to Project Vote activities in the current election cycle, primarily to register minority and low-income voters.

Barack Obama ran the Chicago branch of Project Vote in 1992, and soon afterwards began teaching classes for "Future Leaders Identified by ACORN."

In 1995, Obama represented ACORN in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois for its supposed failure to implement the new "motor voter" law, the first piece of legislation signed by Bill Clinton after he became president in 1993.

In a statement now immortalized in a YouTube video, Obama promised ACORN and other community organizations in an Iowa presidential campaign forum for Democrats in December 2007 that if elected president, he would bring them into the White House to help shape the agenda of an Obama administration.

"[B]efore I even get inaugurated, during the transition, we're going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. We're going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America," Obama pledged.

ACORN endorsed Obama on Feb. 21, 2008, at the most critical point of the tough primary battle that pitted him against Hillary Clinton. Welcoming that endorsement, Obama said, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues that you care about my entire career."

But now that ACORN's alleged voter fraud activities have become public, the Illinois senator has sought to distance himself from ACORN, just as he has from other former allies, such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright or former wanted terrorist William Ayers.

His "fight the smears" Web site now has a statement claiming that "ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee," but acknowledged that he was hired by the organization in the 1995 lawsuit.

"Obama's failure to disclose the true nature of his relationship with ACORN is very surprising and deeply troubling," the John McCain campaign said in a press release last week.
---

Obama and ACORN: You Can Run, But You Can't Hide
Monday, October 6, 2008
By: Lowell Ponte

Barack Obama is running as fast and as far away from his association with the radical group ACORN as he can, but he can't hide from the facts of his close relationship with the organization.

ACORN, or Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, describes itself as a "non-partisan" group devoted to helping the poor and to registering millions to vote. Critics accuse ACORN of involvement vote fraud, voter intimidation, shakedowns against businesses, and the promotion of socialist class hatred and class warfare.

Apparently worried by the connection between Obama and the group, his campaign has put claims of his ties to ACORN as the lead item on its "Fight The Smears" Web site -- a site the Obama campaign created to counter what they claim are partisan lies made up against their candidate.

The release on the Obama site reads: "When Obama met with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of his history with ACORN and his beginnings in Illinois as a Project Vote organizer, a nonprofit focused on voter rights and education. Senator Obama said, 'I come out of a grassroots organizing background. That's what I did for three and half years before I went to law school. That's the reason I moved to Chicago was to organize.

"So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the importance of it. I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."

Indeed, Obama was being far too modest. The 2008 Democratic presidential nominee had worked not just alongside ACORN, but also as a key operative for the organization.

He was its lawyer in several pivotal ACORN cases.

Obama funded a number of its activities, as well. When he sat on the board of the prestigious Woods Fund for Chicago alongside former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, he oversaw and approved many grants for ACORN.

As the National Review's Stanley Kurtz reported, one Woods committee report boasted that the fund's "non-ideological" public image "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being accused of partisanship."

Obama was the Illinois director of ACORN's controversial voter registration operation, and he trained the group's leaders in the ways of radical, sometimes illegal, confrontational politics.

He also paid ACORN affiliates during his recent Democratic primary contest. For example, leading up to the 2008 Ohio Democratic Primary, Obama's campaign between Feb. 25 and March 17 paid Citizens Services, Inc., a subsidiary of ACORN, $832,598, apparently for get-out-the-vote activities.

Obama's mysterious, shrouded past as a "community organizer" is closely tied to ACORN, a group that supplies a large share of the Democratic Party political shock troops responsible for the party's recapture of Congress in 2006.

ACORN has at least 350,000 dues-paying member families, and more than 800 chapters spread among at least 104 U.S. cities as well as in Canada, Mexico, Argentina, and Peru.

To outsiders, Obama's "long service with ACORN led many of its members to serve as the voluntary shock troops of Obama's early political campaigns -- his initial 1996 State Senate campaign, and his failed bid for Congress in 2000," wrote Kurtz. "With Obama having personally helped train a new cadre of Chicago ACORN leaders, by the time of Obama's 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, Obama and ACORN were 'old friends.'"

ACORN's Radical Roots

ACORN's four co-founders were 1960s New Leftists. One was George Wiley, whose National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) members practiced confrontation politics, e.g., swarming into welfare offices and bullying social workers. The second ACORN co-founder was NWRO organizer Gary Delgado.

Wiley made no secret that he followed the radical tactics proposed in the far-left The Nation Magazine by socialist Columbia University scholars Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who argued that American capitalism could be bankrupted and destroyed by overloading our system with ever-rising costs and bureaucratic demands. (In 1996, President Bill Clinton invited Cloward and Piven to the White House as honored guests.)

ACORN's other founders and longtime bosses were former Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) activist Wade Rathke, a close NWRO ally, and his brother Dale.

"We are the majority, forged from all minorities," proclaimed ACORN's founding 1970 "People's Platform" manifesto. "We are the masses of many, not the forces of few…. We will wait no longer for the crumbs at America's door. We will not be meek, but mighty."

In ACORN, the Rathkes replaced Cloward-Piven tactics designed to overthrow capitalist America with the confrontational-but-compromising tactics of Chicago socialist Saul Alinsky.

"Instead of trying to overturn 'the system -- to blow it up, as Wiley wanted to do, ACORN burrows deep within the system," wrote Manhattan Institute scholar Sol Stern, adding, "taking over its power and using its institutions for its own purposes, like a political 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers.'"

The Rathkes first established ACORN as the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now and struck a personal deal with that state's liberal Republican then-Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller, who reportedly paid the newly-sprouted ACORN $5,000 in cash to register voters. "Of course, they thought we were going to register Republicans," Delgado later boasted. "We did not register a single Republican voter in that election. However, we did use those resources early on to build the organization."

Obama, ACORN, and Vote Fraud

Selectively adding millions of Democratic names to the voter rolls remains one of ACORN's most lucrative activities, for which this organization has been given millions of dollars by organized labor, non-profit foundations, and Democratic-controlled government agencies.

Because Obama had worked closely with one of its leaders, Madeline Talbott, ACORN, in 1995, specifically sought out this radical young lawyer to help craft its lawsuit to impose President Bill Clinton's 1993 National Voter Registration Act, nicknamed "Motor Voter," according to Chicago ACORN leader Toni Foulkes.

Obama's ACORN lawsuit won, thereby slapping aside state officials who resisted Motor Voter because of what it soon proved to be: a 12-lane superhighway to massive vote fraud.

The Motor Voter law required bureaucrats at welfare offices, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and other government offices to register as voters those who used their services. "Examiners were under orders not to ask anyone for identification or proof of citizenship," wrote Wall Street Journal reporter John Fund in his book "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy." "States also had to permit mail-in voter registrations, which allowed anyone to register without any personal contact with a registrar or election official."

Those who took advantage of government services such as welfare were disproportionately likely to vote for the Big Government party. Motor Voter also made it more difficult to purge voter rolls of fraudulent registrations.

Motor Voter, wrote Fund, "fueled an explosion of phantom voters." But in Barack Obama's Democrat-ruled Chicago, phantom voters and voting graveyards are nothing new.

Motor Voter was the Clinton administration's attempt permanently to tilt voter rolls in favor of the Democratic Party. And Obama, working for ACORN, played a key role in imposing this law.

Perhaps thanks to ACORN's and Motor Voter's influence, of the 19 foreign terrorists who attacked America on 9/11, at least six were registered to vote.

In 1992, Obama took time off as a lawyer to direct Project Vote, ACORN's voter mobilization entity, statewide in Illinois. Project Vote added an estimated 125,000 names to voter rolls, which helped propel Democrat Carol Moseley Braun into the same U.S. Senate seat Obama now holds.

Nationwide, ACORN's Project Vote claims to have helped register more than 4 million voters in low-income and minority neighborhoods. Project Vote's tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status prohibits its involvement in partisan political activity, but one of its leaders told Foundation Watch that "lots of grass-roots members" are assisting the 2008 Obama presidential campaign.

ACORN, wrote Foundation Watch investigators Elias Crim and Matthew Vadum last June, has a "record of highly-publicized voter fraud allegations" lodged against it "in Ohio (2004), Wisconsin (2004), Florida (2004), New Mexico (2004), Colorado (2005), Missouri (2006), and Washington State (2007)." They could have named other states as well.

In 2006, in Missouri's U.S. Senate race, Republican incumbent James Talent lost by about 50,000 votes to Democrat Claire McCaskill.

"A sizeable portion of that margin," wrote columnist Carl Horowitz, "was attributable to ACORN organizers submitting phony or at least suspicious voter-registration cards to election officials in the St. Louis and Kansas City metro areas. Several ACORN members in Kansas City were indicted by the U.S. Attorney's Office just prior to Election Day, and eventually pleaded guilty. [Wade] Rathke, not one for subtlety, called City of St. Louis election officials 'slop buckets' when they questioned the veracity of ACORN-submitted forms."

And who was Missouri state auditor during 2006, responsible at a statewide level for overseeing the honesty of voter registration? "That," wrote Horowitz, "would be Claire McCaskill." And Sen. McCaskill is one of Obama's most ardent supporters.

In Florida, ACORN's 2004 Miami-Dade field director, Mac Stuart, according to David Horowitz's DiscoverTheNetworks.org investigation, "has testified that fraud is standard procedure for ACORN/Project Vote canvassers -- behavior that is not only tolerated, but encouraged by supervisors." Stuart reportedly told investigators: "[T]he voter registration project has been operating illegally since it started."

In 2005, Virginia authorities sampled Project Vote registrations and rejected 83 percent of them for containing false or questionable information.

In Washington state, five ACORN employees were convicted in 2007 in what its Secretary of State Sam Reed called "the worst case of election fraud in our state's history. It was an outrage."

In this state the current Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire was elected literally by a handful of votes, but 450 apparently fictitious names were found registered to vote as Democrats at a single address. At least 1,700 ACORN voter registrations -- using the names of Harry Reid, Dennis Hastert, and movie and sports stars -- were later revoked in just one county of the state.

In Nevada, the state most likely to decide the 2008 presidential election, the Las Vegas Review-Journal last July 7 reported that a Clark County official "sees rampant fraud in the 2,000 to 3,000 registrations ACORN turns in every week."

ACORN, of course, blames a handful of overzealous activists or mercenaries for acts of voter registration fraud. ACORN denies that it condones or encourages any illegal behavior.

Intimidation Politics

Incidentally, Obama's ACORN comrade Madeline Talbott, according to Kurtz, "was so impressed by Obama's organizing skills that she invited him to help train her own staff." In 1997, notes Kurtz, Talbott was "a key leader" of 200 ACORN protestors who on July 31 tried to storm a Chicago City Council session.

These ACORN demonstrators, wrote Kurtz, reportedly "pushed over a metal detector and table used to screen visitors, backed police against the doors to the council chamber, and blocked late-arriving aldermen and city staff from entering the session….almost certainly a deliberate bit of what radicals call 'direct action,' orchestrated by ACORN's Madeline Talbott," who was "led away handcuffed, charged with mob action and disorderly conduct."

Obama has never been led away in handcuffs for radical behavior. But, notes Kurtz, Obama has used groups of ominously angry activists to intimidate and pressure local officials.

A newspaper photo of Obama in his "community organizer" days shows him next to activist group the Developing Communities Project (DCP) posters that read: "It's a power thing." The ACORN organizer manual likewise declares, "This is a mass organization directed at political power where might makes right."

Obama supporters in 2008 have angrily demonstrated against, and shared information intended to disrupt, a radio talk show in Chicago that has had Kurtz as a guest. This could be a foretaste of how intimidation might be used to stifle criticism of a President Obama administration.

Money-Hungry ACORN

By the 1980s, ACORN was expanding its horizons from voter registration to housing.

"In 1985, ACORN illegally seized 25 abandoned buildings owned by New York City and installed squatters as residents," recounted a New York Post editorial. "A weak-kneed City Hall eventually gave the group title to the buildings -- proving that crime can pay."

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed the Community Redevelopment Act (CRA), which, in retrospect, was the opening wedge for what now threatens to become a government takeover of all housing in America. Under Carter's administration, the domestic Peace Corps government entity VISTA, Volunteers in Service to America, gave a federal grant of $470,000 to ACORN to train volunteers to help low-income citizens.

A later congressional investigation found that ACORN illegally used this money for labor organizing.

According to ACORN co-founder Delgado, after two of "their own," Sam Brown and Marjorie Tabankin, became directors of Carter's ACTION agency and VISTA program, "over 3 million dollars was funneled directly to ACORN" and other left-wing organizations.

After the Clinton administration gave a grant worth more than $1 million to ACORN Housing Corp, an investigation by the inspector general of AmeriCorps found that AHC used government funds to register low-income persons for paid ACORN memberships, in violation of federal law.

Apparently this taxpayer money was given only to those poor people who agreed to pay $60 immediately back to ACORN.

By the infiltration of ideological comrades into positions of power at government agencies, ACORN became the recipient of a flood of taxpayer-funded grants, including some worth millions of dollars. AHC alone between 1997 and 2006 received more than $11,230,000 in public funds.

In 2005 alone, according to Department of Labor disclosure statements, labor leaders reportedly paid more than $2.4 million to ACORN in gifts, grants, and fees for organizing work.

Mandatory family membership dues bring ACORN another $3 million or so per year.

But foundations and churches, boasted Wade Rathke in 2004, account for less than half the revenue ACORN pockets from corporations that had been the targets of successful ACORN protest campaigns.

ACORN and Today's Credit Crisis

President Carter's CRA and related laws were repeatedly expanded to require lending institutions to avoid "redlining" policies that denied home loans to those in minority neighborhoods.

Obama was one of many lawyers who profited from successfully suing on grounds that discrimination was the reason an African-American was denied a home loan.

Banks and other lenders needed not only public good will but also the cooperation of government regulators to approve mergers and other business activities. Expanding laws such as CRA meant that if ACORN accused a bank of racial discrimination and unleashed protestors against it, however unjustly, that bank might suddenly face very unfriendly government regulators. Banks were thus set up to be easy victims for ACORN shakedowns, and paying protection money became necessary for bank survival.

"The same corporations that pay ransom to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton pay ransom to ACORN," said Robert L. Woodson, President of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise.

"The 2000 tax return for the ACORN Housing Corporation," reported the Employment Policies Institute (EPI), "disclosed grants from Bank of America, Fleet Services Corporation, Fannie Mae Foundation, Chase Manhattan Foundation, and Well Fargo Foundation totaling $4,752,198." And AHC is just one of 100 arms of the ACORN octopus.

"The banks know they are being held up," one financial industry consultant told EPI researchers, "but they are not going to fight over this. They look at it as a cost of doing business."

Politicians and left-wing activist groups including ACORN were doing more than shaking down lending institutions for their own profit. They also demanded that lending standards be loosened for those in the underclass who tend to vote Democratic.

With a large political gun aimed at their heads, banks commenced making hundreds of thousands of what they called "Ninja" -- no income, no job, no assets -- loans to minorities who previously would have been deemed uncreditworthy. Knowing that many of these loans they were coerced to make would go bad, many lending institutions bundled them into new types of investment packages and sold them to shed risk.

The giant quasi-governmental lending institutions Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, both largely run by Democratic appointees, became sources of funding for groups such as ACORN that aided Democratic politicians -- and promoters of high-risk subprime home loans.

Democratic executives at these institutions, such as former Clinton administration member and Fannie Mae chair and chief executive officer, Franklin Raines, arranged to have their incomes increase with the amount of lending their institutions did. In six years of recklessly having Fanny Mae assume an astronomical burden of risk, Raines pushed his own income above $90 million.

As former federal prosecutor James H. Walsh recounted in a Sept. 22 Newsmax.com article, Raines was an adviser to Obama until recent national financial problems made Raines too risky to embrace.

Obama, noted Walsh, had been "the Senate's second-largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

Is ACORN troubled by what many are calling a credit meltdown and the likelihood that many minority homeowners may lose their homes? Probably not, because the ideological aim of ACORN's radical founders was to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism. In the current financial situation, government will get bigger, free markets will become less free, and vast amounts of capital will shift from private companies to government.

For those like Barack Obama who share ACORN's ideology, the situation is perfect -- heads, government wins; tails, capitalism loses. If people keep their homes, many will naively thank the Democratic politicians and left-wing activists who caused their problems in the first place. If poor people lose their homes, they will be that much easier for ACORN to brainwash with class hatred against evil capitalists.

And lest we forget, the first think that congressional Democrats put into their proposed "bailout package" to solve the financial crisis was a permanent slush fund to be extracted from capitalist institutions that would start growing at more than $20 million. The beneficiaries of this now-deleted slush fund were to have been radical Democrat-allied organizations such as ACORN.

Greedy Lefists

The Rathkes commingled ACORN's socialist redistribute-the-wealth ideology with their own hypocrisy and personal greed. From ACORN, they spun off approximately 100 other legal entities.

They then created a shell game under which money acquired by one ACORN front group, e.g., Project Vote, would be moved to other ACORN-controlled groups, in some cases to acquire property.

One former Arkansas ACORN chair, Dorothy Perkins, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, described the organization as "building up a land portfolio" that was supposed to "translate to money and power for the national organization."

But that money was "never seen" by the poor people ACORN claimed to serve, she said, and "all the money ended up" under Wade Rathke's control. Rathke, she said, ran ACORN "like a Jim Jones cult."

Relatively little of the redistributed wealth of Rathke's ACORN conglomerate trickled down to the poor, and comparatively little went to the organization's thousands of full-time "community organizers."

Typical pay was $25,000 a year or less, for which ACORN employees were expected to work 54 hours or more per week, weekends included. In 2006, ACORN required many of its workers in Missouri to sign an agreement that they would be "working up to 80 hours over seven days of work."

ACORN went to court in California, arguing unsuccessfully that it should be exempt from minimum wage laws. But in recent years, ACORN has staged many demonstrations to demand a "living wage," typically a minimum of $12 or more per hour, for minimum wage workers.

According to Mac Stuart, ACORN collected more than $4 for each completed, and illegally copied, voter registration. Its workers who found people and submitted their registrations were paid only $2, with ACORN and the Rathkes pocketing the difference.

But ACORN had many other sources for its annual $37.5 million budget, including millions in government and foundation grants.

ACORN head Wade Rathke was also chief organizer of a New Orleans local of one of America's most radical labor unions, the Service Employee's International Union (SEIU), and ACORN was a close ally of organized labor. Unions sometimes paid ACORN to have its low-paid workers march with picket signs pretending to be striking union members.

When ACORN workers, as well as those in his SEIU union local, tried to form their own unions to bargain for higher wages and shorter hours, Rathke successfully used a wide array of union-busting techniques to stop them -- the same kinds of techniques he routinely condemned other businesses for using.

But the Rathkes fell from power in 2008 shortly before The New York Times on July 9 reported that in 1999-2000 Dale Rathke, then ACORN's chief financial officer, had diverted $948,607 from ACORN and affiliated charitable organization accounts.

Other ACORN officials in 2001 reportedly obtained a restitution agreement from Wade Rathke to repay the missing funds in $30,000 per-year installments.

ACORN, meanwhile, continued to pay Wade Rathke considerably more than $30,000 each year, in effect covering these repayments, while Dale Rathke's apparent embezzlement of almost a million dollars -- in contributions to help the poor -- was kept secret from the public and from those funding ACORN.

"How did ACORN handle the crime?" asked a July 13 New York Post editorial. "By disguising it on the books as a loan from one of its contractors…." and only letting Rathke go "when word of his fraud leaked to donors…. most of the people who covered up the embezzlement are still working for ACORN."

"We thought it best at the time to protect the organizations," said ACORN President Maude Hurd. "We did what we thought was right." Or what served the interests of the left.

Welcome to ACORN, the organization that made Barack Obama what he is today, and that may make him president of the United States.
---

Clever Obama Tries To Bury ACORN Past
Monday, October 13, 2008
By: Lowell Ponte

"Barack Obama never organized with ACORN," reads one of the banners on Barack Obama's Web site, "Fight the Smears," www.fightthesmears.org.

One apparent aim of the site is to distance Obama from the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, whose operatives are being investigated for potential voter fraud in at least 13 states.

"Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer," the Web site continues.

"Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.

"Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992."

The accuracy of these denials depends in part on their lawyerly wording, on "what the meaning of 'is' is," in former President Bill Clinton's sophistic phrase.

No one has accused the Illinois senator of having "organized with ACORN" or having been "an ACORN community organizer," so these denials seem either misplaced or sleight of hand to distract from what his actual ACORN connections have been.

Toni Foulkes, longtime Chicago ACORN leader and a member of ACORN's National Association Board, says the organization "invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office."

Obama did give training to ACORN leaders every year from 1993 until at least 2003, when Foulkes published an article saying these things about him in the winter 2003 issue of the journal Social Policy.

Obama also reportedly helped train the staff of a high-ranking ACORN leader Madeline Talbott, later arrested for heading up a disruptive confrontation between ACORN protesters and the Chicago City Council described in a recent Newsmax investigation.

ACORN spokesman Lewis Goldberg is referenced in the Oct. 11 New York Times as acknowledging that, in Times' reporter Stephanie Strom's words, "Mr. Obama conducted two leadership training sessions of roughly an hour each for ACORN's Chicago affiliate over a three-year period in the late 1990s. He was not paid for that work, Mr. Goldberg said."

So ACORN now says that Obama did training for the organization. But because Obama did these training sessions without pay, and because to hire means "to employ someone for a wage or fee," it is technically correct to say he was never "hired" to do so.

ACORN both selected and paid Barack Obama as a lawyer in 1995 to sue the state of Illinois to compel implementation of a law known as Motor-Voter. ACORN, however, now says it was only one of several plaintiffs in the case and hence that it would be wrong to say Obama was the organization's lawyer. But ACORN was the lead plaintiff, and therefore the case is recorded as ACORN, et al. v. Edgar (then-Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar).

In 1992 Obama became Illinois' statewide head of Project Vote, a 501(c)(3) organization that is required to be nonpartisan to retain its tax-exempt status. The Obama campaign Web site says, "ACORN was not part of Project Vote." Critics argue that the reverse is true.

In fact, Obama said during a speech to ACORN leaders in November: When "I ran the Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it."

Veteran journalist Karen Tumulty and two of her colleagues described Project Vote in the Oct. 18, 2004, issue of Time magazine as "a nonpartisan arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now" after interviewing its national director.

And the co-founder and then head of ACORN itself, former Students for a Democratic Society new leftist Wade Rathke described Project Vote, in 2004 as one of ACORN's "family of organizations."

As Newsmax reported last week, Rathke spun off nearly 100 legal entities from ACORN and moved large amounts of money among them. Rathke left the organization this year after it came to light that his brother had diverted almost a million dollars from ACORN coffers.

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told the New York Times that a significant part of Project Vote's revenues today flow to ACORN and various of its affiliates as payment for services. But LaBolt contends that Project Vote and ACORN were not as intertwined in 1992 when Obama ran Project Vote. This month, LaBolt has been telling reporters that Obama had never been "an ACORN trainer."

It "wasn't until after Mr. Obama's tenure had ended that (Project Vote) began to conduct projects more frequently with ACORN than with other community-based organizations," Project Vote founder attorney Sanford A. Newman wrote in a letter to the Wall Street Journal. Note that this lawyerly letter never denies Project Vote's deep involvement with ACORN.

"To say that Obama didn't work for ACORN is just playing word games," wrote Matthew Vadum of the Capital Research Center, co-author of an investigation titled Barack Obama: A Radical Leftist's Journey from Community Organizing to Politics.

"It would be like a Sam's Club employee indignantly insisting he didn't work for Wal-Mart," Vadum said. "It boggles the mind why anyone would deny such easily verifiable facts."

Obama's critics say he has been remarkably successful at burying his ACORN past until now, in large part with help from liberal allies in the national media who refuse to scrutinize Obama with the same probing investigations they aim at his opponents.

In a story reminiscent of George Orwell's dystopian novel "1984," whose hero works in a government office rewriting history to erase Big Brother's past mistakes, the Oct. 9th Cleveland Leader reported, "Attempts to hide evidence of Obama's involvement in ACORN have included wiping the Web clean of potentially damaging articles."

The above-mentioned Foulkes article that discussed Obama's training of ACORN leaders recently was pulled from the Social Policy Web site, the Leader reported. Although this makes information about Obama's past harder to find for journalists and voters, the Leader noted, scholarly duplicates of the Web retain copies of such texts despite any Orwellian efforts to rewrite Barack Obama's past.

Los Angeles Times reporters Letta Tayler and Keith Herbert tried to clarify Obama's past and found getting a clear fix on him elusive.

"Further blurring the picture," they wrote on March 2, are Barack Obama's "descriptions of community organizing in his youthful memoir, 'Dreams From My Father,' in which he admits he disguises names, creates composite characters, switches some chronologies, and uses 'approximation' of dialogue."


Barack Obama: Gaffe Machine
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, May 21, 2008

All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life. The political establishment never let Dan Quayle live down his fateful misspelling of "potatoe." The New York Times distorted and misreported the first President Bush's questions about new scanner technology at a grocers' convention to brand him permanently as out of touch.

But what about Barack Obama? The guy's a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign:

-- Last May, he claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: "In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." The actual death toll: 12.

-- Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."

-- Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: "Thank you, Sioux City. ... I said it wrong. I've been in Iowa for too long. I'm sorry."

-- Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle." On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

-- Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Ala., he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement:

"There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born."

Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was "speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole."

-- Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: "We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them in Afghanistan." The real reason it's "harder for us to use them" in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi or other non-Arabic languages.

-- Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste cleanup:

"Here's something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I'm not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don't know exactly what's going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I'll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport."

I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he's voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the "costs, schedules, and technical issues" dealing with the nation's most contaminated nuclear waste site.

-- Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama's "Dreams from My Father":

"Then, there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians."

-- And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us" -- cluelessly arguing that "tiny countries" with small defense budgets can't do us harm -- and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

Barack Obama -- promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing, articulate, transcendent Messiah -- is a walking, talking gaffe machine. How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford?


Conservatives for Obama?
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, July 08, 2008

A number of friends of mine have commented on an odd phenomenon that they have observed-- conservative Republicans they know who are saying that they are going to vote for Barack Obama. It seemed at first to be an isolated fluke, perhaps signifying only that my friends know some strange conservatives. But apparently columnist Robert Novak has encountered the same phenomenon and has coined the term "Obamacons" to describe the conservatives for Senator Obama.

Now the San Francisco Chronicle has run a feature article, titled "Some Influential Conservatives Spurn GOP and Endorse Obama." In it they quote various conservatives on why they are ready to take a chance on Barack Obama, rather than on John McCain.

What is going on?

Partly what is going on is that, in recent years, the Congressional Republicans in general-- and Senator John McCain in particular-- have so alienated so many conservatives that some of these conservatives are like a drowning man grasping at a straw.

The straw in this case is Obama's recent "refining" of his position on a number of issues, as he edges toward the center, in order to try to pick up more votes in November's general election.

Understandable as the reactions of some conservatives may be, a straw is a very unreliable flotation device.

If all that was involved was Democrats versus Republicans, the Republicans would deserve the condemnation they are getting, after their years of wild spending and their multiple betrayals of the principles and the people who got them elected. Amnesty for illegal aliens was perhaps the worst betrayal.

But, while the media may treat the elections as being about Democrats and Republicans-- the "horse race" approach-- elections were not set up by the Constitution of the United States in order to enable party politicians to get jobs.

Nor were elections set up in order to enable voters to vent their emotions or indulge their fantasies.

Voting is a right but it is also a duty-- a duty not just to show up on election day, but a duty to give serious thought to the alternatives on the table and what those alternatives mean for the future of the nation.

What is becoming ever more painfully apparent is that too many people this year-- whether conservative, liberals or whatever-- are all too willing to judge Barack Obama on the basis of his election-year rhetoric, rather than on the record of what he has advocated and done during the past two decades.

Many are for him for no more serious reasons than his mouth and his complexion. The man has become a Rorschach test for the feelings and hopes, not only of those on the left, but also for some on the right as well.

Here is a man who has consistently aided and abetted people who have openly expressed their contempt for this country, both in words and in such deeds as planting bombs to advance their left-wing agenda.

Despite the spin that judging Obama by what was said or done by such people would be "guilt by association," he has not just associated with such people. He has in some cases donated some serious money of his own and even more of the taxpayers' money, as both a state senator in Illinois and a member of the Senate of the United States.

Barack Obama is on record as favoring the kinds of justices who make policy, not just carry out laws. No matter how he may "refine" his position on this issue, he voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, who was easily confirmed by more than three-quarters of the Senators.

Like people on the far left for literally centuries, Barack Obama plays down the dangers to the nation, and calls talk about such dangers "the politics of fear."

Back in the 18th century, Helvetius said, "When I speak I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off." Too many voters still have not learned that lesson. They need to look at the track record of Obama's actions.

Back in the days of "The Lone Ranger" program, someone would ask, "Who is that masked man?" People need to start asking that question about Barack Obama.
---

An Internet Fraud
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Over the years, many statements have been falsely attributed to me, but this is the first year in which a whole column has been made up and circulated in a chain letter on the Internet, claiming that I wrote it.

Letters, phone calls and e-mails from readers around the country have asked me if I wrote a column saying that Barack Obama is not an American citizen. The answer is "No."

Many of my readers have been savvy enough to tell that the style of the phony column is not mine, but checked with me just to be sure.

What is puzzling about all this is that some people would take seriously a chain letter on the Internet saying what some columnist-- any columnist-- is supposed to have said, and would pass that on without knowing whether it was true or false.

Nothing is easier than to check someone's column as it appears officially on the Internet. Among the places where my columns can be checked on the Internet are the archives on my own website: www.tsowell.com.

What is also puzzling is why some people find it necessary to make up false statements and attribute those statements to someone else.

If they think that the person they oppose is wrong-- and why else would they oppose him?-- then why is it necessary to make up something, when they can just show that what he actually said is wrong?

Making something up is a confession of both intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
---

Does Patriotism Matter?
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, July 02, 2008

The Fourth of July is a patriotic holiday but patriotism has long been viewed with suspicion or disdain by many of the intelligentsia. As far back as 1793, prominent British writer William Godwin called patriotism "high-sounding nonsense."

Internationalism has long been a competitor with patriotism, especially among the intelligentsia. H.G. Wells advocated replacing the idea of duty to one's country with "the idea of cosmopolitan duty."

Perhaps nowhere was patriotism so downplayed or deplored than among intellectuals in the Western democracies in the two decades after the horrors of the First World War, fought under various nations' banners of patriotism.

In France, after the First World War, the teachers' unions launched a systematic purge of textbooks, in order to promote internationalism and pacifism.

Books that depicted the courage and self-sacrifice of soldiers who had defended France against the German invaders were called "bellicose" books to be banished from the schools.

Textbook publishers caved in to the power of the teachers' unions, rather than lose a large market for their books. History books were sharply revised to conform to internationalism and pacifism.

The once epic story of the French soldiers' heroic defense against the German invaders at Verdun, despite the massive casualties suffered by the French, was now transformed into a story of horrible suffering by all soldiers at Verdun-- French and German alike.

In short, soldiers once depicted as national heroes were now depicted as victims-- and just like victims in other nations' armies.

Children were bombarded with stories on the horrors of war. In some schools, children whose fathers had been killed during the war were asked to speak to the class and many of these children-- as well as some of their classmates and teachers-- broke down in tears.

In Britain, Winston Churchill warned that a country "cannot avoid war by dilating upon its horrors." In France, Marshal Philippe Petain, the victor at Verdun, warned in 1934 that teachers were trying to "raise our sons in ignorance of or in contempt of the fatherland."

But they were voices drowned out by the pacifist and internationalist rhetoric of the 1920s and 1930s.

Did it matter? Does patriotism matter?

France, where pacifism and internationalism were strongest, became a classic example of how much it can matter.

During the First World War, France fought on against the German invaders for four long years, despite having more of its soldiers killed than all the American soldiers killed in all the wars in the history of the United States, put together.

But during the Second World War, France collapsed after just six weeks of fighting and surrendered to Nazi Germany. At the bitter moment of defeat the head of the French teachers' union was told, "You are partially responsible for the defeat."

Charles de Gaulle, Francois Mauriac, and other Frenchmen blamed a lack of national will or general moral decay, for the sudden and humiliating collapse of France in 1940.

At the outset of the invasion, both German and French generals assessed French military forces as more likely to gain victory, and virtually no one expected France to collapse like a house of cards -- except Adolf Hitler, who had studied French society instead of French military forces.

Did patriotism matter? It mattered more than superior French tanks and planes.

Most Americans today are unaware of how much our schools have followed in the footsteps of the French schools of the 1920s and 1930s, or how much our intellectuals have become citizens of the world instead of American patriots.

Our media are busy verbally transforming American combat troops from heroes into victims, just as the French intelligentsia did-- with the added twist of calling this "supporting the troops."

Will that matter? Time will tell.
---

High-Stakes Courts
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Recent landmark court decisions are reminders that elections are not just about putting candidates in office for a few years.

The judges that elected officials put on the bench can remake the legal landscape, change fundamental social policies and even affect the way wars are fought, long after those who appointed them have served their terms and passed from the scene.

The Supreme Court recently created a new "right" out of thin air for captured enemy soldiers and terrorists-- the right to seek release in the federal courts, something that neither the Constitution nor the Geneva Convention provided.

The High Court has also struck down gun control laws as violations of the Second Amendment. Whatever the legal merits or the policy merits of that decision, it is a major change, created by judges.

The point here is that federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, wield enormous-- and growing-- power. What that means is that when we vote for the candidates who will nominate and confirm judges, we are making decisions not only for ourselves but for generations yet unborn.

Recent momentous decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have been decided by 5 to 4 votes, including the votes of justices appointed by presidents who are no longer living-- Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by President Ford, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed by President Reagan.

Whoever is elected to the White House this November is expected to appoint two or three new members of the Supreme Court-- justices who will be making major decisions affecting the future of American society, long after that president is gone.

Your children will be living during the lifetime tenure of those justices, and your grandchildren will be living in a world shaped by the precedents that those justices set.

In a year when dissatisfaction has been expressed by both Democrats and Republicans with the presidential candidates chosen by their own parties, it is worth keeping in mind the high stakes involved in judicial appointments-- and therefore in presidential elections.

This is especially important to be kept in mind by voters who are thinking of venting their frustrations by voting for some third-party candidate that they know has no chance of being elected.

There will be a president chosen this November, and he will appoint Supreme Court justices during his term, regardless of whether you stay home or go to the polls.

His choices for the High Court will have a major impact on history, whether you vote after a sober consideration of many facts or vote on the basis of the candidate's rhetoric, style or demographics.

Even more important than the particular issues that courts will decide is the more fundamental issue of what a judge's role is in our system of Constitutional government.

In the gun control decision, for example, there were justices who read the history and meaning of the Second Amendment differently. What was most dangerous, however, was Justice Stephen Breyer's opinion that it was up to judges to weigh and "balance" the pros and cons of gun control laws.

If we have Constitutional rights only when judges like the end results, we may as well not have a Constitution.

Is the right to free speech to be put aside, and a journalist put behind bars, whenever a judge thinks that journalist went "too far" in expressing an opinion about some politician or bureaucrat?

Is someone to be tried over again for the same crime, even after having been acquitted, if judges regard the Constitutional ban on double jeopardy as just a suggestion to be weighed and "balanced?"

We have already seen what happens when a 5 to 4 majority decides that politicians can seize your home and give it to somebody else, if judges don't think your property rights "balance" whatever politicians choose to call "the public interest."

When deciding which candidate you want in the White House for the next 4 years, it is worth considering what kind of judges you want on the federal courts for the next generation.
---

An Old Newness
by Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits -- one hit away from the landmark total of 3,000, which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach.

Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner's 3,000th. Paul Waner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top.

The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul Waner got a clean hit for number 3,000.

What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel over the prospect of the first black President of the United States.

No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.

Paul Waner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a President of the United States is a lot more momentous than a baseball record. We the voters need to have far more concern about who we put in that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet unborn.

There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.

Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.

The three leading candidates for their party's nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics -- race, sex and age -- as if that is what the job is about.

One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries.

Just the power to nominate federal judges to trial courts and appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an enormous impact for decades to come. There is no point feeling outraged by things done by federal judges, if you vote on the basis of emotion for those who appoint them.

Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things -- using the mantra of "change" endlessly -- the cold fact is that virtually everything has says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not -- all this is a re-run of the 1960s.

We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.

The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police.

Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes -- including the media magic of meetings between heads of state -- was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.
---

Cocky Ignorance
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Now that Senator Barack Obama has become the Democrats' nominee for President of the United States, to the cheers of the media at home and abroad, he has written a letter to the Secretary of Defense, in a tone as if he is already President, addressing one of his subordinates.

The letter ends: "I look forward to your swift response."

With wars going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a Secretary of Defense might have some other things to look after, before making a "swift response" to a political candidate.

Because of the widely publicized statistic that suicide rates among American troops have gone up, Senator Obama says he wants the Secretary of Defense to tell him, swiftly:

"What changes will you make to provide our soldiers in theater with real access to mental health care?"

"What training has the Pentagon provided our medical professionals in theater to recognize who might be at risk of committing suicide?"

"What assistance are you providing families here at home to recognize the risk factors for suicide, so that they may help our service members get the assistance they need?"

"What programs has the Pentagon implemented to help reduce the stigma attached to mental health concerns so that service members are more likely to seek appropriate care?"

All this sounds very plausible, as so many other things that Senator Obama says sound plausible. But, like so many of those other things, it will not stand up under scrutiny.

What has been widely publicized in the media is that suicides among American troops have gone up. What has not been widely publicized is that this higher suicide rate is still not as high as the suicide rate among demographically comparable civilians.

No one needs to be reminded that suicide is a serious matter, whether among soldiers or civilians. But the media have managed to create the impression that it is military service overseas which is the cause of suicides among American troops, when civilians of the same ages and other demographic characteristics are committing suicide at an even higher rate at home.

Moreover, this is not the first time that military service overseas has been portrayed in the media as the cause of problems that are worse in the civilian population at home.

The New York Times led the way in making homicides committed by returning military veterans a front page story, blaming this on "combat trauma and the stress of deployment." Yet the New York Post showed that the homicide rate among returning veterans is a fraction of the homicide rate among demographically comparable civilians.

In other words, if military veterans are not completely immune to the problems found among civilians at home, then the veterans' problems are to be blamed on military service-- at least by the mainstream media.

Does Senator Obama know how the rate of suicides or homicides among military veterans compares to the rate of suicides or homicides among their civilian counterparts? Do the facts matter to him, as compared to an opportunity to score political points?

Perhaps even more important, do the media even care whether Senator Obama knows what he is talking about? Or is the symbolism of "the first black President" paramount, even if that means a President with cocky ignorance at a time of national danger?

The media have been crucial to Barack Obama's whole candidacy. His only achievements of national significance in his entire career have been media achievements and rhetorical achievements.

Perhaps his greatest achievement has been running as a candidate with an image wholly incompatible with what he has actually been doing for decades. This man who is now supposedly going to "unite" us has for years worked hand in glove, and contributed both his own money and the taxpayers' money, to people who have sought to divide us in the most crude demagogic ways.

With all his expressed concern about the war in Iraq, he has not set foot in Iraq for more than two years-- including the very years when progress has been made against the terrorists there.

You don't need to know the facts when you have cocky ignorance and the media behind you.

Thomas Sowell was born in North Carolina and grew up in Harlem. As with many others in his neighborhood, he left home early and did not finish high school. The next few years were difficult ones, but eventually he joined the Marine Corps and became a photographer in the Korean War. After leaving the service, Sowell entered Harvard University, worked a part-time job as a photographer and studied the science that would become his passion and profession: economics.

After graduating magna cum laude from Harvard University (1958), he went on to receive his master's in economics from Columbia University (1959) and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago (1968).

In the early '60s, Sowell held jobs as an economist with the Department of Labor and AT&T. But his real interest was in teaching and scholarship. In 1965, at Cornell University, he began the first of many professorships. His other teaching assignments include Rutgers University, Amherst University, Brandeis University and the University of California at Los Angeles, where he taught in the early '70s and also from 1984 to 1989.

Sowell has published a large volume of writing. His dozen books, as well as numerous articles and essays, cover a wide range of topics, from classic economic theory to judicial activism, from civil rights to choosing the right college. Moreover, much of his writing is considered ground-breaking -- work that will outlive the great majority of scholarship done today.

Though Sowell had been a regular contributor to newspapers in the late '70s and early '80s, he did not begin his career as a newspaper columnist until 1984. George F. Will's writing, says Sowell, proved to him that someone could say something of substance in so short a space (750 words). And besides, writing for the general public enables him to address the heart of issues without the smoke and mirrors that so often accompany academic writing.

In 1990, he won the prestigious Francis Boyer Award, presented by The American Enterprise Institute.

Currently Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, Calif.
---

Obama and McCain
Thomas Sowell
Thursday, June 05, 2008

Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it is time for a sober-- if not grim-- assessment of where we are.

Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When election day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.

This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world-- Iran-- is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.

The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran's nuclear bomb will be the terrorists' nuclear bomb-- and they can make 9/11 look like child's play.

All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand-- however outrageous those demands might be-- or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.

All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter.

Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us.

They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East.

They have already telegraphed their intention to dictate to us with such things as Osama bin Laden's threats to target those places in America that did not vote the way he prescribed in the 2004 elections. He could not back up those threats then but he may be able to in a very few years.

The terrorists have given us as clear a picture of what they are all about as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did during the 1930s-- and our "leaders" and intelligentsia have ignored the warning signs as resolutely as the "leaders" and intelligentsia of the 1930s downplayed the dangers of Hitler.

We are much like people drifting down the Niagara River, oblivious to the waterfalls up ahead. Once we go over those falls, we cannot come back up again.

What does this have to do with today's presidential candidates? It has everything to do with them.

One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from going nuclear-- or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western leaders talked in the 1930s.

There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West's lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, nevertheless when all the West's industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively.

But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.

Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January.

At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure-- at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.

Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.

On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.
---

Irrelevant Apologies
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, June 03, 2008

It is amazing how seriously the media are taking Senator Barack Obama's latest statement about the latest racist rant from the pulpit of the church he has attended for 20 years. But neither that statement nor the apology for his rant by Father Michael Pfleger really matters, one way or the other. Nor does Senator Obama's belated resignation from that church.

For any politician, what matters is not his election year rhetoric, or an election year resignation from a church, but the track record of that politician in the years before the election.

Yet so many people are so fascinated by Barack Obama's rhetorical skills that they don't care about his voting record in the U.S. Senate, in the Illinois state senate, the causes that he has chosen to promote over the years, or the candidate's personal character and values, as revealed by his actions and associations.

Despite clever spin from Obama's supporters about avoiding "guilt by association," much more is involved than casual association with people like Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger.

In addition to giving $20,000 of his own money to Jeremiah Wright, as a state senator Obama directed $225,000 of the Illinois taxpayers' money for programs run by Father Pfleger. In the U.S. Senate, Obama earmarked $100,000 in federal tax money for Father Pfleger's work. Giving someone more than 300 grand is not just some tenuous, coincidental association.

Are Barack Obama's views shown by what he says during an election year or by what he has been doing for decades before?

The complete contrast between Obama's election year image as a healer of divisions and his whole career of promoting far-left grievance politics, in association with America-haters like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, are brushed aside by his supporters who talk about getting back to "the real issues."

There is nothing more real than a man's character and values. The track record of what he has actually done is far more real than anything he says, however elegantly he says it.

There is no office where the character and values of the person in that office matter more than the office of President of the United States. He holds the destiny of 300 million Americans in his hands and the fate of generations yet unborn.

That was never more true than today, with Iran moving ever closer to a nuclear bomb, while the United Nations wrings its hands and Congress fritters away its time on everything from steroids in sports to earmarks for pet projects back home.

Does anyone seriously consider what it would mean for Iran to have nuclear weapons? They are already supplying terrorists with the means of killing people in other countries, including killing American troops in Iraq.

Senator Obama has been downplaying the Iran threat, saying that they are just "a small country," not like the Soviet Union. The people who flew planes into the World Trade Center were an even smaller group than the Iranian government.

Half a dozen terrorists like that with nuclear weapons would be a bigger danger than the Soviet Union ever was, because the Soviet leaders were not suicide bombers. They could be deterred by the threat of what we would do to Moscow if they attacked New York.

You cannot deter suicidal fanatics. They are not going to stop unless they get stopped. Rhetoric is not going to do it.

Not only Senator Obama, but too many other Americans, seem to have no concept of the seething hatred that can lead people to destroy their own lives in order to lash out at others.

But terrorists have been doing this repeatedly, not only in Iraq and in Israel, but in other countries around the world-- including the United States on 9/11.

Have we already forgotten how the Palestinians were cheering in the streets over the news of the attack on the World Trade Center? How videotapes of sadistic beheadings of innocent people by terrorists have found an eager audience in the Middle East?

Are we going to leave our children hostages to hate-filled sadists with nuclear weapons? Are we to rely on Barack Obama's rhetoric to protect them?

Senator Obama's foreign policy seems to be somewhere between Rodney King's "Can't we just get along?" and Alfred E. Neuman's "What, me worry?"
---

Random Thoughts
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Random thoughts on the passing scene:

Seeing the Pope driven around in a bullet-proof vehicle reminds me of how much times have changed over the years. I can remember when President Franklin D. Roosevelt rode through Harlem in an open car.

A reader's response to my column about the mandated change from incandescent light bulbs to CFL bulbs: "It would be far better to exchange the corrupt hacks in Congress for some winos from the Bowery. Such a transition should open a new bright era for America."

Even if you think our presidential choices this election year are between disgust and disaster, anyone who has ever been through a real disaster can tell you that this difference is not small. It is big enough to go vote on election day.

One of the ways in which people are similar is in the lengths to which they will go in order to show that they are different.

Over the years, slowly but surely, we have painted ourselves into a corner on a whole range of issues, where we can no longer say or do what makes the most sense to us, but only what is considered to be politically correct.

The great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catchword could stop people from thinking for 50 years. The big catchword this election year is "change"-- and it has already stopped many people's thinking in its tracks.

It would be hard to think of a more ridiculous way to make decisions than to transfer those decisions to third parties who pay no price for being wrong. Yet that is what at least half of the bright ideas of the political left amount to.

Unlike most politicians, Barack Obama does not waffle. He comes out boldly, saying mutually contradictory things.

At one time, to call someone "green" was to disparage them as inexperienced or immature. Today, to call someone green is to exalt them as one of the environmentalist saviors of the planet. But it is amazing how many people are green in both senses. Some people who think it is wrong to tell children to believe in Santa Claus nevertheless think it is all right to tell adults to believe that the government can give the whole population things that we cannot afford ourselves. Believing in Santa Claus is apparently bad for children but OK for adults.

The best explanation I have heard as to why Hillary Clinton is continuing to campaign, at a cost of millions of dollars a month, is that she wants to damage Obama enough for him to lose the general election this fall, leaving her as the obvious front-runner for the Democrats' nomination in 2012.

Even drugs which have been used safely for years in Europe or elsewhere cannot be sold in the United States without the approval of the Food and Drug Administration-- which can take years, while people suffer and die from a lack of that drug. Why not allow such drugs to be sold with a bright red label that says: "THIS DRUG IS NOT APPROVED BY THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. NOR IS IT DISAPPROVED"?

The phrase "war on terror" is an unfortunate choice of words. It is the terrorists who openly declared war on us. Whatever the reasons for going into Iraq, that is where international terrorists have converged to fight their war against the United States. Pulling out of Iraq will not stop the terrorists' war on us, but only give them a huge victory as the war shifts to another front.

If Barack Obama had given a speech on bowling, it might well have been brilliant and inspiring. But instead he actually tried bowling and threw a gutter ball. The contrast between talking and doing could not have been better illustrated.

"McCarthyism" is a term used to dismiss the threat of internal subversion and espionage. But whatever the sins of Senator Joe McCarthy, the efforts of others showed that Alger Hiss was not a figment of anyone's imagination, nor was the espionage of the Rosenbergs that turned American atomic secrets over to Stalin, or the espionage networks to which Michael Straight, once editor of the New Republic, belatedly admitted being part of.

Whoever said that overnight is a lifetime in politics knew what he was talking about. Just 6 months ago, the big question was how Hillary and Giuliani would do against each other in this year's presidential elections.
---

Mascot Politics
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Years ago, when Jack Greenberg left the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to become a professor at Columbia University, he announced that he was going to make it a point to hire a black secretary at Columbia.

This would of course make whomever he hired be seen as a token black, rather than as someone selected on the basis of competence.

This reminded me of the first time I went to Milton Friedman's office when I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago back in 1960, and I noticed that he had a black secretary. This was four years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and there was no such thing as affirmative action.

It so happened that Milton Friedman had another black secretary decades later, at the Hoover Institution-- and she was respected as one of the best secretaries around.

When I mentioned to someone at the Hoover Institution that I was having a hard time finding a secretary who could handle a tough job in my absence, I was told that I needed someone like Milton Friedman's secretary-- and that there were not many like her.

At no time in all these years did I hear Milton Friedman say, either publicly or privately, that he had a black secretary.

William F. Buckley's wife once mentioned in passing, at dinner in her home, that she had been involved for years in working with a school in Harlem. But I never heard her or Bill Buckley ever say that publicly.

Nor do conservatives who were in the civil rights marches in the South, back when that was dangerous, make that a big deal.

For people on the left, however, blacks are trophies or mascots, and must therefore be put on display. Nowhere is that more true than in politics.

The problem with being a mascot is that you are a symbol of someone else's significance or virtue. The actual well-being of a mascot is not the point.

Liberals all across the country have not hesitated to destroy black neighborhoods in the name of "urban renewal," often replacing working-class neighborhoods with upscale homes and pricey businesses-- neither of which the former residents can afford.

In academia, lower admissions standards for black students is about having them as a visible presence, even if mismatching them with the particular college or university produces high dropout rates.

The black students who don't make it are replaced by others, and when many of them don't make it, there are still more others.

The point is to have black faces on campus, as mascots symbolizing what great people there are running the college or university.

Many, if not most, of the black students who do not make it at big-name, high-pressure institutions are perfectly qualified to succeed at the normal range of colleges and universities.

Most white students would also punch out if admitted to schools for which they don't have the same qualifications as the other students. But nobody needs white mascots.

Various empirical studies have indicated that blacks succeed best at institutions where there is little or no difference between their qualifications and the qualifications of the other students around them.

This is not rocket science but it is amazing how much effort and cleverness have gone into denying the obvious.

A study by Professor Richard Sander of the UCLA law school suggests that there may be fewer black lawyers as a result of "affirmative action" admissions to law schools that are a mismatch for the individuals admitted.

Leaping to the defense of black criminals is another common practice among liberals who need black mascots. Most of the crimes committed by black criminals are committed against other blacks. But, again, the actual well-being of mascots is not the point.

Politicians who use blacks as mascots do not hesitate to throw blacks to the wolves for the benefit of the teachers' unions, the green zealots whose restrictions make housing unaffordable, or people who keep low-price stores like Wal-Mart out of their cities.

Using human beings as mascots is not idealism. It is self-aggrandizement that is ugly in both its concept and its consequences.
---

A Living Lie
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 15, 2008

An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie. That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years.

Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.

There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation -- nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.

Senator Obama is all talk -- glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk.

Some of his recent talk in San Francisco has stirred up controversy because it revealed yet another blatant contradiction between Barack Obama's public image and his reality.

Speaking privately to supporters in heavily left-liberal San Francisco, Obama let down his hair and described working class people in Pennsylvania as so "bitter" that they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction -- and where opinions different from those of the left are ascribed to emotions ("bitter" in this case), rather than to arguments that need to be answered.

Like so many others on the left, Obama rejects "stereotypes" when they are stereotypes he doesn't like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about "a typical white person" or "bitter" gun-toting, religious and racist working class people.

In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification," when people react adversely to what was plainly said.

Obama and his supporters were still busy "clarifying" Jeremiah Wright's very plain statements when it suddenly became necessary to "clarify" Senator Obama's own statements in San Francisco.

People who have been cheering whistle-blowers for years have suddenly denounced the person who blew the whistle on what Obama said in private that is so contradictory to what he has been saying in public.

However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.

Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.

Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.

Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves."

Similar statements on the left go back as far as Rousseau in the 18th century and come forward into our own times.

It is understandable that young people are so strongly attracted to Obama. Youth is another name for inexperience -- and experience is what is most needed when dealing with skillful and charismatic demagogues.

Those of us old enough to have seen the type again and again over the years can no longer find them exciting. Instead, they are as tedious as they are dangerous.
---

Race and Politics
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, March 18, 2008

There is something both poignant and galling about the candidacy of Barack Obama.

Any American, regardless of party or race, has to find it heartening that the country has reached the point where a black candidate for President of the United States sweeps so many primaries in states where the overwhelming majority of the population is white.

We have all seen the crowds enthralled by Barack Obama's rhetoric and theatrical style.

Many of his supporters put their money where their mouths were, so that this recently arrived Senator received more millions of dollars in donations than candidates who have been far more visible on the national stage for far more years.

That's the good news. The bad news is that Barack Obama has been leading as much of a double life as Eliot Spitzer.

While talking about bringing us together and deploring "divisive" actions, Senator Obama has for 20 years been a member of a church whose minister, Jeremiah Wright, has said that "God Bless America" should be replaced by "God damn America" -- among many other wild and even obscene denunciations of American society, including blanket racist attacks on whites.

Nor was this an isolated example. Fox News Channel has played tapes of various sermons of Jeremiah Wright, and says that it has tapes with hours of more of the same.

Wright's actions matched his words. He went with Louis Farrakhan to Libya and Farrakhan received an award from his church.

Sean Hannity began reporting on Jeremiah Wright back in April of 2007. But the mainstream media saw no evil, heard no evil and spoke no evil.

Now that the facts have come out in a number of places, and can no longer be suppressed, many in the media are trying to spin these facts out of existence.

Spin number one is that Jeremiah Wright's words were "taken out of context." Like most people who use this escape hatch, those who say this do not explain what the words mean when taken in context.

In just what context does "God damn America" mean something different?

Spin number two is that Barack Obama says he didn't hear the particular things that Jeremiah Wright said that are now causing so much comment.

It wasn't just an isolated remark. Nor were the enthusiastic responses of the churchgoers something which suggests that this anti-American attitude was news to them or something that they didn't agree with.

If Barack Obama was not in church that particular day, he belonged to that church for 20 years. He made a donation of more than $20,000 to that church.

In all that time, he never had a clue as to what kind of man Jeremiah Wright was? Give me a break!

You can't be with someone for 20 years, call him your mentor, and not know about his racist and anti-American views.

Neither Barack Obama nor his media spinmeisters can put this story behind him with some facile election year rhetoric. If Senator Obama wants to run with the rabbits and hunt with the hounds, then at least let the rabbits and the hounds know that.

The fact that Obama talks differently than Jeremiah Wright does not mean that his track record is different. Barack Obama's voting record in the Senate is perfectly consistent with the far left ideology and the grievance culture, just as his wife's statement that she was never proud of her country before is consistent with that ideology.

Senator Barack Obama's political success thus far has been a blow for equality. But equality has its down side.

Equality means that a black demagogue who has been exposed as a phony deserves exactly the same treatment as a white demagogue who has been exposed as a phony.

We don't need a President of the United States who got to the White House by talking one way, voting a very different way in the Senate, and who for 20 years followed a man whose words and deeds contradict Obama's carefully crafted election year image.
---

Obama's Speech
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Did Senator Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia convince people that he is still a viable candidate to be President of the United States, despite the adverse reactions to statements by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright?

The polls and the primaries will answer that question.

The great unasked question for Senator Obama is the question that was asked about President Nixon during the Watergate scandal; What did he know and when did he know it?

Although Senator Obama would now have us believe that he is shocked, shocked, at what Jeremiah Wright said, that he was not in the church when pastor Wright said those things from the pulpit, this still leaves the question of why he disinvited Wright from the event at which he announced his candidacy for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination a year ago.

Either Barack Obama or his staff must have known then that Jeremiah Wright was not someone whom they wanted to expose to the media and to the media scrutiny to which that could lead.

Why not, if it is only now that Senator Obama is learning for the first time, to his surprise, what kinds of things Jeremiah Wright has been saying and doing?

No one had to be in church the day Wright made his inflammatory and obscene remarks to know about them.

The cable news journalists who are playing the tapes of those sermons were not there. The tapes were on sale in the church itself. Obama knew that because he had bought one or more of those tapes.

But even if there were no tapes, and even if Obama never heard from other members of the church what their pastor was saying, he spent 20 years in that church, not just as an ordinary member but also as someone who once donated $20,000 to the church.

There was no way that he didn't know about Jeremiah Wright's anti-American and racist diatribes from the pulpit.

Someone once said that a con man's job is not to convince skeptics but to enable people to continue to believe what they already want to believe.

Accordingly, Obama's Philadelphia speech -- a theatrical masterpiece -- will probably reassure most Democrats and some other Obama supporters. They will undoubtedly say that we should now "move on," even though many Democrats have still not yet moved on from George W. Bush's 2000 election victory.

Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama's speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the "useful idiots" useful.

Best-selling author Shelby Steele's recent book on Barack Obama ("A Bound Man") has valuable insights into both the man and the circumstances facing many other blacks -- especially those who were never part of the black ghetto culture but who feel a need to identify with it for either personal, political or financial reasons.

Like religious converts who become more Catholic than the Pope, such people often become blacker-than-thou. For whatever reason, Barack Obama chose a black extremist church decades ago -- even though there was no shortage of very different churches, both black and white -- in Chicago.

Some say that he was trying to earn credibility on the ghetto streets, to facilitate his work as a community activist or for his political career. We may never know why.

But now that Barack Obama is running for a presidential nomination, he is doing so on a radically different basis, as a post-racial candidate uniquely prepared to bring us all together.

Yet the past continues to follow him, despite his attempts to bury it and the mainstream media's attempts to ignore it or apologize for it.

Shelby Steele depicts Barack Obama as a man without real convictions, "an iconic figure who neglected to become himself."

Senator Obama has been at his best as an icon, able with his command of words to meet other people's psychic needs, including a need to dispel white guilt by supporting his candidacy.

But President of the United States, in a time of national danger, under a looming threat of nuclear terrorism? No.
---

How Obama Won -- and May Win
Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday, June 10, 2008

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. ... I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Thus did Joe Biden famously describe his rival for the nomination, Barack Obama, to the The New York Observer, a year ago.

Biden, however, thought Obama might not be able to win the fall election, as he is "a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate. ... I don't recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic."

Biden was forced to apologize, but was dead on in discerning Barack's strengths as a candidate in the primaries, which might prove weaknesses in the fall.

A new face in the game, Barack opened with three aces. He opposed the Iraq war, the defining issue in a party that had come to detest the war. He was an African-American. Thus, as the hopes of millions rose that he could be the first black president, there were surges of black voters whom he begin to sweep 90-10.

Lastly, Barack is a natural, a Mickey Mantle, a superb political athlete like JFK, who has looks, charm, youth and a speaking style that can move crowds to cheers or laughter.

Barack was thus able to unite the McGovern wing -- young, idealistic, liberal, anti-war -- with the Jesse Jackson quadrant of the party, black folks, and defeat Hillary's coalition of working-class Catholics, women, seniors and Hispanics.

As of today, by the traditional metrics of national politics, Democrats should roll up a victory this fall like FDR's first in 1932.

Bush's disapproval is near 70 percent, and 80 percent of the country believes the nation is on the wrong course. Unemployment is rising. Surging gas and food prices compete for the top story not only on business pages but front pages, with home foreclosures and the housing slump. Family incomes of Middle Americans have ceased to rise, as millions of their best jobs have been outsourced overseas.

Yet, national polls show McCain-Obama a close race, and the electoral map points to critical problems for Barack.

He seeks, for example, to target Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. But in all three the Hispanic vote may be decisive. And Barack was beaten by Hillary two to one among Hispanics, and between these two largest of America's minorities, rivalry and tension are real and rising.

Barack must hold Michigan and Pennsylvania and pick up Ohio or Virginia. Yet, his weakness among Southern and working-class whites and women is remarkable. By two to one they rejected him.

After his string of primary and caucus victories in February, Barack proceeded to lose Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, then West Virginia by 41, Kentucky by 35, Puerto Rico two to one and South Dakota by 10. That last one Barack was supposed to win.

The longer the campaign went on, the more reluctant Democrats seemed to be to embrace his nomination.

What is Barack's problem?

Middle America knows little about him, and much of what they know they do not like. When West Virginians were asked what they knew about Barack, a plurality said the Rev. Wright was his pastor. In Pennsylvania, a goodly slice of Democrats knew Barack had said they were "bitter" about being left behind and were clinging to their bigotries, Bibles and guns.

By June, resistance to Barack's nomination in the party that he now leads was extraordinary, stemming from a belief that he is too naive to be commander in chief in wartime and too far left, and does not like or understand Middle America or its values.

"He is not one of us."

And if Barack cannot erase this hardening perception in the American mind, he will not be president.

Democrats may talk of making the economy the issue this fall, but Republicans are going to make Barack the issue. Story line: We cannot entrust our beloved America, in a time of war, to this radical and exotic figure who has so many crazy and extremist associates.

Barack's problem is thus Reagan's problem.

As the country wished to be rid of Jimmy Carter in 1980, so the nation today wishes to be rid of Bush and his Republicans. But America is apprehensive over a roll of the dice, in Bill Clinton's metaphor.

How did Reagan ease the anxiety? In the debate with Carter, he came off as conservative, yes, but also traditional, mainstream, witty and the more likable man. The real Reagan came through.

With his persona, Barack may be able to do the same -- in the debates. The problem is that he had two dozen debates with Hillary and, by the end of the primary season, five months after it began, he was still losing ground.
---

The Audacity of Rhetoric
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, March 26, 2008

It is painful to watch defenders of Barack Obama tying themselves into knots trying to evade the obvious.

Some are saying that Senator Obama cannot be held responsible for what his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said. In their version of events, Barack Obama just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time -- and a bunch of mean-spirited people are trying to make something out of it.

It makes a good story, but it won't stand up under scrutiny.

Barack Obama's own account of his life shows that he consciously sought out people on the far left fringe. In college, "I chose my friends carefully," he said in his first book, "Dreams From My Father."

These friends included "Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets" -- in Obama's own words -- as well as the "more politically active black students." He later visited a former member of the terrorist Weatherman underground, who endorsed him when he ran for state senator.

Obama didn't just happen to encounter Jeremiah Wright, who just happened to say some way out things. Jeremiah Wright is in the same mold as the kinds of people Barack Obama began seeking out in college -- members of the left, anti-American counter-culture.

In Shelby Steele's brilliantly insightful book about Barack Obama -- "A Bound Man" -- it is painfully clear that Obama was one of those people seeking a racial identity that he had never really experienced in growing up in a white world. He was trying to become a convert to blackness, as it were -- and, like many converts, he went overboard.

Nor has Obama changed in recent years. His voting record in the U.S. Senate is the furthest left of any Senator. There is a remarkable consistency in what Barack Obama has done over the years, despite inconsistencies in what he says.

The irony is that Obama's sudden rise politically to the level of being the leading contender for his party's presidential nomination has required him to project an entirely different persona, that of a post-racial leader who can heal divisiveness and bring us all together.

The ease with which he has accomplished this chameleon-like change, and entranced both white and black Democrats, is a tribute to the man's talent and a warning about his reliability.

There is no evidence that Obama ever sought to educate himself on the views of people on the other end of the political spectrum, much less reach out to them. He reached out from the left to the far left. That's bringing us all together?

Is "divisiveness" defined as disagreeing with the agenda of the left? Who on the left was ever called divisive by Obama before that became politically necessary in order to respond to revelations about Jeremiah Wright?

One sign of Obama's verbal virtuosity was his equating a passing comment by his grandmother -- "a typical white person," he says -- with an organized campaign of public vilification of America in general and white America in particular, by Jeremiah Wright.

Since all things are the same, except for the differences, and different except for the similarities, it is always possible to make things look similar verbally, however different they are in the real world.

Among the many desperate gambits by defenders of Senator Obama and Jeremiah Wright is to say that Wright's words have a "resonance" in the black community.

There was a time when the Ku Klux Klan's words had a resonance among whites, not only in the South but in other states. Some people joined the KKK in order to advance their political careers. Did that make it OK? Is it all just a matter of whose ox is gored?

While many whites may be annoyed by Jeremiah Wright's words, a year from now most of them will probably have forgotten about him. But many blacks who absorb his toxic message can still be paying for it, big-time, for decades to come.

Why should young blacks be expected to work to meet educational standards, or even behavioral standards, if they believe the message that all their problems are caused by whites, that the deck is stacked against them? That is ultimately a message of hopelessness, however much audacity it may have.
---

Republicans and Blacks
Thomas Sowell
Thursday, April 10, 2008

If Senator John McCain needed to prove that he is a real Republican, he did it when he continued an old Republican tradition of utterly inept attempts to appeal to black voters.

Senator McCain was booed at a recent memorial on the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. In typical Republican fashion, he tried to apologize but the audience was not buying it and let him know it.

Why would Senator McCain choose a venue where his rejection was virtually guaranteed? Not only did he not get his message out, the message that came out through the media is that this black audience rejected him, which is readily portrayed as if blacks in general rejected him.

The Republican strategy for making inroads into the black vote has failed consistently for more than a quarter of a century. Yet it never seems to occur to them to change their approach.

The first thing that they do that is foredoomed to failure is trying to reach blacks through the civil rights organizations and other institutions of the black establishment. The second proven loser is trying to appeal to blacks by offering the same kinds of things that Democrats offer-- token honors, politically correct rhetoric and welfare state benefits.

Blacks who want those things know that they can already get them from the Democrats. Why should they listen to Republicans who act like imitation Democrats?'

These are not the blacks whose votes Republicans have any realistic hope of getting. Nor do the Republicans need the votes of all blacks. If just 20 percent of blacks begin voting Republican, the Democrats are lost.

The question then is how to have a shot at getting the votes of those blacks who are not in thrall to the current black "leaders" and who on many issues may be conservative.

First of all, you don't get their votes by approaching them from the left, when that is neither their orientation nor yours. Issuing stamps honoring Paul Robeson and Kwanzaa are not the way to reach those blacks whom Republicans have any realistic chance of reaching.

Trying to reach blacks through civil rights organizations that are totally hostile to your message is like a quarterback trying to throw a pass to a receiver surrounded by opposing defenders. That just leads to a lot of interceptions and touchdowns for the other team.

That is essentially what has been happening to the Republicans, as far as the black vote is concerned, for decades on end. Someone once said that a method which fails repeatedly may possibly be wrong.

The truth is something that can attract people's attention, if only for its novelty in politics. There is no need for Republicans to try to pose as saviors of blacks. Democrats do that and they have more experience doing it.

A sober presentation of the facts-- "straight talk," if you will-- gives Senator McCain and Republicans their best shot at a larger share of the votes of blacks. There is plenty to talk straight about, including all the things that the Democrats are committed to that work to the disadvantage of blacks, beginning with Democrats' adamant support of teachers' unions in their opposition to parental choice through vouchers.

The teachers' unions are just one of the sacred cow constituencies of the Democratic Party whose agendas are very harmful to blacks.

Black voters also need to be told about the tens of thousands of blacks who have been forced out of a number of liberal Democratic California counties by skyrocketing housing prices, brought on by Democratic environmentalists' severe restrictions on the building of homes or apartments.

The black population of San Francisco, for example, has been cut in half since 1970 -- and San Francisco is the very model of a community of liberal Democrats, including green zealots who are heedless of the consequences of their actions on others.

Then there are the effects of tort lawyers in raising prices, liberal judges turning criminals loose and other influential Democratic Party constituencies whose effects on blacks are strictly negative.

Where should these and other messages be delivered to blacks, if not through the existing black organizations?

That message can be delivered as part of televised speeches addressing other major issues facing the country. It can be delivered as part of advertisements in the general media and separately in advertisements in newspapers, magazines and television programs with a black audience.

Logistics are not the problem. Insistence on following a repeatedly failed game plan is.
---

D'OH-bama's Mortgage Industry Mess
By Michelle Malkin
June 11, 2008

If you're going to promise "new politics," it would probably be wise to eschew the same old Beltway cronies and insiders who have served presidential nominees of yore.

And if you're going to attack political opponents for playing "textbook Washington games," it would probably be best not to play them yourself. If you do, you'll end up tongue-tied in front of the cameras, hung by your own holier-than-thou rhetoric and faced once again with the decision to throw another bad choice under the bus.

Yes, Barack Obama, we're talking about you. Again. It's getting mighty crowded under that bus, isn't it?

Last week, D'Oh-bama announced the appointment of D.C. denizens Jim Johnson and Eric Holder to head his veep search committee -- along with a Kennedy (Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg) thrown in for glamorous good measure. John McCain supporters rightly jumped on Johnson and Holder as shady Washington operators. Holder was the Clinton Justice Department official in the middle of the sleazy pardon for fugitive financier Marc Rich.

Johnson, who has advised past failed Democratic nominees Walter Mondale and John Kerry, was CEO of the beleaguered, government-backed mortgage giant, Fannie Mae. Over the weekend, The Wall Street Journal reported that Johnson accepted more than $7 million in below-market-rate loans from scandal-plagued subprime lender Countrywide Financial Corp. The company's CEO, Angelo Mozilo, had set up a very special loan program for his high-powered pals. Johnson had named Mozilo to Fannie Mae's national advisory committee more than a decade ago and they maintained a cozy friendship.

Mozilo also happens to be one of Obama's fattest targets in his frequent broadsides against the demons of the mortgage industry. Obama likened Mozilo to a virus in March: "These are the people who are responsible for infecting the economy and helping to create a home foreclosure crisis." Channeling Jesse Jackson, Obama further chided: "These executives crossed the line to boost their bottom line." During the battle with Hillary, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe was dispatched to the cable TV airwaves to inveigh: "If we're really going to crack down on the practices that caused the credit and housing crises, we're going to need a leader who doesn't owe these industries any favors." And so on.

Yesterday, after a barrage of questions from McCain bloggers, Countrywide critics and Clinton operatives, ABC News asked Obama about the stunningly obvious hypocrisy. The result was, well, painful.

Struck with an apparent case of restless mouth syndrome, Obama first indignantly rejected the notion that he should pick his veep pickers more carefully: "Well, look, the, the, I mean -- first of all I am not vetting my VP search committee for their mortgages."

Translation: I will remain willfully blind to the conflicts of interest created by my own mortgage industry-bashing rhetoric.

Next, Obama leaned on his "Washington games" crutch and attempted to distance himself from the appointees whom he has assigned the most important and intimate of tasks: "You're going to have to direct -- it becomes sort of a -- this is a game that can be played -- everybody, who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships. I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters."

"Tangential"? He appointed them to search for his second in command. "Tangential" is the cleaning lady in his Sioux Falls campaign office.

Finally, channeling Bill Clinton's "is-is" parsing, Obama attempted to argue that his dubious veep selection committee members don't really "work" for him: "They're performing that job well. It's a volunteer, unpaid position. And they're giving me information, and I will then exercise judgment in terms of who I want to select as a vice presidential candidate. So these aren't folks who are working for me, they're not people I have assigned to a particular job in a future administration."

There are only so many gaffes, missteps, mistakes, flubs and self-delusional statements one can make before serial naivete becomes endemic stupidity. Obama has reached the point of no return.
---

Say Goodbye To The Glowbama Mystique
By Michelle Malkin
March 19, 2008

Barack Obama -- the self-anointed soul-fixing, nation-healing political Messiah -- has lost his glow. That is the takeaway from the beleaguered Democratic presidential candidate's "major" speech in Philadelphia yesterday.

For all of his supposedly unique and transcendent understanding of race in America, Obama's talk amounted to the same old, same old. The Glowbama mystique has gone the way of the Emperor's clothes. Instead of accountability, we got excuses. Instead of disavowal of demagoguery, we got whacked with the moral equivalence card. Instead of rejecting the Blame America mantra of left-wing black nationalism, we got more Blame Whitey. Same old, same old.

For two decades, Obama tethered himself to a fire-breathing pastor peddling bitter Marxist "black liberation theology" in the name of God. Behind the "audacity of hope" was a grievance-mongering preacher animated by the voracity of hate. And understand this: The Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama were not merely passing "associates." They were mentor and mentee, guru and student, with fates and fortunes intertwined.

For two decades, while using the church to build his Chicago power base and credibility in the black community, Obama turned a deaf ear to Wright's AIDS conspiracy theories, class warfare rants, anti-Israel, anti-white raves, and "God damn America" diatribes. These weren't occasional outbursts. They were the bread and butter of the Trinity United Church of Christ. Now, Obama blames "talk show hosts and conservative commentators" for exposing Wright's race-based rancor. Audacious, indeed.

On Friday, Obama attempted to minimize the extent to which he had been exposed to Wright's poisonous politicking on the pulpit. "None of these statements were ones that I had heard myself personally in the pews," he told Major Garrett of Fox News. "The other statements were ones that I just heard about while we were -- when they started being run on FOX and some of the other stations. And so they weren't things that I was familiar with."

Yesterday, Obama changed his tune: "I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Rev. Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."

The clever Sen. Obama has attempted to erect a firewall of protection from probing questions about which remarks he heard and tolerated and failed to object to while sitting in the pews. Dwelling on what he knew and where and when, he argued yesterday, would be "to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality."

But it is Obama's pastor ("former" pastor, he is so quick to point out now, though he is a two-decade-long mentor) who holds a warped view of reality. And it is Obama who distorts the truth by likening this Ward Churchill of the United Church of Christ to an avuncular, yet lovable, family member who cannot easily be renounced:

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Glad to know something made Obama cringe.

Even as he denied that he was justifying and excusing Wright's demagoguery, Obama was doing just that by invoking slavery, Jim Crow, segregated schools, violence in the inner city and, yes, denial of access to FHA mortgages, to explain how we get to Wright spewing "God damn America" on Sunday morning.

"These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love," Obama declared rather stiffly as he stood self-consciously in front of more American flags that he has ever been placed in front of this campaign season.

Well, you can't pick your grandma, but you can pick your pastor. And Obama picked the wrong one if he aspires to be the president of all America -- an America that includes citizens of all colors who cringe at self-serving racial rationalizations masquerading as moral salvation.
---

Michelle Obama's America -- And Mine
By Michelle Malkin
February 20, 2008

Like Michelle Obama, I am a "woman of color." Like Michelle Obama, I am a working mother of two young children. Like Michelle Obama, I am a member of the 13th generation of Americans born since the founding of our great nation.

Unlike Michelle Obama, I can't keep track of the number of times I've been proud -- really proud -- of my country since I was born and privileged to live in it.

At a speech in Milwaukee this week on behalf of her husband's Democratic presidential campaign, Mrs. Obama remarked, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

Mrs. Obama's statement was met with warm applause from other Barack supporters who have apparently also been devoid of pride in their country for their adult lifetimes. Or maybe it was just a Pavlovian response to the word "change." What a sad, empty, narcissistic, ungrateful, unthinking lot.

I'm just seven years younger than Mrs. Obama. We've grown up and lived in the same era. And yet, her self-absorbed attitude is completely foreign to me. What planet is she living on? Since when was now the only time the American people have ever been "hungry for change"? Michelle, ma belle, Barack is not the center of the universe. Newsflash: The Obamas did not invent "change" any more than Hillary invented "leadership" or John McCain invented "straight talk."

We were both adults when the Berlin Wall fell, Michelle. That was earth-shattering change.

We've lived through two decades' worth of peaceful, if contentious election cycles under the rule of law, which have brought about "change" and upheaval, both good and bad.

We were adults through several launches of the space shuttle, in case you were snoozing. And as adults, we've witnessed and benefited from dizzyingly rapid advances in technology, communications, science and medicine pioneered by American entrepreneurs who yearned to change the world and succeeded. You want "change"? Go ask the patients whose lives have been improved and extended by American pharmaceutical companies that have flourished under the best economic system in the world.

If American ingenuity, a robust constitutional republic and the fall of communism don't do it for you, hon, then how about American heroism and sacrifice?

How about every Memorial Day? Every Veterans Day? Every Independence Day? Every Medal of Honor ceremony? Has she never attended a welcome home ceremony for the troops?

For me, there's the thrill of the Blue Angels roaring over cloudless skies. And the somber awe felt amid the hallowed waters that surround the sunken U.S.S. Arizona at the Pearl Harbor memorial.

Every naturalization ceremony I've attended, where hundreds of new Americans raised their hands to swear an oath of allegiance to this land of liberty, has been a moment of pride for me. So have the awesome displays of American compassion at home and around the world. When millions of Americans rallied to help victims of the 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia -- including members of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group that sped from Hong Kong to assist survivors -- my heart filled with pride. It did again when the citizens of Houston opened their arms to Hurricane Katrina victims and folks across the country rushed to their churches, and Salvation Army and Red Cross offices to volunteer.

How about American resilience? Does that not make you proud? Only a heart of stone could be unmoved by the strength, valor and determination displayed in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., on September 11, 2001.

I believe it was Michael Kinsley who quipped that a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth. In this case, it's what happens when an elite Democratic politician's wife says what a significant portion of the party's base really believes to be the truth: America is more a source of shame than pride.

Michelle Obama has achieved enormous professional success, political influence and personal acclaim in America. Ivy League-educated, she's been lauded by Essence magazine as one of the 25 World's Most Inspiring Women; by Vanity Fair as one of the 10 World's Best-Dressed Women; and named one of "The Harvard 100" most influential alumni. She has had an amazingly blessed life. But you wouldn't know it from her campaign rhetoric and her griping about her and her husband's student loans.

For years, we've heard liberals get offended at any challenge to their patriotism. And so they are again aggrieved and rising to explain away Mrs. Obama's remarks.

Lady Michelle and her defenders protest too much.
---

Obama's Un-Disownable Preacher Of Hate
By Michelle Malkin
April 30, 2008

Barack Obama looked pale and wan at what he called his "big press conference" about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright on Tuesday afternoon. Numb. Chastened. Defeated. Extolled for his eloquence, Obama stuttered and stammered his way through the question-and-answer session. It appeared he was having an out-of-body experience.

Who knew that the greatest threat to his presidential campaign would come from the preacher who married him, baptized him and prayed with him? Barack Obama should have known. That's who. Take that judgment and shove it on a pretty campaign poster.

"Yes, we can"? Try "Yes, you should have."

For the past 24 hours, Obama's campaign too slowly grappled with how to handle the aftermath of Wright's whirlwind tour of hatred this weekend -- from Dallas, where he decried his "public crucifixion," to Detroit, where he entertained NAACP bigwigs with impersonations of white people, mockeries of classical music and "white" marching bands, and lectures on racial brain theories, to the National Press Club, where he preened, strutted and head-wagged his way through an hour of bitter black liberation theologizing.

At first, Obama downplayed Wright's public appearances. But Obama now tells us he had to wait 24 hours to convene a press conference to denounce Wright's National Press Club speech because he "hadn't seen it." After all this time on the campaign trail, we're back to the Obama-as-clueless-naif narrative again. When he finally did view the Washington speech, Obama explained, he was "shocked" and "outraged" and "saddened" because "the person I saw was not the person that I'd come to know over 20 years."

What a load of pure unadulterated horse manure. Anyone with eyes can see that Wright's performances are finely honed, time-tested acts. His anti-white, anti-American, "imperialist"-bashing shtick was not developed overnight or over the past few years. He's been peddling AIDS conspiracies for decades. He's been grievance-mongering about slavery for decades. He's been flirting with the Nation of Islam, which provided security for his speeches, for decades. He's been a shouting left-wing radical for decades.

Obama's best-selling "Audacity of Hope" is named after the first sermon of Wright's that he heard -- decades ago -- in which the pastor of racial resentment inveighed against an environment "where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere." Yet, only now has Obama concluded that Wright's sermons are "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth."

Welcome to the Jive Talk Express.

A reader of mine who is a clergyman e-mailed after Obama's press conference: "As a pastor, I have this take: It is inconceivable that Obama had no knowledge of Wright's views after 20 years as a member of that church. As a pastor, my heart-held, deepest beliefs and passions cannot be silenced. It is what I am. If I were given a microphone at the National Press Club, I would not speak on something that I had guardedly kept secret for most of my life. No, I would go to my main point, the center of my ministry, the core of my passion, to speak truth as I know it to be. How can Obama actually claim that this is news from his pastor? His mailman, butcher or plumber? No problem. His pastor? No way!"

It's not Wright who has changed his loony tune.

It was just last year that Obama was telling the Chicago Tribune that Wright was his sounding board for truth: "What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice. He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics."

It was just this March, in his Philadelphia racial reconciliation speech, that Obama was urging us not to dismiss Wright as a "crank or a demagogue" and protesting that he could "no more disown him than I can disown the black community."

Now, realizing how gravely his self-serving association with Wright has wounded his campaign, Obama himself has attempted to do both those things -- and expects the American public to believe him when he weakly and belatedly asserts that "when I say I find [Wright's] statements appalling, I mean it."

As those of us with non-European brains might put it: You be trippin', Barry.
---

Barack Obama's Bitter Half
By Michelle Malkin
May 7, 2008

Are you ready for hope and change? Barack Obama better hope his bitter half has a change of attitude if she expects to assume the title of first lady in November. She's been likened to John F. Kennedy's wife, what with her chic suits and pearls and perfectly coiffed helmet hair. But when she opens her mouth, Michelle O is less Jackie O and more Wendy W -- as in Wendy Whiner, the constantly kvetching "Saturday Night Live" character from the early 1980s.

When last our worldviews collided, back in February, the other Michelle was expounding on her lack of pride in America. I gave her myriad reasons to cheer up -- from America's role in the fall of communism to our unparalleled generosity to our nation's superior economic system, cultural resilience, entrepreneurial spirit and ingenuity. But since then, Mrs. Obama has dug in her $500 Jimmy Choo heels and solidified her role in the 2008 presidential campaign as Queen of the Grievance-Mongers.

In one of her few (unintentionally) funny moments during a recent sit-down with comedian Stephen Colbert, Mrs. Obama claimed, "Barack and I tend to look at the positives." That's a side-splitter. As National Review's Yuval Levin put it, Michelle Obama is "America's unhappiest millionaire." And she has the audacity to extrapolate her misery and her husband's alleged victimization to the "vast majority of Americans."

In South Carolina, she called America "just downright mean" and bemoaned "a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day." And in case you hadn't heard enough of her carping about how hard it is for a seven-figure-earning family to pay for ballet lessons and piano lessons and pay off college loans, Mrs. Oh-Woe-Is-Me was at it again on the campaign trail in Indiana and North Carolina before Tuesday's primary.

On the stump, she warmed up (or rather, berated) supporters by complaining about how her husband is an underdog even after he keeps winning primary and caucus after primary and caucus. With a scowl etched on her face, she bellyached that "the bar is constantly changing for this man." Call the waambulance, stat.

Barack Obama, the missus explains, is Everyman who has ever been put down by The Man. And "understand this" (a condescending verbal tic shared by both Obamas): Mrs. Obama is here to make sure you feel their pain. Which is really your pain. Because the hardships of a privileged Ivy League couple are "exactly" the same as the travails of miners or service workers or small-business owners: "So the bar has been shifting and moving in this race," she grumbles, "but the irony is, the sad irony is, that's exactly what is happening to most Americans in this country."

Don't tell Miss Michelle about the Great Depression or the Carter Malaise. "Folks are struggling like never before," she seethes.

Well, yes, gas prices are up. Some food prices are rising. And borrowers who bought more housing than they could afford are underwater. But "struggling like never before"? Didn't they teach her about Hoovervilles and stagflation?

In Mrs. Obama, the fear-mongering pot meets the angst-stirring kettle: "Fear," she froths, "creates this veil of impossibility and it is hanging over all of our heads."

But what Mrs. Obama lacks in pride for her country and its promise she more than makes up for with bottomless pride for her husband. Her standard campaign speeches include at least a dozen references to how "proud" she is of him. And of herself. And of everyone who has overcome The Man and pierced the "veil of impossibility" to get to the polls and vote Obama. An online MSNBC report on a joint appearance by the Obamas on the "Today" show in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright debacle included this tellingly narcissistic passage:

[Mrs. Obama]: "'I'm so proud of how he has maintained his dignity, his cool, his honor.'

"Obama gently tried to interrupt, admitting to being embarrassed by the praise.

"'But I am proud of you,' she said.

"'I know,' he replied."

We all know. So get over yourself already, haughty spirit. Pride doesn't photograph well. And bitterness leaves frown lines. Which means Botox bills. Which "struggling folks" like you and your husband simply cannot afford.

Try smiling for once. It's cheaper.
---

Barack Obama: Gaffe Machine
By Michelle Malkin
May 21, 2008

All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life. The political establishment never let Dan Quayle live down his fateful misspelling of "potatoe." The New York Times distorted and misreported the first President Bush's questions about new scanner technology at a grocers' convention to brand him permanently as out of touch.

But what about Barack Obama? The guy's a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign:

-- Last May, he claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: "In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." The actual death toll: 12.

-- Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."

-- Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: "Thank you, Sioux City. ... I said it wrong. I've been in Iowa for too long. I'm sorry."

-- Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle." On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

-- Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Ala., he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement:

"There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born."

Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was "speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole."

-- Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: "We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them in Afghanistan." The real reason it's "harder for us to use them" in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi or other non-Arabic languages.

-- Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste cleanup:

"Here's something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I'm not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don't know exactly what's going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I'll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport."

I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he's voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the "costs, schedules, and technical issues" dealing with the nation's most contaminated nuclear waste site.

-- Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama's "Dreams from My Father":

"Then, there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians."

-- And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us" -- cluelessly arguing that "tiny countries" with small defense budgets can't do us harm -- and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

Barack Obama -- promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing, articulate, transcendent Messiah -- is a walking, talking gaffe machine. How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford?

Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.


One of Obama's long-time friends & associates, Ayers's wife Bernardine Dohrn, thinks it's funny to kill pregnant women and then stick forks in their bellies to kill their unborn children
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ayers-dohrn-obama-tie-shouldnt-be-dismissed/?print=1

For those of you unfamiliar with Dohrn and her special love of violence in the name of radicalism, one need look no further than her December 1969 rant celebrating the brutal Tate-LaBianca murders with the exhortation, “Dig it! First they killed those pigs and then they put a fork in their bellies. Wild!” According to Discover the Networks, Dohrn had even less sympathy for those who were on the receiving end of the Weathermen’s violence:

A Chicago district attorney named Richard Elrod was seriously injured in the Weatherman riot that erupted during the Chicago “Days of Rage” in October 1969, and he was paralyzed for life as a result. Dohrn later led a celebration of Elrod’s paralysis by leading her comrades in a parody of a Bob Dylan song — “Lay, Elrod, Lay.”
---

Also in attendance at Obama's coming out party was Ayers's wife Bernardine Dohrn, another unrepentant terrorist who invented the Weather Underground's three-fingered "fork salute" in honor of the fork the Manson Family stuck in Sharon Tate's pregnant belly.

Born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1942, Bernardine Dohrn is currently an Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University, where she is also Director of the Legal Clinic's Children and Family Justice Center. Moreover, she sits on important committees and boards of the American Bar Association and the American Civil Liberties Union.

In the 1960s, Dohrn was a leader of the Students for a Democratic Society's "Weatherman" faction, which in 1969 went underground to become America's first terrorist cult. At a 1969 "War Council" in Flint, Michigan, Dohrn gave her most memorable and notorious speech to her followers. Holding her fingers in what became the Weatherman "fork salute," she said of the bloody murders recently committed by the Manson Family in which the pregnant actress Sharon Tate and a Folgers Coffee heiress and several other inhabitants of a Benedict Canyon mansion were brutally stabbed to death: "Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach! Wild!" The "War Council" ended with a formal declaration of war against "AmeriKKKa," always spelled with three K's to signify the United States' allegedly ineradicable white racism.

Bill Ayers summed up the Weatherman philosophy: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at."
---

Sunday, October 12, 2008
Getting to know the future Whitehouse guests
Posted by Chris....

What do we really know about Barack Obama and his associations. Today, the RNC is coming out with another ad hitting the Ayers-Obama connection. Don't forget that Bernadine Dorhn is Ayer's wife.

There is a multi page article in ChicagoMag.com that tells us a little bit about the woman in whose living room Barack Obama launched his career. Please, if you are voting for obama or on the fence, Please take the time to read that article. Keep in mind that it was written as a sympathetic article.

Backed by funding from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Dohrn has undertaken a project with Northwestern University's law school to reform Chicago's juvenile courts.

Geez, what is with these foundations. I guess radical chic will get you the green. Also, if you dig into what those reforms are, you understand that it isn't as much of a reform as a radicalization.

In the late sixties and early seventies, she was a leader of the Weatherman, a radical splinter group that was unabashed about promoting violence. She was a prime mover in the Days of Rage, the rampaging protest over the Chicago Eight conspiracy trial, and she's said to have used the Charles Manson "fork salute," a three-fingered cheer to commemorate the Manson group's savage murder of actress Sharon Tate and her friends. After three of her colleagues blew themselves up making a bomb in Greenwich Village, she spent a decade in hiding, and when she emerged, in 1980, she pleaded guilty on riot-related charges.

At the time, she was unapologetic, and, to this day, she has made only guarded public expressions of remorse.

So, the woman who helped launch Barack Obama's political career in her living room thinks that sticking a fork in the belly of a dead pregnant woman is humorous. What the hell are the idiots at the MacAuthur foundation thinking?? The article didn't mention that the bomb was meant to murder and maim non-commissioned officers, their wives and girlfriends. It was a nail bomb that would have caused horrific wounds. Many of the soldiers were draftees who were serving, not out of choice, but because they had no choice. Note that the dirtball Dohrn is still unapologetic. Great friends you have there barryo. With associations like that, you wouldn't be able to get bonded to work at wal mart but the dimwits in this country are poised to make you commander in chief.

Here are some words from her loving husband, Bill Ayers, the guy who served on boards with Barack Hussein Obama for 10 years, Launched Barryo's career, had Barryo write a blurb for his book and may have ghostwritten Dreams from My Father

Bill Ayers summed up the Weatherman philosophy: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at." (His parents now split the year between Chicago and Palma Valley, California, and they are doing just fine.)

According the the article writer all is well because Billy boy didn't kill his parents. What kind of president will Obama make if he EVER associated with these scumballs?? Judgement, we don't need no steenking judgement.

Bernadine Dorhn is apparently a lawyer.. I guess the Bar Association would support Mussolini or Hitler. In our neighborhood, the bar association has been running these ads about how wonderful lawyers are. Probably because BarryO, his wife and Joe "missing in action" biden are all lawyers.

Here is more about Bernadine cheering the Manson murder of the Tate family

At the end of 1969, SDS held a "National War Council," in Flint, Michigan. Dohrn, who was known as a charismatic and theatrical speaker, was one of the first to address the group. As described in Destructive Generation, "Bernardine mounted the platform wearing a brown mini-jumpsuit and thigh-high Italian leather boots" and declared there was going to be an "armed struggle." She lacerated the more moderate SDS leaders and cited the Charles Manson family. " 'Dig it,''' Collier remembers her saying. '"First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!'" Then she held up three fingers in a Manson fork salute.

Let me say this again, this woman and her husband Bill Ayers launched Barack Obama's career in their living room. Barry served on Boards with Ayers... A man whose wife thought it was "wild' to murder a pregnant woman.

The moron who wrote the article tries to parrot the line that the bombs were meant for property and not people. Bovine Excrement... A nail bomb is an ANTIPERSONNEL weapon designed to maim and kill. Remember Springsteens song "atlantic City"... "Well they blew up the Chicken Man in Philadelphia last night and they blew up his house too".. That referred to the mafia using a nail bomb to blow up underwold figure Phil Testa in his South Philly Rowhome. So, I guess I can understand The Boss's support for Obama.. Bruce writes about nail bombs and Obama pals around with people who made them.

Dohrn was waitressing and Ayers was teaching at a day-care center when they decided to come forward. "

Holy Clap Batman.. We definitely need to do more thorough background checks on people who work with kids. I can just picture the lesson plans from Billy Boy "today kids, we'll learn how to take Black Powder, fuse and 10 penny nails so you can kill the capitalist pigs known as your parents in case the rat poison in their coffee didn't work".

She has one handicap, though: Having been so battered by her attempt to join the bar in New York, she never applied for admission here. Her job at Northwestern was carefully structured so she didn't have to be a practicing attorney.

I've been an adjuct professor for over 20 years teaching computer science and management. I knew the faculty and staff were mostly loony leftists but this is ridiculous. Hey, if you know anyone whose kids are going to Northwestern, make sure they know that they have a terrorist on their faculty..

But, all these social trappings notwithstanding, she and her husband say they have not lost any of their old, anti-Establishment fervor. Ayers, who still carries his SDS card in his wallet, says he feels no better about this country "just because a bunch of 40-year-olds are now part of the Establishment."

So, while Barack Obama was Palling around with Ayers, Ayers had his SDS card in his wallet. I wonder if it still had blood on it.

Dohrn, for her part, refuses to stand for the playing of the national anthem

So, I guess I can see why Barry the boob was OK with these folks. After all, we all remember the photo of barry grabbing his 'equipment' instead of placing his hand over his heard for the anthem. Yep, that's the time to play pocket pool.

So, if you get a chance, read the article. This is one of the 'people' who will be getting invited to spend nights in the Lincoln bedroom if BarryO gets in. When that happens visit the graves of Washington, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Reagan, Jefferson, Andrew Jackson , John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin. The buzzing sound you hear will be them spinning in their graves.

God save our Republic...
---
Exclusive: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn – Friends of Barack Obama
by John Howard
Friday, October 10, 2008

I am a child of the ‘60s. I grew up with the radical twaddle of people like Tom Hayden (the Ted Baxter of the radical Left), and Romper Room Revolutionaries William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, the Mao and Jiang Qing of adolescent radicalism. It was an overheated time made worse by nursery school traitors. It was a time during which the most pampered generation in the history of mankind went into an extended tantrum, punctuated only by the indulgent sighs of their misguided and clueless parents who still apparently thought the destructive impulses of their little darlings were somehow cute. Bill Ayers’ father, the late Thomas G. Ayers, Commonwealth Edison Chairman, Chicago grandee and symbol of muscular capitalism comes to mind. (Does anyone really believe that Ayers and Dohrn, wanted by the FBI, lived without family help and contact for 11 years “underground” in Chicago, the town his prominent father and powerful friends helped run and which has been described as having the distinction of being the only completely corrupt city in the nation? Please.)

But Ayers and Dohrn demonstrated that low grade, child radicals, too, could be dangerous. Their simple minded nihilism was exceeded only by their almost complete ineptitude. But it is important to recall who they were and to know who they are because not only do they still exist and spread their poison, their very relationship to a national candidate for President should chill every thinking citizen.

An outgrowth of an earlier Leftist organization, the Students for a Democratic Society, was established in 1960 with a manifesto that represented a break with the traditional non-Communist Left. With Tom Hayden at its helm, it is unsurprising that it started as a shallow, self-dramatizing collection of students fresh from panty raids and looking for something more interesting to do. As the turmoil of the ‘60s continued to ferment, it became more and more strident, inflexible and radical in its project.

After an internecine war in 1969, it split into different groups, among which was the Weathermen, a would-be domestic terrorist organization with little apparent purpose except to engage in violent acts in service of the national tantrum and of a badly articulated, simplistic ideology with little grounding in anything other than the romantic fantasy that they were somehow aiding “the Revolution.” The preening self-regard of its leaders was breathtaking.

Its primary activity was the issuance of dramatic “communiqués” from the underground in a grotesque imitation of stilted Soviet-speak, like a bad ‘50s movie, threatening violent action in instant mayhem. Its first act was a riot called “Days of Rage,” not surprisingly in Chicago. With its usual flair, the Weathermen announced that its protest would be the largest ever, but with its usual ineptitude, only a few hundred showed up. They blew up a statue honoring policemen who had been killed or injured in earlier riots. (They blew it up again when it was rebuilt several years later.) They burned cars, shattered windows and attacked policemen, injuring 28.

Bernardine Dohrn, in an astonishing display of hubris, demonstrated her simple-mindedness and limited forensic gifts in her attempt to define their purpose: “We are building a communist organization to be part of the forces which build a revolutionary communist party to lead the working class to seize power and build socialism… We must further the study of Marxism-Leninism within the Weather Underground Organization. The struggle for Marxism-Leninism is the most significant development in our recent history. We discovered thru [sic] our own experiences what revolutionaries all over the world have found — that Marxism-Leninism is the science of revolution, the revolutionary ideology of the working class, our guide to the struggle.”

History has now shown us the merit of that project as even those who knew it best and preserved it longest have rejected the moronic and evil ideology that was Marxism-Leninism – but not Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers.

Shortly after the Days of Rage riot, the Weathermen risibly “declared war” on the United States. The sheer pretentiousness of these junior Bolsheviks was vaguely laughable. But they were deadly serious. Dohrn constructed and planted an anti-personnel bomb containing heavy metal staples and metal projectiles on the window ledge of a police facility, killing one officer, Bryan V. McDonnell, and severely wounding and permanently blinding another, Robert Fogarty. Their families never recovered. Ayers laughingly and emphatically admitted his participation and Dohrn’s skill in placing the fatal bomb.

In 1970, the Weatherman attacked New York City policemen with bombs and firebombed the home of a New York judge presiding over the criminal trial of black thugs who had wrapped themselves in the mantle of radicalism; a favorite ruse of the time. They went on to plant bombs at the United States Capital, the New York City Police Department and the Pentagon, all the time issuing taunting communiqués suggesting more attacks were on the way. Had it not all been so lethal, it would have had all the earmarks of children playing war in the back yard. It is a shame it was not so benign.

Despite their later, self-serving statements that they really intended to harm only property, the evidence is clearly otherwise. In 1970, an explosion rocked Greenwich Village, destroying a beautiful, privately owned townhouse. The townhouse had been converted to a bomb factory and, demonstrating the ineptitude for which the Weathermen had become almost as legendary as their infantile communiqués, three of them blew themselves up while making bombs. It was a fitting end to the meaningless lives of Diana Oughton, Ted Gold and Terry Robbins, whose deaths stunned their colleagues but left the world a little cleaner. The fragmentation bombs they were making were intended for the murder of American soldiers at a dance at Fort Dix and for the destruction of a library at Columbia University.

Who were these people? Children of privilege whose nihilistic, radical project was intended to destroy this nation. They were, and are, at root, evil. Commenting on the Charles Manson murders, Ms. Dohrn told her “collective:” "Dig it! First they killed those pigs and then they put a fork in their bellies. Wild!" “Dig it”, indeed. The “belly” she was referring to contained Sharon Tate’s unborn child. What kind of perverted monster could find pleasure in the thought that a woman eight and one half months pregnant, on the eve of delivery, was killed and mutilated with a fork left sticking out of the unborn infant inher abdomen? That is the measure of Bernardine Dohrn and her consort, Bill Ayers, who attempted to suggest she was “kidding” when she made the statement. It is hard to imagine any context in which the “joke” would be comprehensible to anyone who is not unhinged by radical ideology. No, she wasn’t kidding. Anyone who could wantonly murder police officers with a bomb that shredded them like lettuce has no soul and could not be moved by the Manson Family’s savagery.

And so it goes to this day. Dohrn’s latest ravings are of a piece with those of her past. In the July/August 2003 issue of the Monthly Review, she descended, yet again, into the pit of radicalism from which she never really emerged ranting about “American imperialism.” Fulminating about law enforcement and the reasonable effort by our government to keep its citizens, even those as unworthy and unthinkable as Bernardine Dohrn, safe. Gibbering about American “oppression.” Biting, yet again, the hand that protects her.

Some things are not forgivable. There are some things for which one cannot atone. Treason is one. Betrayal of one’s country is another. Wanton murder, still another. But apparently there is forgiveness in Chicago. No one has ever accused the present Mayor Daley of an overabundance of grey matter. But he told the New York Times that he finds value in Ayers and Dohrn. He says Ayers “has done a lot of good in this city and nationally.” “People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life.” Mistakes? Deliberate, cold blooded murder is a “mistake?” Conspiracy to murder soldiers is a “mistake?” Mocking the murder and mutilation of an expectant mother on the verge of giving birth is a “mistake?”

When Dohrn emerged from the miasma, she was offered a job at Sidley Austin, one of Chicago’s most prestigious law firms, even though she was denied a law license by the State of Illinois. The managing partner, Howard Trienans, a friend of Mr. Ayers’ father, thought she would make a fine addition to the firm. In the sort of dismissive sarcasm so favored by those who are not used to being contradicted, he said “She didn’t get her law license because she is stubborn. She wouldn’t say she was sorry.” She didn’t say she was sorry, Mr. Trienans, because she isn’t. What more need be said? One wonders how understanding he might have been had one of her targets been Sidley Austin for representing the monopolistic AT&T, his most lucrative client.

Her fatuous narcissism continues to this day in her writings and defiant view that this nation that has brought freedom to the greatest number; this nation that is a beacon of hope to people throughout the world; this nation that nurtured the idea of liberty when there were none other to protect it from those to whom Ayers and Dohrn paid their fealty, is the major source of evil on the globe.

It would be easy to dismiss Ayers and Dohrn as toothless relics of a forgotten age; witless simpletons reduced to legal clinics and the academy. But they are not sorry. And they still spread their poison. And they still have influence.

Obama’s views on foreign policy did not happen in a vacuum. His disdain for the idea of American exceptionalism comes from the dangerous world view of the milieu from which he so recently emerged. His view of the military, America’s history and his opposition to war come from the environment in which he has immersed himself for these past 20 years; an environment sharply defined by Ayers, Dohrn and their allies and protectors. The New York Times would have us believe Obama and the Ayers hardly knew each other. Yet the exalted Mayor Daley knows them well in the hothouse of Chicago politics, and says so. Is it even remotely likely that an obscure state senator who lived three blocks from Dohrn and Ayers and was first introduced politically at their home does not? It hardly matters, though. They are cut from the same cloth.

Knowing who Ayers and Dohrn were and are, we must ask ourselves: what sort of people would embrace them? What kind of people would excuse their acts and, more importantly, why? What decent person would welcome them into civil society? What does it say for a public official that he does not condemn them outright? What does it say of a public official that he would accept any help they might offer? That he is ignorant of history? That he is young? That he is naïve? Or is it because, when linked to others of his associations, he may sympathize with their twisted radicalism?
---

The former Weather chick is indeed Bernadine Dohrn, who is that very same respected professor now at Northwestern University in Chciago. They are one and the same. You may read about the notorious former terrorist Bernadine Dohrn here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weathermen, http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/11-19-2001/vo17no24_terrorists.htm, http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/w/weather-underground-dvd.shtml, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1021,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardine_Dohrn

Indeed, if you do a Google Search on Dean's World, you will find that I have written about the "respectable" former terrorist, Professor Bernadine Dohrn here in the past on a few occasions. My favorite is probably this article: Kaus Whiffs It.

My favorite quote of all time by the "respected" Professor Dohrn was what she said in reaction to the news that the Manson family had killed the pregnant Sharon Tate and stuck a fork into her swollen belly:

"Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson."

Notably, neither Professor Dohrn nor her husband have ever expressed any real regret over their terroism in the past, and tend to refer to that period in their lives as a time of "idealism," as do others who whitewash their past.

Unfortunately, I'm not at all surprised that she would now be a professor in one of today's Politically Correct universities, teaching that terrorism is "idealistic".
---

This is the banal excuse of common criminals – the devil made me do it. "I don’t think you can understand a single thing we did," explains the pampered Weatherman bomber Bill Ayers "without understanding the violence of the Vietnam War."

I interviewed Ayers ten years ago, in a kindergarten classroom in uptown Manhattan where he was employed to shape the minds of inner city children. Dressed in bib overalls with golden curls rolling below his ears, Ayers reviewed his activities as a terrorist for my tape recorder. When he was done, he broke into a broad, Jack Horner grin and summed up his experience: "Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country."

In my experience, what drives most radicals are passions of resentment, envy and inner rage. Bill Ayers is a scion of wealth. His father was head of Detroit’s giant utility Commonwealth Edison, in line for a cabinet position in the Nixon Administration before his son ruined it by going on a rampage that to this day he cannot explain to any reasonable person’s satisfaction (which is why he has to conceal so much). It could be said of Bill Ayers that he was consumed by angers so terrible they led him to destroy his father’s career. But in the 10 hours I interviewed him I saw none of it. What I saw was a shallowness beyond conception. All the Weather leaders I interviewed shared a similar vacuity. They were living inside a utopian fantasy, a separate reality, and had no idea of what they had done. Nor any way to measure it. Appreciating the nation to which they were born, recognizing the great gifts of freedom and opportunity their parents and communities had given them, distinguishing between right and wrong – it was all above their mental and moral ceiling.

In the days ahead, this is one of the dangers we face.
---

It was interesting to watch some in the left-wing press in the last decade or two whitewashing the reputation of Bernadine Dohrn, a '60s radical who, upon hearing of the Tate-Labianca murders committed by the Manson Family, got up on stage at a Students for a Democratic Society rally, made a devil-salute sign with her hand, and shouted: "Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!" Said stomach being the very pregnant belly of Sharon Tate, in case you hadn't guessed. Vincent Bugliosi, the man who wrote the definitive book on the Manson Family, also quoted Dohrn as saying, "Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson." The Weathermen being, of course, a radical left-wing terrorist organization she helped found. They later went on to kill cops and blow up buildings, often with her hearty encouragement.

Dohrn is now a professor at Northwestern University in Chicago, and brags about giving speeches at Rainbow/PUSH coalition meetings and being featured in polite New York Times interviews.

The statement you hear most often uttered by the aplogists for Dohrn and others like her: "It was a different time." Apparently you can't be a terrorist if you smoked pot and opposed the war in Vietnam. Remember, it was the era of Peace, Love and Understanding, when we just wanted to end the war. "Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, off the pigs 'n blow up buildings, riot now?"

Some conservatives rant just a little too often about "liberal media bias," but it's hard not to notice that there's been a tendency by the press (and Hollywood) to whitewash the very violent legacy of '60s and '70s radicalism, and to paint all modern extremists as "right wing" regardless of their actual political leanings. There's also the more subtle but equally-problematic failure to note the left-leaning views of at least some of the scum who like to shoot people and blow things up. Some are definitely what we call "right wing," but let's not sweep the ones who aren't under the carpet, m'kay?


The Rebellion Has Begun
Sandy Rios
Friday, October 10, 2008

What is that spirit that we recognize and can build on? What is that spirit that we want to connect to … that spirit of rebellion? The spirit of resistance ... the spirit of insurgency! It’s that spirit we should be talking about. —Bill Ayers, 2007, on the occasion of the 40-year anniversary of the Weather Underground

Perhaps his wife, Bernadine Dohrn expressed that “spirit” best in a public warning at the zenith of the Weather Underground’s influence:

Now we are everywhere and next week families and tribes will attack the enemy around the country. We’re not just attacking targets; we’re bringing the pitiful, helpless giant (the USA) to its knees. Guard your planes … guard your colleges … guard your banks … guard your children … guard your doors.

This election long ago ceased to be a partisan battle between Republicans and Democrats. It really isn’t a contest over big and small government, higher or lower taxes, or even abortion and homosexual rights.

Somewhere along the way while most of us were enjoying our precious freedoms, taking kids to soccer, ordering pizza and listening to our iPods, there was another group of people who were at work to destroy America. Even as they enjoyed with us its benefits, they schemed and planned and, moment by moment, inch by inch gained a footing and we never realized the ground was shifting.

You could say the groundwork was laid in the ’50s when radicals who were often synonymous with communists made a concerted attempt to destroy America through infiltration of media, government and labor unions. Top secret documents were leaked to the Soviets which resulted in the charge of treason for Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. America believed in punishing its traitors then and they paid with their lives.

The children of the ’60s, raised in postwar prosperity on the “don’t discipline” philosophy of the wildly popular Dr. Benjamin Spock, were fertile young plants for leftist fodder. Throwing off all constraints, they embraced “free love,” unbridled drug use and turned with a vengeance on the parents whose system of values they had come from. Their indulgent refusal to embrace rules, coupled with legitimate simmering emotions of the black community over cruelty and discrimination, created the “perfect storm” of protest and violence—one group rejecting any restraint, the other rebelling from too much of it.

Surely the protest methods were as different as the participants. Hippies were often little more than clueless spoiled brats dulled by drugs, but others were serious radicals who preyed upon trouble and agitated it with the stated purpose of revolution. They wanted to overthrow the government of the United States of America. The black movement was characterized on the one hand by the high-minded non-violence of Dr. Martin Luther King, and on the other by the violent anger of the Black Panthers. The hate-filled factions of each, black and white, found each other and together nearly shipwrecked the country and undermined the Vietnam War. It was success for the rebellion in part … but not completely.

As those frustrated radicals came of age, they realized they would have to game the system, and improve their plans to accomplish their goals. They got advanced degrees and begin to fill colleges and universities. They slowly infiltrated the professional organizations of almost every major field of endeavor—education, medicine, retired citizens and unions. Gradually, these professional associations began to use their members’ money to fund leftist causes. Leftist leaders spoke for their membership as if they had the right. And perception became reality for the members. Then they did what all socialist regimes have done … they radicalized public school. They virtually eliminated the American story from history, removed civics, dumbed down math and science and English with outcome-based education. It became more important that kids had the right “thinking” on social and environmental issues than that they understood the academic disciplines. They took over law school faculties, co-opted many mainline Christian denominations—like Methodists and Presbyterians—and subtly replaced the teachings of scripture on man’s need for redemption with emphases on social justice and helping the poor. Man could now obtain his own redemption without any inconvenient mention of sin or moral behavior.

Once again they infiltrated Hollywood and news media, this time without consequence. In fact they managed to turn the consequences upon those opposing leftist views. They produced movies and reported news designed to support their view of the country—and it wasn’t a good one.

As with the communist agitators in Western Europe and later China, they learned to agitate, to find trouble and make it worse. Natural disasters, strikes, environmental concerns, the method was the same. Agitate. Stir up. Scare people and make things worse than they were so that people would look to their movement for “change.”

For nearly four decades, while we were living our lives and enjoying our freedoms, they were working diligently to destroy them. And now their plans have found the perfect personification in the handsome and charismatic Senator Barack Obama. But while he seems to bring new inspiration, their philosophy is as old as time.

They know who their inspiration is: Saul Alinsky, the ’60s author and philosopher of the left who profoundly influenced Hillary Clinton, Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn and Barack and Michelle Obama. Alinksy stated clearly in the dedication of his famous treatise, “Rules for Radicals”:

"To the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer."

The rebellion has found new strength. The attempted destruction of America has begun—and it is not a partisan fight.


Obama blockbuster: 'Audacity of Deceit'
Stunning exposé of what candidate's 'change' really means to you
October 13, 2008
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75858

Obama: 'It's not that I want to punish your success'
Democratic candidate tells plumber why he's going to tax him more
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77949

Obama didn't write 'Dreams from My Father'
http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77815

"Roots' fraud sets standard for Obama's"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77390

Obama's poems show real talent level
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76731

Nautical metaphors could sink Obama
http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=77940

"More proof Ayers ghosted Obama's 'Dreams'"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76166

Read Cashill's three-part series on Obama's "Dreams":
Part 1, "Bill Ayers' motive for penning memoir"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75528
Part 2, "Deconstructing the text"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75606
Part 3, "Real author of Barack book: Why it matters"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75611
---

Obama blockbuster: 'Audacity of Deceit'
Stunning exposé of what candidate's 'change' really means to you
October 13, 2008
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75858

Brad O'Leary's sensational exposé "The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values" has been called the defining book of the 2008 election.

Who is Barack Obama – really? When reading "The Audacity of Deceit," you will be shocked to learn what lies beneath the well-polished rhetoric of this slick orator. Obama speaks vaguely about "change," but as this book reveals, his brand of change is a hostile attack on the Judeo-Christian values and freedoms most Americans hold dear.

Far from "change you can believe in" – it is, instead, change designed to uproot American culture and replace it with the failed, secular, socialist policies of the past. While other books on Obama have focused on his past, "The Audacity of Deceit" boldly zeroes in on the future – on exactly how Barack Obama plans to "change" America.

In "The Audacity of Deceit" you'll learn how Obama:

• Blocked emergency medical aid for babies who survived abortion.
• Plans to ban the use of firearms by law-abiding citizens – even for self-defense.
• Was abandoned by his bigamist father and raised in a Muslim society – and how this influences his values.
• Would raise tax rates to a Hoover-like 60 percent.
• Will transform the U.S. Treasury into the United Nations' ATM.
• Wants fuel prices high and farmland taken out of production.
• Will grant federal medical insurance to 12 million illegal aliens and increase emergency room costs alone by $15.4 billion annually.
• Would transfer child-rearing from parents to the federal government with his secular "0 to 5" program.
• You will also read exclusive polling results that reveal the 30 percent of Americans who pay no taxes, what they believe, and who they are planning to vote for.

Obama's goal? Replace the Judeo-Christian values that gave birth to the "land of the free" with failed radical leftist beliefs.

This is the one book every American must read – before it's too late!

O'Leary is the former president of the American Association of Political Consultants, the author of 11 books, a former talk radio host with millions of listeners and the award-winning television producer of "Ronald Reagan: An American President."

"Obama has written multiple books and no major legislation, but that's not a coincidence," says O'Leary. "He's tried to hide his true beliefs from the American people behind soaring oratory promising 'hope' and 'change,' but that's just a smokescreen, and one that's been very effective. Until now."

You may order "The Audacity of Deceit" – at a special discount – here: (http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2425)
---

WHO WROTE OBAMA'S 'DREAMS'? PART 3
Real author of Barack book: Why it matters
Exclusive: Jack Cashill sees Bill Ayers as Tim McVeigh without the competence
By Jack Cashill
Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Editor's note: This is the final installment of a three-part analysis of Barack Obama's "Dreams From My Father." Read Part 1, "Bill Ayers' motive for penning memoir." Read Part 2, "Deconstructing the text."

On several occasions I have gotten calls from publishers to rescue a book, almost always one written by a celebrity. They have a vested interest in seeing that the book come out on time and in good style, especially if it is a projected best-seller.

My job is to match the voice of the authors, capture their content and refine their style.

Whoever rescued Barack Obama's "Dreams From My Father" went much further. He invested considerable time to invent a distinctive voice and style for an unknown author. In essence, he created the "Barack Obama" we know and did so for reasons that defy any marketing imperative.

Obama, who had nothing in print until "Dreams" save for some awful undergraduate poetry, could no more write a book like this than I could paint the Mona Lisa. He has done nothing since, either spoken or written, to even hint at the eloquence of the memoir's authorial voice.

Lacking digitized, full text versions of "Dreams" or Bill Ayers' "Fugitive Days," I have been reduced to close readings and yellow highlighters.

That much said, a textual comparison of the two books and the additional circumstantial evidence of time, place, means and motive make Ayers a highly likely candidate for Obama's ghostwriter.

This is troubling for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the character of Bill Ayers, the radical leftist who has made "unrepentant" a household word.

For Ayers, like so many on the left, hard and soft, facts are whatever he can get away with. "He was not interested in finding the truth but in proclaiming it," British historian Paul Johnson says of Karl Marx, but he might as well have been talking about Ayers.

In perfectly pitched post-modern patois, Ayers admits as much. "The truth we know now," he tells the reader, "is always complicated, layered, evasive, perspectival."

"The old gods failed and the old truths left the world," Ayers insists. "Clear conclusions," he elaborates, "were mainly delusional, a luxury of religious fanatics and fools."

Having declared truth obsolete, Ayers permits himself to lie, often and outrageously. To justify his bombing of the Pentagon, for instance, Ayers tells the reader that a century earlier, abolitionist John Brown had "shot all the members of the grand jury," which is easily disproved nonsense.

Ayers is particularly reckless with numbers. In the "rotten and unjustifiable" Vietnam War, he tells us, America was responsible for the "indiscriminate murder of millions of Vietnamese."

Our sanctions against Iraq killed "500,000 Iraqi children." The Clinton-era missile strike on a Sudanese chemical factory "caused tens of thousands of deaths."

Demographics don't stand in the way of a good story. During the American bombing along the Cambodian-Vietnamese border, he insists, "perhaps three-quarters of a million peasants were murdered cleanly from the air."

This figure represents many more people than lived in the area that was bombed and more than 10 percent of the Cambodian population. In reality, fewer than 750,000 Cambodians died violently during that whole era from all causes, most in the civil war raging throughout the country.

The killing began in earnest only in 1975 after the bombing had stopped and the communists took over. In fact, Pol Pot is the only communist Ayers criticizes, but, of course, he blames his rise on America.

Not an ill word is said about the demonstrably murderous thugs Ayers holds up as heroes: Castro, Che, Ho Chi Minh, or even Mao, the greatest monster of the 20th century.

As to the three clowns who blew themselves up in 1970 in their Greenwich Village townhouse, Ayers wonders out loud how it will take before America "imagines their actions as heroic."

For the record, the three Weathermen, including Ayers' then girlfriend, Diana Oughton, were finishing up an anti-personnel bomb designed to kill non-coms and their dates at a dance that night at Fort Dix.

Ayers, by the way, is a "distinguished professor" in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He teaches our teachers how to teach our children.

That Obama had anything to do with this man should disqualify him for the presidency. At the end of the day, the only difference between Bill Ayers and Tim McVeigh is competence.

Obama dissembles lethally when he describes Ayers as "just some guy in my neighborhood." He is much more than that and quite possibly, as I have argued, the real author of "Dreams From My Father."

The publisher of "Dreams," the openly liberal Peter Osnos, tells how Obama dumped his devoted long time agent after "Dreams" took off and then signed a seven-figure deal with Crown, using only a by-the-hour attorney.

Obama pulled off the deal after his election but before being sworn in as senator, this way to avoid the disclosure and reporting requirements applicable to members of Congress.

To his credit, Osnos publicly scolds Obama for his "ruthlessness" and "his questionable judgment about using public service as a personal payday."

Our best hope, if Obama is elected, is that he will throw Ayers under the proverbial bus as he threw his agents and numerous others.

Our worst fear, however, is that a President Obama will prove to be the "Mansourian Candidate" and that he will continue to play the useful dummy to evil ventriloquists like Bill Ayers and Khalid Al-Mansour.

Fasten your seatbelts.
---

Roots' fraud sets standard for Obama's
Exclusive: Jack Cashill shows how media ignore literary scams when it suits them
By Jack Cashill
Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Writing has something in common with golf: to succeed at either requires a God-given talent and a great deal of hard work.

And yet America is asked to believe that Barack Obama, having written only some self-described "bad poetry" and one unsigned case note, turned around and wrote what Time magazine has called "the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician."

It would have been just as likely that, having played a few rounds of golf in the high 90s, Obama turned around and qualified for the PGA Tour.

The question has to be asked then: Why is it that no reviewer of note has so much as questioned Obama's role in the writing of "Dreams From My Father"?

One obvious reason is that Obama is saying what the folks who man the New York-Hollywood axis want to hear. To advance its causes, this class has been aiding and abetting intellectual fraud for a century.

Take the case of intellectual superstar and Obama buddy Edward Said. In 1947, when he was 12, the Said family was allegedly driven from Palestine.

Said made this expulsion the central, compelling metaphor for his significant life work. His identity as a Palestinian and a refugee informed every tragic, morally outraged thing he wrote.

Unfortunately for Said, a hard-working Israeli reporter discovered that Said had grown up wealthy in Egypt, not poor in Palestine, that he was a Christian as well as an American citizen from birth, that he attended the best British schools in Cairo and, when of age, headed off for a pricey American prep school.

The New York Times followed up and conceded that the reporter had gotten his facts straight. From that point on, however, the Times continued to lionize Said as if nothing had changed. By the time Said died four years later, the controversy had died as well.

In 1992, the Nobel Prize Committee took the occasion of the 500th anniversary of Colombus' "discovery" to award the Nobel Peace Prize to a Guatemalan woman, an "indigena" by the name of Rigoberta Menchu.

Her memoir, "I, Rigoberta Menchu: An Indian Woman in Guatemala," a cornerstone of the multicultural canon, had made her reputation and secured the award.

In the book's most dramatic scene, the inevitable right-wing death squads haul a crew of suspected dissidents to the town square, Rigoberta's brother among them. There, she and her parents must watch in horror as the soldiers pour gasoline on each of the prisoners and set them ablaze one by one.

Unfortunately for Rigoberta, an anthropologist stumbled across the town and quickly discovered that the public burning, like most of the memoir, had been cooked up in left-wing Paris salons.

Although a Menchu fan, the anthropologist felt compelled to report his findings. In its follow up response, the Chronicle of Higher Education came to a bizarrely predictable conclusion about those who taught the book:

"They say it doesn't matter if the facts in the book are wrong, because they believe Ms. Menchu's story speaks to a greater truth about the oppression of poor people in Central America." The Nobel Prize committee did not reconsider, either.

The literary fraud that sheds the most light on what Obama can expect, if ever busted, was the brainchild of another black icon, the late Alex Haley.

When "Roots: The Saga of an American Family" was first published in 1976, it generated extraordinary reviews and spectacular sales, here and abroad.

The mini-series based on the book captured more viewers than any series before it – 130 million Americans watched the final episode alone. And Haley won a special Pulitzer Prize for telling the true story of a black family from its origins in Africa through seven generations to the present day in America.

As a popular entertainment, "Roots" gave progressives a perfect "pedagogical tool" with which to instruct their less enlightened brethren in the quiet horrors of American culture. In fact, it quickly became the dominant narrative, a curriculum standard, a veritable sacred text.

Interestingly, Haley makes his protagonist, the young enslaved Kunta Kinte, a Muslim. Kinte, predictably, sees Christianity as crude and hypocritical. Coming of age during the revolutionary period in Virginia, he sees the revolution as inherently fraudulent as well.

The real fraud, however, was Haley's. Approaching 70 when "Roots" debuted, Harold Courlander was shocked to read it. In 1967, he had written a novel titled "The African." He had earned $14,000 for it.

In 1978, Courlander sued Haley in a U.S. District Court in New York for copyright infringement. The suit cited 81 passages that had been lifted from Courlander's "The African" as well as the plot and certain characters.

Not wanting to undermine a newly ascendant black hero, the judge counseled Haley and his attorneys midway through the trial that he would have to contemplate a perjury charge unless they settled with Courlander.

They did just that to the tune of $650,000, or more than $2 million by 2008 standards. In return, Courlander agreed to keep quiet about the suit, which he did until he died in 1996.

The settlement got precious little media attention. In the press, only the Washington Post gave the case any ink of note, and even then it used a local hook – "Bethesda Author Settles 'Roots' Suit for $500,000" – to justify its coverage.

Like the other media who bothered to report on the settlement, the Post neglected to explore the real gist of the scandal: namely that the author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning "nonfiction" book plagiarized from a fictional one.

In 1993, literary detective Philip Nobile would seem to have busted the fraud wide open in a deeply researched Village Voice exposé. "There was no Kunta Kinte," says Nobile bluntly, and he proved as much in compelling detail.

Still, neither the lawsuit nor the Nobile exposé has dimmed Haley's star. The Coast Guard named a cutter for Haley. His hometown erected a 10-foot bronze statue in his honor. The book and video remained a staple in history classes across America. And the Pulitzer remains in his trophy case.

In a quirky historical footnote, John F. Kennedy Jr. helped with the Post article. His father had also been accused, and with good reason, of winning a Pulitzer Prize for a book that he himself did not actually write, "Profiles In Courage."

Years later, the real author, Ted Sorensen, would admit that he "did a first draft of most chapters." In an even quirkier footnote, Sorenson is now helping Obama with his speeches.

Oh, how they keep scratching each other's backs!


MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
Biohazard bag baby's death blamed on unlicensed staff
Civil case launched for girl born alive during abortion
By Bob Unruh
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77946

A civil lawsuit is being launched in the Florida case of a baby girl who survived an abortion procedure but promptly was shoved into a chemical-laden biohazard bag where police found the body nine days later.

Officials with the Thomas More Society of Chicago say they have begun work with Florida lawyer Tom Pennekamp Jr. on the case stemming from the 2006 death of Shanice Denise Osbourne.

A funeral is scheduled tomorrow for the infant, 27 months after she survived an abortion at the A Gyn Diagnostic Center in Hialeah, Fla.

In front of her shocked mother and a stunned clinic worker, "Shanice was stuffed into a medical waste bag filled with chlorine bleach just after she was delivered alive by abortion clinic owner Belkis Gonzalez," the non-profit legal group said. "This all took place without any licensed medical personnel (doctors or even nurses) in attendance."

Although investigators previously have told WND they were pursuing criminal counts for Shanice's death, no charges have yet been filed. The charges apparently have been delayed or prevented because of the abortion procedure.

"While the Miami-Dade County medical examiner determined that Shanice was born alive, he concluded her death was 'natural,' resulting merely from her 'extreme prematurity,'" officials with the Thomas More Society said. "Then so-called 'experts' publicly claimed that unless an infant could be proved to be 'viable' – able to live on her own – her killing could not be condemned as 'homicide' or otherwise culpable as a matter of law."

WND reported earlier when the death was reported, and then again when authorities confirmed the baby had been born alive.

The investigation was delayed even though a search warrant cited probable cause for investigation of second-degree murder, because, according to the Thomas More Society, "the clinic owner put the baby's corpse on the building's tin roof where it decayed for days under the hot Florida sun."

"But police were called again. This time they found the body," the report said.

The legal group said the only formal disciplinary action that has been taken to date is a restriction imposed on the abortionist, Paul Renelique, who faces a further hearing Nov. 19.

The society decided to intervene last year when it was clear criminal counts were not coming immediately.

An investigator was hired, facts and witness statements documented, police consulted and a pathologist was retained.

The expert, the Thomas More Society said, "critiqued the coroner's botched findings and found that A Gyn Diagnostics' unlicensed staff did play a causative role in the infant's death."

That's when the Florida attorney was consulted, and the process of notifications to bring a lawsuit over the "wrongful death" of Baby Shanice was started.

The circumstances at the clinic have been confirmed, because after police intervened and started investigating the call from the clinic worker, 18-year-old Sycloria Williams came forward to confirm she gave birth to a living girl in the facility's recovery room, and staff then began screaming "that the baby was alive."

"Ms. Belkis Gonzalez cut the umbilical cord, threw it into a red bag with black printing. Ms. Gonzalez then swept the baby, with her hands, into the same red bag along with the gauze used during the procedure," the police search warrant stated.

At the time the body was found, a lawyer for the abortion business issued a statement that no crime was committed, and an 18-year-old had had an abortion without complications.

But Tom Brejcha, president of the Thomas More Society, said, "Just because a human being is feeble or disabled and supposedly can't live independently, on his or her own, doesn't mean that anybody has the right to kill him or her.

"If you suffocate a dying elder with a pillow, you're guilty of homicide," he continued. "If you fail to examine, or aid, or treat an infant – once born – who is struggling for breath and who – with proper care – has any chance to survive to live a healthy life, you should be held equally guilty."

He said a funeral service is scheduled tomorrow at the Worldwide Christian Center Center in Pompano Beach, and burial will follow at Queen of Heaven Cemetery in Fort Lauderdale.

"Killing a baby born alive is still infanticide, and those responsible must be held to account civilly if not also criminally," Brejcha said.

WND columnist Jill Stanek said the baby's brief life and her death "demonstrate the need for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. While it was legal to kill Shanice pre-birth, it was "wrongful death" to do so after, even if she wasn't viable.

"This is exactly the age baby Barack Obama as state senator fought against giving legal personhood status," she wrote.


Hiding the Ball
David Limbaugh
Friday, September 26, 2008

Why does Barack Obama play hide the ball with his personal resume, concealing his extreme leftist ideology and denying his damning associations? Question kind of answers itself, wouldn't you say? Be concerned, very concerned.

Obama hides his liberalism for the same reason every other liberal presidential candidate has: The electorate tilts center-right. This isn't just my gut speaking or some self-serving theory I'm propounding.

The Battleground poll -- a well-respected bipartisan affair conducted by the Terrance Group, a Republican polling organization -- and Lake Research Partners, a Democratic organization, tells us 60 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservatives.

But the specifics are even more telling. Twenty percent consider themselves very conservative, 40 percent somewhat conservative, 2 percent moderate, 27 percent liberal, 9 percent very liberal, and 3 percent don't know or didn't answer.

So John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 didn't deny they were the most liberal senators because liberalism has become a dirty word through a clever conservative propaganda campaign. They denied it because liberalism is a minority position in reality, albeit an extraordinarily effective vocal minority.

Obama will only come clean about his liberalism when he thinks he is in safe territory, as he did at the San Francisco fundraiser where he trashed small-town Americans, thinking his words wouldn't reach those he was belittling. Nor is Obama upfront about the liberal nature of his policy proposals, choosing instead to mask their liberalism and even disguise them as conservative.

How else do you explain his whopper that he is recommending a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans when we know that the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay very little income tax at all? His plan calls for giving many of these people tax credits, even though they are paying no tax or are paying a small enough amount that the credit would result in them netting money from the government. As others have pointed out, this is welfare, not a tax cut. "Tax cut" resonates well among center-right voters; "welfare" does not.

On foreign policy, suffice it to say that Obama would never want the center-right electorate to know the extent of his appeasement and retreat-and-defeat orientation, his support for the bankrupting and sovereignty-forfeiting Global Poverty Act or his goal of eliminating U.S. nuclear weapons, as reported by The New York Times.

But where Obama is really playing hide the ball is in his past and present associations. His campaign operatives and the mainstream media have done their best to divert any attention from these relationships by saying it's dirty campaigning to smear him through the acts of others. Well, folks, that's not how ordinary people think. In sizing up someone's character, we often consider with whom they associate. Sue us if you wish -- even start a class action -- but it won't change human nature, which leads us, rationally, to consider this factor.

Endless reports and many books have been written documenting Barack Obama's discipleship in the thug tactics of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals." For Obama, community organizing was not an innocuous vehicle for assisting the needy. It was and is a cynically dangerous vehicle for the politics of extortion and intimidation and the usurpation of power by socialists, whose ideology and methods more closely resemble those of Josef Stalin than those of Mother Teresa.

These sources also prove beyond any reasonable doubt Obama's close -- not remote, not casual -- relationship with the nihilistic, America-hating, Pentagon-bombing radical William Ayers. Obama glibly dismisses the very idea that he should be blamed for a passing acquaintanceship with a guy who was bombing the Pentagon "when (Obama) was 8 years old."

Enough with the insults to our intelligence, Mr. Obama. You were not 8 when you launched your state Senate campaign in Ayers' home. You were not 8 when you served in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers was instrumental in establishing. You are not 8 today, though you are still Ayers' close friend, while he remains an America-hating radical, wholly unrepentant about his terrorist activities, other than to say he didn't do enough.

The fact that Obama would be seen in the same room with this guy should disqualify him from presidential aspirations. But he's not just in the same room. In many ways, he's on the same page, as evidenced by his default instinct to apologize for America and to blame America first.

But Obama will continue striving to hide the ball on this association and many others, including those with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko.

But beware; if anyone dares to expose those relationships and their sordid details, he will open himself up to malicious and fraudulent charges of racism and other Saul Alinsky thug tactics that make Bill Clinton's politics of personal destruction look like child's play.
---

Palin Look-Alike TV Anchor Gets Hate Mail
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/23/palin-look-alike-tv-anchor-gets-hate-mail/comment-page-4/

Excerpt: A news anchor at a FOX affiliate in Maine has received “hate mail and nasty phone calls” from viewers who think she bears a striking resemblance to the Republican vice presidential nominee. Cindy Michaels, a newscaster from FOX affiliate WVII-TV in Bangor, Maine, wears her hair up in a similar style to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and sometimes wears glasses. (See link for entire article)

Comment by Bert
September 24th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Seems ironic that those accusing the Republicans of hatred are having such responses to Palin and look alikes. Proves that the left is as it has been for years, desperate to win with their viewpoint at any price. Just imagine how things would be if they win the election.
---

Obama 'explains' why he doesn't salute the US Flag -- (Nothing in Snopes to refute this)

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.

'As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides,' Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.'

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president!! I, for once, am speechless. He has absolutely NO pride in this country! This is outrageous!! He doesn't deserve to be dogcatcher! (Oh, sorry dogcatchers, I mean you no disrespect.)

LET'S SEND THIS IMPOSTER DOWN THE ROAD KICKING ROCKS!!
---

Notorious politicians and their lies
A video highlighting the notorious lies by politicians including Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Mark Warner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9e8i4vT6Ms
---

The Media Play the Race Card on Obama
CNN Tries to Start Race Riots That Some Blacks Have Promised if Obama Doesn't Win
Jonah Goldberg
Wednesday, September 24, 2008

The news media have been shamefully stoking the idea that the only way Barack Obama could possibly lose the presidential election is if American racists have their way. Indeed, the fact that Obama isn't leading in polls by a wide margin "doesn't make sense ... unless it's race," says CNN's Jack Cafferty.

Slate's Jacob Weisberg says Obama is losing among older white voters because of the "color of his skin."

Many journalists are so committed to the racism-explains-everything line they are labeling any effective anti-Obama ad as an attempt by John McCain to "viciously exacerbate" America's "race-fueled angst," in the words of one New York magazine writer.

For example, a McCain ad noted that Franklin Raines, the Clinton-appointed former head of Fannie Mae who helped bring about the current Wall Street meltdown, advised the Obama campaign. Time's Karen Tumulty gasped that because Raines is black, McCain is playing the race card.

Why, she wants to know, didn't McCain attack Obama's even stronger ties to the even more culpable former Fannie Mae chairman, Jim Johnson, who had to resign from Obama's vice presidential search team because of his sketchy dealings with mortgage giant Countrywide Financial? "One reason might be that Johnson is white; Raines is black," Tumulty suggests.

Or another reason might be that the McCain campaign was saving that attack for its next ad, which is what happened.

According to critics, McCain's "celebrity" ads featuring Paris Hilton and Britney Spears were nothing but tawdry race-baiting because they subliminally played on white America's fear of black men violating the delicate flowers of white American womanhood. You'd think a cognitive warning bell would have gone off the moment anyone started suggesting that Paris Hilton and Britney Spears are icons of chastity.

This spectacle is grotesque. It reveals how little the supposedly objective press corps thinks of the American people - and how highly they think of themselves ... and Obama. Obama's lack of experience, his doctrinaire liberalism, his record, his known associations with Weatherman radical William Ayers and the hate-mongering Rev. Jeremiah Wright: These cannot possibly be legitimate motivations to vote against Obama, in this view.

Similarly, McCain's experience, his record of bipartisanship, his heroism: These too count for nothing.

Racism is all there is. Obama wins, and America sheds its racial past. Obama loses, and we're a nation of "Bull" Connors.

Much of the argument for the centrality of race in this election hinges on the so-called Bradley effect. In 1982, Tom Bradley, Los Angeles' black mayor, was polling well among white voters in the race for California governor. Bradley lost, suggesting that large numbers of whites had lied to pollsters about their intention to vote for him.

I have no doubt that the Bradley effect is real. But the Bradley effect does not reflect racism; it captures voters' fear of appearing racist. There's no reason to assume those who lie to pollsters are racists. But for Obama supporters and the media, poll results are some kind of sacred, binding covenant. If voters don't keep their promise, the media have no problem seeing racism at work.

The media's obsession with race in this election is probably fueling the Bradley effect. Repeating over and over that voting against Obama is racist only makes non-racist people embarrassed to admit that they plan to vote for McCain.

Another rich irony is that the only racists who matter in this election are the ones in the Democratic Party. News flash: Republicans aren't voting for the Democratic nominee because they're Republicans. A new AP-Yahoo News poll claims that racial prejudice is a significant factor among the independents and Democrats Obama needs to win, specifically among Hillary Clinton's primary voters. According to the pollsters' statistical modeling, support for Obama may be as much as 6 percentage points lower than it would be if there were no white racism.

I'm skeptical about those findings, as well as the overemphasis on race generally. But to the extent that race is a factor, here's the richest irony of all: Obama's problem is with precisely those voters the Democratic Party claims to fight for, working- and middle-class white folks. Of course, Democrats can't openly complain that their own vital constituency is racist.

If the media were more objective, we'd be hearing a lot more about the racism at the heart of the Democratic Party. (Imagine if the black nominee this year were a Republican!) But such objectivity would cause too much cognitive dissonance for a press corps that defines "racist" as shorthand for Republican and sees itself as the publicity arm of the Obama campaign.
---

Obama’s Harvard Years: Questions Swirl
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
September 23, 2008

How exactly did Barack Obama pay for his Harvard Law School education?

The way the Obama campaign has answered the question was simply hard work and student loans.

But new questions have been raised about Obama’s student loans and Obama’s ties to a radical Muslim activist who reportedly was raising money for Obama’s Harvard studies during the years 1988 to 1991.

The allegations first surfaced in late March, when former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton told a New York cable channel that a former business partner who was “raising money” for Obama had approached him in 1988 to help Obama get into Harvard Law School.

In the interview, Sutton says he first heard of Obama about twenty years ago from Khalid Al-Mansour, a Black Muslim and Black Nationalist who was a “mentor” to the founders of the Black Panther party at the time the party was founded in the early 1960s.

Sutton described al-Mansour as advisor to “one of the world’s richest men,” Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

Prince Alwaleed catapulted to fame in the United States after the September 11 attacks, when New York mayor Rudy Guiliani refused his $10 million check to help rebuild Manhattan, because the Saudi prince hinted publicly that America’s pro-Israel policies were to blame for the attacks.

Sutton knew Al-Mansour well, since the two men had been business partners and served on several corporate boards together.

As Sutton remembered, Al-Mansour was raising money for Obama’s education and seeking recommendations for him to attend Harvard Law School.

“I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him,” Sutton told NY1 city hall reporter Dominic Carter. “The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas.”

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told Newsmax that Sutton’s account was “bogus” and a “fabrication that has been retracted” by a spokesman for the Sutton family.

He referred Newsmax to a pro-Obama blog published on Politico.com by reporter Ben Smith.

In a September 3 blog entry, Smith wrote that “a spokesman for Sutton’s family, Kevin Wardally” said that Sutton had been mistaken when he made those comments about Obama and Khalid Al-Mansour.

Smith suggested the retraction “put the [Obama/Al-Mansour] story to rest for good.”

Wardally told Smith that the “information Mr. Percy Sutton imported [sic] on March 25 in a NY1 News interview regarding his connection to Barack Obama is inaccurate. As best as our family and the Chairman’s closest friends can tell, Mr. Sutton, now 86 years of age, misspoke in describing certain details and events in that television interview.”

Asked which parts of Percy Sutton’s statements were a “fabrication,” LaBolt said “all of it. Al Mansour doesn’t know Obama. And Sutton’s spokesman retracted the story. The letter [to Harvard, which Percy Sutton says he wrote on behalf of Obama], the ‘payments for loans’ — all of it, not true,” he added.

Newsmax contacted the Sutton family and they categorically denied Wardally’s claims to Smith and the Politico.com. So there was no retraction of Sutton’s original interview, during which he revealed that Khalid Al-Mansour was “raising money” for Obama and had asked Sutton to write a letter of recommendation for Obama to help him get accepted at Harvard Law School.

Sutton’s personal assistant told Newsmax that neither Mr. Sutton or his family had ever heard of Kevin Wardally.

”Who is this person?” asked Sutton’s assistant, Karen Malone.

When told that he portrayed himself as a “spokesman” for the family, Malone told Newsmax, “Well, he’s not.”

According to a 2006 New York magazine profile, Wardally is part of a “New New Guard” in Harlem politics that has been challenging the “lions” of the old guard, Charles Rangel and Percy Sutton. That makes him an unlikely candidate to speak on behalf of Sutton.

Sutton maintains an office at the Manhattan headquarters of the firm he founded, Inner City Broadcasting Corporation. ICBC owns New York radio stations WBLS and WLIB.

Sutton’s son Pierre (“Pepe”) runs ICBC along with his daughter, Keisha Sutton-James. Malone told Newsmax that she had consulted with Sutton’s family members at the station and confirmed that no one knew Kevin Wardally or had authorized him to speak on behalf of the family.

For someone claiming to be a “spokesman” for the Sutton family, who was authorized to call Percy Sutton a liar, Wardally even got Percy Sutton’s age wrong.

Sutton is not 86, as Wardally said, but close to 88. He was born on Nov. 24, 1920.

Wardally responded to a several Newsmax phone messages and emails with a terse one-line comment, maintaining his statement that Percy Sutton “misspoke” in the television interview.

“I believe the statement speaks for itself and the Sutton Family and I have nothing further to say on the topic,” he wrote in an email.

Asked to explain why it was that no one at Inner City Broadcasting Corp. knew of him or accepted him as a family spokesman, Wardally responded later that he had been retained by a nephew of the elder Sutton, who “is in our office almost every week.”

Wardally works for Bill Lynch Associations, a Harlem political consulting firm. The nephew, Chuck Sutton, no longer works with the elder Sutton at Inner City Broadcasting, but for a high-tech start-up called Synematics.

“Percy Sutton doesn’t go out idly on television saying things he doesn’t mean,” a well-connected black entrepreneur who knows Sutton told Newsmax.

Ben LaBolt’s claim that “Al Mansour doesn’t know Obama” was contradicted by Al Mansour himself in an extended interview with Newsmax.

Comparing the revelation of his ties to Obama to the controversy surrounding Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Al Mansour said that he was determined to keep a low profile to avoid embarrassing Obama.

“In respect to Mr. Obama, I have told him, because so many people are running after him… I was determined that I was never going to be in that situation,” he told Newsmax.

Al Mansour said he was deliberately avoiding any contact with the candidate. “I’m not involved in any way in celebrity sweepstakes,” he said. “I wish him well, anything I can do if he lets me know, I’ll let him know what I think I can do or can’t. But I don’t collect autographs. I wish him the best, and hope he can win the election.”

He repeatedly declined to comment on the Percy Sutton allegations, either to confirm or to deny them.

“Any statement that I make would only further the activity which is not in the interest of Barack, not in the interest of Percy, not in the interest of anyone,” Al Mansour said.

Unanswered Questions

Sen. Obama has refused to instruct Harvard Law School to release any information about his time there as a student, or about his student loans.

Newsmax contacted the Dean of Students, the Director of Student Financial Services, the Registrar, and the Bursar of Harvard Law School. None would provide any specific information on Barack Obama’s time at Harvard, except for his dates of attendance (1988-1991) or his year of graduation, 1991.

A spokesman for the law school, Michael Armini, said it was Harvard policy not to divulge information on alumni without their approval.

“There are lots of reporters nosing around the library,” he acknowledged. So far, none had turned up any new information.

Law professors Lawrence Tribe and Charles Ogletree have both said publicly that they were “impressed” by Obama when he was a student.

Sources close to the Sutton family told Newsmax that Percy Sutton wrote a letter of recommendation for Obama to Ogletree at Khalid Al-Mansour’s request, but Ogletree declined to answer Newsmax questions about this.

Harvard Law School spokesman Michael Armini said that Harvard was “very generous” with financial aid, but only on the basis on need.

The Obama campaign told Newsmax that Obama self-financed his three years at Harvard Law School with loans, and did not receive any scholarship from Harvard Law school.

LaBolt denied that Obama received any financial assistance from Harvard or from outside parties. “No - he paid his way through by taking out loans,” he said in an email to Newsmax.

At the time, Harvard cost around $25,000 a year, or $75,000 for the three years that Obama attended. And as president of the Harvard Law Review, he received no stipend from the school, Harvard spokesman Mike Armini said.

“That is considered a volunteer position,” Armini said. “There is no salary or grant associated with it.”

So if the figures cited by the Obama campaign for the Senator’s student loans are accurate, that means that Obama came up with more than $32,000 over three years from sources other than loans to pay for tuition, room and board.

Where did he find the money? Did it come from friends of Khalid Al Mansour? And why would a radical Muslim activist with ties to the Saudi royal family be raising money for Barack Obama?

That’s the question the Obama campaign still won’t answer.

Michelle Obama Speaks Out

Speaking at a campaign event in Haverford, Pa, in April of this year, Michelle Obama claimed that her husband had “just paid off his loan debt” for his Harvard Law School education.

In an appearance in Zanesville, Ohio, in February she bemoaned the fact that many American families were strapped with student loan payments for years after graduation.

“The only reason we’re not in that position is that Barack wrote two best-selling books,” she said. The first of those best-sellers netted the couple $1.2 million in royalties in 2005.

In response to Newsmax questions about the Obama’s college loans, a campaign spokesman cited a report in The Chicago Sun claiming that Obama borrowed $42,753 to pay for Harvard Law School, and “tens of thousands” more to pay for undergraduate studies at Columbia.

The same report said that Michelle Obama borrowed $40,762 to pay for her years at Harvard Law School.

But a Newsmax review of Senator Obama’s financial disclosures found no trace of any outstanding college loans, going back to 2000.

As a United States Senate candidate, Barack Obama was required to file a financial disclosure form in 2004 detailing his assets, income, consulting contracts, and liabilities.

Obama listed “zero” under liabilities in 2004 and in all subsequent U.S. Senate financial disclosure forms.

Under the Senate ethics rules, he is required to disclose any loan, including credit card debt, of $10,000 or more. The only exception to the reporting requirement is mortgage debt on a principal residence.

The Senate reports also directly contradict Michelle Obama’s claim that the couple had “only just” paid off their student loans after receiving book royalties paid out in 2005 and 2006 – well after her husband had been ensconced in the Senate.

Apparently, Michelle Obama misspoke, according to the version provided by the Obama campaign.

Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt now tells Newsmax that the loans Sen. Obama took out to pay for Harvard Law School “were repaid in full while he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate [in 2004], and under the rules, the modest outstanding balance he repaid was not reportable as a liability on his personal financial disclosure reports.”

The Senator repaid the loans on “the expectation of a significant increase in family income” as a result of the paperback edition of his 1995 book, Dreams of My Father, LaBolt said.

Obama acknowledges that sales of the hard cover edition of the book were “underwhelming.” But in the spring of 2004,when Obama won the Democrat U.S. Senate primary in Illinois, Rachel Klayman, an editor at Crown Publishers in New York, read an article about Obama and became interested in his memoir, only to discover that Crown now owned the rights.

She asked Obama to write a new forward, and Crown then decided to re-issue Dreams as a paperback in July 2004, just as Obama made his historic speech to the Democrat National Convention.

The paperback eventually sold over one million copies, which under the standard industry royalty for trade paperbacks of 7.5%, earned him $1.2 million. However, Obama didn’t report income from the book until 2005, so it’s unclear how he was able to repay his student loans in 2004.

Responding to attacks from the Hillary Clinton campaign during the primaries, Obama released seven years of tax returns on March 25 of this year.

The returns, dating back to 2000, indicate that the couple paid no interest on their student loans. The interest from such loans would have been deductible on their joint income tax returns.

For 2000 through 2004, taxpayers declared student loan interest as a deduction on line 24 of federal form 1040. After 2004, the deduction can be taken on Line 33.

But the Obamas never declared a dime of interest in student loans on their return, most likely because they simply earned too much money to be able to take the deduction under the IRS rules.

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt had no answer as to why the Obamas’ failed to declare the loans, stating the obvious that “because interest on the loans was not deducted, it would not appear on the Obamas’ personal return.”
---

Obama Tries To Flush Rush
Brent Bozell III
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
http://townhall.com/Columnists/BrentBozellIII/2008/09/24/obama_tries_to_flush_rush

For two decades, going back to the Willie Horton ads of 1999, we've heard liberals accuse Republicans of race-baiting. Throughout this campaign, there have been endless whispers, suggestions and outright accusations that GOP could/would play the race card because Obama is half-black. Now Barack Obama has found his bizarre version of Willie Horton, and it's . Rush Limbaugh.

Obama sneakily tried to air a Spanish-language TV ad telling Latinos that Limbaugh thinks all Mexicans are stupid, Mexican immigrants should all shut up and go home, and that Limbaugh and John McCain are identical twins on immigration.

None of it is true. Now when Obama talks about reaching across the aisle and healing a divided Washington, we'll fall to the ground laughing.

How far we've come since January, when moderate McCain won in South Carolina, and the liberal media were declaring that this showed that Limbaugh and his right-wing views were politically dead. Tom Brokaw huffily declared on "Meet the Press" that McCain's win showed Americans had rejected "dogma" and were a "nomadic herd" hungering only for "solutions," something conservatives apparently can't offer.

What Obama was trying to do in this ad, obviously, was play to racial fears. "They want us to forget the insults we've put up with, the intolerance," the ad announcer proclaimed in Spanish as a picture of Rush Limbaugh appeared onscreen with quotes of him allegedly saying, "Mexicans are stupid and unqualified" and "Shut your mouth or get out." The announcer added: "They made us feel marginalized in a country we love so much."

From there, the Democrats turned to tie this phony cartoon of Limbaugh to McCain: "John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote, and another, even worse, that continues the failed policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families."

The script first broke into the national media on a Washington Post blog called The Trail. It was first corrected on an ABC News blog by political reporter Jake Tapper. The mangled "Mexicans are stupid" quote came from 1993, during debate over the NAFTA trade agreement, when Rush suggested that America shouldn't worry about losing low-skill jobs: "let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."

Tapper suggested the second quote was "totally unfair," since Limbaugh was suggesting in one of his morning radio commentaries in 2006 that the "Limbaugh Laws" of immigration would include not letting immigrants offer any criticism of the government of the president. "You're a foreigner, shut your mouth, or get out." At the end, he craftily noted that this and other laws are the immigration policy of Mexico.

But here's where it gets fascinating. The Washington Post offered no "fact check" debunking Obama's lies about Limbaugh in the news section of the paper. To her credit, liberal columnist Ruth Marcus slammed it five days later, but the news section did not. ABC News somehow allowed Tapper to blog everything that was wrong about the Obama ad, but never put him on television explaining it. ABC skipped it. So did CBS. So did NBC.

It gets worse. A day after Tapper's online fact check, "Nightline" host Terry Moran put together a real hatchet job on McCain, accusing him of not only flip-flopping on the issues, but also flip-flopping on campaign decency. "The old John McCain repeatedly promised voters a different kind of campaign. Nobler, less nasty, better. ... That was then. This is now."

Moran reported that McCain mocked Obama's vote in the Illinois Senate to allow "age-appropriate" sex education for kindergarteners. McCain was wrong to say in the ad that this vote was an "accomplishment," since the bill never passed, even though Obama's vote for this crud places him against most parents and solidly on the libertine left. And his subsequent statement that he shouldn't be tagged for that bill because he only voted for it, but didn't sponsor it, is far more disingenuous.

Moran highlighted how the site Factcheck.org declared the McCain ad "simply false," but never noticed that the same Factcheck.org also declared Obama's Limbaugh ad "doubly misleading."

Former Bush pollster Matthew Dowd completely sold out whatever soul he still possessed by singing harmony to Moran's melody: "And I think the Obama campaign wants to have this as a campaign in the clouds. I think the McCain campaign wants to have a campaign that's in the mud."

So even as ABC's website reports that Obama is gravely misleading Latinos about the alleged Mexican-hating Rush Limbaugh, El Gringo Maximo, ABC is airing ridiculous claims from its own "experts" proclaiming Obama wants to campaign "in the clouds." Which camp is abandoning fair-play principles for political gain?
---

A Political "Solution"
Thomas Sowell
September 23, 2008
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell

Who was it who said, "crack-brained meddling by the authorities" can "aggravate an existing crisis"? Ronald Reagan? Milton Friedman? Adam Smith? Not even close. It was Karl Marx. Unlike most leftists today, Marx studied economics.

Is the current financial crisis going to lead to crack-brained meddling or to some rational actions? Predicting what politicians are going to do is risky business. We will have to wait and see.

Saints are no more common on Capitol Hill than they are on Wall Street. We can only hope that the political "solution" does not turn out to be worse than the problem.

There are times when government intervention can make things better. But that is no guarantee that it won't make things worse. As they say, "the devil is in the details"-- and we don't know the details yet.

Probably most members of Congress don't know the details yet-- and many may still not know the details when the time comes for them to vote on this bailout.

Taking an optimistic view, this biggest bailout of all time may stop the problems in financial markets from spreading into the general economy-- which is currently nothing like the disaster area that the media portray it to be.

Ninety percent of the people on this planet would exchange their economic situation for ours in a minute. The media love hype, and have been dying to use the word "recession" all year but nothing has happened that meets the definition of a recession.

The American economy is growing, not declining. Our unemployment rate is up to 6 percent but there are countries that would be delighted to get their unemployment rate down to 6 percent. Our inflation rate is up a little but many countries would love to get their inflation rate down to where ours is.

Why then is there such a mess in the financial markets? Much of that mess is due to the very people we are now turning to for solutions-- members of Congress.

Past Congresses created the hybrid financial institutions known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, private institutions with government backing and political influence. About half of the mortgages in this country are backed by these two institutions.

Such institutions-- exempt from laws that apply to other financial institutions and backed by the implicit promise of government support with the taxpayers' money-- are an open invitation to risky behavior. When these risks blew up in their faces, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government, costing the taxpayers billions of dollars.

For years the Wall Street Journal has been warning that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking reckless chances but liberal Democrats especially have pooh-poohed the dangers.

Back in 2002, the Wall Street Journal said: "The time for the political system to focus on Fannie and Fred isn't when we have a housing crisis; by then it will be too late." The hybrid public-and-private nature of these financial giants amounts to "privatizing profit and socializing risk," since taxpayers get stuck with the tab when high-risk finances don't work out.

Similar concerns were expressed in 2003 by N. Gregory Mankiw, then Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to President Bush. But liberal Democratic Congressman Barney Frank criticized Professor Mankiw, citing "concern for housing" as his reason for supporting Fannie Mae. Barney Frank said that fears about the riskiness of Fannie Mae were "overblown."

Maxine Waters and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus have also been among the liberal Democrats defending Fannie Mae. Just last year, Senator Charles Schumer advocated legislation to allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their already huge role in the mortgage market. Republican Congressman Mike Oxley has also defended these hybrid financial giants.

Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been generous in their contributions to politicians' political campaigns, so it is perhaps not surprising that politicians have been generous to them.

This is certainly part of "the mess in Washington" that Barack Obama talks about. But don't expect him to clean it up. Franklin Raines, who made mega-millions for himself while mismanaging Fannie Mae into a financial disaster, is one of Obama's advisers.
---

A Political "Solution": Part II
Thomas Sowell
September 24, 2008

Estimates of how much money a government program will cost are notoriously unreliable. Estimates of the cost of the current bailout in the financial markets run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, and some say it may reach or exceed a trillion.

Many people have trouble even forming some notion of what such numbers as billion and trillion mean. One way to get some idea of the magnitude of a trillion is to ask: How long ago was a trillion seconds?

A trillion seconds ago, no one on this planet could read and write. Neither the Roman Empire nor the ancient Chinese dynasties had yet come into existence. None of the founders of the world's great religions today had yet been born.

That's what a trillion means. Put a dollar sign in front of it and that's what the current bailout may cost.

Will that money be spent wisely? It is theoretically possible. But don't bet the rent money on it or you could end up among the homeless.

Whenever there is a lot of the taxpayers' money around, politicians are going to find ways to spend it that will increase their chances of getting re-elected by giving goodies to voters.

The longer it takes Congress to pass the bailout bill, the more of those goodies are going to find their way into the legislation. Speed is important, not just to protect the financial markets but to protect the taxpayers from having more of their hard-earned money squandered by politicians.

Regardless of what Barack Obama or John McCain may say they are going to do as president, after a trillion dollars has been taken off the top there is going to be a lot less left in the federal treasury for them to do anything with.

Already Senator Christopher Dodd is talking about extending the bailout from the financial firms to homeowners facing mortgage foreclosures-- as if the point of all this is to play Santa Claus.

The huge federal debts that we already have are the ghosts of Christmas past.

Financial institutions are not being bailed out as a favor to them or their stockholders. In fact, stockholders have come out worse off after some bailouts.

The real point is to avoid a major contraction of credit that could cause major downturns in output and employment, ruining millions of people, far beyond the financial institutions involved. If it was just a question of the financial institutions themselves, they could be left to sink or swim. But it is not.

We do not need a replay of the Great Depression of the 1930s, when the failure of thousands of banks meant a drastic reduction of credit-- and therefore a drastic reduction of the demand needed to keep production going and millions of people employed.

But bailing out people who made ill-advised mortgages makes no more sense that bailing out people who lost their life savings in Las Vegas casinos. It makes political sense only to people like Senator Dodd, who are among the reasons for the financial mess in the first place.

People usually stop making ill-advised decisions when they are forced to face the consequences of those decisions, not when politicians come to their rescue and make the taxpayers pay for decisions that the taxpayers had nothing to do with.

The Wall Street Journal, which has for years been sounding the alarm about the riskiness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, recently cited Senator Christopher Dodd along with Senator Charles Schumer and Congressman Barney Frank among those on Capitol Hill who have been "shilling" for these financial institutions, downplaying the risks and opposing attempts to restrict their free-wheeling role in the mortgage market.

As recently as July of this year, Senator Dodd declared Fannie Mae and Freddie "fundamentally strong" and said there is no need for "panicking" about them. But now that the chickens have come home to roost, Senator Dodd wants to be sure to get some goodies from the rescue legislation to pass out to people likely to vote for him.

Don't make any bets on how this situation is going to turn out-- except that we can predict that politicians will blame the "greed" of other people. You can bet the rent money on that.
---

Liberalism is an Addiction
Burt Prelutsky
Friday, September 26, 2008

I’m certain that by this time most people have seen the photos of the American flags that were left for the trash collector after the Democratic convention in Denver. Even though I have a flag outside my front door and hate to think of a flag, the symbol of a nation that inspired my two sets of grandparents to travel 7,000 miles so I could be fortunate enough to be born an American, I wasn’t as troubled by the photos as I would have been if they’d been misused after the Republican convention. Liberals, after all, are always insisting that they’re as patriotic as conservatives, but I don’t believe it. If they were, they’d respect the military far more than they do, they wouldn’t nominate someone like Barack Obama and they certainly wouldn’t keep saying how much America is despised around the world, while ignoring the fact that it’s a badge of honor to be despised by the likes of Russia, China, Iran, Yemen, North Korea, Venezuela and the PLO. They would also acknowledge that there must be a darn good reason why millions of people who weren’t as lucky as we were to be born in America are, literally in some cases, dying to come here.

So, when I see that the Democrats disrespected the flags, I understood that to them the flags were only cheap props like the balloons, the bunting, the confetti and those corny Greek columns. The real problem isn’t that the left trashed a few flags, but that they keep trashing the country.

A friend of mine has come up with what I regard as a wonderful solution to the problem of leftist influence. She proposes that liberals be offered an incentive to leave the country, as they are constantly threatening to do whenever it appears that a Republican might be elected president. The sum she came up with is a million dollars per person. That sounds like a lot until you realize that nowadays people casually toss around sums in the trillions when discussing federal budgets and deficits. Still, I think there is room for negotiation. The point is, these left-wing whiners would get a deal similar to the one the protagonist received in Edward Everett Hales’s short story, “The Man Without a Country.” Unlike Philip Nolan, though, they wouldn’t be sentenced to spend the rest of their lives sailing the seas, but they would be denied the opportunity to ever set foot again on this sacred ground. Not even for a visit. Even if only a relatively small number of leftists accepted the deal, I, for one, would consider it money well spent.

Liberals have an impossible time defending their beliefs, which is why they rely on slogans and catch phrases, unfounded rumors and ad hominem attacks, on those who, like Sara Palin, think clearly and live according to Judeo-Christian principles.

The brains and values of left-wingers have decomposed to the point where they actually believe Keith Olbermann, Rosie O’Donnell and Chris Matthews make sense and that people like Whoopi Goldberg, Al Franken and Bill Maher, are funny. That is why I say that liberalism is an addiction -- and why, as with other addictions, I’d like to see it kicked. Kicked good and hard.


Obama sued Citibank to force bad loans
Democrats and groups associated with them leaned on banks and even sued to get them to make bad loans under the Community Reinvestment Act

Government Engineered Mortgage Crisis: No Racism Here, Move Along
Posted on 30 September 2008

Nine years ago this month, the New York Times proved to be rather prophetic:

Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the governmentsubsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990’s. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent . In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent .
This whole mess was inspired by rabble-rousing left-wing groups who felt (not thought) that blacks were not getting enough mortgages.

Note, however, that when whites (31%) or Asians (46%) are on the losing end of this equation, it is apparently NOT evidence of any racism. Right, ACORN?

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites , in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
– Steven A. Holmes, “Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending” , New York Times, 30 September, 1999.
---

Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans
Posted on 03 October 2008
(For video clips, see http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/)

Do you remember how we told you that the Democrats and groups associated with them leaned on banks and even sued to get them to make bad loans under the Community Reinvestment Act which was a factor in causing the economic crisis (see article above) … well look at what some fellow bloggers have dug up while researching Obama’s legal career. Looks like a typical ACORN lawsuit to get banks to hand out bad loans.

In these lawsuits, ACORN makes a bogus claim of Redlining (denying poor people loans because of their ethnic heritage). They protest and get the local media to raise a big stink. This stink means that the bank faces thousands of people closing their accounts and get local politicians to lobby to stop the bank from doing some future business, expansions and mergers. If the bank goes to court, they will win, but the damage is already done because who is going to launch a big campaign to get the bank’s reputation back?

It is important to understand the nature of these lawsuits and what their purpose is. ACORN filed tons of these lawsuits and ALL of them allege racism.

Thanks to the IUSB Vision Weblog for providing additional details of this story.

We pulled the docket down, but here’s a brief for your summary:

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000

New York Post Article (or see below): O's Dangerous Pals

THE seeds of today’s financial meltdown lie in the Community Reinvestment Act - a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.

CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in “subprime” loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.

Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.

In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America’s financial institutions .

The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN’s Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.

And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbott’s way - ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN’s overall efforts.

Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators began using the act to combat “red-lining,” a practice by which banks loaned money to some communities but not to others, based on economic status. “No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”

The Clinton-Reno threat of “vigorous enforcement” pushed banks to make the now infamous loans that many blame for the current meltdown, Richman said. “Banks, in order to not get in trouble with the regulators, had to make loans to people who shouldn’t have been getting mortgage loans.”

This threat combined with the government backing of Fannie and Freddie set the stage for the current uncertainty, because the “banks could just sell the loans off to Fannie or Freddie,” who could buy them with little regard for negative financial outcomes, Richman said.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=36048
Referenced / Associated News Articles (Automatically Generated):

Video UPDATE 4: Obama Audio saying it was a Good Idea to give people loans that couldn’t afford them. (For video clips, see http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/)

We told you before how Obama sued banks with so called “community organizers” to force the banks to give bad loans to people who couldn’t afford them. Well now we have the audio of Obama saying in 2007 that giving sub-prime loans to people who couldn’t afford them is a good idea.
---

O'S DANGEROUS PALS
By STANLEY KURTZ

September 29, 2008 --
WHAT exactly does a "community organizer" do? Barack Obama's rise has left many Americans asking themselves that question. Here's a big part of the answer: Community organizers intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit.

In the name of fairness to minorities, community organizers occupy private offices, chant inside bank lobbies, and confront executives at their homes - and thereby force financial institutions to direct hundreds of millions of dollars in mortgages to low-credit customers.

In other words, community organizers help to undermine the US economy by pushing the banking system into a sinkhole of bad loans. And Obama has spent years training and funding the organizers who do it.

THE seeds of today's financial meltdown lie in the Commu nity Reinvestment Act - a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.

CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.

Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.

In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions.

Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.

Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.

ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.

Long the director of Chicago ACORN, Talbott is a specialist in "direct action" - organizers' term for their militant tactics of intimidation and disruption. Perhaps her most famous stunt was leading a group of ACORN protesters breaking into a meeting of the Chicago City Council to push for a "living wage" law, shouting in defiance as she was arrested for mob action and disorderly conduct. But her real legacy may be her drive to push banks into making risky mortgage loans.

In February 1990, Illinois regulators held what was believed to be the first-ever state hearing to consider blocking a thrift merger for lack of compliance with CRA. The challenge was filed by ACORN, led by Talbott. Officials of Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, her target, complained that ACORN pressure was undermining its ability to meet strict financial requirements it was obligated to uphold and protested being boxed into an "affirmative-action lending policy." The following years saw Talbott featured in dozens of news stories about pressuring banks into higher-risk minority loans.

IN April 1992, Talbott filed an other precedent-setting com plaint using the "community support requirements" of the 1989 savings-and-loan bailout, this time against Avondale Federal Bank for Savings. Within a month, Chicago ACORN had organized its first "bank fair" at Malcolm X College and found 16 Chicago-area financial institutions willing to participate.

Two months later, aided by ACORN organizer Sandra Maxwell, Talbott announced plans to conduct demonstrations in the lobbies of area banks that refused to attend an ACORN-sponsored national bank "summit" in New York. She insisted that banks show a commitment to minority lending by lowering their standards on downpayments and underwriting - for example, by overlooking bad credit histories.

By September 1992, The Chicago Tribune was describing Talbott's program as "affirma- tive-action lending" and ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities.

And Talbott continued her effort to, as she put it, drag banks "kicking and screaming" into high-risk loans. A September 1993 story in The Chicago Sun-Times presents her as the leader of an initiative in which five area financial institutions (including two of her former targets, now plainly cowed - Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings) were "participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit histories."

What made this program different from others, the paper added, was the participation of Fannie Mae - which had agreed to buy up the loans. "If this pilot program works," crowed Talbott, "it will send a message to the lending community that it's OK to make these kind of loans."

Well, the pilot program "worked," and Fannie Mae's message that risky loans to minorities were "OK" was sent. The rest is financial-meltdown history.

IT would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama.

When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff.

He returned to Chicago in the early '90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks. Chicago ACORN sought out Obama's legal services for a "motor voter" case and partnered with him on his 1992 "Project VOTE" registration drive.

In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks.

More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago's Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation's board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers - and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift.

That committee's report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama's organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott's ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted.

MORE, the Obama-supervised Woods Fund report ac knowledges the problem of getting donors and foundations to contribute to radical groups like ACORN - whose confrontational tactics often scare off even liberal donors and foundations.

Indeed, the report brags about pulling the wool over the public's eye. The Woods Fund's claim to be "nonideological," it says, has "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship."

Hmm. Radicalism disguised by a claim to be postideological. Sound familiar?

The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.

And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbott's way - ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN's overall efforts.

In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama's first campaign for state Senate, saying, "We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer."

IN short, to understand the roots of the subprime-mort gage crisis, look to ACORN's Madeline Talbott. And to see how Talbott was able to work her mischief, look to Barack Obama.

Then you'll truly know what community organizers do.
---

Investors' Real Fear: A Socialist Tsunami
The Crash: "Why has the market dropped so much?" everyone asks. What is it about the specter of our first socialist president and the end of capitalism as we know it that they don't understand?
October 13, 2008

The freeze-up of the financial system — and government's seeming inability to thaw it out — are a main concern, no doubt. But more people are also starting to look across the valley, as they say, at what's in store once this crisis passes.

And right now it looks like the U.S., which built the mightiest, most prosperous economy the world has ever known, is about to turn its back on the free-enterprise system that made it all possible.

It isn't only that the most anti-capitalist politician ever nominated by a major party is favored to take the White House. It's that he'll also have a filibuster-proof Congress led by politicians who are almost as liberal.

Throw in a media establishment dedicated to the implementation of a liberal agenda, and the smothering of dissent wherever it arises, and it's no wonder panic has set in.

What is that agenda? It starts with a tax system right out of Marx: A massive redistribution of income — from each according to his ability, to each according to his need — all in the name of "neighborliness," "patriotism," "fairness" and "justice."

It continues with a call for a new world order that turns its back on free trade, has no problem with government controlling the means of production, imposes global taxes to support continents where our interests are negligible, signs on to climate treaties that will sap billions more in U.S. productivity and wealth, and institutes an authoritarian health care system that will strip Americans' freedoms and run up costs.

All the while, it ensures that nothing — absolutely nothing — will be done to secure a sufficient, terror-proof supply of our economic lifeblood — oil — a resource we'll need much more of in the years ahead.

The businesses that create jobs and generate wealth are already discounting the future based on what they know about Obama's plans to raise income, capital gains, dividend and payroll taxes, and his various other economy-crippling policies. Which helps explain why world stock markets have been so topsy-turvy.

But don't take our word for it. One hundred economists, five Nobel winners among them, have signed a letter noting just that:

"The prospect of such tax-rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy," they wrote, noting that the potential of higher taxes in the next year or two is reducing hiring and investment.

It was "misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s," the economists remind us, that "greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression."

We can't afford to repeat these grave errors.

Yet much of the electorate is determined to vote for the candidate most likely to make them. If he wins, what we consider to be a crisis in today's economy will be a routine affair in tomorrow's.
---

Glenn Beck: Farrakhan calls Obama the Messiah?
Farrakhan: 'Barack has captured the youth,' will bring about 'universal change'
October 10, 2008

GLENN: This is Louis Farrakhan. He is talking to the nation of Islam in a speech. Listen carefully to what he says.

FARRAKHAN: You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change and that's why Barack has captured the youth.

GLENN: Stop, stop, stop! You are the instruments -- talking to the nation of Islam -- you are the instruments in a God is going to use to change, make universal changes. And that's why Obama is connecting to the youth. Okay?

FARRAKHAN: And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn't care anything about. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.

GLENN: Now, the question is, "who is he calling the Messiah?" Is he saying that Barack Obama is the Messiah? I do believe that's what he's saying. If you listen to some of the rhetoric of some of these people -- and talk to them -- what was the name of that Black Panther guy who went almost into a trance and it was like, "Oh, I pray, oh sacred one, that the world will wake up." Yeah, Malik Shabazz. I pray that the world will wake up and America will see Barack Obama for what he is. Ooh, so do I. But it doesn't matter. You are the instruments I'm quoting, you are the instruments of God and the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change and that is why Barack has captured the youth, and he has involved young people in a political process that they didn't care anything about. That is a sign. And when the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.

It could be that the Messiah is speaking and that's why -- and that's what -- Barack Obama is listening to -- the Messiah and that's why he's speaking, but Louis Farrakhan thinks that either Barack Obama is the Messiah or that Barack Obama is an instrument in the Messiah's hand. And also the instruments in his hand is the nation of Islam, the followers, that they are going to bring about universal change. That's not the change I've been hoping for. I don't know about you. We are at a crossroads, America, and you must get involved. And I don't mean campaign for John McCain. I mean campaign for truth. I mean search your souls. I mean stop both of these parties from taking our country.

You know what, I've always said they are both taking us to the same destination. One's on a jet plane, one's on a steam train. Gang, we are one stop away from the destination, so it is time to know that one way or another that plane or that train will be coming into the station quickly and we need to stand up and say, enough, you must listen to us, stop, stop your spending, stop your lies, stop the corruption and listen to us. We don't want to go where you're taking us, because where you're taking us is a socialist state that very soon, with more tragedy on the way -- with another big 9/11 type event or somebody stupid in this country is saying, oh, well, I'm going to get them -- when something like, God forbid, a 9/11 or a Timothy McVeigh happens, your rights will go away and this will be a fascist state. You must stand up and be participating! You must tell your friends. Don't worry about those you can't wake up. Wake up the ones you know you can.
---

Farrakhan on Obama: 'The Messiah is absolutely speaking'
'Barack has captured the youth,' will bring about 'universal change'
Monday, October 13, 2008

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, another powerful Chicago-based political figure associated with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and other long-time associates of Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama, is leaving no doubt about what he thinks of the leader in the campaign for the White House.

He says when Obama talks "the Messiah is absolutely speaking."

You can watch it for yourself on a newly posted YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OowxMcVTjTE

Addressing a large crowd behind a podium Feb. 24 with a Nation of Islam Saviour's Day 2008 sign, Farrakhan proclaims,

"You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn't care anything about. That's a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking."

"Brothers and sisters," Farrakhan said, "Barack Obama to me, is a herald of the Messiah. Barack Obama is like the trumpet that alerts you something new, something better is on the way."

Farrakhan points out that the man Nation of Islam followers refer to as "the Savior," Fard Muhammad, had a black father and a white mother, just as Obama did.

"A black man with a white mother became a savior to us," he said. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.

"Would God allow Barack to be president of a country that has been so racist, so evil in its treatment of Hispanics, native Americans, blacks?" he asked. "Would God do something like that? Yeah. Of course he would. That's to show you that the stone that the builders rejected has become the headstone of the corner. This is a sign to you. It's the time of our rise. It's the time that we should take our place. The future is all about you."

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

Farrakhan suggested he would keep a low profile in the campaign, despite his enthusiasm for Obama.

"That's why you have never heard me make any comment," he explained. "I love that brother, and I want to see that brother successful. I don't want to say anything that would hurt that brother, and I don't want them to use me or the Nation of Islam."

Returning to the theme that Obama is a mystical figure, Farrakhan said, he "is not the Messiah for sure, but anytime he gives you a sign of uniting races, ethnic groups, ideologies, religions and makes people feel a sense of oneness, that's not necessarily Satan's work, that is, I believe, the work of God."

He went on to point out that when religious scholars talk about Christ or the Islamic Mahdi, they never talk in racial terms – again, pointing to Obama's mixed racial background.

WND previously reported a website called "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?" captured the wave of euphoria that followed the Democratic senator's remarkable rise.

The site is topped by an Obama quote strategically ripped from a Jan. 7 speech at Dartmouth College just before the New Hampshire Primary in which he told students, "… a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote" for Obama.

MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews is among the many members of the media enraptured by Obama, admitting he felt a "thrill going up my leg" listening to an Obama speech.

Columnist Mark Morford of the San Francisco Chronicle writes that Obama has a charisma that goes beyond "his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric."

"Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn't have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity," Gladnick says. "Dismiss it all you like, but I've heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who've been intuitively blown away by Obama's presence - not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence - to say it's just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist whores, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord."

Get Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," personally autographed – for only $4.95, available today, but only from WND!

WND also reported when talk radio host Rush Limbaugh criticized Democrats who were comparing Obama to Jesus and Gov. Sarah Palin to Pontius Pilate.

"I know Jesus Christ. I pray to Jesus Christ all the time," said Limbaugh." I study what Jesus Christ did and said all the time, and let me tell you something, Barack Obama, you are no Jesus Christ."

He also attacked Obama's stances for abortion and sex education for children in kindergarten, saying, "I can't find any such references to Jesus promoting infanticide nor do I find any references to Jesus Christ suggesting sex education be taught to 4- and 5-year-olds, but I'm still looking in the New Testament and I'll let you all know if I come up with anything."

Democrats, including party strategist Donna Brazile and Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., made nearly identical biblical comparisons of the characters in this presidential election, which Limbaugh traced back to a Sept. 4 posting on a Washington blog.

"Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus," Cohen said during a one-minute speech on the floor of the U.S. House yesterday. "Pontius Pilate was a governor."