Lessons in Government -- Page 3
An American businessman's letter to Obama
October 25, 2008
Given the uproar about the simple question asked you by Joe the plumber, and the persecution that has been heaped on him because he dared to question you, I find myself motivated to say a few things to you myself. While Joe aspires to start a business someday, I already have started not one, but 4 businesses. But first, let me introduce myself. You can call me "Cory the well driller". I am a 54 year old high school graduate. I didn't go to college like you, I was too ready to go "conquer the world" when I finished high school. 25 years ago at age 29, I started my own water well drilling business at a time when the economy here in East Texas was in a tailspin from the crash of the early 80's oil boom. I didn't get any help from the government, nor did I look for any. I borrowed what I could from my sister, my uncle, and even the pawn shop and managed to scrape together a homemade drill rig and a few tools to do my first job. My businesses did not start as a result of privilege. They are the result of my personal drive, personal ambition, self discipline, self reliance, and a determination to treat my customers fairly. From the very start my business provided one other (than myself) East Texan a full time job. I couldn't afford a backhoe the first few years (something every well drilling business had), so I and my helper had to dig the mud pits that are necessary for each and every job with hand shovels. I had to use my 10 year old, 1/2 ton pickup truck for my water tank truck (normally a job for at least a 2 ton truck).
A year and a half after I started the business, I scraped together a 20% down payment to get a modest bank loan and bought a (28 year) old, worn out, slightly bigger drilling rig to allow me to drill the deeper water wells in my area. I spent the next few years drilling wells with the rig while simultaneously rebuilding it between jobs. Through these years I never knew from one month to the next if I would have any work or be able to pay the bills. I got behind on my income taxes one year, and spent the next two years paying that back (with penalty and interest) while keeping up with ongoing taxes. I got behind on my water well supply bill 2 different years (way behind the second time... $80,000.00), and spent over a year paying it back (each time) while continuing to pay for ongoing supplies C.O.D.. Of course, the personal stress endured through these experiences and years is hard to measure. I do have a stent in my heart now to memorialize it all.
I spent the next 10 years developing the reputation for being the most competent and most honest water well driller in East Texas. 2 years along the way, I hired another full time employee for the drilling business so that we could provide full time water well pump service as well as the well drilling. Also, 3 years along the path, I bought a water well screen service machine from a friend, starting business # 2. 5 years later I made a business loan for $100,000.00 to build a new, higher production, computer controlled screen service machine. I had designed the machine myself, and it didn't work out for 3 years so I had to make the loan payments without the benefit of any added income from the new machine. No government program was there to help me with the payments, or to help me sleep at night as I lay awake wondering how I would solve my machine problems or pay my bills. Finally, after 3 years, I got the screen machine working properly, and that provided another full time job for an East Texan in the screen service business.
2 years after that, I made another business loan, this time for $250,000.00, to buy another used drilling rig and all the support equipment needed to run another, larger, drill rig. This provided another 2 full time jobs for East Texans. Again, I spent a couple of years not knowing if I had made a smart move, or a move that would bankrupt me. For the third time in 13 years, I had placed everything I owned on the line, risking everything, in order to build a business.
A couple of years into this, I came up with a bright idea for a new kind of mud pump, a fundamentally necessary pump used on water well drill rigs. I spent my entire life savings to date (just $30,000.00), building a prototype of the pump and took it to the national water well convention to show it off. Customers immediately started coming out of the woodworks to buy the pumps, but there was a problem. I had depleted my assets making the prototype, and nobody would make me a business loan to start production of the new pumps. With several deposits for pump orders in hand, and nowhere to go, I finally started applying for as many credit card as I could find and took cash withdrawals on these cards to the tune of over $150,000.00 (including modest loans from my dear sister and brother), to get this 3rd business going.
Yes, once again, I had everything hanging over the line in an effort to start another business. I had never manufactured anything, and I had to design and bring into production a complex hydraulic machine from an untested prototype to a reliable production model (in six months). How many nights I lay awake wondering if I had just made the paramount mistake of my life I cannot tell you, but there were plenty. I managed to get the pumps into production, which immediately created another 2 full time jobs in East Texas. Some of the models in the first year suffered from quality issues due to the poor workmanship of one of my key suppliers, so I and an employee (another East Texan employed) had to drive across the country to repair customers' pumps, practically from coast to coast. I stood behind the product, and made payments to all the credit cards that had financed me (and my brother and sister). I spent the next 5 years improving and refining the product, building a reputation for the pump and the company, working to get the pump into drill rig manufacturers' product lines, and paying back credit cards. During all this time I continued to manage a growing water well business that was now operating 3 drill rig crews, and 2 well service crews. Also, the screen service business continued to grow. No government programs were there to help me, Mr. Obama, but that's ok, I didn't expect any, nor did I want any. I was too busy fighting to make success happen to sit around waiting for the government to help me.
Now, we have been manufacturing the mud pumps for 7 years, my combined businesses employ 32 full time employees, and distribute $5,000,000.00 annually through the local economy. Now, just 4 months ago I borrowed $1,254,000.00, purchasing computer controlled machining equipment to start my 4th business, a production machine shop. The machine shop will serve the mud pump company so that we can better manufacture our pumps that are being shipped worldwide. Of course, the machine shop will also do work for outside companies as well. This has already produced 2 more full time jobs, and 2 more should develop out of it in the next few months. This should work out, but if it doesn't it will be because you, and the other professional politicians like yourself, will have destroyed our countrys' (and the world) economy with your meddling with mortgage loan programs through your liberal manipulation and intimidation of loaning institutions to make sure that unqualified borrowers could get mortgages. You see, at the very time when I couldn't get a business loan to get my mud pumps into production, you were working with Acorn and the Community Reinvestment Act programs to make sure that unqualified borrowers could buy homes with no down payment, and even no credit or worse yet, bad credit. Even the infamous, liberal, Ninja loans (No Income, No Job or Assets). While these unqualified borrowers were enjoying unrealistically low interest rates, I was paying 22% to 24% interest on the credit cards that I had used to provide me the funds for the mud pump business that has created jobs for more East Texans. It's funny, because after 25 years of turning almost every dime of extra money back into my businesses to grow them, it has been only in the last two years that I have finally made enough money to be able to put a little away for retirement, and now the value of that has dropped 40% because of the policies you and your ilk have perpetrated on our country.
You see, Mr. Obama, I'm the guy you intend to raise taxes on. I'm the guy who has spent 25 years toiling and sweating, fretting and fighting, stressing and risking, to build a business and get ahead. I'm the guy who has been on the very edge of bankruptcy more than a dozen times over the last 25 years, and all the while creating more and more jobs for East Texans who didn't want to take a risk, and would not demand from themselves what I have demanded from myself. I'm the guy you characterize as "the Americans who can afford it the most" that you believe should be taxed more to provide income redistribution "to spread the wealth" to those who have never toiled, sweated, fretted, fought, stressed, or risked anything. You want to characterize me as someone who has enjoyed a life of privilege and who needs to pay a higher percentage of my income than those who have bought into your entitlement culture. I resent you, Mr. Obama, as I resent all who want to use class warfare as a tool to advance their political career. What's worse, each year more Americans buy into your liberal entitlement culture, and turn to the government for their hope of a better life instead of themselves. Liberals are succeeding through more than 40 years of collaborative effort between the predominant liberal media, and liberal indoctrination programs in the public school systems across our land.
What is so terribly sad about this is this. America was made great by people who embraced the one-time American culture of self reliance, self motivation, self determination, self discipline, personal betterment, hard work, risk taking. A culture built around the concept that success was in reach of every able bodied American who would strive for it. Each year that less Americans embrace that culture, we all descend together. We descend down the socialist path that has brought country after country ultimately to bitter and unremarkable states. If you and your liberal comrades in the media and school systems would spend half as much effort cultivating a culture of can-do across America as you do cultivating your entitlement culture, we could see Americans at large embracing the conviction that they can elevate themselves through personal betterment, personal achievement, and self reliance. You see, when people embrace such ideals, they act on them. When people act on such ideals, they succeed. All of America could find herself elevating instead of deteriorating. But that would eliminate the need for liberal politicians, wouldn't it, Mr. Obama? The country would not need you if the country was convinced that problem solving was best left with individuals instead of the government. You and all your liberal comrades have got a vested interested in creating a dependent class in our country. It is the very business of liberals to create an ever expanding dependence on government. What's remarkable is that you, who have never produced a job in your life, are going to tax me to take more of my money and give it to people who wouldn't need my money if they would get off their entitlement mentality asses and apply themselves at work, demand more from themselves, and quit looking to liberal politicians to raise their station in life.
You see, I know because I've had them work for me before. Hundreds of them over these 25 years. People who simply will not show up to work on time. People who just will not work 5 days in a week, much less, 6 days. People always looking for a way to put less effort out. People who actually tell me that they would do more if I just would first pay them more. People who take off work to sit in government offices to apply to get free government handouts (gee, I wonder how things would have turned out for them if they had spent that time earning money and pleasing their employer?). You see, all of this comes from your entitlement mentality culture.
Oh, I know you will say I am uncompassionate. Sorry, Mr. Obama, wrong again. You see, I've seen what the average percentage of your income has been given to charities over the years of 2000 to 2004 (ignoring the years you started running for office - can you pronounce "politically motivated"), you averaged less than 1% annually. And your running mate, Joe Biden, averaged less than p% of his annual income in charitable contributions over the last 10 years. Like so many liberals, the two of you want to give to the needy, just as long as it is someone else's money you are giving to them. I won't say what I have given to charities over the last 25 years, but the percentage is several times more than you and Joe Biden. combined (don't you just hate google?). Tell me again how you feel my pain.
In short, Mr. Obama, your political philosophies represent everything that is wrong with our country. You represent the culture of government dependence instead of self reliance; Entitlement mentality instead of personal achievement; Penalization of the successful to reward the unmotivated; Political correctness instead of open mindedness and open debate. If you are successful, you may preside over the final transformation of America from being the greatest and most self-reliant culture on earth, to just another country of whiners and wimps, who sit around looking to the government to solve their problems. Like all of western Europe. All countries on the decline. All countries that, because of liberal socialistic mentalities, have a little less to offer mankind every year.
God help us...
just a ordinary, extraordinary American, the way a lot of Americans used to be.
P.S. Yes, Mr. Obama, I am a real American... www.cmillerdrilling.com
Charles Krauthammer is a political writer. You can watch him on FOX News almost every weekday in the 6 PM -7 PM slot; he's on in the Commentary' section from 6:30-7 PM.
In case you are saying - oh, well then... he's just one of those right-wingers....one of those right-wing nut cases...However, he was involved with Mondale and also Carter - both in the White House.. He's a practicing psychiatrist with Mass. General. His syndicated column appears in the Washington Post.
Here's his resume: Krauthammer was born in New York City to parents of the Jewish religion whose citizenship was French. He was raised in Montreal , Canada where he attended McGill University and obtained an honors degree in political science and economics in 1970. From 1970 to 1971, he was a Commonwealth Scholar in politics at Balliol College , Oxford . He later moved to the United States , where he attended Harvard Medical School . In his first year there in 1972, Krauthammer was paralyzed in a serious diving accident.
Continuing medical studies during his year-long hospitalization, he graduated with his class, earning an M.D. From Harvard Medical School in 1975, and then began working as a psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital .
In October 1984, he became board certified in psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.From 1975-1978, Krauthammer was a Resident and then a Chief Resident in Psychiatry at the Massachusetts General Hospital . During this time he and a colleague identified a form of mania (a part of bipolar disorder) which they named 'secondary mania' and published a second important paper on the epidemiology of manic illness.
The standard textbook for bipolar disease ('Manic Depressive Illness' by Goodwin and Jamison) contains twelve references to his work. In 1978, Krauthammer quit medical practice to direct planning in psychiatric research for the Jimmy Carter administration, and began contributing to The New Republic magazine. During the presidential campaign of 1980, Krauthammer served as a speech writer to Vice President Walter Mondale.
In 1981, following the defeat of the Carter/Mondale ticket, Krauthammer began his journalistic career, joining The New Republic as a writer and editor. His New Republic writings won the 1984 'National Magazine Award for Essays and Criticism.' In 1983, he began writing essays for Time magazine. In 1985, he began a weekly column for the Washington Post for which he won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for commentary.
In 2006, the Financial Times named Krauthammer the most influential commentator in America , saying 'Krauthammer has influenced US foreign policy for more than two decades. He coined and developed `The Reagan Doctrine' in 1985 and he defined the US role as sole superpower in his essay, `The Unipolar Moment', published shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Krauthammer's 2004 speech `Democratic Realism' set out a framework for tackling the post 9/11 world, focusing on the promotion of democracy in the Middle East .'
Without being malicious or mean spirited, Charles simply tells it like it is ... A master at provoking thoughtful insight by the written word...so read what he has to say and check your own instincts...
The Perfect Stranger
by Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama is an immensely talented man whose talents have been largely devoted to crafting, and chronicling, his own life. Not things. Not ideas. Not institutions. But himself.
Nothing wrong or even terribly odd about that, except that he is laying claim to the job of crafting the coming history of the United States . A leap of such audacity is odd. The air of unease at the Democratic convention was not just a result of the Clinton psychodrama. The deeper anxiety was that the party was nominating a man of many gifts but precious few accomplishments -- bearing even fewer witnesses.
When John Kerry was introduced at his convention four years ago, an honor guard of a dozen mates from his Vietnam days surrounded him on the podium attesting to his character and readiness to lead. Such personal testimonials are the norm. The roster of fellow soldiers or fellow senators who could from personal experience vouch for John McCain is rather long. At a less partisan date in the calendar, that roster might even include Democrats Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy, with whom John McCain has worked to fashion important legislation.
Eerily missing at the Democratic convention this year were people of stature who were seriously involved at some point in Obama's life standing up to say: 'I know Barack Obama. I've been with Barack Obama. We've toiled/endured together. You can trust him. I do.'
Hillary Clinton could have said something like that. She and Obama had, after all, engaged in a historic, utterly compelling contest for the nomination. During her convention speech, you kept waiting for her to offer just one line of testimony: I have come to know this man, to admire this man, to see his character, his courage, his wisdom, his judgment. Whatever. Anything.
Instead, nothing. She of course endorsed him. But the endorsement was entirely programmatic: We're all Democrats. He's a Democrat. He believes what you believe. So we must elect him -- I am currently unavailable -- to get Democratic things done. God bless America .
Clinton's withholding the, 'I've come to know this man' was vindictive and supremely self-serving -- but jarring, too, because you realize that if she didn't do it, no one else would. Not because of any inherent deficiency in Obama's character. But simply as a reflection of a young life with a biography remarkably thin by the standard of presidential candidates.
Who was there to speak about the real Barack Obama? His wife. She could tell you about Barack the father, the husband, the family man in a winning and perfectly sincere way. But that only takes you so far. It doesn't take you to the public man, the national leader.
Who is to testify to that? Hillary's husband on night three did aver that Obama is 'ready to lead.' However, he offered not a shred of evidence, let alone personal experience with Obama. And although he pulled it off charmingly, everyone knew that, having been suggesting precisely the opposite for months, he meant not a word of it.
Obama's vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, naturally advertised his patron's virtues, such as the fact that he had 'reached across party lines to .. keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.' But securing loose nukes is as bipartisan as motherhood and as uncontroversial as apple pie. The measure was so minimal that it passed by voice vote and received near zero media coverage.
Assume John McCain had retired from politics. Would he have testified to Obama's political courage in reaching across the aisle to work with him on ethics reform, a collaboration Obama boasted about in the Saddleback debate? 'In fact,' reports the Annenberg Political Fact Check, 'the two worked together for barely a week, after which McCain accused Obama of "partisan posturing" -- and launched a volcanic missive charging him with double cross.'
So where are the colleagues? The buddies? The political or spiritual soul mates? His most important spiritual adviser and mentor was Jeremiah Wright. But he's out. Then there's William Ayers, with whom he served on a board. He's out. Where are the others?
The oddity of this convention is that its central figure is the ultimate self-made man, a dazzling mysterious Gatsby. The palpable apprehension is that the anointed is a stranger -- a deeply engaging, elegant, brilliant stranger with whom the Democrats had a torrid affair. Having slowly woken up, they see the ring and wonder who exactly they married.
Sorry to bother you Mr. Obama, Sir
Could you help me please find these things, sir?
1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- not available, locked down by faculty
4. Harvard College records -- Not released, locked down by faculty
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles - None
13. Your Record of baptism-- Not released or 'not available'
14. Your Illinois State Senate records--'not available'
You couldn't get a job at McDonald's and become district manager after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon.
You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.
'From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World .... 143 days.
We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is -- a start.
AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this and campaigning for him. We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are okay with this for the President of the United States of America ? Come on folks, we are not voting for the next American Idol!
During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term "Economic justice" at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.
And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.
"Spread the wealth"
Recurrent themes. Recurrent Marxism.
drjohn on October 28, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Monday, July 28, 2008
Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code -- socialist code.
IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism
During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.
And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.
It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.
"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.
In the past, such rhetoric was just that -- rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.
In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).
Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" -- a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.
It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.
Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.
Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" -- "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.
Among his proposed "investments":
• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.
• "Free" college tuition.
• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).
• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").
• "Free" job training (even for criminals).
• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).
• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.
• More subsidized public housing.
• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."
• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.
His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.
That's just for starters -- first-term stuff.
Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department -- from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.
You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress.
But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?
Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path -- and those who guided it -- leads to the same unsettling conclusion.
The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii -- and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.
A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 -- a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" -- was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."
As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.
"They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."
After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.
His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America.
The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.
After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" -- on a large scale.
While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply -- as well as teach -- Alinsky's "agitation" tactics.
(A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" -- terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.)
Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father's communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa.
As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses "owned by Asians and Europeans."
His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn't stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to "redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all."
"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed," Obama Sr. wrote. "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."
Taxes and "investment" . . . the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine.
(Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.)
In Kenya's recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.
With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called "black liberation theology" and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere.
Obama joined Wright's militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of "black values" that demonizes white "middle classness" and other mainstream pursuits.
(Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values "sensible." There's no mention of them in his new book.)
With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for "change" more effectively. "As an elected official," he said, "I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer."
He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud.
Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for "economic justice."
He's been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.
Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist.
Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington.
The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded "r" word.
But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.
Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them -- at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.
Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the
free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling
things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.
The Failed Two-Party System
We are ruled by a two-party dictatorship that governs in favor of a powerful
few. They control the government by giving the illusion of choice. We are
in fact ruled by an incumbency party.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
IBD: Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism
Investor's Business Daily's article Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism is definitely worth a read. An exerpt follows...
During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.
And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.
It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.
"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing
their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.
Sweden and the Myth of Benevolent Socialism
by David Dieteman
"I was walking through Gamla Stan, the Old Town in Stockholm, when it struck me that Sweden was the only country I'd ever been in with no visible crazy people. Where were the mutterers, the twitchers, the loony importunate?"
P.J. O'Rourke, Eat the Rich, Ch. 4
Sweden is the poster state for those who believe in the power of the government to solve all problems.
Frequently referred to as a "benevolent" socialist or social democratic state, to distinguish it from the run-of-the-mill socialist butcher shop, such as Cuba, China, North Korea, the USSR, and most of Africa, Latin and Central America, and Asia, Sweden is the Promised Land of the Left. Where the USSR was a departure from the genius of Karl Marx, Sweden shows the potential.
(As an aside, O'Rourke notes that the US ambassador to Sweden at the time of his visit was Thomas Siebert. He was Bill Clinton's roommate at Georgetown. O'Rourke also notes that Mrs. Siebert is a friend of Hillary Clinton. Americans can stop wondering where the most intelligent and courageous female politician ever known finds inspiration for her collectivist dreams.)
As usual, the rosy picture painted by the Left could not be farther from the truth.
First, assume that everything the Left has to say about Sweden is true. This would only make Sweden the exception which proves the rule. In other words, even if Sweden were heaven on earth, this fails to answer the question of why Cuba, China, North Korea, the USSR, and most of Africa, Latin and Central America, and Asia are much more akin to Hell on earth.
Second, it must be noted that the touted stories of Swedish socialism, if not generally false, omit important facts.
For starters, unlike the godless state to which American leftists aspire, Lutheranism is the state-supported religion of Sweden. (Despite this fact, less than 10 per cent of Swedes regularly attend church).
With respect to claim that Swedish socialism shows the "success" of socialism, as O'Rourke notes, free trade reigned in Sweden from roughly 1846 until the Social Democrats were elected in 1932. After 1932, Sweden was helped by its neutrality in World War Two. Unlike Germany, Sweden's major cities were not bombed flat. The Social Democrats, then, had a great deal of wealth produced by capitalism and undamaged by war to share as political spoils.
According to a Swiss federal government statistical comparison of Switzerland and Sweden, the percentage of Swedish unmarried pregnancies in 1996 was 54% percent -- roughly equal to the black community in the United States. The reason for this high rate of unwed pregnancies is apparent in both cases, and it is not illegal drugs: the state gives incentives to unwed mothers in the form of social benefits, with predictable results. Why go through the hassle of getting married or staying married when a government check means that such a decision has no practical consequences for your life? Over the long-term, a 54% illegitimacy rate can only undermine Swedish society.
Worst of all, the Swedes have not always acted benevolently, as reported on page A1 of the August 29, 1997, Washington Post,
From 1934 to 1974, 62,000 Swedes were sterilized as part of a national program grounded in the science of racial biology and carried out by officials who believed they were helping to build a progressive, enlightened welfare state...In some cases, couples judged to be inferior parents were sterilized, as were their children when they became teenagers.
Margot Wallstrom, the Swedish Minister of Health and Social Affairs, told the Post that "there was nothing secret about the sterilization program. It was carried out in the light of public debate at a time when Swedes believed they were creating a society that would be the envy of the world." The Swedish Institute for Racial Biology, founded in 1922, was the first national institute of the kind. The Swedes were also the first to sterilize the mentally ill, beginning in 1934.
One woman, aged 72 at the time of the Post article, was sterilized "because she couldn't read a blackboard because she did not have eyeglasses and was deemed to be retarded."
The Post also reports that Dagens Nyheter, the Swedish newspaper which ran a multi-part documentary of the sterilization program, contended that the ruling party at the time -- the Social Democrats -- "accepted the policy as an essential part of their overall philosophy." This claims is supported by the fact that, as noted above, the Social Democrats came to power in Sweden in 1932. In other words, they waited a mere two years before embarking on a program of eugenics. This would appear to make the eugenics program a high priority for the Social Democrats, as Dagens Nyheter contended.
The Irish Times of August 30, 1997, meanwhile, reports that "90 per cent of [those sterilizied] were women," and that "the practice, which predated and outlived Nazi Germany, started as an attempt to weed out perceived genetic weaknesses, mental or physical defectsand ended as a method of social control." According to Professor Gunnar Broberg, "Young girls were told they would be set free from [mental] homes and prisons 'if we are allowed to make you calmer.'"
Interestingly, among the supporters of the sterilization program were Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, according to a 1991 Swedish radio documentary produced by Bosse Lindquist. Gunnar Myrdal was a socialist economist who shared the 1974 Nobel Prize for Economics with Friedrich Hayek. Gunnary Myrdal has also been praised as a "pioneer" in race relations.
Unfortunately, sterilizations are just the tip of the iceberg. As the Irish Times and Agence-France Presse reported on April 7, 1998, a Swedish Television documentary reveals that Sweden lobotomized perhaps 4500 "undesirables," in some cases without the consent of their families:
Some 500 lobotomies were conducted on patients who were not from mental hospitals...including a seven-year-old boy in Umeaa in northern Sweden in 1949. Diagnosed as "mentally retarded, hyperactive", he died during surgery."...One man featured in the documentary, who was lobotomised in 1963, is now 67 and has no concept of time, still believing that his children are small.
In part, the benevolent socialist government of Sweden hoped to discover whether "lobotomies could cure alcoholics and criminals."
Sweden also "forced hundreds of 'mentally deficient' Swedes to let their teeth rot after being force-fed candy in dental experiments."
The allegedly "benevolent" Swedish social democrats, then, behaved very like the Nazis.
Sweden, however, is not alone in hiding its past. As the Irish Times also reports,
Since the Swedish revelations, other apparently "clean" countries have found similar skeletons in their cupboards. Both Norway and Denmark had similar policies. And this week a Swiss history professor, Hans Ulrich Jost, said Swiss doctors sterilised mentally-handicapped patients (again most of them women) against their will under a law passed in 1928. "Even Hitler requested a copy of the law from the canton and from the government in Berne as a basis for Nazi Germany's own racist laws."
The Washington Post claims that similar programs existed in Austria and Belgium, and the Telegraph (UK) recently reported that Norway sanctioned the physical and sexual abuse of children of occupying German soldiers born to Norwegian women.
As reported in the Telegraph,
victims have spoken out about the savage treatment meted out to them by the Norwegian government and by ordinary citizens during the postwar years for the crime of being Tyskerbarna or "German bastards". Many were locked away in orphanages or mental asylums for years -- where they were subjected to sexual abuse -- or had the "Germanness" beaten out of them by their Norwegian foster parents.
One girl, Tove Laila,
was taken at the age of one by the SS to her German grandparents in the east German city of Eberswalde in 1942 after her father was killed in action. Mrs Laila, now aged 59, remembers: "It was the happiest period in my life."
Alas, her happiness was not to last:
In 1947, under an agreement reached by the Allies and the Norwegian government, Mrs Laila was returned to her Norwegian mother where she was an unwelcome guest. Aged only six and speaking no Norwegian, she was beaten daily by her stepfather whenever she uttered a word of German. He later regularly sexually abused her.
The Norwegian attorney handling compensation claims against the government, Randi Hagen Spydevold, stated that "No attempt was made by the Norwegian authorities to check what kind of family Mrs Laila was being sent to. She suffered years of abuse because nobody was interested in her well-being." Mrs. Spydevold also stated that the Norwegian defense ministry and the CIA tested the effects of LSD on the children of German soldiers.
Predictably, the Norwegian government is fighting the compensation claims:
Norway's Social Democrat health minister, Tor Toenne, said: "They had an especially difficult childhood, but the misdeeds against these children were lapses. It is difficult to reconstruct what happened to them after so many years."
Right. Contrast this to the recent outrage over the claim that Swiss banks were holding money which was identifiable as having been stolen by the Nazis from Holocaust victims. Despite the fact that some of the victims in question had their property confiscated perhaps five to ten years before the Norwegian abuses began, these events took place at roughly the same time. Perhaps the Swiss just keep better records than the Norwegians.
Thankfully, the Norwegian victims are demanding justice:
The survivors are adamant, however, that the government should address one of the most shameful chapters in Norway's history. Gerd Fleischer, a 58-year-old Oslo charity organiser and the daughter of a German soldier and a Norwegian woman, said: "The terminology used to describe us was as bad as the Nazis in its contempt for mankind. I grew up as a second-class person in hell. As a civilised nation, Norway must finally apologise and bring all the facts to light."
Europe and the rest of the world indeed ought to face facts and admit their hypocrisy where eugenics and human rights are concerned.
Europe and the rest of the world should also give up their search for a magical socialist solution to the material conditions of human existence.
As Ludwig von Mises writes in The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, it is capitalism -- based upon individual liberty and private property -- which has materially advanced human life from mud huts and horrific infant mortality rates to the comfort in which much of the world lives today.
It is also in capitalist nations -- where the right to liberty and the right
to property are protected -- where men and women have been comparatively
free from the eugenic nightmares of other nations. Although prisoners and "mental
deficients" were sterilized in the United States, such programs never
reached the levels they reached in Sweden, let alone in Germany under the
A Lesson From Venezuela
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
People on the left often use other countries as examples of things that we should do. If other countries have a government-run medical system, then we should have one too, they say. If other countries control prices, then we should control prices -- or so the reasoning goes.
Almost never is there any suggestion that we should first find out whether the actual results of the policies we are supposed to imitate are better or worse than what we already have.
There is in fact a lot that we can learn from other countries if we look at the actual consequences of some of the things we are being urged to do, instead of just assuming that we should automatically imitate what others are doing.
Studies have already shown that the waiting time before being able to get surgery is several times as long in a number of countries with government-run medical systems as in the United States. Modern medical technology like MRIs and CAT scans are also rarer in such countries.
Venezuela is currently giving us a lesson on the consequences of price controls. The government of leftist President Hugo Chavez has imposed price controls -- and seems to be surprised that lower prices have lead to reduced supplies, even though price controls have led to reduced supplies in countries around the world and for thousands of years.
There were price controls back in the days of the Roman Empire, under the Pharaohs in Egypt, and in ancient Babylon. There is plenty of history to look at, if we bother.
Price controls under the Roman Emperor Diocletian led to a decline in the supply of goods. The same thing happened under President Richard Nixon's price controls in the 1970s. It has happened in Zimbabwe within the past year.
Rent control laws led to housing shortages in Cairo -- and in Berkeley, Hanoi, Paris, and other cities around the world.
When price controls in Venezuela led to food shortages, Hugo Chavez accused companies of "hoarding" food. The emperor Diocletian was similarly accusatory when his price controls reduced supplies, many centuries ago.
Political leaders always find someone else to blame for the bad consequences of their own policies.
Hugo Chavez has blamed foreign owned companies for Venezuela's food shortages and threatened to "nationalize" them. This too is an old political game that seldom does the people of the country any good.
What is remarkable is how little interest there is among the media and among the public in how often and how consistently this has happened in the wake of price controls.
When politicians today say that they are going to "bring down the cost of medical care" or make housing "affordable," what are they talking about other than price controls?
Do we want a shortage of medical care? Do you want to have to wait for months for surgery -- and suffer needlessly in the meantime, as people do in Canada and Britain?
Behind these wonderful-sounding political "solutions" to our problems is the notion that businesses are just ripping us off with arbitrarily set prices, and that the government can make them stop.
It makes a nice story and it can get votes for politicians who play the role of saviors. But it makes little economic sense. Why do so many businesses have losses, and even go bankrupt, if they can set their prices wherever they want to?
It is not uncommon for companies on the Fortune 500 list to operate in the red. Back during the days of the Great Depression of the 1930s, corporations as a whole operated in the red two years in a row.
They were trying to keep from going under while Franklin D. Roosevelt was denouncing them as "economic royalists." FDR knew how to win elections, even if he didn't know how to get the country out of the Great Depression.
That political lesson has been learned all too well, as much of the strident, anti-business political rhetoric of this election year demonstrates.
Now if only the media and the public had some interest in learning the economic
Who Is "Fascist"?
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Those who put a high value on words may recoil at the title of Jonah Goldberg's new book, "Liberal Fascism." As a result, they may refuse to read it, which will be their loss -- and a major loss.
Those who value substance over words, however, will find in this book a wealth of challenging insights, backed up by thorough research and brilliant analysis.
This is the sort of book that challenges the fundamental assumptions of its time -- and which, for that reason, is likely to be shunned rather than criticized.
Because the word "fascist" is often thrown around loosely these days, as a general term of abuse, it is good that "Liberal Fascism" begins by discussing the real Fascism, introduced into Italy after the First World War by Benito Mussolini.
The Fascists were completely against individualism in general and especially against individualism in a free market economy. Their agenda included minimum wage laws, government restrictions on profit-making, progressive taxation of capital, and "rigidly secular" schools.
Unlike the Communists, the Fascists did not seek government ownership of the means of production. They just wanted the government to call the shots as to how businesses would be run.
They were for "industrial policy," long before liberals coined that phrase in the United States.
Indeed, the whole Fascist economic agenda bears a remarkable resemblance to what liberals would later advocate.
Moreover, during the 1920s "progressives" in the United States and Britain recognized the kinship of their ideas with those of Mussolini, who was widely lionized by the left.
Famed British novelist and prominent Fabian socialist H.G. Wells called for "Liberal Fascism," saying "the world is sick of parliamentary politics."
Another literary giant and Fabian socialist, George Bernard Shaw, also expressed his admiration for Mussolini -- as well as for Hitler and Stalin, because they "did things," instead of just talk. In Germany, the Nazis followed in the wake of the Italian Fascists, adding racism in general and anti-semitism in particular, neither of which was part of Fascism in Italy or in Franco's Spain.
Even the Nazi variant of Fascism found favor on the left when it was only a movement seeking power in the 1920s.
W.E.B. DuBois was so taken with the Nazi movement that he put swastikas on the cover of a magazine he edited, despite complaints from Jewish readers.
Even after Hitler achieved dictatorial power in Germany in 1933, DuBois declared that the Nazi dictatorship was "absolutely necessary in order to get the state in order."
As late as 1937 he said in a speech in Harlem that "there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past."
In short, during the 1920s and the early 1930s, Fascism was not only looked on favorably by the left but recognized as having kindred ideas, agendas and assumptions.
Only after Hitler and Mussolini disgraced themselves, mainly by their brutal military aggressions in the 1930s, did the left distance themselves from these international pariahs.
Fascism, initially recognized as a kindred ideology of the left, has since come down to us defined as being on "the right" -- indeed, as representing the farthest right, supposedly further extensions of conservatism.
If by conservatism you mean belief in free markets, limited government, and traditional morality, including religious influences, then these are all things that the Fascists opposed just as much as the left does today.
The left may say that they are not racists or anti-semites, like Hitler, but neither was Mussolini or Franco. Hitler, incidentally, got some of his racist ideology from the writings of American "progressives" in the eugenics movement.
Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" is too rich a book to be summarized
in a newspaper column. Get a copy and start re-thinking the received notions
about who is on "the left" and who is on "the right." It
is a book for people who want to think, rather than repeat rhetoric.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Most people have too much of a sense of decency and too much common sense to have gone along with those horrors unless someone found a way to turn off their thinking and turn on their emotions.
That is how Jim Jones led hundreds of people to their deaths at Jonestown. On a much larger scale, that is how Lenin created a regime of mass murder in Russia, how Hitler did the same thing in Germany and Mao in China.
Yet we seem to be no more aware of a need to be on guard against demagoguery today, in the 21st century, than those people who looked up with open-mouthed adulation at Adolf Hitler in the 1930s and at numerous other demagogues, large and small, around the world throughout the turbulent 20th century.
Many people find it thrilling that the mantra of "change" is ringing out across the land during this election year. But let's do what the politicians hope that we will never do -- stop and think.
It is doubtful whether there is a single human being in this entire country who is 100 percent satisfied with everything that is going on. In other words, everybody is for change.
The real difference between liberals and conservatives is in which specific things they want to change, and in what way.
Milton Friedman was the leading conservative thinker of his time but he wanted to radically change the Federal Reserve, the school system, and the tax system, among other things.
Everybody is for change. They differ on the specifics. Uniting people behind the thoughtless mantra of "change" means asking for a blank check in exchange for rhetoric. That deal has been made many times in many places -- and millions of people have lived to regret it.
It is not too much to ask politicians to talk specifics, instead of trying to sweep us along, turning off our minds and turning on our emotions, with soaring rhetoric.
Optimists might even hope for some logical consistency and hard facts.
Barack Obama says that he wants to "heal America and repair the world." One wonders what he will do for an encore and whether he will rest on the seventh day.
That we have so many people who are ready to be swept along by such rhetoric is a huge danger, for it means that the fate of this great nation is at risk from any skilled demagogue who comes along.
Barack Obama says that he wants to "heal" the country while at the same time promoting the idea that all sorts of people are victims for whom he will fight.
Being divisive while proclaiming unity is something you can do only in the world of rhetoric.
Senator Obama has no monopoly on demagoguery, however. Former Senator John Edwards has been playing this game longer, even if not as effectively in the political arena.
John Edwards built his own fortune in the courtroom, depicting babies with birth defects as victims of the doctors who delivered them. The cost of such demagoguery has gone far beyond the tens of millions of dollars that Edwards pocketed for himself from gullible juries.
Such lawsuits based on junk science have driven up the cost of medical care, not only directly but even more so indirectly, by leading to an increase in Caesarean births and other costly "defensive medicine" to protect doctors rather than patients.
The world of John Edwards, like the world of Barack Obama, is a world of victims, whose savior he claims to be.
What is scary is how little interest the public and the media have in the actual track record of political saviors and the cry of generic "change."
America is not czarist Russia or Iran under the shah, so that people might think that any change was bound to be for the better. Yet even in those despotic countries the changes -- to communism and to the ayatollahs -- made them far worse.
The time is long overdue for voters to demand specifics instead of rhetoric
that turns their emotions on and their minds off.
Dangerous Demagoguery: Part II
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Everybody expects politicians to lie, especially during an election year. You can bet the rent money on it.
Among the many lies we can expect to hear this election year, none will be bigger or more often repeated, in the media as well as by politicians, than the lie that there is a widening income gap between the rich and the poor.
Why is that a lie, when there are so many statistics that seem to substantiate it?
Let's start at square one and take it a step at a time.
First of all, there is a fundamental difference between statistical categories and flesh-and-blood human beings.
When there is a growing disparity between one statistical category and another statistical category over time, that does not mean that there is a corresponding growing disparity between flesh-and-blood human beings over time, since human beings move from one statistical category to another.
The statistical categories in this case are income brackets. There is no question that incomes in the top income brackets have risen both absolutely and relative to the bottom income brackets.
The joker is that millions of people move from one income bracket to another.
The even bigger joker is that taxpayers whose incomes were in the bottom 20 percent in 1996 had a 91 percent increase in incomes by 2005.
Meanwhile, taxpayers in the top one-hundredth of one percent -- "the rich" or "superrich" if you believe politicians and the media -- had their incomes drop by 26 percent over those very same years.
Obviously, when millions of people's incomes nearly double in a decade, many of them move up out of the bottom income bracket. Similarly, when other people who were at the top see their income drop by about one-fourth, many of them drop out of that bracket.
When we talk about "the rich" and "the poor" we mean rich and poor human beings, not rich and poor statistical brackets. Yet politicians and the media treat people and statistical categories as if they were the same thing.
Part of the reason is that data on statistical brackets are more numerous and easier to find, whether from Census Bureau statistics or from a variety of other sources.
Data based on following actual flesh-and-blood individuals over time are, however, also available. The statistics quoted above are from the Treasury Department, which has people's income tax returns, so it is no problem for them to follow the same people over the years.
You can check out the numbers for yourself in a November 13, 2007 report from the Treasury Department titled "Income Mobility in the United States from 1996 to 2005." You can find a summary of the same data in a Wall Street Journal editorial that same day.
These are not the only data that tell a diametrically opposite story from the usual political and media story that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
A previous Treasury Department study showed similar patterns in individual income changes between 1979 and 1988.
Moreover, a study conducted at the University of Michigan, following the same individuals over an even longer span of time, likewise found most people moving from income bracket to income bracket over time -- especially among those who began in the bottom 20 percent.
The University of Michigan Panel Survey on Income Dynamics showed that, among people who were in the bottom 20 percent income bracket in 1975, only 5 percent were still in that category in 1991. Nearly six times as many of them were now in the top 20 percent in 1991.
There was a summary of the University of Michigan data in the 1995 annual report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, which also issued an excerpt titled "By Our Own Bootstraps."
Among the intelligentsia, it is fashionable to sneer at income mobility
as a "Horatio Alger myth" -- and, as someone once said, you cannot
refute a sneer. But, among people who have not yet abandoned facts for rhetoric,
it is worth stopping to consider whether they are being played for fools
by politicians and much of the media.
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.
Blog by "Former Democrat"
I love the way the democrats want to always accuse the right of hate speech. But when you look at the comments they consider hate speech it is nothing more than fact. So I guess the definition of hate speech is that if you do not agree with the looney left you are a racist and full of hate.
Hate is not when the left is calling Governor Palin names or just out right saying they hate her for no apparent reason and smearing her character with lies and innuendoes. Hate is not when they attack her pregnant daughter or special needs child because it is only fair that they have someone their own size to pick on. Hate is not getting assaulted just because you differ from someone else opinion. Hate is not wishing the President of the United States would get assassinated. Hate is not when you think all the people that died on 911 were little Eikmans and they got what the deserved.
The democratic party is full of hate and that is only one of the reasons
I have left them. They are not the same democratic party that my family knew.
They really have become some of the most disgusting despots known in the
history of mankind.
Socialism! There, I Said It
Friday, October 17, 2008
In certain unscripted moments, Barack Obama has given us a glimpse of his socialist inclinations, but I wonder what percentage would vote for him if they truly understood the extent of his radicalism.
Yet the financial crisis has created a climate of fear and uncertainty and unleashed an unprecedented tolerance for large-scale government intervention, which is playing perfectly into Obama's hands. People are blaming this largely Democratic-spawned mess on Republicans because Bush is still president.
Maybe I'm being too much of an alarmist, but I'm worried for the first time in my life that the election of a presidential candidate could lead to a fundamental change in our system of government. Just listen to the comments of post-debate focus group members expressing a knowing willingness to accept Obama's socialism, such is their angst at the subprime mortgage mess.
Already some 38 percent of Americans do not pay income taxes, and Barack Obama wants to increase that percentage dramatically. How ironic that he and other Democrats pretend to be targeting their message to "working-class" people when many of their constituents aren't working. But such is class warfare that the upper-middle class and wealthy are demonized as not earning an honest living.
Do you suppose it has registered with class warfare-receptive Obama voters that Obama is deliberately turning the American dream on its head? Could it be any clearer that his message to the middle class is: Don't aspire to achievement, success and wealth because a) it is immoral to have more than others, b) the government will take your wealth away from you and give it to others, and c) why bother to bust your rear end to make more when you can vote yourselves money from the public trough?
Obama let slip his socialist proclivities to Joe the plumber when he denied he wanted to punish wealth and insisted he just wanted to spread the wealth around. Joe was justifiably repulsed by Obama's cavalier attitude toward the American dream.
Democratic commentator Bob Beckel was dismissive of the significance of Obama's outright nod to socialism, saying we've had a progressive tax system since the income tax was initiated. Yes, Bob, and we've had socialists in America since then, too.
But what Beckel did not explain is that at least in those days, the stated purpose of the income tax system was to fund government services, not to redistribute wealth.
It's one thing to say that higher income earners should pay a higher percentage for government services. But Obama makes no pretense of stopping there. He told Joe that he wants to use the tax code to confiscate money from higher income earners and give it to others. But he hasn't been so open about that in the presentation of his fraudulent tax plan.
When Obama says he will cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans, he is dissembling. If 38 percent are already not paying, his tax credits to them amount to transfering payments from higher income earners, which are actually spending increases, not tax cuts, as The Wall Street Journal editors have noted.
Liberals, such as Obama, might deny human nature, but they can't change it. And human nature happens to dictate that people will not produce as much when you confiscate more of what they produce and give it to others. The working wealthy, especially Christians and conservatives, are some of the most generous people in the world, but we're talking about voluntary charitable contributions, not unconstitutionally coerced redistributions.
How many times must history repeat itself before we learn that socialism and communism cannot work. Liberals love to mock the trickledown theory, but they simply cannot refute the axiom that people produce less when they aren't allowed to keep as much of what they produce. When do-gooder social planners try to control how much we keep, they guarantee that everyone gets less in the end because they shrink the GDP pie.
We know from the writings of William Bradford that the Pilgrims learned this lesson the hard way when they tried a communal system of sharing, thinking it "would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God." Instead, "This community … was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort." Men refused to "work for other men's wives and children without any recompense; … this was thought injustice."
Socialism and communism have failed everywhere they've been tried in the world, yet die-hard socialists, such as William Ayers, still smarter than God, insist on cramming them down our throats in the name of "fairness." Unreconstructed radicals always say that true socialism hasn't been given a real chance.
Well, if Obama is elected, we may get that chance.
Letter: Creeping socialism
by Bob Ptak | Georgetown Township
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 9:00 AM
I am deeply concerned about where the National Democratic Party is headed. As a 65-plus-year-old voter, I consider myself an Independent and I have voted for as many Democrats as I have Republicans for president. I am sorry to say I can no longer vote for a Democrat.
If you pay attention to politics as I have for the past 20 years and listen to what the current Democratic leadership says and does, they are clearly heading the United States away from a capitalist society and toward socialism, where the government provides for your every need. We simply cannot afford to allow that to happen. Socialism will destroy everything our forefathers struggled and fought for and we will no longer be the super power of the world.
As far as I am concerned, the Democratic Party is really a Socialist Party.
To think otherwise is simply not acknowledging the facts and efforts that
are underway each and every day by the Democratic leadership. Perhaps it's
time for a strong third party to emerge and return to the Democratic Party
Posted by gerry0777 on 09/17/08 at 5:01PM
I guess I am a socialist! I think every american is entitled to basic health care EVERYONE. What in GODS name is wrong with that??!!!??! Health care should be a right not a privilege!
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by Outzide on 09/18/08 at
Well gerry0777, it really is as simple as this, why since I pay for my own insurance, should I have to pay for someone else's? Oh that's right, I am responsible for helping all the people who can't afford their own insurance, so not to be cold and sadistic, again explain why I, the middle class American am responsible to make sure everyone else has health insurance at my expense? Please dont tell me because it is the right thing to do. If it is so right, then you pay for it!
How about this, how about changing the legal system that has everyone so sue happy, that all the pharmaceutical companies and health care providers have to raise their prices so astronomically to cover insurance and legal claims that everything is so expensive? You could then take that money and do proper trial studies before releasing some of these oh so wonderful "medicines" to the public.
How about identifying health care as a strategic national resource like oil should be rare metals and other commodities and regulating it if it is such a national concern. It surely would be in the countries best interest if health care was affordable and less expensive, that way more people could afford to buy insurance, all without big brother government doing anything other than regulating the cost level, geez, what a concept. Then when that number of non insured is reduced, then have an insurance program for those who truly are incapable of affording insurance.
Fix the court system, regulating the health care system, viola, affordable health insurance. That could also have a side benefit of releasing that liability burden from businesses and reducing that legacy cost, thereby making them more competitive in the world market.
If neither the court system is fixed or the health care system regulated, all we will ever see is an ever upward spiralling health cost that in the end, truly only the rich can afford, and the middle class will be taxed severely to try and support.
Besides, who in their right mind ever wants a new department to staff and manage government health care, and more government style management which everyone knows is so efficient to begin with!
These are rough details, but the concept sure makes sense to me!
Ron Paul: You Can't Save Free Markets by Socialism
By tmartin • October 14, 2008
Alexis Glick: Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul. Congressman, thank you so much for taking the time to join us. You had an opportunity to hear what the president had to say. Do you agree or disagree with the choices being made this morning?
Ron Paul: Well, I can't agree with socialism, I mean this is just more government. The idea that we can create wealth out of a printing press just doesn't make any sense to me. I think what we have here is a fleet of helicopters, and Ben Bernanke said that he could always reinject credit into the market. But we're broke, we don't have real wealth and this is all new credit and we're gonna guarantee everything… everything! Bad loans, good loans, whatever, it can't work.
What if this nothing more than pushing on a string. Sure, there's a lot of credit, but what if borrowers don't want to borrow, and what if lenders are still skiddish. This is what the case has been, they haven't been wanting to even some of these big banks aren't all that anxious to be socialized. So, it is a mess.
I just can't believe for a minute that just creating credit out of thin air will solve the problem. This to me is a dollar crisis and what we're doing here is guaranteeing the devaluation of the dollar.
Alexis Glick: I was just gonna say that because you know, Congressman, you and I have talked about this on many occasions what has been happening to the dollar, particularly over the past couple of years and the fact that you're unhappy that consistently we appear to not truly be supporting a strong US dollar.
Let me ask you this: If in fact we are in the midst of a global recession and that the US is at the forefront of turning things around, and we do see the European Union cut rates aggressively, is there a chance that sort of de-facto the dollar becomes stronger because we're at the forefront of this, as opposed to us doing something that would truly restore confidence in the US dollar?
Ron Paul: Well, they're looking at the wrong thing. If you look at the dollar in relationship to other weak currencies they're all fiat currencies, so Europe is socialized and they run that debt.
How can you say the dollar is strong because temporarily it goes up against the euro or whatever? What you have to look at is the purchasing power of the dollar. You have to look at the checkbook of every American consumer and whether they have any money left over. The value of the dollar goes down, the cost of living goes up, the standard of living goes down, taxes go up, the government keeps borrowing and keeps taxing.
You can't save the dollar by printing more dollars. You can't save this financial system because the problem is based on the fact that we have been inflating and distorting the economy for so many years.
Alexis Glick: So Congressman, how do we turn this around? It appears to me though that we had frankly no choice in the matter. We saw what the European Union was doing and if we didn't do something similar, some would have suggested that all of our bandaid approaches that we put into place over the past six months would have had irreparable damage here in the United States. How do we change it?
Ron Paul: Well, you change it by allowing us to return to the marketplace. We shouldn't have the government dictating everything and all the guarantees and the loans and the inflation. You have to allow the liquidation of debt, you have to allow the market to set the prices. And what we're trying to do now is fix prices, keep prices of houses up, and financial instruments up artificially, you know, getting illiquid assets, that means they're worthless and the taxpayer has to buy these. This won't solve the problem.
In a way Japan did this. Remember how long they kept their assets on the books at false values, and we're doing the same thing again. It just delays the process.
You can't get out of it without some pain. The question is, are you gonna have a short painful period of a year, or are you gonna prolong the agony and turn us into a depression.
The NIKKEI was at peak in 1989 and is still probably 20% of what it [was then] and this is what we're doing. We are guaranteeing that this process will last for a long, long time because we don't have sound money, we don't have sound economic principles.
You can't save free markets by socialism. I don't know where this idea ever came from. You save free markets by promoting free markets and sound money and balanced budgets.
The whole reason why nobody wants to address the real problem of this is we're spending a trillion dollars a year overseas running an empire and it's coming to an end. This country is bankrupt and we won't admit it. Eventually though the dollar will go bust and we will bring our troops home and we will live within our means but we ought to do it sensibly rather than waiting for the collapse of the dollar and this is what we're doing.
We're on the verge of destroying our dollar and then, you think we have problems now, problems then will be a lot worse. It will look like the Weimar Republic or a third world nation, and a lot of people know that and they're scared to death, but we don't need to be making the problem worse by just propping up everything with more government programs and more inflation and more helicopters, it won't work.
Ex-CIA Expert: Obama Took Millions in Illegal Foreign Donations
Wednesday, October 29, 2008 9:27 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
A Newsmax investigation of Obama/Biden campaign contributors, undertaken in conjunction with a private investigative firm headed by a former CIA operations officer, has identified 118 donors who appear to lack U.S. citizenship.
Some of these "red flag" donors work for foreign governments; others have made public statements declaring that they are citizens of Cameroun, Nigeria, Pakistan, Canada, and other countries.
A Newsmax sampling of about 3,400 donors also found hundreds more who showed "yellow flags" such as not having used a Social Security number or a known U.S. address. Most U.S.-born citizens are issued Social Security numbers at birth or by the time they enter kindergarten.
Under federal law, only U.S. citizens or permanent residents may donate to federal political campaigns. It is illegal for the campaigns to accept money knowingly from foreign donors.
The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill of 2002 placed new restrictions on political fundraising after the scandals of 1996, when the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign was exposed for having taken millions of dollars of unregulated soft money from donors with ties to Chinese military intelligence.
But even with the new laws, it remains very difficult to identify with any precision foreign money if a campaign itself does not cooperate with the Federal Election Commission and perform its own due diligence.
Until very recently, the Obama campaign had no safeguards in its online fundraising Web site designed to weed out foreign donors. Instead, its operations appeared to be designed specifically to enhance the flow of illegal money.
The Newsmax investigation focused only on donors whose names the Obama campaign disclosed, which are available to public scrutiny through the Federal Election Commission Web site.
In addition to the donations the campaign has disclosed, however, it has taken an unprecedented $218 million from donors whose names it is keeping secret, according to FEC spokesman Robert Biersack.
That money came from individuals who in theory never passed the threshold of $200, the limit the FEC set for public disclosure of a donor's name and place of residence, so there is no way of knowing how much foreign money could be included in that amount.
For example, hidden away amidst the unprecedented $150 million Obama claims to have raised from individual donors in September was more than $42 million raised from secret donors. These donations appear in the records as a single entry under the heading, "Donors, Unitemized."
Newsmax retained the services of former CIA operations officer Frederick W. Rustmann Jr. and a team of international forensic accounting experts to comb through Obama's donor list to identify those who apparently aren't U.S. citizens or residents. Rustmann, a 24 year veteran field officer, operates CTC International Group Ltd., a West Palm Beach, Fla., firm that provides business intelligence services and analysis.
Using sophisticated Internet search tools, fee-based data bases, and other public records, CTC attempted to identify Social Security numbers and U.S. addresses connected to the Obama donors. Most of these donors gave obvious overseas addresses when they made their donations, but the Obama campaign had no security screen to detect them.
"Hillary and McCain demanded proof of citizenship of all their donors," Rustmann said. "Obama did not, so he benefitted by receiving an enormous amount of money from foreign donors who wanted to influence the U.S. election process."
Rustmann and his investigative team expressed "high suspicions" that 118 donors flagged as "red" were not U.S. citizens.
"That's all we can say for certain, because it's difficult to prove citizenship with no database that lists citizens," Rustmann said.
Typical is Victor A. of Lagos, Nigeria, who gave $500 to the campaign in May. In the FEC database, his address is listed as Ikoyi, NA. But a closer look at the actual itemized receipts filed by the campaign shows that he declared his address as 9e Awori Street Dolphin Estate, Lagos, Nigeria.
That apparently slipped by the eagle eyes of the Obama campaign's finance team.
A survey of the Obama donor base returns 8,794 donations from individuals who gave their state as "NA." They included donors from Bangalore, India; London; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Lagos, Nigeria; and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Thousands more gave state abbreviations that, combined with the city addresses they listed, clearly referred to foreign countries. Examples include IT (Italy), FR (France), GR (Greece), NZ (New Zealand), JP (Japan), GA (Gaza).
Another 2,372 donors gave their state of residence as "ZZ," with cities including Moscow, Barcelona, Beirut, London, Lausanne, Singapore, Hagatna, Gunma-Ken, Buelach, Shanghai, Geneva, Prague, Aichi-Gun, Kiev, Hong Kong, and others.
The Obama campaign claims that these donors with overseas addresses are Americans living abroad, but there is no way of knowing that for certain because the campaign has not systematically required proof of citizenship from overseas donors.
The pace of foreign donations and other questionable fundraising practices has increased during the past few weeks, even as Obama campaign spokesmen say they have closed loopholes on their Web site and changed the credit-card authorization procedures that have allowed such donations. The Federal Election Commission had flagged 16,639 potential foreign donations as of Oct. 21 that brought in $5,249,263.96 to the campaign.
Take the case of Jo Jacquet, who gave $23,065 to Obama in 23 separate contributions last month. CTC found three people with variations of the name "Jo Anna Jacquet" who had U.S. addresses and Social Security numbers. It is not clear whether this specific Obama donor is a U.S. citizen.
"Jo Jacquet" made all of her contributions on two days, alternating between $5 and $2,300 charges to a credit card.
On all of the donations, she gave her employer as "DFDFGDFG," and her profession as "DFGDFGDFGHFGH." None of this attracted the suspicions of the Obama campaign or of Chase Paymentech, the company that processes the Obama campaign's credit card donations.
The FEC requested that the Obama campaign re-attribute or re-designate all of the money from "Jo Jacquet" that went beyond the $4,600 limit but did not require that it be refunded. Under campaign finance rules, the campaign can shift this money into the "Obama Victory" account, a joint fundraising committee with much higher individual limits that it operates with the Democratic National Committee.
One apparent reason for the unusual number of foreign donors who may not hold U.S. citizenship is the fact the Obama campaign turned off the security features most merchants demand for customers when doing online transactions, such as verifying the card number against the cardholder's name and billing address.
Another major loophole is the apparent widespread use of gift cards, which notoriously have been used for money-laundering purposes, especially in places such as Russia and Ukraine, industry security analysts tell Newsmax.
Newsmax asked James Wester, a spokesman for Chase Paymentech, who was responsible for taking the unusual step of deactivating the Address Verification Service recommended by VISA USA on the Obama Web site. Such security features can be deactivated by the processing company, or at the request of the merchant, in this case, Obama for America.
Wester said that Paymentech was "not going to be issuing a statement at this time."
VISA USA has a series of verification tools it recommends to online merchants to prevent online credit card fraud and to guarantee the security of personal credit-card information.
"Fraudsters have been known to test credit card numbers by making online donations to charitable organizations," a credit-card industry insider told Newsmax, on condition of anonymity.
In fact, by operating as a "high-risk merchant," the Obama campaign could put both its donors and Chase Paymentech at risk, he said.
"A legitimate online merchant or charity would call in the Secret Service or the FBI" if it saw the high fraud rates that have appeared on the Obama campaign Web site.
"If they are not taking basic security safeguards to prevent such obvious online fraud as you have found, then how can any donor have confidence that they will protect credit card information? But if cash flow is the name of the game, it doesn't matter as long as they get the money up-front and get the job done. They can pay the fines later," he added.
Following are a few of the individuals the Newsmax/CTC International investigation found of overseas donors. To demonstrate its compliance with FEC regulations, the Obama campaign should request proof that these individuals are, indeed, U.S. citizens;
Nasser Z. of 187 Blvd Bineau in Paris-France, "NA," made seven donations totaling $785. CTC found no record indicating U.S. citizenship. But on Nasser's personal blog, he states that he is of Algerian origin and lives between Paris and Dubai. He also notes that he is not registered to vote in the United States and hints that he may be an adviser to the Obama campaign on Arab relations.
Salem H. gave $200 to the campaign in March 2008, listing a London address. He said he worked as a salesman for "Anaka," No information was found either on Haffar or his company indicating U.S. citizenship.
Essomba H. made 11 donations totaling $265. Essomba gave an address in Lyon, "NA," and said he was unemployed but working for "Association," the French equivalent of a community organizer. CTC found that Essomba actually worked for PDT Associates Afrikespace et Oyenga, which showed him as living in Lyon, France. His personal blog states, "I'm a Cameroonian living in France" and notes that he is not registered to vote.
Gedewon (or Gideon) G. made 32 donations totaling $1,095. Although he lists his employer as "Filtom Design Services" and his residence as Toronto, Canada, CTC could find no company with that name. Gedewon frequently posts blogs to a Web site for expatriate Eritreans, where he often promotes Obama.
Mahamane M. gave $500 to the campaign and listed his address as Niamey, the capitol of the central African state of Niger. He listed his occupation as managing director of C.N.U.T. Niger. The Public Transport Users Council, CNUT is affiliated with the prime minister's office. In an interview, Mahamane said he is particularly interested in developing transportation resources that will help bring Niger's extensive uranium resources to market.
Gilles M. lives in Zurich and claims to be "founder and senior consultant" of 4?ME (sic) Image Consulting. Gilles made three donations to the campaign for a total of $240.39. The campaign found him suspicious enough to return one of them in July, but kept the rest. Under FEC rules, that will bring Gilles back into the shadows, since his aggregate contributions now total less than $200.
Stamen S. of Sofia, Bulgaria, lists his profession as "Mployer" and his employer as "Employer." He has made ten donations totaling $170. CTC found no record indicating U.S. citizenship.
Francis B. . of La Creche, France, made three donations totaling $200. He is reported as being a medicine physician at Hospital-Niort and is listed. CTC found no verifiable record of U.S. citizenship.
Pedro M.,. who said he was a salesman for Intermundo in Prague, made two donations for a total of $900. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.
Sandeep M., . an investment manager at Clariden Leu, Kuesnacht, in Zurich, Switzerland, gave the maximum $2,300 allowed per election. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.
Marissa M., . a nurse living in Guatemala City, gave eight $25 donations. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.
Somine L. . declared that she worked at the French Ministry of Culture in Paris, and donated $100. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.
Although CTC had no way of accurately evaluating the real amount of foreign donations based on the survey they did for Newsmax, Rustmann said he believe that the anecdotal evidence was clear.
"In my opinion, from what I have seen here, millions of dollars came from illegal donations, because the Obama campaign did little to vet the donors," Rustmann said.
An earlier Newsmax estimate, based on the unusual occurrence of unrounded contributions, which fundraising experts attributed to foreign currency donations, concluded that as much as $63 million could have come from foreign sources.
A veteran investigator with the Criminal Investigative Division of the U.S. Secret Service told Newsmax on Monday that most of the donor fraud Newsmax has identified could fly under the radar of federal investigators, unless the feds received a complaint from a victim of identify fraud.
Identify fraud certainly appeared to be the case when it came to the $174,800 donated in September in the name of Manchester, Mo., resident, Mary T. Biskup. A retired insurance manager, Biksup told The Washington Post that she never gave the money to the Obama campaign, and had checked her credit-card statements and couldn't find any trace of a charge to her account.
"We're not out a penny," Biskup said. "I gather that someone has hacked into something using other people's credit cards and putting my name on it."
The credit-card industry often covers up identify fraud, such as apparently
occurred with Biskup. Credit-card companies would rather swallow losses and
chargebacks than admit to consumers that criminals have cracked their security
systems, insiders tell Newsmax.
Hillary Backers Decry Massive Obama Vote Fraud
Monday, October 27, 2008 10:45 AM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
With accusations of voter registration fraud swirling as early voting begins in many states, some Hillary Clinton supporters are saying: "I told you so."
Already in Iowa, the Obama campaign was breaking the rules, busing in supporters from neighboring states to vote illegally in the first contest in the primaries and physically intimidating Hillary supporters, they say.
Obama's surprisingly strong win in Iowa, which defied all the polls, propelled his upstart candidacy to front-runner status. But Lynette Long, a Hillary supporter from Bethesda, Md., who has a long and respected academic career, believes Obama's victory in Iowa and in 12 other caucus states was no miracle. "It was fraud," she told Newsmax.
Long has spent several months studying the caucus and primary results.
"After studying the procedures and results from all 14 caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process," she said.
In Hawaii, for example, the caucus organizers ran out of ballots, so Obama operatives created more from Post-its and scraps of paper and dumped them into ice cream buckets. "The caucuses ended up with more ballots than participants, a sure sign of voter fraud," Long said.
In Nevada, Obama supporters upturned a wheelchair-bound woman who wanted to caucus for Hillary, flushed Clinton ballots down the toilets, and told union members they could vote only if their names were on the list of Obama supporters.
In Texas, more than 2,000 Clinton and Edwards supporters filed complaints with the state Democratic Party because of the massive fraud. The party acknowledged that the Obama campaign's actions "amount to criminal violations" and ordered them to be reported to state and federal law enforcement, but nothing happened.
In caucus after caucus, Obama bused in supporters from out of state, intimidated elderly voters and women, and stole election packets so Hillary supporters couldn't vote. Thanks to these and other strong-arm tactics, Obama won victories in all but one of the caucuses, even in states such as Maine where Hillary had been leading by double digits in the polls.
Obama's win in the caucuses, which were smaller events than the primaries and were run by the party, not the states, gave him the margin of victory he needed to win a razor-thin majority in the delegate count going into the Democratic National Convention.
Without these caucus wins, which Long and others claim were based on fraud, Clinton would be the Democrats' nominee running against John McCain.
Citing a detailed report on the voting results and delegate accounts by accountant Piniel Cronin, "there were only four pledged delegates between Hillary and Obama once you discount caucus fraud," Long said.
Long has compiled many of these eyewitness reports from the 14 caucus states in a 98-page, single-spaced report and in an interactive Web site: www.caucusanalysis.org.
The Obama campaign recently admitted that it paid an affiliate of ACORN, the controversial community organizer that Obama represented in Chicago, more than $832,000 for "voter turnout" work during the primaries. The campaign initially claimed the money had been spent on "staging, sound and light" and "advance work."
State and federal law enforcement in 11 states are investigating allegations of voter registration fraud against the Obama campaign. ACORN workers repeatedly registered voters in the name of "Mickey Mouse," and registered the entire starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys twice: once in Nevada, and again in Minnesota.
A group that has worked with ACORN in the past registered a dead goldfish under the name "Princess Nudelman" in Illinois. When reporters informed Beth Nudelman, a Democrat, that her former pet was a registered voter, she said, "This person is a dead fish."
ACORN was known for its "intimidation tactics," said independent scholar Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., who has researched Obama's long-standing ties to the group.
Fully 30 percent of 1.3 million new voters ACORN claims to have registered this year are believed to be illegitimate.
Long shared with Newsmax some of the emails and sworn affidavits she received from Hillary supporters who witnessed first-hand the thuggish tactics employed by Obama campaign operatives in Iowa and elsewhere.
Jeff, a precinct captain for Clinton from Davenport, Iowa, thought his caucus was in the bag for his candidate, until just minutes before the voting actually began.
"From 6-6:30 p.m., it appeared as I had expected. Young, old males, females, Hispanics, whites, gay and lesbian friends arriving. Very heavily for Ms. Clinton, a fair amount for Edwards and some stragglers for Obama," he said.
That makeup corresponded to what he had witnessed from many precinct walks he had made through local neighborhoods.
"My mind began to feel victory for my lady,' he said. "THEN: at 6:50 p.m., over 75 people of African-American descent came walking in, passed the tables and sat in the Obama section. I knew one of them from my canvassing. I knew another one who did not live in this precinct. And aside from four or five families that live on Hillandale Road, there are no other black people in this unusually white precinct. And one of those black couples were in my Hillary section," he said.
Thanks to the last-minute influx of unknown Obama supporters, Obama won twice the number of delegates from the precinct as Hillary Clinton.
After it was over, "a very large bus was seen in the parking lot afterwards carrying these folks back" to Illinois, Jeff said.
Obama's flagrant busing of out-of-state caucus participants from Illinois was so obvious that even Joe Biden -- today his running mate, then his rival -- pointed it out at the time.
At a campaign stop before the Jan. 3 caucus at the JJ Diner in Des Moines, Biden "said what we were all thinking when he got on stage and said, 'Hello Iowa!' and then turned to Barack's crowd and shouted, 'and Hello Chicago!'" another precinct captain for Hillary told Long.
Thanks to Illinois campaign workers bused across the border into Iowa, all the precincts in eastern Iowa went for Obama, guaranteeing his win in the caucuses, Long said.
Obama supporters were also bused into northeast Iowa from Omaha, Nebraska, where Obama campaign workers were seen handing out "i-pods and free stuff: T-shirts, clothes, shoes, and free meals" to students and people in homeless shelters," according to eyewitness reports Long collected.
In Iowa City, red and white chartered buses with Illinois license plates arrived from Illinois packed with boisterous African-American high school students, who came to caucus for Obama in Iowa after being recruited by Obama campaign workers.
2,000 complaints in Texas
In a change in the Democratic National Committee rules for this year's election season, four states had caucuses and primaries: Washington, Nebraska, Idaho, and Texas. "But Texas is the only one that counted both the caucus result and the primary result," Long told Newsmax. "The others didn't count the primary at all, calling it a 'beauty contest.'"
Because caucuses are more informal, and can last hours, they tend to favor candidates with a strong ground operation or whose supporters use strong-arm tactics to intimidate their rivals.
"There is inherent voter disenfranchisement in the caucuses," Long said. "Women are less likely to go to caucuses than men, because they don't like the public nature of the caucus. The elderly are less likely to go to a caucus. People who work shifts can't go if they work the night shift. And parents with young children can't go out for four hours on a week night. All these people are traditionally Clinton supporters," she said.
But Obama's victories in the caucuses weren't the result of better organization, Long insists. "It was fraud."
In state after state, Hillary was leading Obama in the polls right up until the last minute, when Obama won a landslide victory in the caucuses.
The discrepancies between the polls and the caucus results were stunning, Long told Newsmax. The most flagrant example was Minnesota. A Minnesota Public Radio/Humphrey Institute poll just one week before the Feb. 5 caucus gave Hillary a 7-point lead over Obama, 40-33.
But when the Minnesota caucus results were counted, Obama won by a landslide, with 66.39 percent to just 32.23 percent for Hillary, giving him 48 delegates, compared with 24 for Clinton.
"No poll is that far off," Long told Newsmax.
Similar disparities occurred in 13 of 14 caucus states.
In Colorado and Idaho, Obama had a 2-point edge over Hillary Clinton in the polls, but won by more than 2-1 in the caucuses, sweeping most delegates.
In Kansas, Hillary had a slight edge over Obama in the polls, but Obama won 74 percent of the votes in the caucus and most of the delegates. In nearly every state, he bested the pre-caucus polls by anywhere from 12 percent to more than 30 percent.
This year's primary rules for the Democrats favored the caucus states over the primary states.
"Caucus states made up only 1.1 million (3 percent) of all Democratic votes, but selected 626 (15 percent) of the delegates," says Gigi Gaston, a filmmaker who has made a documentary on the caucus fraud.
In Texas alone, she says, there were more than 2,000 complaints from Hillary Clinton and John Edwards supporters of Obama's strong-arm tactics.
One Hillary supporter, who appears in Gaston's new film, "We Will Not Be Silenced," says she received death threats from Obama supporters after they saw her address in an online video she made to document fraud during the Texas caucus. "People called me a whore and a skank," she said.
John Siegel, El Paso Area Captain for Hillary, said, "Some people saw outright cheating. Other people just saw strong-arm tactics. I saw fraud."
Another woman, who was not identified in the film, described the sign-in process. "You're supposed to sign your names on these sheets. The sheets are supposed to be controlled, and passed out -- this is kind of how you maintain order. None of that was done. The sheets were just flying all over the place. You could put in your own names. You could add your own sheets or anything. It was just filled with fraud."
Other witnesses described how Obama supporters went through the crowds at the caucus telling Hillary supporters they could go home because their votes had been counted, when in fact no vote count had yet taken place.
"I couldn't believe this was happening," one woman said in the film. "I thought this only happened in Third World countries."
On election day in Texas, Clinton campaign lawyer Lyn Utrecht issued a news release that the national media widely ignored.
"The campaign legal hot line has been flooded with calls containing specific accusations of irregularities and voter intimidation against the Obama campaign," she wrote. "This activity is undemocratic, probably illegal, and reflects a wanton disregard for the caucus process."
She identified 18 separate precincts where Obama operatives had removed voting packets before the Clinton voters could arrive, despite a written warning from the state party not to remove them.
The hot line also received numerous calls during the day that "the Obama campaign has taken over caucus sites and locked the doors, excluding Clinton campaign supporters from participating in the caucus," she wrote.
"There are numerous instances of Obama supporters filing out precinct convention sign-in sheets during the day and submitting them as completed vote totals at caucus. This is expressly against the rules," she added.
But no one seemed to care.
Despite Clinton's three-and-a-half point win in the Texas primary -- 50.87 percent to 47.39 percent -- Obama beat her in the caucus the same day by 56 to 43.7 percent, giving him a 38-to-29 advantage in delegates.
Linda Hayes investigated the results at the precinct level in three state Senate districts. Under the rules of the Texas Democratic Party, participants in the caucuses had to reside in the precinct where they were caucusing, and had to have voted in the Democratic primary that same day.
When she began to see the results coming in from the precincts that were wildly at variance with the primary results, "I could see that something was wrong," Hayes said.
Hayes says she found numerous anomalies as she went through the precinct sign-in sheets.
"Many, many, many Obama people either came to the wrong precinct, they did not sign in properly, they did not show ID, or they did not vote that day." And yet, their votes were counted.
In a letter to Rep. Lois Capps, a Clinton supporter calling himself "Pacific John," described the fraud he had witnessed during the caucuses.
"On election night in El Paso, it became obvious that the Obama field campaign was designed to steal caucuses. Prior to that, it was impossible for me to imagine the level of attempted fraud and disruption we would see," he wrote.
"We saw stolen precincts where Obama organizers fabricated counts, made false entries on sign-in sheets, suppressed delegate counts, and suppressed caucus voters. We saw patterns such as missing electronic access code sheets and precinct packets taken before the legal time, like elsewhere in the state. Obama volunteers illegally took convention materials state-wide, with attempts as early as 6:30 am."
The story of how Obama stole the Democratic Party caucuses -- and consequently, the Democratic Party nomination -- is important not just because it prefigures potential voter fraud in the Nov. 4 presidential election, which is under way.
It's important because it fits a pattern that Chicago journalists and a few national and international commentators have noticed in all of the elections Obama has won in his career.
NBC correspondent Martin Fletcher described Obama's first election victory, for the Illinois state Senate, in a recent commentary that appeared in the London Telegraph.
"Mr. Obama won a seat in the state Senate in 1996 by the unorthodox means of having surrogates successfully challenge the hundreds of nomination signatures that candidates submit. His Democratic rivals, including Alice Palmer, the incumbent, were all disqualified," Fletcher wrote.
Obama's election to the U.S. Senate "was even more curious," conservative columnist Tony Blankley wrote in The Washington Times.
Citing an account that appeared in The Times of London, Blankley described how Obama managed to squeeze out his main Democratic rival, Blair Hull, after divorce papers revealed allegations that Hull had allegedly made a death threat to his former wife.
Then in the general election, "lightning struck again," Blankley wrote, when his Republican opponent, wealthy businessman Jack Ryan, was forced to withdraw in extremis after his divorce papers revealed details of his sexual life with his former wife.
Just weeks before the election, the Illinois Republican party called on Alan Keyes of Maryland to challenge Obama in the general election. Obama won a landslide victory.
"Mr. Obama's elections are pregnant with the implications that he has so far gamed every office he has sought by underhanded and sordid means," Blankley wrote, while "the American media has let these extraordinary events simply pass without significant comment."
Hillary Clinton supporters, belatedly, now agree.
More ACORN Fraud Exposed: ACORN Whistleblowers
Monday, October 13, 2008 9:15 PM
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 Ignores Credit Card Donation Fraud
Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:01 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
What do Bart Simpson, Family Guy, Daffy Duck, King Kong, O.J. Simpson, and Raela Odinga have in common?
All are celebrities; and with the exception of Odinga and O.J. Simpson, they also are fictional characters. And yet, all of them gave money earlier this month to the campaign of Barack Obama, without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors.
The Obama fundraising machine may owe its sensational success in part to a relaxation of standard online merchant security practices, which has allowed illegal donations from foreign donors and from unknown individuals using anonymous "gift" cards, industry analysts and a confidential informant tell Newsmax.
An ongoing Newsmax investigation into the Obama campaign's finance reports has exposed multiple instances of campaign finance violations and has been cited in a formal complaint to the Federal Election Commission filed by the Republican National Committee on Oct. 6.
Though many of the known violations include donations in excess of the $2,300 per election limit on individual contributions and contributions from foreign nationals, the extent of the amount of fraud is hidden because of a loophole in federal election law.
Campaigns are not required to disclose contributors who donate less than $200 -- and Obama's campaign refuses to release their names, addresses, and donation amounts. Obama has collected a staggering $603.2 million. Most of the money -- $543.3 million -- has come from individual contributors, half of it from "small" donors Obama won't disclose.
The Obama campaign has turned a blind eye to the possibility of donor fraud. Reportedly, during the heated primary battle with Hillary Clinton, the Obama campaign "turned off" many of the security features on its online donor page, allowing any person with a valid credit card number to donate using any name or address.
Typically, card merchants require a cardholder's name to match critical personal details, such as an address or, at the least, a ZIP code.
Though in recent months the Obama campaign has tightened up security and restored some of the security features used by merchants to weed out fraud, it still has left open easy ways for potential credit card fraud, including techniques similar to those employed by terrorists and drug traffickers to launder illicit funds.
For example, on Oct. 14, an individual using the name "O.J. Simpson" participated in Obama's latest small-donor fundraising drive, making a $5 donation through the campaign's Web site.
Giving a Los Angeles address, he listed his employer as the "State of Nevada" and his occupation as "convict." The donor used a disposable "gift" credit card to make the donation.
The Obama campaign sent O.J. a thank-you note confirming his contribution, and gave him the name of another donor who had agreed to "match" his contribution.
Four minutes earlier, an individual using the name "Raela Odinga" also made a $5 contribution, using the same credit card.
The real Raela Odinga became prime minister of Kenya in April and has claimed to be a cousin of Obama's through a maternal uncle.
Obama donor "Raela Odinga" listed his address as "2007 Stolen Election Passage" in "Nairobi, KY." This credit card donation raised no alarm bells in the Obama campaign.
A few minutes earlier, "Daffy Duck" gave $5 to the Obama matching campaign, listing his address as "124 Wacky Way, Beverly Hills, Calif."
But just as with Odinga's address, the "Wacky Way" address failed to raise any alarm bells or security traps on the Obama Web site. Daffy Duck also used the same credit card.
Within the hour, three other new donors gave $5 to the Obama campaign. They were:
Bart Simpson, of 333 Heavens Gate, Beverly Hills, Calif.
Family Guy, of 128 KilltheJews Alley, Gaza, GA.
King Kong, of 549 Quinn Street, Capitol Heights, Md.
Newsmax learned of these contributions, which were all made on a single $25 Visa gift card (oddly, the total was $30), from a source that requested anonymity.
Calling himself "Bart Simpson," the tipster said he had been following the Newsmax investigation of Obama's campaign finance irregularities "with great interest," and believed that some of the small donations were coming from gift cards -- "you know, the type of disposable debit card you can pick up at Rite-Aid or just about any supermarket."
[Editor's Note: See "Obama Campaign Runs Afoul of Finance Rules."]
"I tried it myself a few days ago," he said. "I'm attaching for you proof of the contributions I made in the names of Daffy Duck, Bart Simpson, Raela Odinga, and Family Guy.
"What this means is that the Obama campaign does no verification of the name of the contributor. With a normal credit card, this wouldn't wor[k], but with these disposable debit cards, no problem!
"This needs to be exposed," he said.
The tipster attached the confirmation pages from the Obama Web site showing the names of the donors, and in some cases, the names of other Obama donors who had agreed to "match" their contributions.
None of the matching donors' names appears in the Obama campaign's public disclosures to the FEC.
Other donors with clearly fictitious names revealed previously by Newsmax, The Los Angeles Times, and blogger Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) include "Dertey Poiiuy," "Mong Kong," "Fornari USA," and "jkbkj Hbkjb."
Five major companies process the bulk of all credit card transactions made in the United States, industry insiders tell Newsmax. The Obama campaign paid one of them, Chase Paymentech, just over $2 million to process its online transactions.
"We never discuss our relationships with any of our merchants, or customers we work with," James Wester, a spokesman for Chase Paymentech, told Newsmax.
Newsmax asked whether Chase Paymentech had any security feature that would allow it to identify individuals making contributions using gift cards, but Wester declined to comment.
But other industry analysts, who asked not to be identified by name because of the sensitive nature of the issue, told Newsmax that processors could track gift cards and debit cards "only by the numbers on the cards."
"There are no names associated with these cards, so as a processor, you have no way of knowing who made the transaction," one industry analyst said.
Anyone can go into a supermarket or a Rite-Aid and buy a batch of these cards with cash, so there is no trace of the transaction, he added.
"It's like walk-around money. They could be handing these things out as perks" to newly registered voters or others, "and there's no way of tracing who is using them."
Ken Boehm, a lawyer with 30 years of experience in campaign finance law, said that such contributions were clearly illegal.
"Making a contribution in the name of another person is the only part of federal election law that actually carries a criminal penalty," he told Newsmax. Boehm is the CEO of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.
The Obama campaign has paid Synetech Group Inc. of Charlottesville, Va., close to $2 million to compile all of the campaign contribution data from online contributors, bundlers, telemarketers, campaign events, and direct-mail campaigns, and process it for submission to the FEC.
The sheer scope of the Obama fundraising juggernaut was "never contemplated by the FEC," a company official told Newsmax, asking not to be quoted by name.
"It's a lot of data. You're talking 7 million contributions," he said.
The campaign itself is responsible for screening out fraudulent donors, not Synetech, he said. "I've been doing this for 30 years, and this is as well-managed as any [campaign]. It's just huge. When it's this big, any little thing becomes something more than it is."
One of the biggest problems the campaign faces is fraud, he said. "It's a colossal problem. They're paying the campaign with other people's money."
Individuals such as "Doodad Pro" and "Good Will" who made hundreds of contributions to the campaign in excess of the legal limits were not working for the campaign, but for themselves, he insisted.
"It's all fraud. They do it for kicks. Or they're testing the cards. The campaign doesn't want this. Why on earth do they want to have all these messy little transactions? It's a colossal pain."
However, the campaign itself has solicited these "messy little transactions" in numerous e-mails to supporters.
For instance, just days before the Democratic National Convention in Denver, campaign manager David Plouffe sent an e-mail to supporters, asking them to "make a donation of $5 or more before midnight this Thursday, July 31st, and you could go backstage with Barack."
Since them, the campaign has run several small donation drives, claiming to "match" donations of $5, $10, or $25 with an equal amount for a previous donor.
Newsmax put a series of questions to the Obama campaign more than a week ago in preparation for this article, such as whether its Internet contribution system automatically matches donors' names and addresses to their credit card numbers, as is common industry practice with online stores.
Newsmax also asked if the campaign uses a similar security screen to match a donor's name and address to the card number when the donor uses a debit card or a gift card.
Despite multiple requests from Newsmax, the Obama campaign declined to comment
for this story.
Obama's Secret Campaign Cash: Has $63 Million Flowed from Foreign Sources?
Sunday, October 19, 2008 6:28 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
As Barack Obama reaped a stunning $150 million in campaign donations in September, bringing his total to more than $600 million, new questions have arisen about the source of his amazing funding.
By Obama's own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain's campaign, Obama won't release the names of these donors.
A Newsmax canvass of disclosed Obama campaign donors shows worrisome anomalies, including outright violations of federal election laws.
For example, Obama has numerous donors who have contributed well over the $4,600 federal election limit.
Many of these donors have never been contacted by the Obama campaign to refund the excess amounts to them.
And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.
According to a Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign data before the latest figures were released, potential foreign currency donations could range anywhere from $12.8 million to a stunning $63 million in all. With the addition of $150 million raised in September, this amount could be much more.
When asked by Newsmax about excess contributions, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said that contributions already identified as excess had been returned and that those the campaign was just learning about -- either through news accounts or from the Federal Election Commission -- "will be returned."
"Every campaign faces the challenge of screening and reviewing its contributions," LaBolt said. "And we have been aggressive about taking every available step to make sure our contributions are appropriate, updating our systems when necessary."
But many of the donors Newsmax canvassed said they had "never" been contacted by the Obama campaign or seen any refunds, even though their contributions went over the limit months ago.
In all, Newsmax found more than 2,000 donors who had contributed in excess of the $4,600 limit for individuals per election cycle.
Such donations, if not returned within 60 days, are a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws.
Lisa Handley, a stay-at-home mom from Portland, Ore., recalled giving $4,600 to the Obama campaign by credit card, contributions she made because "I love Obama," she said.
According to FEC records, however, she gave an additional $2,300 to the campaign, putting her over the limit.
The Obama campaign reported that it had "redesignated" the excess money, which could mean that it had contributed it to a separate party committee or a joint fundraising committee, which have higher limits.
But if that happened, it's news to Handley. "No one ever contacted me to return any of the money or told me they were redesignating some of the money," she said.
Ronald J. Sharpe Jr., a retired teacher from Rockledge, Fla., appears in the Obama campaign reports as having given a whopping $13,800.
The campaign reported that it returned $4,600 to him, making his net contribution of $9,200 still way over the legal limit.
But there's one problem with the Obama data: Sharpe doesn't remember giving that much money to the Obama campaign in the first place, nor does he recall anyone from the campaign ever contacting him to return money.
"At the end, I was making monthly payments," he told Newsmax. The Obama campaign records do not show any such payments.
Many donors refused to answer questions about the political campaign contributions appearing in their name when they learned that the caller was from a news organization.
John Atkinson, an insurance agent in Burr Ridge, Ill., refused to discuss his contributions, which totaled $8,724.26, before numerous refunds.
Atkinson and others gave in odd amounts: $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one rounded contribution of $2,300.
Sandra Daneshinia, a self-employed caregiver from Los Angeles, made 36 separate contributions, totaling $7,051.12, according to FEC records. Thirteen of them were eventually refunded.
In a bizarre coincidence, those 13 refunded contributions -- for varying amounts such as $223.88 and $201.44 -- added up exactly to $2,300, the amount an individual may give per federal election.
Also giving in odd amounts was Robert Porter, an accountant for the town of Oviedo, Fla. Porter gave a surprising $4,786.02 to the Obama campaign.
In all, Newsmax found an astonishing 37,265 unique donors to the Obama campaign whose contributions were not rounded up to dollar amounts. That amounts to more than 10 percent of the total number of unique donors whose names have been disclosed by the Obama campaign to the public.
Of those, 44,410 contributions came in unrounded amounts of less than $100. FEC regulations only require that campaigns disclose the names of donors who have given a total of $200 or more, so that means that all these contributors were repeat donors.
Another 15,269 contributions gave in unrounded amounts between $101 and $999, while 704 of the unrounded contributions were in amounts of more than $1,000.
Campaign finance experts find the frequent appearance of unrounded contributions suspicious, since contributors almost invariably give in whole dollar amounts.
One expert in campaign finance irregularities offers a possible explanation.
"Of course this is odd. They are obviously converting from local currency to U.S. dollars," said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.
"The overwhelming number of large dollar contributors -- and even small donors -- are in even dollar amounts," he told Newsmax. "Anyone who doubts that can go to FEC.gov and look through the campaign contribution data bases. You will not find many uneven numbers."
Boehm said he had rarely seen unrounded contributions in his 30 years as a lawyer doing campaign finance work.
"There's always the odd cat who wants to round up his checkbook, but they are very rare," he said.
Richard E. Hug, a veteran Republican fundraiser in Maryland who who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and spearheaded the successful 2002 gubernatorial race for Bob Ehrlich that brought in a record $10 million, told Newsmax that unrounded contributions were extremely unusual.
"I've never seen this in all my years of raising money for political candidates," he said. "The first thing it suggests is foreign currency transactions -- contributions from foreign donors, which is clearly illegal."
Top Republican fundraiser Steve Gordon, who has raised $65 million for GOP candidates over the past 30 years, told Newsmax that such contributions in uneven amounts would be "pretty unusual."
"You might have a rounding process if there was some kind of joint event, but since all appears to be on the Internet, it's pretty unusual. At the very least, it would need to be explored."
LaBolt attributed the uneven amounts to the online "Obama store," which sells T-shirts and other campaign items.
"Contributions made to the Obama store often produce totals that are not exact dollar amounts," he said.
But the campaign has never produced any accounting for proceeds from its online store, which virtually shut down several weeks ago after Newsmax and news organizations revealed that Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and other foreigners had made large purchases there.
The Republican National Committee has filed a complaint against the Obama campaign for "accepting prohibited contributions from foreign nationals and excessive contributions from individuals," which incorporated reporting from Newsmax and other news organizations.
"Their responses to FEC inquiries have often been inadequate and late," RNC general counsel Sean Cairncross told Newsmax.
The Obama camp claims to have 2.5 million donors in all. But until now, they have kept secret the names of the overwhelming majority of these money-givers. According to a Newsmax analysis, the Obama campaign finance records contain just 370,448 unique names.
Even accounting for common names such as Robert Taylor or Michael Brown, which can signify multiple donors, Obama's publicly known donor base is less than 20 percent of the total number of donors the campaign claims to have attracted. But the identity of the other 2 million donors is being kept secret.
As of the end of August, those secret donors have given an incredible $222.7 million to Obama, according to the FEC -- money whose origin remains unknown to anyone other than Obama's finance team, who won't take calls from the press.
While no exact figures are available, if the same percentage of potential foreign contributions found in the itemized contribution data is applied to the total $426.9 million the Obama camp says it has taken in from individuals, this could mean that Obama is financing his presidential campaign with anywhere from $13 million to a whopping $63 million from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases.
The sum of all unrounded contributions in the itemized FEC filings for the Obama campaigns comes to $6,437,066.07. That is the actual amount of money that appears to have been charged to foreign credit cards that the Obama campaign has disclosed.
If the same ratio applies to the unitemized contributions, which are again as large, then the Obama campaign may have taken as much as $13 million from foreign donors.
However, the donors who made those unrounded contributions gave a total of $31,484,584.27, meaning that as much as $63 million may have come from questionable sources.
Both presidential campaigns are required to submit detailed fundraising
reports for September on Monday.
RNC: Obama 'Outside Law' on Donors
Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:40 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
The Republican National Committee on Thursday supplemented its Oct. 6 complaint to the Federal Election Committee and -- citing new revelations by Newsmax and other news organizations -- called on the FEC to "immediately conduct a full audit" of the Obama campaign accounts.
The RNC complaint asserts that the Obama campaign had demonstrated a "lack of compliance with the law" because of its acceptance of prohibited donations from foreign nationals, excessive contributions from individuals, and donations from unknown sources.
At the same time, RNC officials said they recognize that the FEC has "no authority" to freeze campaign accounts or to take other actions that would actually prevent the Obama campaign from spending money illegally obtained from foreign nationals to influence the U.S. presidential election.
"The system isn't designed for actors who are going to ignore the law," RNC chief legal counsel Sean Cairncross told Newsmax.
A Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign's campaign finance disclosures found 60,000 donations in unrounded amounts that fundraising experts said clearly suggested were "foreign currency transactions" translated into U.S. dollars.
The Obama campaign claims that many of these donations were purchases of T-shirts from the Obama store. However, when asked by Newsmax to provide an accounting for receipts and expenditures of the Obama store, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt could only name a single supplier who sold merchandise worth less than $500,000, according to campaign records.
[Editor's Note: See "Obama Donations Enshrouded in Mystery."]
RNC chief counsel Sean Caircross commended Newsmax for reporting that helped to break open the secretive fundraising schemes used by the Obama campaign.
"The Newsmax articles constitute some of the exhibits to our original complaint," he said. "We commend Newsmax and other media organizations who are doing a good job in looking into what seems to be a rather large issue for the Obama campaign."
Reporting by Newsmax and others of fictitious donors such as "Family Guy" and "King Kong" made it "clear that the Obama For America campaign is operating outside of the law," Cairncross said.
"The complete and total lack of any control mechanisms within the Obama campaign's fundraising operation has undermined any confidence in their ability to curtail excessive, foreign, and fraudulent contributions and demands immediate attention from the Federal Election Commission (FEC)," he added.
The RNC now believes that the Obama campaign violated federal election law by "accepting contributions resulting from third party fraud, and possibly accepting contributions made in the name of another," the complaint asserts.
Such contributions -- made in the name of "Saddam Hussein," "Osama bin Laden," "OJ Simpson" and others -- are the only violation of federal election law that carries a criminal penalty, RNC sources and outside campaign finance lawyers said.
While the Obama campaign has said repeatedly that they have procedures in place to screen out possible illegal donations, the spate of news reporting to the contrary shows that they have failed, the latest RNC complaint asserts.
"Developing a large donor base and raising enormous sums of money" -- excuses commonly cited by the Obama campaign for the influx of illegal donations -- "is not an excuse for ignoring the law."
While the Obama campaign claims that it has "bent over backward" to root out illegal contributions, it has ignored contributions that were explicitly made by foreign nationals, the complaint says, citing an August 2008 report from the Associated Press.
The AP report identified Australian citizen Richard Watters, who contributed $1,000 to the Obama campaign via the Internet "by entering a fake U.S. passport number and checking a box stating that he was a U.S. citizen living abroad."
In another case, a Canadian donor named Tom Sanderson gave $500 to the Obama campaign via the Internet, and included a note in one of the address fields stating, "I am not a (sic) American citizen!"
"From the moment it was made, the Sanderson contribution was clear on its face that it was coming to a foreign national," the RNC complaint states.
Given that the Obama campaign couldn't detect such an obvious violation of law, "it is unsurprising that (Obama for America) was also unable to detect contributions from unknown sources with blatantly fictitious names," the complaint says.
The RNC complaint cites the "now infamous" cases of "Good Will" and "Doodad Pro," which Newsmax helped to expose.
[Editor's Note: See "Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign."]
The New York Times exposed contributions from other fictitious donors such as "Test Person," residing in "Some Place, Utah," and "Jockim Alberton," residing at a fictional address in Wilmington, Delaware. They also cited donors giving the names "Derty West" and "Derty Poiuuy," both residing in "rewq, ME."
The Los Angeles Times found a series of contributions from "Mong Kong" that gave a nonexistent address. The Obama campaign said they were unaware of the illegality of these contributions until the press reports appeared.
Other contributions were comprised of randomly selected letters. The Obama campaign took 37 separate donations of $10 each from "Jgtj Jfggijfgi," $7,497.59 from "Dahsudhu Hdusahfd," and $11,900 from "Uadhshgu Hduadh."
The RNC says it believes that while some of the contributors using fictitious names may have done so "in order to remain anonymous… Many of them may have been using fictitious names to skirt the law," since their contributions were "far more than the $4,300 legal limit."
Not only has the Obama campaign "accepted contributions from unknown sources, but it also may have accepted contributions made in the name of another," the RNC said.
"A Newsmax investigation reports the existence of a growing trend to purchase disposable "gift" credit cards to make donations," the complaint says, citing a report that appeared earlier this week.
[Editor's Note: See "Obama Turns Blind Eye to Credit Card Donation Fraud."]
"These 'gift' credit cards can only be tracked by the numbers, so there is no way of knowing who made the contribution," the complaint states.
A Newsmax informant said he had made a series of $5 donations in less than an hour, each time using "a different name and address, all of which were obviously fictitious and some even including foreign addresses," the RNC complaint states.
Among the fictitious donors were "Daffy Duck," "Bart Simpson," and "Raela Odinga."
In addition, the RNC cited several media reports that said both personal and corporate credit cards had been charged with unauthorized contributions to the Obama campaign.
Ms. Patricia Phillips, a Virginia resident who also is a candidate for the State Senate, discovered a $5 charge on her corporate credit card statement for a contribution to the Obama campaign.
"Ms. Phillip's situation is troublesome for two primary reasons," the RNC complaint states. "First, OFA accepted a contribution from a corporate credit card," which is illegal. "Second, OFA accepted a contribution that was fraudulently made."
The Washington Post uncovered that donation, as well as a $2,300 contribution made to OFA that was charged to the credit card of Steve and Rachel Larman of Missouri without the couple's knowledge.
As Republicans, they were surprised to receive their credit card statement and discover the donation to the Obama campaign.
The RNC complaint noted that, by all appearances, the Obama campaign had disabled standard security features on its fundraising website.
"For example, online merchants usually match the cardholders' provided name and address to the credit card number to protect against fraud," the RNC noted. But "given the high number of fictitious contributor names linked to credit card contributions, OFA appears not to be consistently following this practice."
Even more troubling than these cases appearing in the Obama campaign's itemized contributions is the $270 million that the campaign has taken from undisclosed sources.
"The RNC believes that widespread illegalities may exist among these un-itemized contributions and requests that the Commission immediately investigate both itemized and un-itemized contributions in both the OFA primary and general election periods to ensure a fair and open election.
"The American people deserve to know the origin of the over $600 million that may help elect a President of the United States," the complaint concludes.
"The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate" by David Freddoso (http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Barack-Obama-Unexamined/dp/1596985666/)
Hillary on Obama:
Barack Obama's Pastor:
Obama: Raise Social Security Taxes:
Hamas: "We Like Mr. Obama. We hope he will win the election":
Obama on higher taxes (he'll double what they're going to be after
"Sarah's a Fighter" - Sarah Palin TV Ad:
"If you are not a socialist in your 20s you don't have a heart, if you
are a socialist in your 40s you don't have a brain" - Sir Winston Churchill
SarahCuda vs. The Associated Press
Monday, October 6, 2008
If anything is dropping faster than the stock market, it's the media's level of integrity. Yesterday, the Associated Press dove further into the gutter by accusing Governor Palin of racism. I'm not particularly surprised by the claim, as the Obamaphiles in press seem to be fond of using racism claims to dispute any argument that they can't legitimately refute. However, I am appalled at the reasoning behind this claim, as it seems to be the first time the media has admitted that any criticism of Obama (including legitimate, totally non-racial remarks) can and will be labeled as racism.
Here's the breakdown: The AP has declared Palin a racist for associating Senator Obama with Bill Ayers, an admitted and unrepentant terrorist who once bombed the U.S. Capitol. Here's the problem: Ayers is white; most of his "Weather Underground" colleagues were white; and he is often referenced as an archetype of the (predominantly white) pseudo-intelligentsia of 1960s radicals masquerading as intellectuals on America's college campuses. Mr. Ayers has no connection to anything that would be considered "black", let alone "stereotypically black". In fact, associating Obama with Ayers is more of an attempt to associate him with the snobbish (and, again, mostly white) class of leftover-hippies-turned-radical-professors. So, basically, the AP has declared Palin racist because she associated Sen. Obama with a bunch of elitist Caucasians.
This bizarre feat of intellectual gymnastics was justified by the AP as follows:
Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?
Read that again very carefully. Essentially, they said that she did nothing racial at all, but merely that she dared to suggest that Senator Obama is anything less than a divine gift to America. If this paradigm were applied across the board, EVERY criticism of Obama would be labeled racism. Using that definition, it is literally impossible to say anything negative about the Senator from Illinois without committing a racist act.
Think about that for a second - let it sink in. According the the AP, NOBODY CAN EVER SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT BARACK OBAMA.
Friends, that's not just unjournalistic...it's downright Orwellian.
Sarah Palin is not a racist. She never has been; She never will be; and it
is an understatement to say that the AP owes her an apology. It is appalling
to me that Barack Obama's association will Bill Ayers, an admitted and unrepentant
terrorist, would be considered anything less than "fair game". Until
such time as Sen. Obama admits that he showed bad judgement by ever associating
with Mr. Ayers, this should remain an open issue, and we should regard any
media attempt to bury the story as censorship.
The ACORN/Obama Voter Registration "Thug Thizzle"
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Systemic corruption of our election process continues. Barack Obama and his old friends at ACORN and Project Vote are leading the way. This radical revolution is taking place in your backyard. And as I've reported before, this voter-fraud racket is on your dime.
On Monday, the two liberal groups announced the wrap-up of a 21-state voter registration drive targeting low-income people and minorities in battleground states including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico and Wisconsin.
What's wrong with that? For starters, these two groups are militant partisan outfits purporting to engage in nonpartisan civic activity. And their campaign comes amid an avalanche of fresh voter-fraud allegations involving ACORN in many of those same key states.
On Tuesday, Nevada state officials raided ACORN's Las Vegas office after election authorities accused the group of submitting multiple voter registrations with fake and duplicate names.
ACORN, which receives 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers to pursue an aggressive welfare-state agenda, has already helped register over 1.27 million people nationwide. The rest of their funding comes from left-wing heavyweights like billionaire George Soros and the Democracy Alliance.
Project Vote, a 501(c)(3) organization, was founded by left-wing lawyer Sandy Newman to register voters in welfare offices and unemployment lines with the explicit goal of turning back the Reagan revolution.
The two groups are inextricably linked -- and at their nexus is Barack Obama.
In 1992, Newman hired Obama to lead Project Vote efforts in Illinois. The Illinois drive's motto: "It's a Power Thing."
As previously noted in this column ("The ACORN Obama Knows," June 25, 2008), Obama also trained ACORN members in Chicago. In turn, ACORN volunteers worked on his Illinois campaigns and ACORN's PAC endorsed his primary bid with full backing and muscle.
Despite his adamant denials of any association with the group (his Fight the Smears website now claims "Barack Obama never organized with ACORN"), Obama's political DNA is encoded with the ACORN agenda.
The Obama campaign's "Vote for Change" registration drive, running parallel to ACORN/Project Vote, is an all-out scramble to scrape up every last unregistered voter sympathetic to Obama's big-government vision. "Our volume," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe bragged of the voter-registration program, "will be enormous."
Quantity over quality. It's the ACORN way.
In addition to the Las Vegas raid, fraud allegations keep piling up:
-- Lake County, Ind., election officials this month rejected a large portion of the 5,000 registration forms ACORN turned in after conducting registration drives in the area all summer. Some vote canvassers had pulled names and addresses from telephone books and forged signatures. According to local reports, "large numbers of voter registration forms bore signatures all in the same apparent handwriting style" and "apparently the organization's canvassers broke rules to meet ACORN-set voter registration quotas to get paid." The fake registrants included dead people and underage kids.
On a conference call yesterday, GOP officials noted that up to 11,000 voter applications were no good -- tying up election officials and jeopardizing the voting rights of untold victims whose identities may have been stolen.
-- Last month, Milwaukee, Wis., officials discovered at least seven felons employed as voter registration workers for ACORN and another affiliated group. They also uncovered a raft of problematic voter registration cards. The state GOP accused ACORN of attempting to enroll dead, imprisoned or imaginary people to voter rolls. Fraud has plagued ACORN's Milwaukee chapter since the last election cycle.
-- In Florida, in Orange County alone, ACORN workers turned in multiple copycat forms for six separate voters over the summer. According to the Miami Herald, "One individual had 21 duplicate applications."
Election officials had flagged ACORN's negligent practices several months ago, but it may be too late: In Orange, Broward and Miami-Dade counties, ACORN has signed up 135,000 new voters, nearly 60 percent of them registered as Democrats that constitute a fifth of all new voters in that region.
-- In Ohio, large numbers of homeless people received free van and bus rides to register. Shelby Holliday, a reporter for Palestra.net, filmed ACORN shuttling prospects to the polls. She told me she spoke with one homeless woman who told her ACORN "told her who to vote for if she wanted a 'better life,' and told her not to worry about jury duty (one of the reasons this homeless woman didn't want to register) because the government probably wouldn't be able to track her down. She was registering with a temporary address."
Holliday interviewed another homeless man targeted by the registration drive who exulted that he was voting for Obama because "I want him to do his thang. You know, do his thug thizzle."
"Thug thizzle" is street slang for performing your trademark move.
Obama and ACORN have practiced their thug thizzle together for years: organizing
an ever-expanding community of ineligible and marginal voters to expand the
Democratic power base. Rules be damned.
The Real Obama
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Critics of Senator Barack Obama make a strategic mistake when they talk about his "past associations." That just gives his many defenders in the media an opportunity to counter-attack against "guilt by association."
We all have associations, whether at the office, in our neighborhood or in various recreational activities. Most of us neither know nor care what our associates believe or say about politics.
Associations are very different from alliances. Allies are not just people who happen to be where you are or who happen to be doing the same things you do. You choose allies deliberately for a reason. The kind of allies you choose says something about you.
Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, William Ayers and Antoin Rezko are not just people who happened to be at the same place at the same time as Barack Obama. They are people with whom he chose to ally himself for years, and with some of whom some serious money changed hands.
Some gave political support, and some gave financial support, to Obama's election campaigns, and Obama in turn contributed either his own money or the taxpayers' money to some of them. That is a familiar political alliance-- but an alliance is not just an "association" from being at the same place at the same time.
Obama could have allied himself with all sorts of other people. But, time and again, he allied himself with people who openly expressed their hatred of America. No amount of flags on his campaign platforms this election year can change that.
Unfortunately, all that most people know about Barack Obama is his own rhetoric and that of his critics. Moreover, some of his more irresponsible critics have made wild accusations-- that he is not an American citizen or that he is a Muslim, for example.
All that such false charges do is discredit Obama's critics in general. Fortunately, there is a documented, factual account of what Barack Obama has actually been doing over the years, as distinguished from what he has been saying during this election campaign, in a new best-selling book.
That book is titled "The Case Against Barack Obama" by David Freddoso. He starts off in the introduction by repudiating those critics of Obama who "have been content merely to slander him-- to claim falsely that he refuses to salute the U.S. flag or was sworn into office on a Koran, or that he was born in a foreign country."
This is a serious book with 35 pages of documentation in the back to support the things said in the main text. In other words, if you don't believe what the author says, he lets you know where you can go check it out.
Barack Obama's being the first serious black candidate for President of the United States is what most people consider remarkable but how he got there is at least equally surprising.
The story of Obama's political career is not a pretty story. He won his first political victory by being the only candidate on the ballot-- after hiring someone skilled at disqualifying the signers of opposing candidates' petitions, on whatever technicality he could come up with.
Despite his words today about "change" and "cleaning up the mess in Washington," Obama was not on the side of reformers who were trying to change the status quo of corrupt, machine politics in Chicago and clean up the mess there. Obama came out in favor of the Daley machine and against reform candidates.
Senator Obama is running on an image that is directly the opposite of what he has been doing for two decades. His escapes from his past have been as remarkable as the great escapes of Houdini.
Why much of the public and the media have been so mesmerized by the words and the image of Obama, and so little interested in learning about the factual reality, was perhaps best explained by an official of the Democratic Party: "People don't come to Obama for what he's done, they come because of what they hope he can be."
David Freddoso's book should be read by those people who want to know what
the facts are. But neither this book nor anything else is likely to change
the minds of Obama's true believers, who have made up their minds and don't
want to be confused by the facts.
The Real Obama Part II
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
A recent Republican campaign ad sarcastically described as Barack Obama's "one accomplishment" his supporting a bill to promote sex education in kindergarten.
During an interview of a Republican spokesman, Tom Brokaw of NBC News replayed that ad and asked if that was something serious to be discussed in a presidential election campaign.
It was a variation on an old theme about getting back to "the real issues," just as Brokaw's question was a variation on an increasingly widespread tendency among journalists to become a squad of Obama avengers, instead of reporters.
Does it matter if Barack Obama is for sex education in kindergarten? It matters more than most things that are called "the real issues."
Seemingly unrelated things can give important insights into someone's outlook and character. For example, after the Cold War was over, it came out that one of the things that caught the attention of Soviet leaders early on was President Ronald Reagan's breaking of the air traffic controllers' strike.
Why were the Soviets concerned about a purely domestic American issue like an air traffic controllers' strike? Why was their attention not confined to "the real issues" between the United States and the Soviet Union?
Because one of the biggest and realest of all issues is the outlook and character of the President of the United States.
It would be hard to imagine any of Ronald Reagan's predecessors over the previous several decades-- whether Republicans or Democrats-- who would have broken a nationwide strike instead of caving in to the union's demands.
This told the Soviet leaders what Reagan was made of, even before he got up and walked out of the room during negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev. That too let the Soviet leaders know that they were not dealing with Jimmy Carter any more.
There is no more real issue today than "Who is the real Barack Obama behind the image?" What does being in favor of sex education in kindergarten tell us about the outlook and character of this largely unknown man who has suddenly appeared on the national scene to claim the highest office in the land?
It gives us an insight into the huge gulf between Senator Obama's election year image and what he has actually been for and against over the preceding decades. It also shows the huge gulf between his values and those of most other Americans.
Many Americans would consider sex education for kindergartners to be absurd but there is more to it than that.
What is called "sex education," whether for kindergartners or older children, is not education about biology but indoctrination in values that go against the traditional values that children learn in their families and in their communities.
Obviously, the earlier this indoctrination begins, the better its chances of overriding traditional values. The question is not how urgently children in kindergarten need to be taught about sex but how important it is for indoctrinators to get an early start.
The arrogance of third parties, who take it upon themselves to treat other people's children as a captive audience to brainwash with politically correct notions, while taking no responsibility for the consequences to those children or society, is part of the general vision of the left that pervades our education system.
Sex education for kindergartners is just one of many issues on which Barack Obama has lined up consistently on the side of arrogant elitists of the far left. Senator Obama's words often sound very reasonable and moderate, as well as lofty and inspiring. But everything that he has actually done over the years places him unmistakably with the extreme left elitists.
Sadly, many of those who are enchanted by his rhetoric are unlikely to check out the facts. But nothing is a more real or more important issue than whether what a candidate says is the direct opposite of what he has actually been doing for years.
The old phrase, "a man of high ideals but no principles," is one
that applies all too painfully to Barack Obama today. His words expressing
lofty ideals may appeal to the gullible but his long history of having no principles
makes him a danger of the first magnitude in the White House.
The Real Obama: Part III
Thursday, October 09, 2008
What about those "real issues" that Barack Obama's supporters in the media say we should get back to, whenever some new unsavory fact about his past comes out?
Surely education is a real issue, with American school children consistently scoring below those in other countries, and children in minority communities faring worst of all.
What about Senator Obama's position on this real issue? As with other issues, he has talked one way and acted the opposite way.
The education situation in Obama's home base of Chicago is one of the worst in the nation for the children-- and one of the best for the unionized teachers.
Fewer than one-third of Chicago's high-school juniors meet the statewide standards on tests. Only 6 percent of the youngsters who enter Chicago high schools become college graduates by the time they are 25 years old.
The problem is not money: Chicago spends more than $10,000 per student.
Chicago teachers are doing well. A beginning teacher, fresh out of college, earns more than the city's median income and that can rise to more than $100,000 over the years.
That's for teaching 6 hours a day, 9 months of the year. Moreover, a teacher's income is dependent on seniority and other such factors-- and in no way dependent on whether their students are actually learning anything.
Obama has said eloquent and lofty words about education, as he has about other things-- for example, how it is "unacceptable in a country as wealthy as ours" that some children "are not getting a decent shot at life" because of the failing schools.
In a predominantly black suburb of Chicago, where the average teacher's salary is $83,000 and one-fourth of the teachers make more than $100,000, Barack Obama noted that the school day ends at 1:30 PM.
In his book "Dreams from My Father," Obama said candidly that black teachers and administrators "defend the status quo with the same skill and vigor as their white counterparts of two decades before."
It is not a question of Obama's not knowing. He has demonstrated conclusively that he knows what is going on.
But, for all his eloquent words, he has voted consistently for the teachers' unions and the status quo.
"I owe those unions," he has said frankly. "When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don't consider this corrupting in any way."
Only other politicians' special interests are called "special interests" by Barack Obama, whose world-class ability to rationalize is his most frightening skill.
Even when he verbally endorses the reform idea of merit pay for teachers, he cleverly re-defines merit so that it will be measured by teachers themselves, rather than by "arbitrary tests." In other words, Obama placates critics of the educational status quo by being for merit pay in words, while making those words meaningless, so as not to offend the teachers' unions.
The failings of teachers are only part of the disaster of inner city public schools. Disruptive and violent students can make it impossible for even the best teachers to educate students.
Administrators are reluctant to impose any serious punishment on those students who make it impossible for other students to learn. Partly this is because liberal judges can make it literally a federal case if more minority students are punished than others.
In other words, if black males are punished more often than Asian American females, that can be enough to get the administrators drawn into a legal labyrinth, costing money and time, even if the punishment is eventually upheld.
When a bill was introduced into the Illinois state legislature that would put more teeth into suspensions of misbehaving students, Barack Obama voted against that bill.
A real reformer would want to crack down on both unruly students and unaccountable
teachers. A clever politician would speak eloquently, demand "change"--
and then vote for the status quo. Obama talks a great game.
"The Real Issues": Part IV
Friday, October 10, 2008
Barack Obama's supporters often try to sidestep questions about his character and judgment by saying that we should stick to what they arbitrarily define as "the real issues." But Senator Obama's record on specific issues is as bad as his record of repeatedly allying himself over the years with people who make no attempt to hide their hatred of America.
Among the so-called "real issues" are earmarks for Senators' pet projects, like the "bridge to nowhere." These are among the most indefensible parts of the inbred Washington political culture, which Obama has so often claimed to be against, as part of his promise of "change" to "clean up the mess in Washington."
Yet Senator Obama not only voted in favor of the bridge to nowhere, he voted against anti-earmark amendments proposed by Senator John McCain.
Obama has had more than two dozen of his own earmarks in the past fiscal year, and he knows the Senate well enough to know that, if he voted against the bridge to nowhere, his own earmarks might get nowhere.
Those earmarks, incidentally, included a million dollars of the taxpayers' money for a facility where his wife works at the University of Chicago. Her salary rose by nearly $200,000 when her husband became a United States Senator-- no doubt a shrewd investment by the university that paid off.
When a highly publicized bridge collapse in Minnesota in 2007 led Senator Tom Coburn to propose taking money from federal spending on bicycle paths and use it for maintaining and repairing bridges instead, Senator Obama voted against it. The kind of people who vote for him want bike paths.
Moreover, the very idea of taking money from one thing to use for something with a higher priority-- something that we all have to do in our own personal lives-- is foreign to the liberal big spenders in Washington.
When they want more money for some purpose, they simply raise the tax rates. They don't cut spending somewhere else.
The idea that Barack Obama is somehow different from other liberal-left politicians can only be based on his rhetoric, because his actual track record shows him to differ only in being further left than most liberals and at least as opportunistic.
His talk, however, is another story. The speech that Obama gave at the 2004 Democratic convention-- the speech that put him on the national map politically-- was one which has been aptly described as a speech that would have been almost equally at home if it had been delivered at the Republican national convention.
In the world of rhetoric-- the world in which Obama is supreme-- he is a moderate, reasonable man, reaching out to unite people and parties, dedicated to reform, opposed to special interests and a healer of the racial divide.
It is only in the real world of action that Barack Obama is the direct opposite. He has pushed for federal subsidies for ethanol, for example, as other midwestern Senators have, since a lot of corn is grown in the midwest to be turned into ethanol.
He is 100 percent behind the teachers' unions in their fight to preserve their grip on the public schools and exempt their members from being judged by performance instead of seniority-- which is to say, he is throwing the students, and especially minority students-- to the wolves.
Senator Obama would never call voting for ethanol subsidies a vote for "special interests," any more than he called his total support of the teachers unions a matter of special interests, even though teachers unions are the biggest obstacle to changing the status quo in public schools that have failed American children in general and minority children in particular.
Barack Obama's track record on so-called "real issues" is no better than his track record on issues of character and judgment. The media's track record of conveying the facts to the public is a travesty of their claims about "the public's right to know."
If John McCain had made half as many gaffes as Barack Obama-- "all 57
states," for example-- they would be picturing him as senile. Meanwhile,
the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran supplying its terrorist surrogates with
nukes does not interest the media nearly as much as scoring "gotchas" against
The Vision of the Left
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Conservatives, as well as liberals, would undoubtedly be happier living in the kind of world envisioned by the left.
Very few people have either a vested interest or an ideological preference for a world in which there are many inequalities.
Even fewer would prefer a world in which vast sums of money have to be devoted to military defense, when so much benefit could be produced if those resources were directed into medical research instead.
It is hardly surprising that young people prefer the political left. The only reason for rejecting the left's vision is that the real world in which we live is very different from the world that the left perceives today or envisions for tomorrow.
Most of us learn that from experience-- but experience is precisely what the young are lacking.
"Experience" is often just a fancy word for the mistakes that we belatedly realized we were making, only after the realities of the world made us pay a painful price for being wrong.
Those who are insulated from that pain-- whether by being born into affluence or wealth, or shielded by the welfare state, or insulated by tenure in academia or in the federal judiciary-- can remain in a state of perpetual immaturity.
Individuals can refuse to grow up, especially when surrounded in their work and in their social life by similarly situated and like-minded people.
Even people born into normal lives, but who have been able through talent or luck to escape into a world of celebrity and wealth, can likewise find themselves in the enviable position of being able to choose whether to grow up or not.
Those of us who can recall what it was like to be an adolescent must know that growing up can be a painful transition from the sheltered world of childhood.
No matter how much we may have wanted adult freedom, there was seldom the same enthusiasm for taking on the burdens of adult responsibilities and having to weigh painful trade-offs in a world that hemmed us in on all sides, long after we were liberated from parental restrictions.
Should we be surprised that the strongest supporters of the political left are found among the young, academics, limousine liberals with trust funds, media celebrities and federal judges?
These are hardly Karl Marx's proletarians, who were supposed to bring on the revolution. The working class are in fact today among those most skeptical about the visions of the left.
Ordinary working class people did not lead the stampede to Barack Obama, even before his disdain for them slipped out in unguarded moments.
The agenda of the left is fine for the world that they envision as existing today and the world they want to create tomorrow.
That is a world not hemmed in on all sides by inherent constraints and the painful trade-offs that these constraints imply. Theirs is a world where there are attractive, win-win "solutions" in place of those ugly trade-offs in the world that the rest of us live in.
Theirs is a world where we can just talk to opposing nations and work things out, instead of having to pour tons of money into military equipment to keep them at bay. The left calls this "change" but in fact it is a set of notions that were tried out by the Western democracies in the 1930s-- and which led to the most catastrophic war in history.
For those who bother to study history, it was precisely the opposite policies in the 1980s-- pouring tons of money into military equipment-- which brought the Cold War and its threat of nuclear annihilation to an end.
The left fought bitterly against that "arms race" which in fact lifted the burden of the Soviet threat, instead of leading to war as the elites claimed.
Personally, I wish Ronald Reagan could have talked the Soviets into being
nicer, instead of having to spend all that money. Only experience makes me
skeptical about that "kinder and gentler" approach and the vision
Obama 'Lying' About Muslim Past, Expert Says
Thursday, October 9, 2008 12:19 PM
By: David A. Patten
Sen. Barack Obama “is lying” when he insists that he has never prayed in a mosque and was never a Muslim, a prominent Middle East expert and journalist says.
Daniel Pipes, founder of the Middle East Forum think tank, says he fully accepts that Obama is a Christian now. But there is strong evidence that Obama received a Muslim upbringing during his years in Indonesia, Pipes said.
“It’s fine with me that he was a Muslim and a convert to Christianity,” Pipes told Newsmax. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal “is a convert from Hinduism. I have no problem with his conversion. What I have a problem with is that he’s lying” when he says he was never a Muslim.
Newsmax asked whether Pipes is alleging outright that Obama has lied about having a Muslim upbringing.
Pipes’ response: “The evidence suggests to me that he is lying, yes.”
Pipes told Newsmax, “It would start with the fact that his father was a Muslim — granted, not a practicing Muslim, but in the Muslim world, if your father is a Muslim, you’re a Muslim. His father named him Hussein, which is a name only given to Muslim babies. He went with his stepfather to a mosque. They celebrated certain Muslim holidays at the mosque together. He had knowledge of the Koran. He had knowledge of Muslim prayers. You put all this together, he was a Muslim.”
Pipes contends that a Nov. 12 post on Obama’s Web site headlined, "Barack Obama Is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim," stated: "Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian."
Today, that post bears the same headline, but does not include an assertion that Obama “never prayed in a mosque” and “has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim.”
The page now bears a quote Obama made during the Jan. 15 debate on MSNBC: “In the Internet age, there are going to be lies that are spread all over the place. I have been victimized by these lies. Fortunately, the American people are, I think, smarter than folks give them credit for.”
The current post, which includes links intended to debunk any Muslim connection, is headlined “Obama Has Never Been A Muslim, And Is a Committed Christian”.
Several media outlets, including the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, have reported on Obama’s schooling in Indonesia, where he lived from 1967 to 1971, which included Muslim religious studies.
It is known, for example, that Obama’s designation as a Muslim while attending a Catholic school may have simply reflected the fact that his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was Muslim.
Still, Obama was grouped with Muslim students at the school and engaged in weekly religious studies, including studying the Koran and learning Muslim prayers.
In 1970, Obama’s family moved and he was enrolled in a public school where children such as Obama who were identified as Muslim spent two hours a week studying Islam. [Editor's Note: Read the Los Angeles Times report on Obama's Muslim upbringing -- Click Here Now.]
A March 2007 Chicago Tribune article by Kim Barker, which stated several accounts had “distorted the reality” of Obama’s years in Indonesia, reported that he did irregularly attend Muslim prayer services at the local mosque.
Obama’s third-grade teacher at the Catholic school, Fermina Katarina Sinaga, told Barker that Obama accompanied his stepfather to pray at the mosque, doing so “rarely.”
Pipes said Barker’s story bolsters his position that Obama was raised as a Muslim while he lived in Indonesia. His accounts of Obama’s upbringing have received a “very severe reaction from the left” and threats from some Muslims, he said.
“The Islamists murmur and threaten,” Pipes said, declining to specify the threats he has received.
Pipes sees a whopping double standard in how the mainstream media has reported on Obama’s past.
“It’s been quite fascinating to watch the careful picking over of Sarah Palin’s record, down to her library policies as mayor of Wasilla, and her possible false pregnancies, and so forth, an analysis that involved excruciating details in her case.”
He contrasts that to the “the general pass” the media has given Obama, whether over his career in the Illinois Senate, the Annenberg library papers, or his upbringing in Jakarta. Pipes said his reports have “simply been dismissed as untrue without any facts to counter it.”
The McCain campaign “has been very cautious about looking into Barack Obama at all,” said Pipes, adding that the GOP has demonstrated a general reluctance to raise questions about Obama’s past.
Pipes has posted four articles on his Web site, “DanielPipes.org”, defending his view that Obama was a Muslim. The articles include the assertion that “for some years (Obama) had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian stepfather.”
As a measure of the interest in Obama’s background, Pipes’ articles have attracted close to half a million hits. One point of contention they raise: When someone is born of a Muslim father, do Muslims automatically consider him a Muslim?
A group of more than 50 scholars recently posted a statement on tabsir.net, a Web site dedicated to fostering an understanding of Islam, that seeks to refute that assertion. The statement maintains that distortions about Obama’s past are “part of an Islamophobic hate campaign that fuels prejudice against Americans who practice their Islamic faith and Muslims worldwide.”
Their statement says, “The vast majority of Muslims accept the Qur’anic message that there is no compulsion in Islam. Since Senator Obama was not raised as a Muslim, he cannot be held accountable for the religious status of his father.”
That assertion sounds logical to Western ears, but Pipes’ rejects it flatly.
“There is no doubt: It is a fact in Islam that the religion passes on through the father,” he told Newsmax. “And yet it’s denied as a falsehood by people who know better. They know better. It’s Islam 101.”
Supporting Pipes on that point is Shireen K. Burki, an adjunct professor of political science at the University of Mary Washington. Burki, who spent her childhood studying Islam at a school in Islamabad, Pakistan, has first-hand experience as the daughter of a Muslim father and a Christian mother.
“According to Islamic jurisprudence,” she wrote in a May article in the Christian Science Monitor, “children of a Muslim father — even an apparently nonpracticing one, such as Obama’s father, and irrespective of the mother’s faith — are automatically Muslims. Most Muslims around the world agree: A child of a Muslim father is a Muslim. Period.”
Given that Obama’s profession of Christianity is essentially uncontested, one might wonder whether it really matters whether Obama once was Muslim.
To many of the world’s approximately 1.4 billion Muslims, it apparently would matter a great deal. Experts on Islam generally agree that someone who is born a Muslim (in effect, someone who had a Muslim father), who later renounces Islam, is considered an apostate.
Burki writes, “Should Obama become U.S. commander in chief, there is a strong likelihood that al-Qaida’s media arm, As-Sahab, will exploit his background to argue that an apostate is leading the global war on terror (read: attacks against fellow Muslims). This perception would be leveraged to galvanize sympathizers into action.”
She suggests the apostate tag would be a powerful propaganda weapon that al-Qaida
could wield to marginalize America’s Middle East allies, causing “enormous
difficulties” in the war against terror.
Obama’s High School Days: Ran With Bad Crowd
Thursday, October 9, 2008 3:00 PM
By: Ronald Kessler
As the media turns over every rock in the past of vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, there has been shockingly little vetting of Barack Obama’s background.
Although candidates should not be judged solely by their behavior as adolescents, an examination of their overall past is fair and important, especially as we pick our next president. And former schoolmates can help provide character clues, such as the former Obama schoolmate who told Newsmax that she is surprised he is running for president.
“I remember he didn’t hang out with a group I thought was the right group to hang out with,” said the woman who attended Punahou High School in Honolulu with Obama. “It was the group known as the Bingham benches, the druggies’ group.”
Obama has admitted taking drugs in high school, but the fact that he kept company with others who were known to take drugs has not been reported previously. That appears to be part of a pattern of associating with questionable people, raising questions about his character and judgment. Among those people are William Ayers, who has admitted bombing buildings; convicted fundraiser Tony Rezko; and the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whom Obama considered his mentor and who gave an award for lifetime achievement to Louis Farrakhan.
“I would say Obama didn’t show great character about choosing who he hung out with,” said the former schoolmate, who did not want to be quoted by name. “I think he behaved well and wasn’t getting into trouble, but he didn’t seem to hang out with the right people.”
The “druggie” group was called the Bingham benches because they tended to congregate around benches at a hall at the prep school named for the Rev. Hiram Bingham, the first Christian missionary in Hawaii.
“There were probably 15 or 20 in the group,” she said. “I hung out with theater people. He hung out with the Bingham benches, which were the ones that were more known as smoking dope.”
Obama, who graduated from Punahou in 1979, suggests in his book, “Dreams from My Father,” that he took marijuana and cocaine in part because of questions his race presented.
“I had learned not to care,” he wrote. “I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though.”
But the former schoolmate said that, because Hawaii has a multiethnic population, the whites — not blacks — were the ones who stood out as different at the private school.
Besides hanging out with the crowd who took drugs, Obama associated with athletes at the school, the former schoolmate said.
“He was very active in basketball,” she said. “But I kind of look at (the others) he hung out with.”
In contrast, Steve Case, who founded America Online, also attended the school then and was admired widely. “That was a kid, you’d say that guy could be president of the United States,” she said. “I was shocked to see that Obama would be a person running for president.”
The John McCain campaign is running an ad highlighting the relationship between Obama and Ayers, who was a founding member of a group that bombed the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon in the 1970s. Obama launched his political career at Ayers’ home in 1995. From 1999 to 2002, he served with him on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago.
During that time, Ayers was quoted in the New York Times as saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs . . . I feel we didn’t do enough.”
In response to criticism about his relationship with Ayers, Obama has offered the irrelevant comment that he was 8 when Ayers was bombing buildings.
In contrast to Obama’s relationship with Ayers, John McCain has declared Obama’s relationship with Wright off limits because it has to do with religion. Yet there is nothing religious about Wright’s declaration that America and whites created the virus that causes AIDS to kill off blacks, trained professional killers, imported drugs, and created a racist society to oppress blacks.
“The government gives those drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, not ‘God Bless America’ — God damn America,” Wright has said.
Wright was quoted in his church’s magazine, Trumpet, heaping praise on Farrakhan.
“When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens,” Wright said. “His depth on analysis [sic] when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye-opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest.”
Farrakhan has called whites “blue-eyed devils” and the Antichrist. He has described Jews as “bloodsuckers” who control the government, the media, and some black organizations.
Obama was so close to Wright for 20 years that he referred to him as an uncle. By contrast, even the most liberal Democrats invariably say they would walk out when asked what they would do if their minister began spouting such hated.
Obama has said he made some “bad decisions” in high school. The fact that he associated with Ayers, remained a member of Wright’s church until this year, and exposed his children to Wright’s hate-America tirades shows the same poor character and lack of judgment Obama admits displaying in high school.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
When John Murtagh was 9 years old, Bill Ayers' friends tried to kill him.
"I remember my mother's pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn't leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside," wrote Murtagh in the April 2008 issue of the City Journal.
It wasn't personal. John's dad was a judge presiding over a trial of the Black Panthers. The next morning, after the bombs exploded, John still remembers the red graffiti on the sidewalk: "FREE THE PANTHER 21; THE VIET CONG HAVE WON; KILL THE PIGS."
To the best of John's recollection, Bernardine Dohrn, who is now Bill Ayers' wife, first claimed credit for bombing John's home -- along with other targets -- in November of 1970.
Today John Murtagh is a lawyer and Yonkers' city councilman who is running for the New York state Senate on the GOP ticket this November. I reached him this week through his state Senate campaign.
It wasn't hard.
Has Barack Obama ever tried?
Barack Obama was only 8 years old when Murtagh's house was bombed. Obama has nothing to do with the terror and the trauma John Murtagh and his family went through.
"It's a sensitive issue for us. My mom is still alive -- she's 83. She literally had to snatch her children out of the house in the middle of the night because her house was on fire," John told me.
But Barack Obama was not a child -- he was a grown man -- when he decided his personal path to power and influence lay through Bill Ayers' connections.
In the Chicago establishment, which unfortunately embraced former domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers and his wife, Barack Obama was encouraged to look beyond the obvious -- John Murtagh, his family, their terror, the lawlessness, the attacks on policemen, judges, army outposts -- to embrace larger goals.
What were these goals? How does Barack Obama come to continue to associate with a man who cannot bring himself to say to John Murtagh or to John's mother or any other kin of the attacked: "I'm sorry. I was wrong. It was a terrible thing to do."
Obama's campaign is busy fudging. That's a polite word for "lying." Barack Obama's top political adviser is claiming Obama simply didn't know Ayers' history when they first met. Bomber? What bomber?
"If that's true, Obama has to be the dumbest man who ever graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School," snorts Murtagh. "I don't buy that at all."
Murtagh believes the relationships between Barack, his wife, Michelle, Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine, goes back 30 years, to Michelle's time at Sidley Austin, the famous Washington, D.C., law firm that also employed Bernardine Dohrn.
Murtagh doesn't blame Obama for what Bill Ayers and his friends did and supported. He blames Obama for picking a man like Ayers as a friend and mentor -- and then covering up the friendship.
In politics things get complicated. Truth becomes hard to find.
But when you are about to elect someone commander in chief, it would be good to know he can lay his hands on some of the stuff, in case he ever needs it.
"The night they attacked our home, they also firebombed an army recruiting station out in Brooklyn and police patrol cars outside of Greenwich Village," notes Murtagh. "Three weeks later they accidentally blew themselves up. They intended to attack the officer's club at Fort Dix."
Lay your cards on the table, Murtagh wants to tell the man who would be president. "Obama's
free to associate with Dohrn and Ayers; that's his right," he tells me. "But
don't hide the relationship, and be forthcoming and let people decide the significance
of it for themselves."
Team Obama Spin Lies About Ayers
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Since Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has specifically targeted Barack Obama on the campaign trail for “palling around” with domestic terrorist William Ayers, Obama’s chief advisors seem to be at loss for words.
One prominent campaign message man has even lied about Obama’s admiration for a critique written by the former terrorist who conducted despicable acts in his youth, about the juvenile justice system.
Obama Spokesman Bill Burton denied Obama ever favorably reviewed Ayers’ 1997 book on the juvenile justice system, sarcastically titled "A Kind and Just Parent” in an interview with Fox News Company’s Megyn Kelly Tuesday.
“He did not write a blurb for his book,” Burton said. “He did not.”
Contrary to what Burton said, a December 1997 article from the Chicago Tribune contains a statement from Obama describing Ayers’ book as “A searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair.”
The book plainly recognizes Ayers’ involvement in terrorist acts.
The Amazon.com description of Ayers’ book says “For five years, Ayers, a former member of the radical 1960s Weathermen organization, acted as a teacher and an observer in Chicago's Juvenile Court prison, the nations first and largest institution of juvenile justice….the court today epitomizes the confused and confusing way American justice deals with children…Ayers shows that we must overcome our preconceived notions of these children and learn to deal with the realities of their lives.”
A month before Obama’s flattering blurb was published, Obama participated in a panel about the juvenile justice system hosted by the University of Chicago and organized by Obama’s wife Michelle, then-Associate Dean of Student Services and Director of the University Community Service Center.
At the time Mrs. Obama said, “This panel gives students a chance to hear about the juvenile justice system not only on a theoretical level, but from the people who have experienced it.”
According to the University of Chicago’s release on the event Obama was invited because he was “working to combat legislations that would put more juvenile offenders into the adult system,” at the time.
Obama’s Campaign Manager David Axelrod told CNN on Monday that Obama did go to Ayers home in 1995 for an event that helped launch his political career but “he didn’t know the history” about Ayers’ violent past, which included plans to bomb the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol as a founding member of the radical Weather Underground terrorist group, at the time.
A number of conservatives, led by the popular talk-radio host and television personality Sean Hannity have called on Obama to disclose exactly when he learned about Ayers’ radical past, but no one from the Obama campaign has made that information available.
Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs said he didn’t know anything about Obama’s relationship with Ayers firsthand. “I don’t know the details of this,” he told Fox News Tuesday. “I do know what I read in newspapers.”
The New York Times published a news story over the weekend that stated Obama has “downplayed” his relationship with Ayers, but the GOP has exaggerated it.
When asked directly about his friendship with the former terrorist Obama has described Ayers “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” who “engaged in detestable acts when I was eight years old.”
Obama also likened his disagreements with Ayers over his radical acts to his
disagreements with Republican Sen. Tom Coburn in a previous Democratic primary
The Obama Debate Every American Should See
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
The most telling debate Barack Obama ever had was not with John McCain but Patrick O'Malley, who served with Obama in the Illinois Senate and engaged Obama in a colloquy every American should read.
The Obama-O'Malley debate was a defining moment for Obama because it dealt with such a fundamental issue: The state's duty to protect the civil rights of the young and disabled.
Some background: Eight years ago, nurse Jill Stanek went public about the "induced-labor abortions" performed at the Illinois hospital where she worked. Often done on Down syndrome babies, the procedure involved medicating the mother to cause premature labor.
Babies who survived this, Stanek testified in the U.S. Congress, were brought to a soiled linen room and left alone to die without care or comforting.
Then-Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, whom I interviewed this week, contacted the state attorney general's office to see whether existing laws protected a newborn abortion-survivor's rights as a U.S. citizen. He was told they did not.
So, O'Malley -- a lawyer, veteran lawmaker and colleague of Obama on the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee -- drafted legislation.
In 2001, he introduced three bills. SB1093 said if a doctor performing an abortion believed there was a likelihood the baby would survive, another physician must be present "to assess the child's viability and provide medical care." SB1094 gave the parents, or a state-appointed guardian, the right to sue to protect the child's rights. SB1095 simply said a baby alive after "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother" would be considered a "'person, 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"
The bills dealt exclusively with born children. "This legislation was about preventing conduct that allowed infanticide to take place in the state of Illinois," O'Malley told me.
The Judiciary Committee approved the bills with Obama in opposition. On March 31, 2001, they came up on the Illinois senate floor. Only one member spoke against them: Obama.
"Nobody else said anything," O'Malley recalls. The official transcript validates this.
"Sen. O'Malley," Obama said near the beginning of the discussion, "the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb."
Obama made three crucial concessions here: the legislation was about 1) a human being, who was 2) "alive" and 3) "outside the womb."
He also used an odd redundancy: "temporarily alive." Is there another type of human?
"And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living," Obama continued.
Here he made another crucial concession: The intention of the legislation was to make sure that 1) a human being, 2) alive and 3) outside the womb was 4) "properly cared for."
"Is that correct?" Obama asked O'Malley.
O'Malley tightened the logical knot. "(T)his bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States," said O'Malley.
But to these specific temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb-human beings -- to these children who had survived a botched abortion, whose hearts were beating, whose muscles were moving, whose lungs were heaving -- to these specific children of God, Obama was not willing to concede any constitutional rights at all.
To explain his position, Obama came up with yet another term to describe the human being who would be protected by O'Malley's bills. The abortion survivor became a "pre-viable fetus."
By definition, however, a born baby cannot be a "fetus." Merriam-Webster Online defines "fetus" as an "unborn or unhatched vertebrate" or "a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth." Obama had already conceded these human beings were "alive outside the womb."
"No. 1," said Obama, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term."
Yes. In other words, a baby born alive at 37 weeks is just as much a human "person" as a baby born alive at 22 weeks.
Obama, however, saw a problem with calling abortion survivors "persons." "I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions," said Obama, "because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."
For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl
is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined
by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's
uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her.
GOP To McCain: Attack Obama Now
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
WASHINGTON -- The number of Republican red states where Barack Obama leads is growing, reducing the states that are in play and thus the electoral votes that John McCain needs to win in November.
As of this week, the freshman liberal senator led or held the edge in Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico and Colorado -- eight states that can deliver 101 electoral votes.
President Bush previously won all of these states along with a bunch of others that gave him 286 electoral votes to John Kerry's 251. McCain can't afford to lose any of these red states, unless he can offset his losses by picking off a number of Democratic blue states and that seems rather problematic right now (though polls show tightening races in Minnesota and Wisconsin).
But with a little more than four weeks remaining in the presidential contest in a brutal economic environment, the grim reality facing McCain is that his rival is leading in more than half-a-dozen red states, while he cannot point to a single blue state where he is ahead.
That is the predicament in which he now finds himself as Republican strategists grow increasingly pessimistic about his chances against the Obama juggernaut, propelled by a national mood of economic gloom.
For months, Obama has been leading in several red states that have been trending Democratic, but the Arizona Republican has been able to hold the edge in other must-win battlegrounds like Florida and Ohio.
Now even these economically distressed states appear to be leaning toward the Democratic column, along with several others, as undecided voters begin making up their minds in Obama's favor in the heat of an economy teetering toward recession.
Fearing McCain is fast running out of time to structurally change the election's strategic focus, Republican strategists say his only hope now is to make his rival's judgment, inexperience and tax increases the central issues in the campaign's remaining weeks.
"McCain has got to make the campaign about Barack Obama. He's got to say that, with everything going on in the world, my opponent hasn't completed a full term in office other than in the Illinois state legislature -- that he is not ready to lead, that he is a risk that Americans cannot afford to take," said GOP campaign adviser John Brabender.
The contrast between the two candidates on experience alone is stark. Barack Obama has been a U.S. senator for about three and a half years, most of which time he has been on the campaign trail.
He has in that time held no oversight hearings, even though he chairs a subcommittee, led no legislative battles, and led no efforts to work across the aisle in behalf of the "new kind of politics" that he has made the mantra of his campaign.
Instead, he is riding a populist wave of economic pessimism and panic that appears ready to buy his "change you can believe in" mantra, despite an economic plan that few voters understand.
At its core is a raft of draconian tax increases on critical components of the nation's economy -- tax hikes that have been an integral part of his party's "grow the government" prescriptions for decades.
He intends to raise the top personal-income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, hike the 15 percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends to between 20 percent and 28 percent, levy higher tax rates on corporations, and increase the Social Security payroll tax on upper-income Americans.
Obama will be raising taxes on the very parts of our economy that have been the wellspring of its venture-capital investment pool that is now on life support.
Exactly how Americans worried about the economy can truly believe that we can tax our way out of a recession is a mystery, but that is what Obama is peddling and that is what Obama voters are buying hook, line and sinker.
Not everyone, though. Listen to what University of Maryland economist Peter Morici, a sharp critic of the Bush administration's economic policies, said about Obama's plan:
"Obama's tax-and-redistribute policies will not resurrect jobs, wages or the price of stocks in American retirement accounts ... Obama's policies may make economic conditions worse," he said this week. "His platform is full of platitudes and generalizations but not enough substance."
McCain has got to relentlessly pound Obama's tax plan as the medical equivalent of bleeding an economy that is hemorrhaging internally. The American economy is not ill because it is undertaxed. U.S. corporations are taxed at one of the highest rates of the world's industrialized nations, second only to Japan.
This is an issue that still resonates with Americans if it's explained clearly and powerfully, but it must be tied to Obama's inexperience and his irrational class-warfare hostility toward corporations and wealth.
Barack Obama thinks raising taxes to enrich government is the answer to all
our troubles when it will only weaken a severely anemic, overtaxed economy
desperately in need of capital and tax relief.
Team McCain/Palin Needs to Tell the Real Economy Narrative
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
I thought I’d seen everything with Bob Dole’s blundering “I-deserve-to-be-elected-because-it’s-my-turn” schtick in 1996. He had no message. There were literally dozens of things that could have been used in opposition to then-incumbent President Bill Clinton (not the least of which were Hillary’s failed putsch of medical care, the beginning of what would be an eight-year string of scandals, and the public’s throw-the-bums-out sentiment in the 1994 Congressional elections that gave the Republicans control of Congress for the first time in decades).
It didn’t matter. Dole used none of these. His timing was off from the get-go. He never mustered any momentum – much less enthusiasm – among conservatives, and he was trounced in November.
McCain’s “strategies” (if you can call them that) and his timing are starting to feel eerily familiar. He seems to have no sense of the public’s sentiment. This is either a failure of his advisors, or it is his own impenetrability. Either way, it is hurting him badly.
Case in point – muzzling Sarah Palin days after a mesmerizing performance at the Republican National Convention. Just when the public – especially the voting public – especially the undecided voting public – needed to hear more from and about Governor Palin, she was whisked off somewhere in a fashion reminiscent of Buckingham Palace’s clandestine preparations of a bride for the Prince of Wales.
Second example: as the financial markets were in meltdown two weeks ago, McCain announced that he was “suspending his campaign” to go to Washington and deal with the crisis. Even supporters found themselves wondering, huh? First of all, no one expected the bailout talks to last more than a few days. Was attending to the business of governance for a day or two or three really a “suspension” of his campaign? Instead of lending gravitas, it just made McCain look silly – particularly when his campaign was “unsuspended” just a day or two later. It also allowed Obama to score points with his pithy observation that a president should be able to do more than one thing at a time.
Now – and this failure is the most critical of all – McCain appears to be allowing Obama and the Democrats to spread their false and propagandistic version of what caused the banking collapse, utterly uncontested. Instead of telling the public the truth about how two Democratic Presidents and Democrats in Congress manipulated the financial markets, threatened lenders, allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to plunder securities, and ignored warnings of impending collapse; instead of hammering home the inexplicable conflicts of interest between Congressman Barney Frank’s position as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and his lover’s position at Fannie Mae; instead of showing the hypocrisy of Obama’s receipt of the second-largest campaign contributions from Fannie Mae – McCain has now decided that the public should reconsider Obama’s affiliations with the Reverend Jeremiah (“God damn America”) Wright and unrepentant bomber and domestic terrorist William (“I’d do it all again”) Ayers – issues that were in the news months ago.
And once again, McCain’s and Palin’s supporters are left scratching their heads. And writing their articles and blogs. And hosting their radio and television shows. Watching the McCain campaign flounder, and reading and listening to conservative media, reminds me of being at a pee-wee football game, where a confused youngster has, to his own amazement, gotten the ball, and is now headed the wrong way down the field, while well-meaning parents are pointing and hollering, “It’s that way! The goal is that way!”
While I agree that Obama’s associations are profoundly disturbing, and tell us plenty about his world view and what his goals for government are, the fact is that the public is fixated on the economy at the moment.
It would be one thing if there were no story for McCain to tell. But there is. And McCain and Palin need to tell this narrative to the public. I have personally had conversations with any number of friends and colleagues who were stunned and appalled when confronted with the role of Democratic congressmen in the banking collapse. The National Republican Congressional Committee has a powerful ad that shows the Dems in deep denial. The very same Democrats who are now blaming the Bush administration, while clamoring for even more control over our markets, our financial institutions, our businesses. The truth of these messages can convert people wavering on the issue of the economy, and perhaps leaning towards Obama’s seductive siren song of comforting government control.
Why isn’t Team McCain moving the ball down the field on this one? It’s a simple message: These guys have screwed up enough! Don’t take our word for it - we’ve got it on tape. They’ve already cost us $850 billion. Why on earth would you put them in charge of anything else?
As with so many other issues, the narrative on the economy favors McCain and
Palin. Now if they’d only tell it. It’s that way, John and Sarah.
The goal is that way.
The media's coverage of the 2008 Presidential candidates is recklessly skewed. Left unchecked and unchallenged, it could taint the election process!
The Media Research Center just released a 7-month study of morning news shows and found the networks are giving nearly twice as much airtime to Democratic candidates. Even worse, these segments actively promoted the liberal agenda.
In other words, the networks aren't even trying to hide their bias!
I have just signed a national petition launched by the Media Research Center demanding balance in 2008 election coverage, and am urging you to do the same by clicking here:
(Note: You can access the full MRC Report, "Rise and Shine on Democrats," by clicking on the above link.)
The MRC is mobilizing 100,000 citizens over the next 30 days, and will present the petitions to the media as soon as our goal has been reached.
Please take a moment to add your name:
Thanks for joining with me.
P.S. After adding your name to this important petition, please alert your
friends and family and urge them to take action with you!
Our choices are not great, but this guy is a bit scary to me!
Maybe I've Gotten This All Wrong - Me Just Being An Average Middle Class Guy Without Much Formal Education Beyond A B.A. Degree...But Now, Check This Out:
This Man Wants Our Vote For U.S. President - His Father Was A Kenyan, And A Black- We Saw All Those Pictures Of His Nice African Family.
His Mother Is Kansan, Atheist, And White. So - Where Are All Those Pictures Of His Nice White Mother And His Nice White Kansas Grandparents - The Ones Who Raised Him All Those Early Years?
Lets See - His Father Deserted His Mother And Him When He Was Very Young And Moved Back To Live With His Family In Kenya (Those Are The Ones In The Pictures).
His White Mother Then Married An Indonesian Muslim And Took Him To The City Of Jakarta Where He Was First Schooled In A Muslim School.
His Mother Then Moved To Hawaii And He Was Raised By His White Middle Class - American Grandparents There.
Ummm...Now Here's The Beginning Of The Hard Part For Me (Help Me Out Here, If You Can):
Somehow, Suddenly - He Went To The Best High Dollar Prep Schools In America, And Next He Got Into A Top Ivy League College , And Later, Into Harvard Law School - How? Who Sponsored Him? Who Paid For All That Schooling?
Have You Looked At Tuition Expenses To Attend Undergraduate Yale Lately?
How About Harvard Law School? Somebody Paid A Lot Of Bucks For This Kid's Ivy League Education.......)
Who? He Apparently Did Not Have Scholarships That Paid It All, From What We Read.
He Also Did Not Have To Borrow For College, Also From What We Read. So???
That Brings Us To The More Current Years:
A U.S. Senator's Salary Is Not That Great, But This Young Man And His Young Wife Just Recently Bought A $1.4 Million Dollar House That He Acquired Through A 'deal' With A Wealthy Fund Raiser, A Fund Raiser Who Apparently Is A Criminal Law Breaker, Per The News.
What Sort Of 'deal'?
And, Right Out Of Harvard Law, He 'worked' As A Civil Rights Activist In Chicago. What Kind Of Pay Is This, We Can Assume It Is Little Or Nothing, Pay-Wise! Or Is There Other Kind Of Pay Involved??
He Then Entered Politics At The State Level, Which Certainly Is A Low-Paying Job, And Then Moved Right To The National Level. Did He 'fund Raise' To Get The Funds To Get Elected? What Kind Of Promises Did He Make?
Now, He Scrambles Today With A Nice Smile But Very Minimal Experience In Anything - While Other People Write His Rah-Rah Speeches For Him.
In All His Minimal Time In The State And National Legislatures, He's Never Launched Any Important Legislation, None Whatsoever.
Mostly Of Late, For Some Two Years, He's Been Out Running For President.
Then Come The Endorsements For Him From Other Countries, Ones That Are Not Exactly U.S.A. Friends, Like The Iran Pres, French Pres, The Iraq Minister That Wants U.S.A. Out. Hmmm, What Do They See In Him That They Like?
He Claims To Be 'proud Of His African Heritage' – Nice, But -- It Seems That His Only Connection With Africa Was That His African Father Got A White American Girl Pregnant And Then Deserted Her.
Ummm....Where Is The Outspoken Pride In His White Heritage?
After All - It Was White Grandparents That Raised Him!
He Is Presently A Member, Or Was Until Politics Necessitated A Change, For Over 20 Years, Of An 'afrocentric' Church In Chicago That Seemingly Hates Whites, Hates Jews, And Blames America For All The World's Faults.
He Repeatedly Covered Up For That Pastor And That Church - Saying That He Can Separate The Religion From The Politics When He Hears A Hate-Whitey Sermon.
He Claimed That He Was Simply Unable To Confront His Pastor Of 20+ Years About The Pastor's Demonstrated Un-American Bias.
But -- He Wants Us To Believe That He Can Confront North Korea And Iran And Russia When The Time Arises To Take America's Side.
Yeah - With His Background And Experience, He 'hopes' That He Could Be A 'uniter' And Bring Us All Together;
But - We Are Left To Think That The Real 'hope' Is, That He Really Hopes That No One Will Put All These Pieces Together, At Least Not Until After The Election.
You Might Send This To Everyone You Know And - Get Out And Vote.
(Below taken from the books written by Barack Hussain Obama ) From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'
From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'
And FINALLY the Most Damning one of ALL of them!!!
From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
* If you have never forwarded an e-mail, now is the time to do so! We CANNOT
have someone with this type of mentality running our GREAT nation! I don't
care whether you a Democrat or a Conservative. We CANNOT turn ourselves over
to this type of character in a President.
In case you missed this ... The latest swing state polls show that John McCain is now losing to Barack Obama, but many of these races still remain very close. McCain can still win! Our sponsor today reveals that Hillary Clinton's hardball strategy against Obama actually worked -- though it was implemented too late. Please read their full message below -- and find out how you can help defeat Obama.
Obama’s Radical Agenda Exposed
Never before in the history of our nation have we faced such a grave crisis: one of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States.
That man is Barack Obama.
He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you may not like.
Remember Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate.
He received a 100 percent Liberal Rating from the National Journal, making him the most left-wing Senator in Washington — more liberal than even Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy.
If you look at Obama’s record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is.
He even has terrorist friends he won’t denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.
In 2001, Ayers said he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more.
The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.
Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing.
However, Obama has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers.
Obama has even been endorsed by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan.
No one can deny hearing about Obama’s relationship with the America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama — because he is one of them.
In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without “preconditions” even though Ahmadinejad has promised to “wipe Israel off the map” and “destroy” America.
Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him.
“We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election,” Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.
Help the National Republican Trust PAC tell the truth about Obama – Go Here Now
Dangerous Economic Plan
And then there are Obama’s dangerous economic plans for America.
He wants to almost double the capital gains tax. He wants to strip the FICA tax cap off every worker making more than $97,500. He wants to increase the dividend tax. He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire — giving almost every American family an automatic tax increase.
He has called for more than $800 billion in new spending programs.
He is so radical he even backed driver’s licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.
He is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.
He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.
He originally backed Washington D.C.’s total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an “F” on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.
Never forget that Obama is a Harvard educated elitist. To him we Americans are simply “bitter” and he has mocked us saying “[they] cling to their guns and their religion.”
Support the National Republican Trust PAC’s Campaign to Expose Obama – Go Here Now
Exposing the Truth
Hillary Clinton was late in recognizing the threat Obama posed to her campaign, but once she did, her strategy worked.
When Hillary exposed Obama publicly, her campaign saw a major turnaround.
Hillary won every major state primary in the nation with the sole exception of Obama’s home state of Illinois.
And even though Obama was “anointed” by the media and Democratic elites, Hillary went on to win eight of the last 10 Democratic primaries.
How did Obama beat Hillary for the nomination?
Well, using a loophole in Democratic rules, he was able to rack up large majorities in caucus states where he outspent and out organized her.
But in large, contested states she won almost every time. Why? Because when Democrats heard what Obama really stood for, they turned on him.
Make no mistake about it: If we let Americans know the truth about Obama, John McCain can win this election!
But we must employ Hillary Clinton’s strategy.
We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is.
You Can Make a Difference
It will most certainly help our great nation.
An Unprecedented Candidacy
Friday, October 10, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Convicted felon Tony Rezko. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters. Yet let the McCain campaign raise the issue, and the mainstream media begin fulminating about dirty campaigning tinged with racism and McCarthyite guilt by association.
But associations are important. They provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque and self-contained as Obama. With the economy overshadowing everything, it may be too late politically to be raising this issue. But that does not make it, as conventional wisdom holds, in any way illegitimate.
McCain has only himself to blame for the bad timing. He should months ago have begun challenging Obama's associations, before the economic meltdown allowed the Obama campaign (and the mainstream media, which is to say the same thing) to dismiss the charges as an act of desperation by the trailing candidate.
McCain had his chance back in April when the North Carolina Republican Party ran a gubernatorial campaign ad that included the linking of Obama with Jeremiah Wright. The ad was duly denounced by The New York Times and other deep thinkers as racist.
This was patently absurd. Racism is treating people differently and invidiously on the basis of race. Had any white presidential candidate had a close 20-year association with a white preacher overtly spreading race hatred from the pulpit, that candidate would have been not just universally denounced and deemed unfit for office but written out of polite society entirely.
Nonetheless, John McCain in his infinite wisdom, and with his overflowing sense of personal rectitude, joined the braying mob in denouncing that perfectly legitimate ad, saying it had no place in any campaign. In doing so, McCain unilaterally disarmed himself, rendering off-limits Obama's associations, an issue that even Hillary Clinton addressed more than once.
Obama's political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room. If a Republican candidate had launched his political career at the home of an abortion-clinic bomber -- even a repentant one -- he would not have been able to run for dogcatcher in Podunk. And Ayers shows no remorse. His only regret is that he "didn't do enough."
Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright's angry racism or Ayers' unreconstructed 1960s radicalism?
No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.
First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with -- let alone serve on two boards with -- an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?
Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success.
Obama is not the first politician to rise through a corrupt political machine. But he is one of the rare few to then have the audacity to present himself as a transcendent healer, hovering above and bringing redemption to the "old politics" -- of the kind he had enthusiastically embraced in Chicago in the service of his own ambition.
Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama's core beliefs. He doesn't share Rev. Wright's poisonous views of race nor Ayers' views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond.
Until now. Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright's pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse.
Do you? Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament.
But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament
and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not.
Obama, Ayers, and the Politics of Intimidation
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Frank Pastore, from KKLA in Los Angeles, recently interviewed Stanley Kurtz, Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, about his research into Barack Obama. Kurtz wrote an article for the New York Post, “O’s Dangerous Pals,” detailing the relationship between Obama and Madeline Talbot, head of ACORN— the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
Frank Pastore: [ACORN is] involved in election fraud and a number of other things, but in Chicago what Madeline Talbot was doing—and she is actually the person that specializes in doing this—was pressuring financial institutions to make loans to minorities with bad credit ratings, and pressuring financial institutions and banks to do this, or else they couldn’t merge, or do business, or expand, or whatever, so it was really a smack down. And then what happened is these banks were able then to bundle these and sell them to Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae sold them on the international markets and everything was honky dory as long as real estate values continued to go up. But if they flat lined, or began to turn (as they in fact did), then of course these loans defaulted and you ended up with a $700 billion bail out getting voted on in the House of Representatives.
You were involved a couple of weeks ago with something else on WGN radio in Chicago…. Why don’t you lay out what actually happened and your reaction to the whole thing?
Stanley Kurtz: I was scheduled to go on the Milt Rosenberg show, maybe the first or second day after I started looking at those documents in the archives at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and I spoke with a radio producer a few hours before I came out there. He told me that he had called the Obama campaign and had invited them to send a representative on to debate me. He said that they refused to send a representative and they demand that I not be allowed to go on the radio, and when Rosenberg and his people had said that they wouldn’t do that they asked for the name of the—I don’t know whoever was the head of the station was—so they called and demanded I not be allowed on the radio. I knew that when I went down there, but even so I just thought it was some strange oddity. I didn’t take it that seriously, and when I got there I heard from someone that they had already (this was a half hour before I went on) I heard that they had already received 7,000 phone calls demanding that I not be allowed onto the radio. At that point I was sitting in this big lobby at the Chicago Tribune building which is a very famous old building in Chicago, and the whole lining of the lobby is filled with beautiful things chiseled into the stone of about free speech and free press. So, I kind of read those, and took some of them down and used that later on the show.
Pastore: Yeah, I’ll bet.
Kurtz: So, they took me into the show and they were just inundated with callers demanding that I not be allowed to speak basically. And Milt Rosenberg—you could see that he was very shocked really by this, and he called his producer down twice in the middle of the show to explain what was happening and they figured out this was coming out of the Obama campaign, and…
Pastore: That’s key. It wasn’t just the fact that Stanley Kurtz was going to be on the radio and then there’s this public outcry. It was coordinated and organized. How did you know that it came from the Obama campaign?
Kurtz: Well, the producer figured out—there is something called an Obama Action Wire and it, but I don’t remember all of the details, but I think it called me a “smear merchant,” and it called me a “right-wing hatchet man,” and that people should call up and demand that I not be allowed to speak on the radio. So that’s what they were doing. I have to say, I was a little bit taken back. Frankly, I thought it was also absurd, and I think I’d been born out in this.… At the time I really didn’t feel that upset. I felt that these people were making fools of themselves essentially. And Milt, you know, once he let some of them start talking to me they were just reading their talking points and they kept saying “he’s a liar,” and Milt would say, “What did he say that’s a lie?” and they couldn’t come up with anything. Some of them made some claims that what I said was a lie, but I had some documents right there with me that you know, “Ayers never sat on a board meeting.” I had a document right there that said that Bill Ayers was an ex-officio member of the board—that he was at a meeting with Obama. It was right there on the schedule. So, I just read the document. I felt at the time that they were just making fools of themselves, but you could see that the people in the studio were concerned. And I would have to say that at that point—I mean this is a famous old building and the studios have big windows that are open to the outside—we had to close the blinds. We were a little concerned….
Pastore: Let me ask you the things that they were concerned about. What is it that you have been finding in the University of Illinois archives regarding Barack Obama, his ties with William Ayers, and this Woods Foundation and other things?
Kurtz: They worked together at Woods of course, but this is the foundation that I was researching on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. And it was really created and founded by Bill Ayers and Obama and Ayers jointly ran it. Obama was the Chairman of the Board and Bill Ayers was the head of the other key body there called the Collaborative. But especially during that first year Ayers was an ex-officio member of the board. He sat at board meetings. Obama came over and made presentations before the Collaborative that Ayers was the chairman of. They even worked together in a small group of four people to create the by-laws and form this organization. So, obviously Ayers was more than just a guy who lived in Obama’s neighborhood. But I think the most important thing was not just that they interacted with each other, but that for years that Barack Obama was actually funding Bill Ayers’ radical education activities.
Pastore: I thought it was the other way around.
Kurtz: Oh, no. Barack Obama was chairman of the board. And the board was responsible for doling out the money. So Bill Ayers’—his own personal educational projects—were actually funded by the foundation. That’s why the Obama campaign says in reply to me “Well, look they were only at board meetings in 1995,” but the reason Ayers had to get off the board after 1995 was because he was getting money from the board…
Kurtz: And the thing is that Obama and the board kept most of the financial decisions that were made in that first year in place. They may have made a technical separation, but the money kept being funneled to Ayers and his allies.
Pastore: So let me get this right: Barack Obama is the chairman of some board whose responsibilities…or it chooses to distribute money wherever it wants. And it’s funding William Ayers.
Kurtz: Oh, absolutely. And by the way this is 1995. That’s the same year that that report came out … The one that started funneling even more money to Madeline Talbot. By the way, Madeline Talbot got more money from Obama and Annenberg too. Basically, Obama set up the situation at Annenberg so it was supposed to help the schools. They spent about $100 or $150 million to help Chicago schools, but all the studies show that there was no improvement in the schools. What they did was instead of giving money directly to the school, they created a system (Obama and Ayers) where they would give money to what was called “external partners.” And these external partners would work with the schools. Well, who were these external partners? Well, they were community organizer groups like ACORN and the Developing Communities Project. So, what Obama was doing in 1995—which is the same year he started running for office—is channel a lot of money to community organizers and to Bill Ayers, and they ended up helping him later in his political campaigns.
Pastore: How did he get to this place?—where he had access to hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions. I mean how does one become invited to become chairman of the board of the Annenberg Foundation?
Kurtz: Well, that’s a great question that I wish I could get the Obama campaign to answer more completely more than what I think they have. When Barack Obama in 1995 was chosen to be chairman of the board of this foundation with many, many millions of dollars, he was pretty much a wet-behind-the-ears lawyer, and ordinarily you would never be put in that sort of position.
Now the Obama campaign claims that his name was suggested by a couple of other foundation presidents who were on a committee there, and that may or not be true. But the truth is that Bill Ayers was the most powerful person on that foundation and he was on that committee that selected the board members. It is extremely unlikely that Obama would have been chosen without Ayers’ say so. And I also published recently an e-mail message I got as part of a Freedom of Information Act request. You can read that message a couple of ways, but I think the most plausible reading is that the fellow who sent it—who used to the executive director of this foundation—was basically admitting to some people that he had been avoiding reporters’ questions about the full story about how Obama got chosen. I wish the press would follow it up, but at least it begins to look as though there might have been a cover up there about Ayers’ rule and choosing Obama in that—to be head of that foundation.
Pastore: You had said that Madeline Talbot who is the head of Chicago ACORN had selected Barack Obama to train her personal staff before he was a lawyer.
Kurtz: Yes, that’s right.
Pastore: What was he really good at before he was a lawyer—in order to train her staff?
Kurtz: Well, he’s … we all know what he’s good at: He’s a very smooth, articulate, intelligent person who makes a very fine presentation and knows how to appear even-handed, even reasonable, as he supports and does some pretty radical, liberal things. That talent was spotted out and Talbot thought to herself, “I want this guy to be training my organizers.”
Pastore: Alright … so you are hot on researching this guy and getting the information out to the American public. There’s got to be attempts to silence you beyond just the Obama campaign. How are you dealing with all of this?
Kurtz: Oh, I’m having a ball. I’m having a ball, but—yeah, I mean it could be people writing insulting things on the Internet and people write you letters that are angry. But that’s par for the course.
Pastore: So are you a right wing hatchet man?
Kurtz: I was actually a lumber jack working for Sarah Palin up in Alaska.
The Diversity Party
Thursday, October 09, 2008
If Obama and Democrats were truly the party of diversity, why would they want to eliminate Americas distinctive, capitalist society from the world? Arent there already enough mediocre, socialist nations clogging up the globe?
Honestly, despite the demagogues in Congress meddling in the free market (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs) and causing Americas current hardships, our country clearly remains in a class all by itself. And with the plethora of second-rate nations in the world, Americas unique success makes its minority status irrefutable. Therefore, shouldnt liberals be advocating special concessions, considerations, and accommodations for America in the spirit of diversity?
Additionally, with all the hyphenated Americans that liberals have created, I think I am a minority now, too. I used to think I was an American with no hyphen required. Today, however, I have seen the light. Thanks to the Democrats politically correct agenda, I have discovered that I am an American-Constitutionalist (A-C) as opposed to an American-Hooligan-Outlaw-Lawyer-or-Evolutionist (A-HOLE). Yet, unlike other minorities who are apparently blossoming, A-Cs are a dwindling breed. Our origin is nearly forgotten in todays society. We did not come from a single place, but we did share a common set of values. The first A-Cs brought with them a belief that man was created in Gods image versus evolving from some cosmic accident. They valued human life higher than animals, vegetables, and minerals. They lived in a time when most Americans still worshiped their Creator, not creatures or creation. They placed their hope and faith in God and themselves, not governments and demagogues. I know it sounds like a fairy tale today, almost like the chronicle of dinosaurs. But both histories are true.
Nonetheless, due to my new minority status, Democrats should now identify me as part of a tormented, subsidy-needing, and exploited group. They should provide me un-Constitutional protection from hate crimes including Obamas discriminatory tax plan, which he doesnt deny will target its victims based solely on their minority-financial status. Its true that most of us A-Cs who are part of the working class will not see our taxes raised thanks to Obamas shakedown of our bosses. But when we lose our jobs, we wont be paying taxes at all. Meanwhile, Obama and his political pals --as well as their wealthy friends-- will all be just fine. I could go on and on (like A-HOLEs usually do) about all the entitlements I'm going to need, but I want to focus on America.
Since Obama and Democrats are such diversity fanatics, why arent they hustling the socialist countries that they yearn to emulate-- to start sending America financial support? The foreign money could aid all of Americas sputtering socialist programs that already exist. As a minority, America should not be expected to achieve the same level of socialism that socialist countries require you know, its affirmative action to ensure diversity. For instance, America has Medicare Part D, a federal program subsidizing the cost of prescription drugs. It might not be universal healthcare, but America is not a socialist nation. Consequently, it deserves extra-credit for just having any government healthcare at all. In every other situation, liberals lower standards for minorities. Concerning socialism, America should be entitled to the same lower expectations Democrats apply in other minority cases. When you think about it, Obama ought to be praising America and expecting fewer government programs, not more.
So, given that liberals loathe our capitalist system, why can't they simply voyage to a more ideal country the way illegal aliens in America have done? Is it because most Democrats are just too lazy and hypocritical to move? Apparently, they prefer to remain sedentary and to exploit America --like they do to other minorities-- while having the gall to insist they are helping. Instead of exerting the energy required to travel to some socialist paradise, the obese Barney Franks and John Murthas expect socialism to be delivered to their doors, like artery-clogging pizzas.
Its not like liberals dont have plenty of socialist places to choose from; Canada is accessible, and Cuba is only a short boat ride from Florida. All the existing socialist wonderlands are supposed to have everything Democrats dream about: lower quality healthcare for everyone; affordable education though there are exceptions; high taxation for employers; wealth redistribution to politicians; unemployment-causing minimum wages; emasculated militaries, and so forth. Just image, perhaps if Nancy Pelosi and her liberal cohorts in Congress were to move to France, they might even be able to lead France out of its flourishing, nuclear-energy system.
On the other hand, I suppose if this election turns out with Obama on top, even American-Constitutionalists might need universal healthcare to treat the heroine habits brought on from the shame and trauma of being violated regularly by Obamas new socialist policies. His supporters must be on some sort of hallucinogen already. Otherwise, a sober person would never believe a guy who has risen to where he is through his alliances with criminals, domestic terrorists, and racists.
Then again, that is a uniquely diverse group of allies. Who cares what happens
Obama's "Radicalism" a Growing Chasm on Road
Friday, October 10, 2008
I realized something after Tuesday night's debate: If (big if) Barack Obama is not elected president next month, it will not be John McCain who defeats him.
McCain may be Obama's official opponent, but he isn't making the core case against him: namely, the case against Obama's deep roots in radicalism, which the Democratic nominee has never pulled up and grown away from. This is why if Obama loses on Election Day, it won't be McCain who defeats him. Like a flashy third-party candidate who ends up drawing just enough support from one candidate to put the other over the top, it is Obama's connections to anti-American extremism -- his incubation in a radical comfort zone home to ex-Weather Underground leader William Ayers, ex-PLO mouthpiece Rashid Khalidi, anti-white-and-anti-"middleclassness" minister Jeremiah Wright and others -- that will doom his presidential ambitions.
McCain, Obama and, coming up on the outside, Obama's radicalism: This three-way race has created a weird dynamic as the candidates turn into the final stretch. Blinkers on, McCain hobbles after Obama, who is now desperately trying to shake off the radicalism that could trip him up before the finish line. Again, no thanks to McCain, whose winks at Obama's radicalism, Sarah Palin's stumpside references notwithstanding, are not what has brought it to the fore. The fact is, Obama's ties to radicalism are taking on a life of their own.
Such a "life" is in no way documented in the mainstream media (MSM). Just consider our leading journalists' idea of professional responsibility when it comes to, for example, Obama's connection to unrepentant Pentagon bomber William Ayers.
Ayers -- a violent, 1960s militant who later decided that radicalizing education in the guise of "reform" was the front-line of revolution -- is infamous for a New York Times interview published on Sept. 11, 2001 in which he not only declared America "makes me want to puke," but also discussed his group's violent attacks on American military and civilian targets, asserting, "we didn't do enough." His working relationship with Obama, as documented by Stanley Kurtz, goes back to the 1990s when Obama served as chairman of a $150 million charity, which Kurtz describes as Ayers' "brainchild," that doled out money to far-left groups such as ACORN. Funny, as Kurtz has noted, Obama never mentioned these five years of what is his only executive experience in either of his two memoirs. Not so funny is Obama's dishonest description of Ayers as "just a guy who lives in my neighborhood."
MSM coverage of the relationship has been hardly more forthcoming. It runs from demonstrable whitewash -- as put over in the New York Times, which, in nixing notable ties, omitted all mention of copious, previously published evidence to the contrary -- to overt damage control, as conducted by the Associated Press. The AP actually argued that Palin's reference to the Obama-Ayers relationship as Obama "(palling) around with terrorists" conveyed a "racially tinged subtext." Huh? According to the AP, Palin's remarks were racist because "terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims." Therefore....
Are they kidding? In a word, no. But such efforts may signal a desperate response to growing, inchoate unease in the land, a silent, or sighing, or very privately discussed queasiness over the prospect of making an American president out of a man who not only didn't cross the street to shun a punk like Ayers, but was so comfortable with Ayers -- who, not incidentally, in 1995 described himself as "a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist" -- that Obama launched his political career from Ayers' living room, also in 1995.
This relationship continued, as even the New York Times perhaps inadvertently reported: Obama "said they have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005." Ask yourself: What American president -- any party, any era -- would have maintained correspondence with Mr. America "makes me want to puke" for that long? And about the year 2005: Isn't that roughly when Obama decided to run for president?
Americans may be fuzzy on the details -- and how could they be clear, given the media's pro-Obama activities -- but some are realizing, slowly and with no corroboration in the public square, that such radical ties don't pass presidential muster.
Or do they? In the end, the answer will decide the election. Meanwhile, we, the people, are on our own. Once, America's political and media and social institutions would have reflexively rejected a presidential candidate with an alliance with, or even an affinity for, an unrepentant terrorist and anti-establishment revolutionary. No more. The line between the establishment and the anti-establishment has vanished -- at least as far as our political and media and social institutions are concerned. But there remain citizens for whom such distinctions matter.
Writing at National Review Online, Andrew C. McCarthy pegged the significance of the Obama-Ayers connection: "Yes, Ayers is blunter than Obama. As he so delicately told the Times, America makes him `want to puke.' The smoother Obama is content to say our society needs fundamental `change.' But what they're talking about," he wrote, referring to their complementary visions, "is not materially different. Such sentiments should make Obama unelectable."
Actually, such sentiments should make Obama radioactive. But ours is a culture of relativism in which one "belief system" is considered as valid as any other. Democracy? Marxism? Whatever! Lawful elections? Bombing the Pentagon? What's the difference? So greatly transformed by relativism is our society that not even elder statesman and veteran John McCain is alarmed by Obama's radicalism. If he were, this patriot who puts "country first," would be doing everything in his power to warn the American people against it.
Not that it matters, not now, not since Obama's radicalism entered the race.
If this stalking horse finishes strong, Obama loses and America wins -- despite
the other candidate.
Playing the Race Card
Friday, October 10, 2008
Was John McCain playing the race card when he referred to Barack Obama as "that one" in Tuesday's presidential debate? Obama's campaign and its echo chamber in the media surely want us to think so. Within seconds, the campaign was sending out e-mails to reporters drawing attention to the phrase, and the media were quick to take up the charge.
The New York Times' Maureen Dowd somehow claimed that the phrase is "a cross between 'The One' and 'That Woman,'" and meant as a subtle warning to whites that they "should not open the door to the dangerous Other," namely a black man. CBS' Jeff Greenfield said, "Those two words are going to be what the water cooler conversation is tomorrow." Calling race "a particularly toxic issue in this country," NPR's Michel Martin asked a guest, "Do you think that race is becoming part of this campaign?"
This faux racism charge is as offensive as it is off base. McCain's somewhat un-artful reference was born of frustration that Obama has managed to avoid criticism for his pork-barrel spending, even when it benefits the superrich. McCain was referring to a 2005 energy bill that included huge breaks for the oil companies, which Sen. Obama supported and Sen. McCain did not. If race played any role in this calculus, it is the unspoken assumption that because Obama is both black and a liberal, he is immune from suspicion that he would ever do anything to benefit rich white guys.
Throughout the campaign, Barack Obama has tried to have it both ways on the race issue. As long as he thinks he's safely ahead and no one has the temerity to criticize him, he's the post-racial candidate who refuses to be defined or constrained by race. But when he's being challenged in any way -- say, by bringing up his 20-year relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright or his troubling association with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers -- his supporters, if not Obama himself, are quick to claim racism must be the motive.
The Associated Press claimed Oct. 5 that vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's reference to the Obama-Ayers connection "carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret." Racially tinged? The Weather Underground were mostly over-privileged, white radicals from the '60s who tried to blow up buildings, including the Capitol and the Pentagon, and killed one policeman and maimed another in San Francisco. Obama has some explaining to do about his relationship with Ayers, and crying "racist" won't stop legitimate inquiries into whether Obama has been honest about how closely they worked together over the years or what Ayers' role was in launching Obama's political career.
There are some real racial double standards in this campaign, but they seem to favor Obama, not McCain. If Obama were a white candidate who attended a church whose pastor regularly inveighed against blacks and accused them of plotting to kill whites, would he have become the Democratic nominee for president? Would he have been able to get away with a speech in which he said he could no more disown his pastor than he could the white community or his own grandmother? And how would it look if he abandoned this association only after the pastor began attacking him?
If Obama were white, would he have won more than 90 percent of the black vote in the Democratic primaries? And without that overwhelming support from black voters, could he have secured the nomination? That is not to say that Obama is not talented and appealing on his own. But his race has been more a plus factor than a negative one to date.
It remains to be seen, what, if any, role race will play come Election Day.
But crying racism over every perceived slight or personal criticism is more
likely to cause a backlash than it is to win a single extra vote for Obama.
The Obama Witch Project
Friday, October 10, 2008
Republicans don't need to dress up for Halloween this year. They're scaring the pants off Barack Obama's followers by their mere presence. Anything they say, wear or do provokes instant cries of "RAAAAACISM!" Wink, blink or think critical thoughts about Obama? You're a bigot!
How many racial bogeymen have Obama operatives and sympathetic journalists discovered lurking in "coded language" and attire? Let us count the ways:
-- During Tuesday's presidential debate, John McCain referred to Obama as "that one." Official Obama press agitator Bill Burton sent off an e-mail blast to reporters: "Did John McCain just refer to Obama as 'that one'?" Horrors.
Taking their cue from Burton, spooked Obama supporters hyperventilated like teenagers on the film set of "The Blair Witch Project." "The racial undertones were subtle but unmistakable," declared Maya Wiley of the leftist Center for Social Inclusion. "McCain was tapping into a current of superiority among white voters. It was an attempt to 'otherize' Obama."
"Otherize"? Sounds like something you do to your car tires to prepare for winter.
UC Berkeley linguistics professor George Lakoff was also haunted by "That One": "The phrase was meant to say, 'You and I are in the same area, but he's the outsider.'"
Memo to McCain: Next time, call him "The One."
-- Obama supporters on the heavily trafficked Democratic Underground website (where such mainstream Democrats as Elizabeth Edwards hang out) saw the ghost of the Ku Klux Klan in Sarah Palin's white suit jacket. Yes, white clothes equal racism.
"Palin is wearing white again, inciting the racist crowds. She should just drop all pretense and put on her white hood and light up a cross. She is a despicable human being," fumed a DU poster. "Grand Princess of the KKK," proclaimed another. They're "trying to send subtle signals to their rabid base," declared yet another member of Obama's rabid base.
My racial decoder ring must be on the fritz. I'm not getting the signal. If she wears white stockings, drinks a vanilla milkshake and refers to budgetary black holes, are those incitements, too? And what about her gorgeous white teeth? Perhaps she should drink more coffee -- hold the white cream! -- to avoid emitting further racial radiation.
-- Such paranoia is not limited to the fever swamps of the Internet. Earlier this week, the Associated Press disseminated an "analysis" accusing Palin of injecting a "racial tinge" into the campaign because she criticized Obama for his longtime relationship with Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Palin's comments were completely unobjectionable: "This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America."
I saw a vice presidential candidate drawing stark philosophical differences between two tickets. The AP saw Freddy Krueger with lipstick and a noose.
"Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as 'not like us' is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American," the AP piece frothed.
Obama is half-black. Ayers is white. One of the Weather Underground's victims was black police officer Waverly Brown of Nyack, N.Y. Where do I buy a pair of the super X-ray glasses that can detect the racism in Palin's remarks about the Obama-Ayers alliance?
-- I'll have to borrow those hysterical-colored spectacles from Time's Karen Tumulty, who spotted racist goblins in the recent McCain ad criticizing Obama for seeking advice from Fannie Mae corruptocrat Franklin Raines. "Sinister images of two black men, followed by one of a vulnerable-looking elderly white woman," Tumulty balked in a blog post titled "McCain plays the race card."
Um, "sinister"? The ad's photos of Obama and Raines were standard shots -- some with dour expressions, others smiling. The fact that Tumulty perceived them as "sinister" suggests that she should perform a self-racism exam before diagnosing anyone else.
-- A parade of congressional witch hunters for Obama also detects the specter of George Wallace behind every policy bush. Democratic New York Gov. David Paterson says conservative criticism of Obama's community organizing days is code for "black." Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks complained to the New York Observer: "They are trying to throw out these codes." In the same piece, Democratic Rep. Yvette Clark divined segregationist intent in Palin's references to Joe Six-Pack and hockey moms. "It leaves a lot of people out."
And Democratic Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid echoed Time's Tumulty on the McCain camp's Obama/Raines broadsides: "The only connection that people could bring up about Raines and Barack Obama is that they both are African-American, other than that there is nothing."
The Washington Post reported that Obama's office phoned Raines for housing advice and has stood by its reporting. Is the newspaper part of the McCain/Palin hooded racists' coven, too?
Obama's witch hunters better beware. When there's racism in every hiccup,
nobody's air supply is safe.
Obama's Henchmen and the Rise of Commufascism
Thursday, October 09, 2008
The secret to selling bad ideas is to make sure they are the only ones available. This is how totalitarian regimes take power. Whether it was Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany or Vladimir Lenin in Communist Russia, the pattern is largely the same – totalitarian dictators come to power by enshrining themselves as cults of personality and then creating political monopolies through often less than delicate campaigns of indoctrination and censorship – especially censorship enshrouded in the intimidating aura of state power. Ironically, these cloven-tongued leaders often rise to dominance by preaching power to those they will dominate, provision to those they will impoverish, and liberty to those they will force into state labor. Whether they claim to be left or right, revolutionary or reactionary, communist or fascist, the result is always the same – tyranny.
The great discomfort for many Americans as they watch the current presidential contest is that the scent of such totalitarianism hangs heavy in the air; the pattern so familiar in European dictatorships seems eerily present in Barak Obama’s presidential campaign. Senator Obama, obviously intelligent and gifted with enviable powers of communication, has for all of his eloquence, done very little in the real world other than campaign for office. His supporters can not tell you what he has done that qualifies him to run the most powerful nation the world has ever known, but they know he was born for the job – they were there at the convention; they heard the speech; they felt the magic; chills ran up their legs, and they cried their eyelashes off as Mr. Obama stood tall between the ivory columns of a Greek temple to accept his party’s nomination for President of the United States.
If there was any remaining question of his revolutionary greatness, scattered around the nation are tri-color campaign posters of Mr. Obama, bearing a striking resemblance to the larger than life representations of Lenin, Marx, and Engels used by soviet propagandists in the glory days of Mother Russia. These communist styled knock-offs featuring Mr. Obama staring nobly – if melodramatically – into the distance and emblazoned with one-word utopian mantras such as “Change,” “Progress,” or “Hope,” were designed by Shepard Fairey whose obsession with communist propaganda overflows in his “OBEY” brand website which brandishes a Cyrillic-styled banner that reads “Propaganda Engineering” and boasts the company motto “Manufacturing Quality Dissent Since 1989.”
The nod to Chomsky notwithstanding, Fairey, like any good propagandist, denies the obvious message of the Obama campaign posters. He claims the art is “patriotic” and prefers to let it speak for itself as it joins his growing portfolio of romanticized communist plagiarisms of such other “patriotic” works as Demitry Moor’s famous 1920 Soviet Red Army recruitment poster Have You Volunteered?, Vladimir Kozlinsky’s 1919 poster Meeting, and the 1968 Chinese Proletarian Cultural Revolution poster Political Power Comes from the Barrel of a Gun. Least the fascists feel slighted, Fairey also produced an exact copy of the Nazi Gestapo “death’s head” logo which he placed on t-shirts and rebranded as a part of his OBEY clothing line.
Whatever else may be said, Mr. Obama’s personality cult campaign has been an unmitigated success, creating, almost ex nihilo, a “beloved leader” out of a largely inexperienced and unknown man, void of business, executive, and foreign policy credentials. This fact alone is cause for substantial concern, but, unfortunately for the American people, what has been true of the form of the Obama campaign is now materializing in its function as individuals cloaked in the appearance of state authority seek to silence dissent and indoctrinate the masses.
The largest portion of the media has progressed in its leftist agenda so overtly in the current presidential race that we are hardly surprised when television news “anchors” swoon at the very mention of Barak Obama while taking every opportunity to belittle Governor Sara Palin, feigning objectivity and savoring superiority all the while. Such private sector propaganda is so common it is almost passé. What is far more troubling is when individuals holding powerful and intimidating public posts – police officers and prosecutors, individuals who, by the very power of their offices, can strip citizens of their liberty – use their positions to intimidate anyone who dares speak against Mr. Obama. When Missouri prosecutor Bob McCulloch takes to the air waives, placing the public on notice that he is a member of Mr. Obama’s “truth squad” and that he and other Missouri prosecutors and law enforcement officials plan to “respond immediately” to any critical speech concerning Mr. Obama that “might violate Missouri ethics laws,” the message, with all of its implications, is crystal clear – “speak out against our beloved leader and all the fury of the state will fall on you.” Mr. McCulloch has since claimed that he was speaking only in his personal capacity – a strange assertion considering that he has no personal capacity to “respond . . .[to] violat[ions] of Missouri ethics laws.” Perhaps Mr. McCulloch and the other members of Mr. Obama’s political police could have clarified their role by exchanging their very official looking lawyer’s suits for a selection of Fairey’s Gestapo t-shirts.
The shocking willingness of the Obama campaign to begin using state power, or at least the appearance of state power, to censor dissent even before Mr. Obama holds the actual power he seeks is doubly troubling when combined with actions of other individuals who use their taxpayer funded positions of power to indoctrinate “the masses” in favor of Mr. Obama and against anyone who opposes him. Only weeks ago, Janna Barber had the courage to expose what is apparently all too common in public universities – professors who are paid with taxpayer funds, using their positions of considerable power and influence to force feed pro-Obama political dogma to their students. Professor Andrew Hallam of Metropolitan State College of Denver, did for the classroom what Shepard Fairey did for political posters. In true Nazi-Reichsführer-school-meets-Communist-Reeducation-Camp style, Hallam brought rabid party fanaticism and inexcusable psychological abuse to bear on his class, demanding that his English students write a searing anti-Palin position paper, requiring the Republican students to self-identify, and then allowing if not encouraging the enlightened, open-minded, diverse, accepting, and politically correct Democratic students to verbally berate and abuse the handful of Republicans with language that would have made Stalin blush.
Whether it is Kent Higgins, a Chaplin at the University of Massachusetts, attempting to use official University action to directly build Obama’s workforce by providing college credit for Obama campaigners, or PBS ensuring that an open ardent Obama supporter whose own success as an author is dependent on Obama’s victory, moderates the Vice Presidential debates, or Virginia public school teachers coordinating an “Obama Blue [shirt] Day” campaign to indoctrinate the young children they have so much influence over with the conviction that Barak Obama is every authority figure’s leader of choice (Obama Jugend?), or Obama’s throngs of attorneys threatening with litigation broadcasters that air unapproved messages, the actions taken together amount to a “forced coordination” – what the Nazis referred to as Gleichschaltung.
If this is the result of an Obama presidential campaign, one can only shudder
to think of the impact of an Obama administration. These are not the ways of
a free people. They are the ways of those who do by brute force what they can
not do by the force of their ideas. Attempts at tyranny have historically struck
a sour note in the collective soul of Americans. There is something written
on our hearts that says it is wrong to take property that does not belong to
you even if you take it for a “good cause;” it is wrong to kill
the innocent even if their existence is inconvenient for you; it is wrong to
win a contest by intimidating the judges; and it is the honor of the strong
to secure justice for the weak. This may be the most important election in
recent American history, and we owe it to ourselves and our children to choose
leaders who will not tolerate tyranny much less partake in it.
Five Reasons Independents Should Choose McCain Over Obama
Friday, October 10, 2008
Conservatives, liberals, and independents tend to have a different view of the world and all too often, pundits on the right and left end up preaching to the choir instead of putting out columns that make good sense to people who don't necessarily share our political views.
So today, I'd like to do something a little differently: I'd like to explain to the independents out there why they should want John McCain in the White House next year instead of Barack Obama.
Since most independents would probably acknowledge that McCain is more experienced than Obama, is more capable of handling a crisis, and has proven his bona fides as a bipartisan reformer, there's no need to go back over that well-traveled ground. However, what I would like to point out is that,
As Forrest Gump would say, (Obama is) "like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get:" Paradoxically, one of the things that has helped Obama immeasurably is that his legislative record is so sparse that he has been able to simultaneously portray himself as different things to different groups of people.
All at once, he has been a doctrinaire liberal and a moderate, a radical anti-war candidate and a man who takes a pragmatic approach to foreign affairs, and a bipartisan senator who loves to reach across the aisle as well as a bitter partisan infighter who loves to fight Republicans. So, however you slice it, large numbers of Americans are destined to feel like they were misled when Barack Obama gets into office.
Who are those Americans going to be? I'd suggest that they're the people buying into the image of Barack Obama as some sort of reasonable, bipartisan moderate. If you judge Obama by his record (what there is of it), as opposed to campaign rhetoric, you'll find a candidate who is every bit as far to the left as Rush Limbaugh is to the right.
As Sarah Palin has said, this is a man who has been "palling around with terrorists" like Bill Ayers & Bernardine Dohrn. He spent 20 years going to a radical, anti-white, anti-American church. He had the most liberal voting record in the entire Senate in 2007. In other words, this is a man who is comfortable on the farthest fringes of the American Left. Combine his radical views, his stunning lack of experience, and the rapidly shifting promises he has made during the campaign and it's extremely hard to predict exactly what he'd do and how far he would go if he gets into office. Given what we know about Obama, it would be far less risky to hand a teenage boy a bottle of whiskey and your car keys than it would be to hand Barack Obama the keys to the White House.
Giving the far Left your power of attorney, your pin number, and the keys to your house: Because our Founding Fathers designed a system of checks and balances to keep different branches of government from getting out of control, we don't typically have radical shifts in D.C. Usually different parties control the different branches of government or alternately, bad legislation can be stopped in the Senate, where the minority party has a lot of power.
Unfortunately, because the Republican Party in general and George Bush in particular have done such a lousy job over the last four years, the Democrats are going to have huge majorities in the House and Senate after the 2008 election and so if Obama gets in as well, the Democrats will essentially have carte blanche to do almost anything they want for at least two years.
Put another way, you may not like John McCain or the Republicans in Congress very much, but are you really willing to give Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama a blank check for the next two years? That's the situation we'll have if Barack Obama gets into office and it's why independent Americans who fear having the country radically shifted to the left would be wise to vote for John McCain.
”It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it”: Americans are sick and tired of spending our blood and treasure in Iraq -- and that's perfectly understandable. However, given all the money we've spent, the sacrifices our troops have made, the enormous importance of the conflict in the war on terror, and the staggering potential consequences if we lose (genocide, regional war), doesn't it make sense to make sure that we win?
Granted, because of the surge, which McCain supported and Obama opposed, the situation in Iraq has improved immeasurably. In fact, it has gotten so much better that it's not completely out of the question that Barack Obama could guide us to victory there. However, as Sarah Palin said of him,
"This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is
fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking
about his own campaign."
Four years from now, it's unlikely that the United States is going to be taking significant numbers of casualties in Iraq or spending more than a fraction of what we do there today -- and that's no matter who the President may be. Since that's the case, shouldn't we at least be sure that we emerge victorious?
Come hell or high water, John McCain will do what it takes to win. He has essentially staked his entire political reputation on it. But, Barack Obama? The word "victory" never crosses his lips and he's setting a timeline that has the potential to hand over a war our troops have almost won to our enemies. If the American people allow politicians in Washington to steal a victory from our troops at this point, then future generations of Americans can and should damn us as utter fools.
Throwing good money after bad: The most disturbing thing about the 700 billion dollar bailout is not the fact that it rewards bad behavior, that it apparently didn't fix the problem, and that it dramatically increased the size of our national debt -- although those are all reasons the bailout should be condemned.
No, the biggest problem with the bailout is actually that Democrats in Congress, Barack Obama included, are refusing to acknowledge the root cause of the bailout, even though it's so obvious that they're doing skits about it on Saturday Night Live.
If Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress to demand that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac give loans to bad risks in the name of "affordable housing," then we're going to be right back in the same place, bailing these banks out again in a few more years. In other words, if you want the exact same people in Congress who created the current bailout mess to create another one we're going to have to pay for somehow in five years, vote Barack Obama into office and that may be exactly what we get.
We don't have a debt because Washington doesn't tax enough; we have a debt because Washington spends too much: Many people have noted that the budget was balanced under Bill Clinton, but rocketed upwards under Reagan and George W. Bush. If you only have a superficial understanding of politics, that doesn't seem to make sense. After all, isn't it the Democrats who always want to hand out goodies while the Republicans always talk about fiscal responsibility?
Here's the little secret that explains that: primarily it is Congress, not the President, that ends up driving the size of the budget. So, folks, if we have more bailouts coming up in 2009 (and we do), the current group of Democratic big spenders in Congress adds to their margins (and they will), and Barack Obama, who is planning nearly a trillion dollars in new spending gets in, the deficit will take off like a space shuttle.
On the other hand, John McCain isn't a big spender. To the contrary, his reputation as a fiscal conservative has been one of the primary things that has kept conservatives on board who have disagreed with him on a host of other issues. Furthermore, John McCain wants to put an end to earmarks, has proposed a spending freeze, and has even set a goal of balancing the budget by 2012.
Now, honest question: since we're putting our children's financial future
on the line -- who do you think will do a better job of controlling spending
under those circumstances? Here’s a hint: it isn’t the guy who
wants to spend enough to bankrupt 57 states (http://rightwingnews.com/#post12998).
The Stealth Candidate
Friday, October 10, 2008
Democrats assume Republicans are raising Obama's many questionable relationships in a desperation effort to salvage the election. You might think this is splitting hairs, but I believe the reason is that these relationships scare the daylights out of us.
Conservatives were very much opposed to Bill Clinton for myriad reasons, but with decades in elective office in Arkansas, at least he wasn't a stealth candidate. Though rumors and mysteries abounded, Clinton was hardly a blank slate who emerged out of nowhere.
Obama is different. He burst onto the political scene and has risen with such alacrity that even many of his supporters don't have a clue what he's about or where he would take America.
It's no wonder the conspiracy types are whispering that he's the Manchurian candidate. It's not as if he's embracing his past; it's more as if he's concealing it, and for good reason. People have a right to know just how radical this man is because America's destiny is in the balance.
I've always been extremely confident that no matter which party is in power, it can only do so much damage in four years because of the ingenious safeguards our Constitution contains to preserve the essential structure of government that maximizes individual liberty. But I admit I'm more concerned today.
The Constitution is only as reliable as the moral fiber of the people from which it derives its power and their commitment to good (and limited) government. That's why John Adams famously said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
I'm not just worried that Obama will appoint leftist activist judges who will continue to rewrite the Constitution. It's that he wants to socialize health care, initiate a massive transfer of wealth via the Global Poverty Act and would intervene in foreign conflicts solely for humanitarian reasons when our national interests are not at stake. He obviously regards the tax code as a license to punish wealth and equalize incomes in the name of "fairness" rather than a means to raise revenue for essential government services.
Then there's the pervasive climate of financial fear today and what it portends for the potential usurpation of power by the next president. We've seen oil prices rise to panic levels. But oil concerns have been dwarfed by the global financial crisis, which has led Congress to delegate nearly carte blanche authority to the executive branch to navigate through it. The character and ideology of the person who occupies the Oval Office have never been more important.
As if all this weren't enough to culminate in a perfect storm for the next president to transform our system fundamentally, there's also an alarming atmosphere among many Obama supporters. They follow him in a cultlike trance, having no clue what he stands for or what policy meat he would put on his campaign bones of change and hope once in office.
Disturbingly, Obama's candidacy is inspiring certain youths to perform paramilitary drills in his honor, public officials to threaten criminal prosecution of those who criticize him, and attorneys purporting to be working for his campaign systematically to intimidate local election officials. With this mentality, is there any doubt the Obamaites would try to shut down conservative talk radio with the "Fairness Doctrine"?
Then there's the ubiquitously corrupt ACORN (under investigation in at least 10 states for possible voter fraud), which is terrorizing the electoral process with such a widespread assault that it truly threatens the integrity of this election.
The question is: Where does Obama fit into all of this? Was he a key lawyer for ACORN, as alleged? What about his alliances with anti-American leftist radicals?
I disagree with those who've said the most important issue concerning the Obama-Ayers connection is Obama's "judgment." The very word implies that Obama doesn't share and never shared Ayers' views. The crucial question is whether Obama is of like mind with such radicals.
National Review Online's Andy McCarthy reports that when Ayers "was given the opportunity of a lifetime, a $150 million fund to be doled out as seed money for the kind of programs he thought would advance the cause, the guy brought in to run it was Barack Obama -- with whom he worked closely on 'change' in the schools for five years."
And how about Obama's membership in the New Party, a radical leftist organization established in 1992 to push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left, as reported by the American Thinker? Is it not imperative we learn the extent of this relationship and why Obama is trying to cover it up?
Does anyone doubt that if any Republican presidential candidate had a small
fraction of the questionable alliances Obama has, he already would have been
hounded into withdrawing from the race?
Message to Obama: We Were Greeted As Liberators
Dr. Paul Kengor
Thursday, October 09, 2008
A casualty of the left’s hatred for President George W. Bush has been a destructive inability to separate fact from fiction in the ongoing history of the war in Iraq. The latest case, which, sadly, has dug its way into the head of the Democratic presidential nominee, is the allegation that American troops, when they liberated Baghdad in April 2003, were not welcome as liberators. This inaccurate appraisal, shocking given that it’s made by people who watched the liberation on TV, was leveled again on Tuesday evening by Barack Obama for the second time in consecutive presidential debates. Both times, Obama criticized John McCain for predicting that Americans would be greeted as liberators in Iraq.
I cannot confirm whether McCain said that. Either way, though, the undeniable truth is that we were welcomed as liberators. I know this very well, because I, like everyone over the age of five, lived through it.
I recall a June 27, 2003 piece by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times, titled, “The Man With No Ear.” A few weeks after the apparent cessation of war, Kristof visited Iraq. Like The Times, he adamantly opposed the war. Now, he had to come to grips with the undeniable freedom wrought by the liberation, and the gratitude that Iraqis felt for George W. Bush. One Iraqi told Kristof: “A thousand thanks to Bush! A thousand thanks to Bush’s mother for giving birth to him!”
Kristof admitted he did not expect that reaction. He tracked down a man named Mathem Abid Ali. For deserting the Army, Ali’s ear was amputated. “Children looked at me, and turned away in horror,” he told Kristof. But now, at last, Ali was free. He told Kristof: “I’d like to make a statue in gold of President Bush.”
Kristof admitted that such facts “got in the way” of his plans for his column. He conceded that it was important that doves like himself encounter Saddam’s victims and their joy at being liberated by American troops. Doves “need to grapple with the giddy new freedom that—in spite of us—pullulates from Baghdad to Basra,” wrote Kristof.
When Iraqis weren’t talking of forging gold statues to George W. Bush, they were running around the streets literally praising God for him. Here, too, I could give example after example, but I will stick with another from the popular press, this from the London Telegraph, May 21, 2003:
Juad Amir Sayed, an Iraqi Shiite Muslim, lived in the village of Karada, 90 miles southeast of Baghdad. At age 24, he had buried all of his books in a flour sack, burned his identity card, and constructed a tunnel and three-by-five-foot concrete cell under the family kitchen. He entered that cell on December 2, 1981 and lived there for the next 22 years.
Juad dug a tiny three-inch diameter hole deep into the ground from which he sucked water. This was his well. A smaller peep hole provided a ray of sunlight during the day. His only company was a Koran and a radio with headphones that he kept tuned to the Arabic Service of the BBC. His bright moment came near the 20th anniversary of his confinement when he heard a speech by President Bush on the September 11 attacks. “Mr. Bush gave a speech in which he said the terrorists of the world would be hunted down,” recalled Juad. “The next time my mother brought me food I told her of my conviction that [Saddam] would not last.”
Juad assumed that any hunt for terrorists would naturally include Saddam Hussein. Fortunately for him, the American president agreed.
Once American troops arrived, Juad entered the light of freedom for the first time in over two decades. “I believe that Allah worked through Mr. Bush to make this happen,” said Juad. “If I met Mr. Bush, I would say, ‘thank you, thank you, you are a good human, you returned me from the dead.’”
Those are simply a couple of anecdotes from newspapers. Has everyone forgotten about the images they saw on their television sets?
I spent two hours with about 50 students on the morning of April 9, 2003 watching CNN coverage of Iraqis and U.S. Marines in Firdos Square tearing down a statue of Saddam Hussein, which was then desecrated, spat upon, smacked with shoes, and ridden like a donkey through the streets of Baghdad. As Howard Fineman wrote in Newsweek, affirming what no one doubted, it was George W. Bush “who toppled that statue.”
Doesn’t anyone remember this? Are the biases of liberals so personally crippling that they purge their own memory banks?
Every president has a “finest hour.” For JFK, it was the Cuban Missile Crisis. For Jimmy Carter, it was Camp David. For George W. Bush, it was April 9, 2003.
Of course, shame on President Bush and his administration for not constantly reminding us of this. Certainly, the press hasn’t bothered. And now, yet again, because of the Bush administration’s failure to communicate to the larger public, the president’s enraged opponents have been able to inaccurately portray another highlight from the Iraq war. The left has been so successful in eviscerating George W. Bush that even this amazing day of freedom in his presidency has been somehow turned upside down.
The fall of that statue in Baghdad on that day should be the visual equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall for this president and his presidency. It is not. It is now a negative used by the Democratic presidential nominee!
Now, all that said, here’s a critical rest-of-the-story: George W. Bush eventually became unpopular in Iraq, as did the occupation/reconstruction, especially in the 2005-6 timeframe. No question. The situation deteriorated. But that’s a different argument. The fact is that we were indeed greeted as liberators.
Here again, we have another exhibit in the Hall of Hatred erected to George
W. Bush. The left has become so anti-Bush that it can’t make simple distinctions
between fact and fiction. And now, worse of all, this latest false charge has
become a talking point for the left’s presidential nominee, where, yet
again, it is uncontested.
Obama Hired ACORN For GOTV
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is the first national candidate ever to hire ACORN, a controversial non-profit accused of voter fraud across the country, 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.
This information, however, was not properly disclosed to the Federal Election Commission. 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 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.”
To date, ACORN has been accused of voter fraud in 15 states this election cycle.
Obama has close ties to the organization. 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.
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.
Why Ayers Matters
Thursday, October 09, 2008
To listen to the Obama spin-masters you’d think that the McCain campaign’s questioning of their candidate’s association with unrepentant terrorist bomber Bill Ayers is a smear tactic falsely elevating a casual relationship between the two men into one where they worked together in promoting Ayers’ far-left goals.
Their reaction to the continuing revelations that disprove that claim is one of sheer panic -- and they have a good reason to be scared witless that any in-depth probe of what went on between the two comrades will reveal Obama’s true colors -- all of them dark red!
If the truth becomes better known -- and it will if the Ayers issue is doggedly pursued -- it will be clear that Obama was not only deeply immersed the fetid swamp of Chicago’s far-left political scene, but was from the very beginning of his career carefully groomed by the city’s socialist left to follow the path he’s on now in his quest for the presidency of the United States.
Giving credence to the charge that Obama was “groomed by an older generation of radical leftists for insertion into the American political process, trading on good looks, brains, educational pedigree, and the desire of the vast majority of the voting public to right the historical racial wrongs of the [past]” as the American Thinkers’ Thomas Lifson has written:
• Obama belonged to the socialist New Party, described by Lifson as “a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far-left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left.” A March 22, 1998 article by John Nichols in These Times revealed, “After six years, the party has built what is arguably the most sophisticated left-leaning political operation the country has seen since the decline of the Farmer-Labor, Progressive and Non-Partisan League groupings of the early part of the century.”
• Obama has been allied with ACORN and their Project Vote, the radical leftist group now charged with massive vote fraud aimed at electing Barack Obama president of the United States. Obama has long been directly involved with ACORN. An article by Toni Foulkes of ACORN, “Case Study: Chicago-The Barack Obama Campaign,” which appeared in Social Policy magazine in 2004, Foulkes revealed ACORN noticed Obama when he was organizing on the far south side of the city with the Developing Communities Project. Wrote Foulks: “He was a very good organizer. When he returned from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state of Illinois’ refusal to abide by the National Voting Rights Act … Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar … and we won. Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year. Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5000 of them). Since then, we have 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 and Bill Ayers were close associates for years, going back as far as 1995 if not earlier. According to CNN: “A review of board minutes and records by CNN show Obama crossed paths repeatedly with Ayers at board meetings of the Annenberg Challenge Project. The Annenberg Foundation gave the project a $50 million grant to match local private funds to improve schools… Obama was asked to serve as the board chairman in 1995… For seven years, Ayers and Obama -- among many others -- worked on funding for education projects, including some projects advocated by Ayers ... The board, for example, gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Ayers' small schools project… The funding, according to records… CNN reviewed, came directly from the Annenberg foundation which Obama chaired. While working on the Annenberg project, Obama and Ayers also served together on a second charitable foundation, the Woods Fund.”
No wonder the Obama campaign wants the Ayers connection to be off-limits.
Pull The Hair Plug On This Guy
by Ann Coulter
If Sarah Palin had made just one of the wildly inaccurate statements smugly uttered by Sen. Joe Biden in last week's vice presidential debate, there would have been 3-inch headlines in newspapers across America. (I can almost hear Katie Couric asking me, "Which newspapers?")
These weren't insignificant errors, such as when Biden said, "Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie's restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time, and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years."
It turns out that Katie's restaurant, where Biden gets his feel for the average American, closed 20 years ago. The only evidence that he spends any time in Home Depot is that it appears that a pipe wrench fell on his head one too many times.
Palin would surely have been forced to withdraw from the ticket had she said something like that, but most of Biden's errors were not trifling mistakes like these. They were lengthy Lyndon LaRouche-like disquisitions that were pure fantasy from beginning to end.
For example, Biden said about Hezbollah: "When we kicked -- along with France -- we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon." Hezbollah was never kicked out of Lebanon.
He continued: "I said and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't, Hezbollah will control it.'" This is madness -- Lebanon is not a NATO country, nor had any NATO country been attacked by Lebanon.
Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based on his knowledge of foreign policy.
Biden also stoutly denied that Obama ever said he would sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Liberals find it hilarious that McCain can't use a computer keyboard on account of his war injuries, but Biden is apparently unaware of the Internet, because there are clips all over the Internet of Obama saying exactly that during the CNN/YouTube debate last year.
Biden might have remembered that debate since: (1) He was there, and (2) he later attacked Obama's answer, telling the National Press Club in August 2007: "Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president? Absolutely, positively, no."
And that's still not all! Obama's own Web site says: "Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."
Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based on his ability to remember well-known facts.
Biden also gave a long speech at the debate on vice president Dick Cheney's "dangerous" belief that "he's part of the legislative branch." The great constitutional scholar Biden cited Article I of the Constitution as proof that Cheney "works in the executive branch" and has "no authority relative to the Congress." Biden huffily added: "He should understand that. Everyone should understand that."
Palin would have had to deny that Alaska is a state in the union in order to say something comparably stupid.
Article II, not I, describes the executive branch. Someone tell Biden, who is supposed to be a lawyer. Apart from getting the Articles of the Constitution mixed up, what on earth does Biden mean when he says that the vice president "has no authority relative to Congress," apart from breaking ties?
The Constitution makes him president of the senate every day of the week. I realize that Biden may not be able to count to two, but Article I says the vice president is president of one of the two houses of Congress -- the one Biden is in, for crying out loud -- which is what you might call "authority relative to Congress."
Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based on his knowledge of the Constitution.
In one especially hallucinatory answer, Biden authoritatively stated: "With Afghanistan, facts matter, Gwen. ... We spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country."
According to the Congressional Research Service, since 9/11, we've spent $172 billion in Afghanistan and $653 billion in Iraq. The most money spent in Iraq came in 2008, when we have been spending less than $3 billion a week. So by Biden's calculations, we've spent only about $9 billion "on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country." There isn't even a "9" in $172 billion.
Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based on his knowledge of math.
In the same answer, Biden went on to claim that "John McCain voted against a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty that every Republican has supported."
The last nuclear test ban treaty the Senate voted on was the one Clinton signed in the '90s. As The New York Times editorialized on the Senate vote a few years later: "Last week, Senate Republicans thundered 'no' to the nuclear test ban treaty, handing the White House its biggest defeat since health care in 1994." Forty-nine Republicans voted against the treaty; only four liberal Republicans voted for it. That's the treaty Biden says "every Republican has supported."
Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based
on his ability to function as vice president.
ENPR: Grim Picture for McCain
by Timothy P. Carney
Outlook: The picture is as grim for Sen. John McCain and Republicans as it is for the U.S. financial sector. If the election were today, Sen. Barack Obama would win in a blowout, with huge coattails at the Senate and House level.
Fairly or not, the GOP and McCain are bearing the blame for the economy, which right now is more terrifying than horrible for most people. That is, fear about the future is far deeper and more widespread than actual economic suffering.
McCain is not the only Republican falling in the polls. On the Senate side, the competitive races have all taken a turn towards the Democrats, and previously favored Republicans have fallen behind in recent polls. Once safe GOP senators now look endangered. Already 2008 was looking bad, but, after the last few weeks, this will be another 2006 unless Republicans somehow turn things around.
It's not simply anti-incumbent sentiment dragging down Republicans, either.
Vulnerable freshmen House Democrats have seen their poll numbers improve along
with Obama's. Democratic House gains, which we predicted last week to be a
mere 6 seats, could reach 20 seats if things keep going the way they are now.
Overview: Obama, who has been the slight favorite since clinching the nomination, is now the odds-on favorite in an election about to take a turn for the ugly.
Republicans may have made a devastating mistake in nominating McCain, whose lack of clarity, conviction, and understanding on the economy has handed the Democrats a win on this issue, where a more economically savvy Republican could have won the day.
Obama is poised to win with a clear mandate for his broad message of regulating the economy. McCain has not forced Obama to give specifics — either on which regulations were "shredded" by Republicans and caused this downturn, or on what sort of new regulations Obama wants to create.
All is not lost for the GOP, though. The election is four weeks away, and anything can happen in that time. Just what could happen to save McCain and stem the GOP losses, though, is hard to imagine right now.
McCain's campaign was foolishly honest — and correct — in admitting that they need to change the subject away from the economy. Today, that looks like a long shot.
McCain campaign staffers, before the current troubles, expressed frustration that their efforts to focus on issues like Social Security, spending, judges, and national security got nowhere with a media entranced with Obama's charisma and personality. They concluded that they need to pierce the myth of the Obamessiah in order to have a chance. That conclusion is even more true today.
The efforts by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to focus on Obama's alliance with unrepentant radical terrorist Bill Ayers could presage the McCain campaign's late tack.
Judging by current polls, Obama would win today in an Electoral College blowout, beating McCain by about 100 electoral votes. As always, though, anywhere both candidates are below 50%, McCain has a very strong shot, even if Obama is ahead.
McCain is lucky the election is not today. A comeback should not be ruled
Presidential Debate: Tuesday night's townhall-style presidential debate was a bust for McCain, who needed a win to shift momentum.
Once again, the most important dynamic was Obama's superior confidence and clarity on economic issues. Obama repeatedly hit McCain and the GOP for deregulation, and McCain never challenged him on the issue, instead offering what came across as a weaker me-too argument. Unless the campaign is willing to invest a great deal of time in explaining it in understandable terms, Fannie Mae is too arcane an issue to run on.
McCain's talk of drilling and cutting taxes sounded irrelevant amid today's plunging stocks, bankrupt banks, promises of economic doom, and foreclosure crises. These easy GOP salves don't work today.
Regulation, regulation, regulation. Obama's boldness and consistency in calling for more regulation was striking. He's in tune with his party on this score. Democrats haven't sounded so interventionist since Walter Mondale.
Where McCain did hit back in the economic realm was on health-care, assailing Obama's promised fines and mandates, deriding "government-run healthcare."
On foreign policy, it was a draw. The McCain campaign continues to overplay the arcane-sounding issue of Obama's willingness to meet with foreign despots "without precondition." This time, rather than descend into the weeds as he usually does, Obama dismissed the issue.
On style, Obama won hands down in a format that was supposed to favor McCain.
Where Obama displayed his mastery in showing sympathy (he feels your pain)
and came across as serious, McCain often was awkward, sounding out of breath
as he paced the stage, and looking creepy when he smiled.
Vice Presidential Debate: The Republican highlight of the past week, Sarah Palin put in a strong performance, shattering expectations. Just as noteworthy, Sen. Joe Biden did not make a fool of himself.
Palin was clear, confident, and relaxed, and she never appeared to be in over her head. On the economy, she was clearer than McCain, hitting Obama and Biden for advocating "redistribution" of wealth as well as "government-run" healthcare. Still, she called for more "sound oversight" of the economy.
Biden, like Obama, hammered away on the need for more regulation.
On foreign policy, Palin was not impressive, but nor was she embarrassing as Democrats had hoped and Republicans had feared. Biden, meanwhile, showed his competence on the issue.
The Biden-Palin matchup was more substantive than either of the presidential
contests so far.
Louisiana-2: In a change from past practice, Louisiana held party primaries over the weekend. Rep. Bill Jefferson (D), under indictment for bribery, finished first with an anemic 25%, forcing him into a runoff with runner-up Helena Moreno (D) who garnered 20% of the vote.
The runoff will be Election Day, November 4, and the general election will be December 6. In Moreno's favor, 75% of the primary electorate voted against the incumbent. In Jefferson's favor, Moreno is white. The winner of the Democratic primary will win the general election.
Louisiana-4: Former Webster Parish Coroner John Fleming (R) and trucking company executive Chris Gorman (R) will face off in the November 4 GOP primary, while the Democratic contest will feature attorneys Willie Banks (D) and Don Carmouche (D). The winners face off in December in the race to succeed retiring Rep. Jim McCrery (R). The district leans Republican but could be in play.
Reader Comments: (284)
There is a huge lie factor in the polls. And the pollsters are asking the
wrong people. I think there will be a large number of otherwise Dem supporters
who will NOT vote for Obama!As many as 15-17% of their supporters. McCain must
do 3 things better though: 1 He must ensure the source of Obama's funding is
intensively and exhaustively investigated, preferably by the FBI. There are
highly suspicious things there. If he can show large amounts of illegal cash,
Obama may be forced to resign as candidate. and face charges. 2 McCain and
Palin must maintain a savage attack on Obama. His inexperience on all issues,
including the economy, his association with anti-white AA's, his association
with black Muslims, and all the other baggage. Theres a lot more to be done
with that. If McCain can introduce a doubt about Obama's integrity and patriotism,
he will win. It shouldnt be hard, Obama is definitely not an American patriot!
3 McCain must get his act together on his talk about thr economy. Its not the
substance that counts, its about how good you sound! Obama has been spewing
rubbish for weeks but people dont hear the words! Its how the speaker comes
across, non-verbally too, that makes the impression. McCain is to worried about
substance and not enough about form!
As I said, with large Dem defections about to occur, McCain has an excellent chance, but then he must present himself properly. I think the GOP campaign must make a lot more use of Palin appearing together with McCain, because she actually has more raw charisma and pizzazz than he does. She has the aura, he has the knowledge, somehow they musy combine the message.
If they do it right, Obama will lose, never mind what the MSM polls say!
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:16 PMJack J, San Diego, CA
The McCain/Palin campaign MUST invest time explaining the FANNIE MAE issue so that it is no longer an arcane issue. I watched a program on Fox News Sunday 10/5 at 9:00 pm CT and read an article by Newt Gingrich dated 10/5/08 on that subject. Both of these presentations made it crystal clear to me that THE DEMOCRATS ARE LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MORTGAGE CRISIS MESS. It started in the Carter Administration in 1977 with the CRA. It progressed with Barack Obama's work with ACORN, bullying banks to make risky loans. It strengthened in 1999 with Pres Clinton.
The Bush Admin under Secy Snow called for more regulation of Fannie & Freddie, but Barnie Frank said that would interfere with affordable housing. Alan Greenspan called for more regulation, but none occurred. Instead, Sens. Dodd and Obama became the 2 biggest beneficiaries of Fannie & Freddie in the Senate. In 2005 and 2006 The Republicans in the Senate attempted to pass legislation to prevent Fannie & Freddie from taking more bad loans, but they were prevented from doing so by the Democrats. McCain introduced the bill in 2006.
I'll admit that I am not completely clear on the issue of Regulation. Obama keeps trying to take credit for it, but I am skeptical of that considering the amount of money he received from Fannie/Freddie.Also the Fox program indicates that the Bush Secy called for it in 2003.
At any rate, The McCain/Palin Campaign Needs To Make The Point That The Democrats, Not The Bush Administration, Are Responsible For The Economic Crisis Caused By Subprime Mortgages And Sen Obama Is A Major Contributor To This Crisis. Voters Should Know This, And They Should Not Turn The Economy Over To Him. That Is One Of The Worst Things They Can Do.
If McCain can't explain this, Palin should be able to. She's pretty smart.
Certainly, Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani could expain this to voters. If this
message doesn't get out to the voters, McCain will certainly lose and Obama
will benefit by a crisis he caused.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:30 PMAndrea Peters, St. Louis
I think we all need to face the fact that the Obama media and the fraudulent,
non-existent voters thanks to ACORN are going to guarantee who is to be the
next "leader" of this country that is sadly going to hell in a handbasket.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:43 PMnodem2008, Baton Rouge, LA
McCain lost the debate because he failed to attack Obama's character and record.
There were so many things he could have said but didn't and ended up sounding
like he never gave a public speech before. McCain's biggest problem is that
he isn't a conservative and cannot even try to sound like a conservative. He
could have attacked Obama for his community service work for ACORN and ACORN's
current problems with the fraudulent voter registration they committed in a
dozen cities across the nation. He could have slapped Obama for the Democratic
leadership's 1-billion dollar stipend for ACORN they added to the 700-billion
Wall St bailout. McCain's problem seems to be he wants to treat Obama with
too much respect because they both belong to the same exclusive club, the U.S.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:43 PMNelson, Kentucky
The central issue of this election, which has not been exposed nearly as well
as it should be by McCain, is the extreme, radical, socialist agenda of Obama
and the pervasive dishonesty of him and his followers. Simply ask yourself
1. Do you really want a government that is TOTALLY controlled by leftist, radical liberals (Pelosi, Reid, Obama), with no one to check their destructive power?
2. Do you really trust Obama to do what he says (cut taxes, etc.)? His entire campaign has been one of lies, deceptions, avoiding the truth about him and his record, and constantly changing his story to appeal to whomever he is speaking at the time.
3. Do you really think this man Obama is a conservative, as his promises and rhetoric would lead one to believe? He was nominated by and is the darling of the extreme left-wing, socialist wing of the Democrat Party. There is no way they would have anointed him as their candidate if he were anything other than a typical tax and spend Democrat.
4. How much do you really know about Obama? Do you know that he has had a long history of close associations with communists and terrorists, that he has called several of them his mentors, his close friends, and so on? Can you really trust a man who close friends have so often been people who want to destroy our way of life?
5. Who really is behind the economic mess in this country? Do you realize how little power the President has over the economy? It is Congress that must authorize ANY spending and that has spent hundreds of millions of YOUR tax dollars on welfare, handouts to illegal aliens, pork barrel projects, and purchases of oil from our enemies! And it was Democrats who brought about the deregulation of the financial industry ?quot; a bill signed by William Jefferson Clinton. And it was Obama’s Democrat friends and close advisors who caused Fannie May and Freddie Mac to fail, which is what started this steep downturn in our economy. Exhibit A is Franklin Rich, a close Obama advisor on economic matters, who ran one of those companies, ruined it financially, and walked away with millions of dollars in compensation. Yet, Obama blames the Republicans for this mess?! And, by the way, Obama and his Democrat pals were receiving millions of dollars in campaign contributions from these two companies. And that is the very thing he constantly lectures us about ?quot; lobbyists!
6. What brought about the rise to power of a charismatic, slick talking, dynamic con artist of a politician in Germany in the late 1930s? Yes, I am talking about Hitler, and, yes, I am comparing Obama to him. The similarities are striking! It was a financial crisis that brought Hitler to power, and he then put a stranglehold on the country. That is exactly what we may be about to see in America, if concerned citizens don’t stand up NOW and start speaking out against this man Obama.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that we can vote him out in 4 years, when he proves to have lied about the tax cuts, the concern for you and me, and about his socialist agenda. Once he takes control, he and his socialist friends in Congress will have so much power that they will change our laws, gut our Constitution, and turn America into their own communist playground.
There is nothing I have stated above about Barack Obama that is not documented.
It is MUCH worse than what I was able to write in a short posting here. If
you want to know the truth, and you can judge it for yourself, please write
to me, and I will email it to you. I do not ask for money. I do not ask for
anything other than that you take the time to make an honest effort to learn
the truth about Obama before it is too late for this country you and I love.
Freedom must be constantly guarded. There are always evil and selfish men who prefer to be despots rather than to allow freedom.
I am bewildered why all of the Republicans allow President Bush to be blamed for the economy when it was clearly William Jefferson Clinton who caused the Fannie Mae / Freddy Mac problems in 1999. Compare the NY Times comments and predictions to what we just saw happen. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
How many other failures of socialism have been spun in a way to blame the GOP? Is the electorate stupid enough to fall for this scam again? It certainly appears the politicians are. McCain has always been a Democrat at heart, but isn’t there one politician out there still capable of recognizing the truth and proclaiming it? Can’t we find one who will point out that the government makes a greater profit on high oil prices than the oil companies themselves?
All candidates talk about developing alternative energy plans, but in light
of these windfall profits, where is their motivation to actually push for developments
in alternate energies? Realistically it will take 10-50 years to bring any
alternative on line, so the only prudent coarse of action is to drill for oil
immediately. I believe Palin recognizes that, but she doesn’t have the
sway to make it happen.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:46 PMtj, Tucson, Arizona
It is beyond grim. McCain has repeatedly failed to go for the jugular on Obama
on his tax and spend socialist agenda, the bailout and looks like a tired old
washed up has been. He lacks the fire in his belly to call out Obama directly
and challenge him on his economic proposals and he lacked the fire in his belly
to stick with the repubs in the house and do the bailout with guarentees versus
spending directly our tax dollars. As such he is as much in the tank for massive
expansion of the government as Obama and all the rest of the crooks in DC.
What is even more laughable is the pathetic hearings on the bailout with the
Dems beating the old tried and true corporate greed class warfare and profit
band wagon instead of focusing on ground zero of the meltdown (fannie and freddie).
Why? Because they were behind the blocking of any attempt to reign them in
and the Repubs took a pass and didnt raise hell. Sort of makes you wonder if
they almost didnt do it on purpose as the October surprise to justify the conversion
of our housing and banking system to a government run socialist enterprise?
The sad fact is on top of this McCain is to weak and lacking in cojones to
call it an outright lie Obama's and the Dems indictment of Bush Economic policies
(aka capitalism), lack of regulation etc. to blame for the meltdown. Instead
he responds with drill now? Also, I am stunned that they have not called out
Obama and the DEMS for his nefarious associations (a huge character issue),
including the recently released data showing the financial relationships between
Obama and Ayers runs deep, Rev Wright, his own writings about race and religion,
the money train and tactics to ACORN and their attempts to steal the election,
etc.. Being nice will not win this election especially with the head wind of
bad air from the Bush administration, which again the DEMS are successfully
painting McCain with and once again he has not conducted a sprited rebuttal.
So it is looking like the DEMS will totally take over the Federal govt and
many state govt;s this fall and the stupid pathetic Repubs have themselves
to blame for it. One can only hope too much irreversible damage is not done
to our ecomony that can't be unwound in two or four more years? However, I
am not confident of that since once the ecomony has been transformed into the
USSA it will be very hard to undo the damage and that damage may go beyond
ecomomics to our very freedoms. Perhaps its time for another Boston Tea Party?
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:52 PMFlat 6 biker, Phoenix
Can you say, Bob Dole? Either change the Republican primary system to exclude
democrats or change the primary order or we will get more and more of these
driveling moderates who will get smoked in elections over and over again. You
can't out liberal a liberal.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:57 PMPalin Lover, Houston
For the good of America it is time for McCain to withdraw from the race. He
can feign illness (the campaign was more taxing on his health than he had anticipated).
If he stays in, he will get his butt kicked leaving the country in the hands
of a Neo-lib Marxist America hater. Palin should stay on the ticket, either
in the top spot or as veep. If she remains the veep condidate then a fighter
such as Newt Gingrich could take McCain's spot. McCain sacrificed once before
for the country and we can ask him to do it one more time. McCain must act
quickly while there is still time to stop the destruction of the country we
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:58 PMConservative Sam-I-am, Seussland
Seeing as though the debates are uncensored why doesn't McCain for once ask
Obama about his one and only crap legislation the S.2433, if he would even
bring it up because both Obama & Biden have their names all over the bill
and it'll rob the American people of over 840 billion dollars and whats annoying,
this money won't even stay in the US, but will be given to the UN for the Global
Poor Relief Fund as well as an extra 7% of our GNP. Now that alone would cause
Obama to fall, wouldn't it? we've had to give the government 700 billion dollars
and we're wondering how we'll be able to afford that and yet Obama wants another
840 billion on top of that to support countries that hate us. I really wish
he would be asked any question about this plan and why we're not told about
it and how it's already passed the senate and is sitting in the house for final
approval and we'll never know who betrayed us as it's being done by a silent
vote. Now come on everyone, if Mccain asked him to explain this bill to the
US people, do you think he'd be winning? It seems as though the country doesn't
seem to care about his corruption and hanging out with Ayers and Jeremiah Wright,
but tell the public about this extra money that he wants to take from us, one
question Mr. O, tell me and explain to me how taking this money from the tax
payer will improve the economy? It's the biggest heist against American people
and yet we know nothing about it. He's scary, God help us all if he becomes
the President and it looks as though that'll happen.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 08:05 PMPoulsene, Salt Lake City
Yes, technically, the Republicans did nominate McCain, but it was the main stream media who really chose him. They supported him only because they perceived him to be the weakest candidate to face any Democrat nominee. They fooled the old guy, who thought that he was their darling and dumped him as soon as Obama was nominated. I'm just praying that the voters will ultimately see through all this and clobber both Obama and his MSM sycophants for the good of our nation.
I'm still missing Novak.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 08:07 PMEd A., NJ
If Obama wins it will be with THE ACORN VOTE- the votes of felons,underaged
kids,dead people,the dallas cowboys who reside in Nevada-the buses will be
picking up the ineligible, the votes will be bought with a meal ,cigarettes,abottle
of wine, the promise that when the wealth is redistributed even if you sat
on your ass or you drank yourself into cirrosis,or smoked yourself into lung
cancer by God your going getpaid for sitting on your ass and the people who
work for a living will have to pay for your medical bills and probably your
funeral....thus Saith the ObamASSiah
Oct 08, 2008 @ 08:07 PMD-man, fly-over-country
There is so much about Obama to be brought out. How about him belonging to
the SDS? If he can't get Federal security clearance why would he be able to
even run for Pres. He has so many shady and crooked and anti American friends.
There is a man in Chicago, Andy Martin, that should be on all the talk news
shows and McCain should have looked i this man. I understand that he has been
trying to get the FBI to look into illeagle donations to Obama. For some reason
they won't. Why??
Then the man has ideals that will give America away while he is filling his power play to be more than the President of the USA. Maybe dictator. He has a lot of traits that remind me of Hitler.
We use to have real journalists that would have gotten busy months ago and dug out all of Obamas background. Guess we don't have any left. Sure would make someone famous, maybe award winning. But with all the media in the Democrats and Obama and the Chicago political machine pockets so nothing would get published or aired anyhow.
This man is dangerous to America, our Constitution and Bill of Rights not to mention the lives of the people and press and media. So much out there and no one with the old fashoned guts to go after this story. It is almost to late. If Obama gets elected anything that happens will be on the media and press' back and conscience.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 08:10 PMDonna in ID, Idaho
Senator John McCain and Governer Palin has to hit Obama's background every
chance they get. In Missouri, we do background checks for middle class citizens
in nursing, school bus drivers, and other jobs working for the public. Why
do they gloss over a man such as this who would be running our country? We
are begining to panic. Senator McCain must win. I hear people talking about
Obama as no better than a common thug. He has belied people of this nation.What
happened to America and why are we sleeping? This man is not to be trusted.
God forbid, I am worried about the future of my grandchildren. A commentator
on Fox news station said that the people that he has associated with must come
to light before we make a grave mistake. I agree.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 08:12 PMDeborah Adamo, Missouri
If he has any chance to win, McCain needs to announce who his Secretary of
the Treasury would be. Choosing a person strong on economic issues could give
a boost to the campaign.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 08:16 PMJohn Clendenien, Mechanicsburg, PA
McCain was not my choice for President but, I will vote for him as Obama is
a socialist thru and thru. The media and national press have anointed him and
thus we have had no factual information from them.Noone has asked him about
the latest book he is reading.."The Post-American World" by Muslim
Fareed Zakaria. Is he basing his issues on that book? NWhy is the pro=Obama
Muslim "get out the vote" campaign in State Mosques not revealed?
Are investigation on separation of State and Church only applied to Christian
Churches? Why the complete void on "Frnak" that Obama speaks of fondly
in his book. Is it because Frank Marshall Davis was a member of the Communist
Party USA, a sex pervert, homosexual and pornographer? Why not further information
on his allinace with ACORN who pressured banks to people who could not afford
to pay back and who have been involved in corruption re voter registration?
Why no inforamtion on the myriads of donors who bundled campaign contribution
with non-exitent names and place of residence? Whene will anyone question the
money from foreign sources? His association with Farrakhan,Rev, Wright, Bill
Ayers, George Soros, Rezko, Father Pfleger should have everyone ask, who is
Obama the man who associates with people who hate America,hate Capitalism,
commit fraud etc. I will definetly vote for McCain/Palin. I would never vote
for a candidate who voted to deny medical intervention for a living baby after
an abortion.I would never vote for anyone who allowed the manslaughter of living
babies thry partial birth abortion. I have become an informed voter inspite
of the lack of credible information revealed by the media and press.I view
Obama as a kin of dictators in Third World countries. Scary man!
Oct 08, 2008 @ 08:20 PMAgnes Tillerson, Erie, Pa.
some people think Obama is the anti-christ.
I know the church he went to was like a under cover training camp of hate.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:50 PMmm, tx
Oct 08, 2008 @ 04:43 PMcanadian_1982, ontario, canada
I'm afraid McCain was a bad pick for us as a party. He doesn't have the energy or the drive to spell out who Obama is and what is record actually is. McCain is a tired politician whose effective days have passed. Now we are left to suffer helplessly as we watch Sarah Palin fight hard for the truth but with no back-up from McCain. It's sickening to say the least. We elected a tired non-conservative candidate knowing he would face a young charismatic black man with lots of drive. Our party deserves what it gets. Other than Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America" it has been a dissapointing 20 years for conservatives and McCain is the perfect end to this era of selling out our principles. The hope is that we will have a resurgence in 4 years but for now we will have to bear the full responsibility for taking this country down to socialism and Godlessness. It is our fault.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 04:46 PMJennie, Florida
Conservative pundits and bloggers expressed outrage Wednesday over John McCain’s plan for the federal government to spend $300 billion to buy up troubled mortgages, announced during his debate with Barack Obama Tuesday night.
“Last night, he took that position on the housing issue of buying up everybody's mortgage,” former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said on Fox News. “Conservatives are scratching their heads today and saying, ‘What happened?’”
"What on earth is that about?" Huckabee asked. “Then you got to ask, which houses? The condos in southern Florida, where people bought $500,000 homes as a second home and now can't pay for them? Are we buying those, too?”
Conservative columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin couldn’t hold back her disdain for the proposal.
“I can’t underscore enough what a rotten idea John McCain’s ACORN-like government mortgage buy-up is,” Malkin wrote on her blog, referring to the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a group reviled by conservatives for its support of liberal ideals and alleged corruption. “Will he propose a similar plan for those who bought mutual funds at or near the market top?”
“Folks, forget about all this policy wonkery,” National Review’s Andy McCarthy advised in the magazine’s online blog, The Corner. “McCain's policies have driven us crazy for years.”
“The thought that he's going to win this thing on policy is foolish,” McCarthy wrote. “I mean, now, Fan, Fred and $800 billion later, his great idea is to spend a few hundred bill more to buy the bad mortgages? Really gets the juices flowing, doesn't it?”
McCain senior domestic policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin defended the plan in a conference call with reporters, calling it the “best way to go forward.”
“Sen. McCain believes this is exactly the right kind of policy. Provide direct help to homeowners; at the same time, support the financial markets and keep them from further damaging the availability of credit to Main Street America, one of the ?quot; the real threats to the economy at this point in time,” Holtz-Eakin said.
Under McCain’s plan, the government would purchase mortgages directly from homeowners rather than from banks, and replace the homeowners’ current payments with “manageable fixed-rate mortgages” designed to keep people from defaulting. Taxpayers would cover the difference in cost between the old mortgage and the cheaper one provided by the government.
McCain critics said the plan was similar to ones already proposed and scoffed at the notion that it anything new. But among conservatives, the idea of rescuing failed mortgages sparked the same sort of ire as the $700 billion economic bailout recently passed by Congress.
“Conservatives groaned in unison when John McCain launched his ‘new’ initiative to renegotiate the principal on home mortgages with owners approaching bankruptcy,” conservative blogger Ed Morrissey wrote.
“Some called this a ‘second bailout,’ and others predicted a massive hit on home values nationwide,” he added. “In fact, this is nothing terribly new nor innovative, and it has as much chance of preserving home values as it does of eroding them.”
When introducing his plan during the debate, McCain acknowledged that it carried
a high price tag.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 04:56 PMConservatives HATE, McCain's new additional bailout proposal
Obama definetly has more charisma than McCain, but is really an empty suit.
I am very disappointed in the American people not having memories or doing
the necessary homework to make such an important decision. If Obama should
win we will all pay the price, not just the ill informed, poorly educated and
those with little life experience. It will be many years before it can be turned
around from the Socialism. Jimmy carter will look good compared to obama. That
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:22 PMAndrew Lapps, Texas
Bottom line between the two candidates: Obama will bring this country into
with high taxes at every turn, especially on small businessess, the backbone of
our economy. On top of that, Obama's history with terrorists and other shady characters
combined with his no experience to run this country equals disaster for the United States.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:23 PMfloridaforMcCain
The Adoration of Obamma is much like that which was given to Trudeau of Canada.
In the case of Trudeau, his governing was a dissaster for Canada. Like Obama,
Trudeau spoke in generalities and made promises which could never be accomplished.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 04:59 PMLeon Misewicz, Dearborn MI
Why is the idea that the president is responsible for the economic badness
getting so much traction, when it is obviously not true. The lions share of
the blame belongs on the Dems who controlled congress.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 05:10 PMArt B, upstate NY
The reason socialism does not work is because it puts int he hands of a few
people the power over all. Most liberals think that it means everyone works
together for the common good but it is the exact opposite. If you like the
idea of this government that has messed up everything it has touched such as
disaster relief, education, economy, etc. running all htings for our common
good then vote for Obama. You liberal-loviong socialists must ask yourself
why if Obama and Biden are so concerned with the less fortunate they are the
least charitable off all the presidential candidates in both parties. Oh, I
forgot, they like to tell us how to be patriotic and caring of other people
but when it comes to them giving of their own money it's a different story.
Obama is the height of hypocrisy and by the way, Michelle Obama will come out
of that closet if Obama's elected and it's going to really get ugly then! She
hates this country's history and is preparing to settle the score...you wait
and see..but then it will be too late. Do a lot of research on these tw before
you blindly run after this "common good" their selling.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 05:22 PMjohn, Florida
Win or lose, I think Sen. McCain was still a smart choice for Republicans. He's the only major Republican who had a chance of attracting some of those voters who normally would vote Democrat. Whether or not he does, he was still the best shot.
I've been a lifelong Democratic voter, but for a combination of reasons I
don't trust and can't stand Sen. Obama (inexperience and lying/misleading lawyerly
statements -- and I say that as a lawyer!). I also have big concerns over deficit
and debt growth if current Congress and President are both Democrat, etc.)
there's a decent chance I'll vote for Sen. McCain, because though I disagree
with him on a number of issues he seems (notwithstanding the last few months
of campaigning!) to be reasonally principled for a politician, slightly better
on spending than Sen. Obama, and Congress will still be Democratic. None of
the other potential Republican nominees appealed to me at all, if it was one
of them I'd be voting, albeit with some misgivings, for Sen. Obama without
a second thought.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:24 PMdf, Toronto, Ont, Canada (NY Voter)
If the demographics of this Presidential race are analyzed in purely economic terms, the McCain/Palin ticket is being urged by conservatives to go for a larger share of a shrinking market. That is not a prescription for victory. Even if you successfully mobilized every conservative, that would still be nowhere near an electoral majority. Conservatives need the middle...the independents and undecided voters...to win. You are not going to get that by simply attacking Obama, even if it energizes the conservative base. That vote should be locked up already.
What do conservatives have to offer this country right now? No one seems to
have answered that question. In the meantime, the Obama/Palin ticket is answering
that question. While conservatives may not like the Democrats' answer, this
is why they are losing...not because they haven't hammered Obama over a preacher
and a former 60s radical who Obama doesn't have anything to do with today and
whose views he has denounced. Voting for McCain and voting against Obama are
two different things. The only thing that conservatives are urging the Republican
ticket to do is to urge the electorate to vote against Obama and that's not
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:26 PMBradKT, Los Angeles, CA
The PROBLEM is not the candidate. The PROBLEM is the Republican Party that
abandoned its base of conservatism and personal integrity, and joined in the
greedy rush to personal bennies, just like the liberals.
After becoming corrupt, Republican legislators played the political winds to abandon support for President Bush, who at first performed with integrity in the face of severe attacks from the media.
Had his PARTY supported him, and identified the untruthful accusations, this Party would still have a viable argument under which to win this election.
That said, it is a near impossibility because Republican legislators will not expose corrupt Democrats lest they be found to have accepted similar graft.
Glass House means DO NOT THROW STONES.
Why doesn't Bob Novak push for "term Limits" and other changes of constitutional issues for the reformation of government? Is it because he was "successful" for so many years playing inside the system? just like the Congress?
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:26 PMesquiregen, Allentown, PA
All I can say is that we need to get down on our knees and ask the Lord to
forgive us for turning our backs on Him, and allowing our country to become
what it has become. And for Him to save our country return it to a believing
country once again with morals and principles.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:27 PMDebbie Mangone, Middleboro, MA
I'm going to miss Divided Government, the last remaining check and balance,
but we* Republicans are reaping what we* have sown. Talk about cognitive dissonance.
And President Bush has once again proved that a country cannot forever afford
both guns and butter. Afghanistan zapped the Soviets and now, after Iraq, it's
going to get us. Pity.
* Hey, don't blame me.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:27 PMTim Shevlin, Anaheim, CA
I pray for our country. Obama will make it a communist country if he wins.
We have got to stop him. He absolutely knows nothing about the economy. Back
in the time of the 1929 depression, taxes were raised on business and they
just went out of business. Is everyone so blind? Obama has all of these bad
crooks as part of his group. Is that what everyone wants - for our country
to be run by a bunch of crooks? Obama is bad for our country. Has everyone
seen Obama's life history except for his college years? Check out http://colony14.net/id41.html
McCain/Palin in November 08
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:30 PMGina, Indiana
I have been a Republican for a long time and am an election judge in my town.
I truly fear that BO will be our next President. John McCain just seems so tired and has no excitement and has not put forth many comments that I would like to hear him say. What in the world is he thinking?
It appesrs to me, he has given up and has no fight nor any new ideas. I was opposed to the bailout and I still am. I nor you did not get us into this mess, greed had a lot to do with it and it is still going on.
I am so disappointed in the Republican Platform and in McCain. BTW, I have already voted by mail in ballot.
May God have mercy on this nation and the mess we are in
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:33 PMtroubles, Graham, Texas
Karl Marx would be so proud !
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:34 PMTacitus, Blutenblatt
The "debate" last night was simply more of the same. I gave it about
45 minutes of my time and since I had heard the same stuff before, went to
another task. Sad that I call a presidential debate a task. But it is hard
work watching these two rehash the same stuff.
If the voters are smitten by rhetoric and a lot of eloquent glitz, Obama should pull off the election. McCain seems to be smitten with the same problem GWB has, which is the innability to explain things clearly.
I fear for the America that I grew up knowing if we put a Marxist in the White House along with a left-leaning house and senate but in life, we generally get what we deserve.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:35 PMNick, Pittsburgh
The worst part of this failure of the Republican's is that John McCain is
really a Democrat! Check his platform against John Kennedy's of 1960. Virtually
identical!! The current Democrat Party is really a bunch of socialist/marxists,
and are not even close to being the Democrat party of old. Hell, George Bush
is a whole lot more liberal then Kennedy ever thought of being. We'll get whipped
in Nov., deserve it, and then hope to rebuild a real Republican party once
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:35 PMLloyd, Las Cruces
Right on Jennie from Florida. The time has approached for a 3rd party - Conservative
Party. Let the RNC fall by the way as they continue on their current (several
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:35 PMScott, Bend, Oregon
The Republican Party has failed America and Conservatives. Despite the complicity of the Democrats in Congress driving this whole economic mess, McCain and the Republicans have failed to point any of this out. McCain and his campaign is, as noted earlier, a tired diatribe of wording and methods from the 70's.
I have contributed to this site in the past and what I said a year ago has come true: America will elect a Democratic Congress and President this 2008 both which have EXTREME leftist tendencies. This is going to drive America to a complete socialistic state and will never be returned. The Democrats will enact laws maintaining their control on the press, on the airways, and even into our homes. They are already trying to pass legislation on these issues. After the election it will be done with no opposition because the Republican Party has become the "Neo-Politically Corrrect-Democratic" Party. My children will spend their adult lives controlled by the State. Their media will be filtered and sanctioned by the State. Their medical care will be watered down and limited by the State (if they don't die from their condition first). Their financial prospects will be limited not by their efforts but by the State's determination that re-distribution of the individual's wages to those unwilling to work is "best." Their relegious expression will be monitored and set as to what is "PC" by the State.
This experiment in a capitalistic democracy which we called America is coming to an end. Obama and his ilk are the founders of the the new Union of Socialist States of Amerika. Lenin's prediction came true - capitalism & democracy will be toppled from within due to a lack of conviction.
The people of this country should be afraid . . . VERY afraid. Such "charisma" and generalities found in the Democratic party and its leadership can be found in the foundations of Nazism, Facism, Communism, and Totalitarianism. I have started the transference of my savings out of this country. I will not be retiring here and once that move is completed I hope it is not too late to pull my children and their families out.
Watch your backside America. Good night & good luck.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:39 PMWes, California Cereal Bowl
Obama should not become the President of this country. However, people of
this country -I will not vote for him I am a Democrate but-again I'm just afraid
of him and what he is going to do to our country. All his radical friends and
views. I will be dancing in the streets if McCain wins; but if Obama wins Iran
and all the enemys of our "wounderful" country will be dancing in
the streets. How do you like that!
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:40 PMginger, las vegas
It is painful to watch McCain. He's not a strong debater, and his opponent
is a much better communicator (no Reagan, for sure, and not even a Clinton....
but still better.) On top of that, I have to agree with others that there is
not (a) a strong, consistent, WINNING message, and (b) the energy behind it
to get people to sign on. Plus, the Democrats just stole the cake while the
country was watching. And McCain didn't stop them. Worried and disappointed.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:41 PMTSP, Denver
McCain missed a lot of chances to hammer Obama last night.
And you are totally right - the Republicans made a horrible choice in nominating McCain. Everyone said he was the only one who could be a Democrat, but I think he was the only one who could lose to Obama. Romney would be dominating the polls right now.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:43 PMright-wingconspiracy.blogspot.com, CA
You guys forget that a lot of people are voting for Palin, not McCain. Why?
Because of the same reasons I am voting for Palin, not McCain: God, Guns, American
Oil, Rollback of Infanticide/Abortion, Strong Defense, Low Taxes, Conservative
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:43 PMbse5150, Syracuse, NY
It remains a true adage! "In a democracy you get what you ask for." If
Obama wins the election, it will be the result of a political, non-thinking
herd running over the cliff into a socialistic-abyss and taking the innocent
with them. I feel compassion for the next generations as I currently feel compassion
for Cubans, North Koreans, etc. Communism is another name for socialism and
it never works except for those who have deceived the masses; Obama is not
an American by definition; he comes from another philosophy all together!
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:46 PMWhisp, So. Calif
He blew that. It's discouraging the choice we have this time for presidential candidates. The Tired Warrior and "That One"
"That One" will destroy everything that has made our country great.
While its not perfect it is our republic and countless people from many lands
have sought it out to emigrate to whether legally or illegally. Freedom did
not come without hardship and our forefathers gave their all. Now we are being
torn apart from within, we have met the enemy and they us. There still may
be the sleeping giant that will awaken. The USA does not need to become the
new socialist superpower
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:47 PMBrian, Massachusetts
Isn't it an irony that the mortgage meltdown mess can be laid at the doorsteps
of the socialist Democrats such as Carter, Bill Clinton, Frank, and Dodd, while
poor McCain and the Republicans become the goats!
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:47 PMJohn T Pyle, Columbus, GA
My comments are pretty much like everyone else's. I think MCCain again went
out like a man on a mission and came back with nothing. I don't think I can
stand to hear the term 'My Friends' once more. He looks old and crochety when
he gets that weird smile on his face. I,ve never been so disappointed in my
life. And what about Abortion, immigration, gun control and the Supreme court
judges? He spoke nothing about them!
'A very tired Republican'
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:49 PMKathie Roberts, --Redding Calif
Acorn is trying to change the outcome of our election. If everyone was required
to have a voter I.D. card, they could not get away with this. I think John
McCain is ahead. Lets all push for an proper I.D. card. We have a SS# card,
why not a voter card?
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:51 PMDonna McCune, atlanta, ga.
republicans and bush have been giving this election to obama for years. rove
blew it. cheney blew it. bush cannot communicate. mccain has no guts to pin
obama down on his many flaws. mccains advisors are stupid and weak. i am a
repub but maybe its time for the u.s. to see how bad it will be when this greenhorn
obama gets elected, brings in his ultra left wing cabinet and has droves of
dems in the house and senate to work with and bring socialism to america. we
all better be trying to decide who to vote for in 2012 if we still have a country.
too bad so many were so damn stupid and did not nominate romney because he
was a mormon. now we get a muslimochristian with ties to ayers et. al and chicago.
way to go morons. dg
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:53 PMd gremillion, nashville
With everyone talking about DC and financial disasters, and vague plans for
rescue and taxation, the Achilles Heel of Barack Obama is shoved beneath the
floorboards. He has in point of fact even lately been supporting terrorists.
There is no question that Obama was photographed in the garb of a Muslim cleric;
nor is there any question that in his role as a US senator, Obama spoke for
and supported a relative (whether twice removed or by tribal affiliation) ?quot;
one Rialla ?quot; at a political rally in Kenya. Nor that after Rialla lost
that election, he fomented massacres that somehow were actually noticed by
some Western media.
Rialla is known to be in favor of hard-line communism ?quot; and, as a member of the Luo tribe, as is Obama by birth,is one of its 20% who are Muslim. (The other 80% are Christians.) Rialla, incidentally, wants Sharia to be the law of Kenya. One can only suppose the only reason for favoring communism under Sharia is that there would be forced conversion. In any case, Obama’s support of a communist jihadist and rabble-rousing murderer in favor of Sharia law for Kenya is well-documented.
If anyone bothered to suggest an explanation as to why Obama would put on a Muslim cleric's dress for a non-relative, it might assuage some of the anxiety aroused in some of us whose eyes are open by the delight taken by Iran theocrats and the world’s jihadists in his inexpugnable origins, apostate today or not. They expect him to go more than easy no matter what his pre-election statements may have been. If not, they will surely hold him ransom to his mortal condition, one fears: Muslim born? Therefore Muslim forever. Should he for instance make to attack Pakistan, as he suggested rashly in his first debate, and again in the second debate, then it could be rather dicey for the next four years … for us all.
Kenya incidentally just expelled upon arrival in Nairobi to promote THE OBAMA NATION the American writer Jerome Corio. Declared one youth activist, "It will be like we are voting here. We believe he is one of us, it is expected he will bring a lot." [Financial Times, 8 October]
Who will ask the hard questions of Barack?
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:56 PMJFK, Los Angeles, CA
PREPARE FOR THE WORST IF bho is elected. What a ditz!!! Bill Ayers will be
his Director of Explosions, Rev. Wright, his spiritual leader, Hugo Chavez,
his power to the people community organizer!!!!!! By the way, why is he filing
to stop the suit in Penn, can't he produce a legitimate birth certificate from
a US state, oh, he can't. The SO Bama is an illegal alien!!!
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:56 PMdcamp, kansas
The Republicans should immediately demand a reduction in the capital gains
tax since that would cause the value of houses and securities to rise. As we
approach election day you can expect the stock market to tank. It fears the
planning and "fair trade" policies of the Democratic party.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:57 PMBernie, Bronx
I agree McCain wasn't the best choice for republicans, it should have been
Palin for president,but they will get my vote before someone that has ties
and associations with terriost, and crazy white hating,so called preachers,
and has all the muslem background that he has. What's wrong with Americans?
Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:59 PMken Sykes, Monroe, N.C.
As most are sayin mc cain was a bad pick , I was astounded ol mit r. wasn't
picked , with his buisness background , he would have ground up obama.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:03 PMDARREL, PHOENIX AZ
It's over for McCain. His only chance to win was to repudiate everything Bush stands for. He didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do it, so he's finished
His vague mortgage buyout scheme was a feeble ploy to get left of Obama on
something, anything. But of course the scheme went nowhere and will never be
heard from again.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:03 PMRick Fetter, Chicago
I have pretty much accepted that we are out of luck for the next four years.
President O'Bama and more libs in the congress will make the Carter years look
good. Thanks again McCain. I will still vote for you and you can feel good
about losing with integrity and tact. I hope Paiin runs in 2012-she might be
the next Reagan
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:04 PMJeff W, Mount Pleasant, SC
Geroge Bush and Dick Cheney have totally destroyed my beloved GOP. The mentality
that deficits don't matter, after Ross Perot took down his father over deficits,
is baffling. Republican voters like balanced budgets that are balanced by cutting
spending. Bush has spent like a drunken sailor on domestic programs to buy
popularity with the left...gee that didn't work, did it?
Until the GOP becomes the party of limited government with limited spending, lower taxes and against government waste, it has no future. And this crisis will force a rethink of America as the world's policeman, we better restructure the empire to our reduced means. Whoever is President better make good friends with China, they are our banker and now know you can crash our system by just selling off their hoard of government securities. At least the Chinese have a lot of common interests with us now. They want to step on islamic fanaticism like we do, and are ready to take a bigger role in the world. Make them a partner and maybe we can get back on course.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:05 PMRJ, New Jersey
McCain should have picked Romney or Pawlenty. Palin is attractive to the Evangelicals
but her horrible interviews and her good because we were expecting a train
wreck debate performance is not enough to shore up this ticket. George Will,
David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan, and Kathleen Parker all panned Palin. All her
name calling on the stump just points up the fact that she has nothing intelligent
to say. It was a dumb, stupid "maverick" pick that has totally blown
this election. He really wanted Lieberman and this was John's way of getting
even with us. When I see Pawlenty speak he seems like a freaking genius next
to Palin. And who dreamed up this dumb "Joe Sixpack" phrase? She
would be a heartbeat away from the presidency and all she can talk about is
Joe Sixpack and Hockey Moms. There are a lot of conservatives that don't think
the pregnant teenager is anything to brag about either. This campaign makes
Hillary's look brilliant. It is a disgrace.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:11 PMKathy, CT
I am so disappointed my fellow American's who are actually (it would appear)
going to put this country of ours in the hands of this young, no expeirenced
senator who has smoothly put so many to sleep with his lies and changing policies.
Can't people see he says whatever they want to hear? He couldn't run my small
company, we're going to give him the keys, along with all of the congress,
to our country? We have no idea what were getting, as Clinton said, what a
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:11 PMDan, Nevada
Is there ANY way we can push Palin for President?
I'm serious! : )
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:14 PMTrue American, DEEP behind enemy lines (S.F. Bay Area)
We, too, are disappointed that the Republican party does not have a more viable
candidate for the office of the President. McCain, for all his sincerity, remains
an ineffective speaker. Numerous articulate Republicans, including Newt Gingrich,
Hannity, et.al. offer continual criticism & dialogue that could be implemented
in McCain's campaign, but for whatever reason, he seems to receive quite terrible
advice. Palin is a superb choice, but she serves to underscore the inadequacies
of McCain. Her strong conservative stance does not seem to negatively affect
her 'ratings' either, if numbers mean anything. It may be a long 4 years.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:17 PMRuss Ross, Germantown, MD
Don't read into the Presidential election until the final vote is counted.
In fact, having Obama up in the polls every day is great; it gives people who
like him the false sense of security that, "oh, he's going to win anyway,
I'll go back to bed for the day instead of voting," mindset. I wish I
could tell you how many people I've heard complain about Bush, (usually making
absurd, delusional comments) then when I ask, "did you vote?" They
say "no." I ask why, they say, "I can't believe he won again,
I figured he'd lose, no one likes him." Well, that's in THEIR world, not
the conservative world. Also, not to be racist, but he is black and whites
are getting mad because blacks are voting for him just because he's black,
not because they know a thing about him. The Bradley effect IS IN PLAY, TRUST
ME. If you follow the news, someone has already gotten shot for wearing an
Obama shirt and today, I heard some black girl saying McCain was stupid and
got shot down and deserved being a POW. It's going to get ugly and when Obama
loses, IT'S REALLY GOING TO GET UGLY.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:20 PMMichael P., Akron, OH
I think the picture is grim also. I think only God can save this country. I also have wondered why all those Jews were salughtered in Germany.
Germany had turned away from God. I'm not, for one moment, saying that God caused thet tragedy. But He couldn't stop it because he made us "free moral agents". we chose what we got.
We are now choosing what we get. I know that God does not want a Muslim Islamic led America. If we don't turn, back, to God and ask Him for help; we'er doomed to luck.
I think luck favors Barrack Hussein Obama. Pray America
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:26 PMCharles, Carolina
While McCain is an idle-minded fool, it is interesting that no one wants to call Obama and the Dems out on their (est.) 22% tax on businesses targeted by their Big Labor Boss-Backers (that tax will come through no-vote unionism that Obama & Dems have sworn to push into law if they win on Nov.)...
Nor does anyone want to discuss the resultant job losses forced unionization will cause on companies...
Nor does anyone want to discuss Obama and the Dems' plan to eliminate states' rights to establish Right-to-Work laws, which will allow unions to force workers in 22 (current) Right-to-Work states pay union dues or be fired...
Go ahead, America, vote for the change Obama promises, but that you know very little about.
Then, when you see more job losses due to the economy worsening, as companies get pushed out of business or out of America...when you stop and wonder why, try and remember, it will have been you that voted for "change" without knowing what that change really meant.
If you think Obama is a "different" kind of candidate, you are wrong. He is just as corrupt as they all are. When he is elected, he, Pelosi and Reid have to pay back the Billion dollars they have gotten from their union backers...But that Billion dollars will come at a price and that price will be the loss of countless American jobs.
If you really care about your jobs, your economy, your country, should check out the 'Kill American Jobs Act' (aka the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act), at EmployerReport.com.
Who is John Galt?
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:28 PMEmployerReport.com, NYC
It appears there are now more have-not Democrat voters who enjoy receiving
a hand-out from their government than there are have and/or have-not Republican
voters who are willing to work for their lifestyle . . . so, if the conservative
Republicans, like Michelle Malkin, wish to ever again win an election, they
should actually get involved in the candidate's campaign as an advisor rather
than enjoying their smart-ass role as a complainer. So far, Sean Hannity seems
to be the only conservative making an effort on behalf of McCain. Frankly,
I fear we can kiss our Democracy good-bye if Obama is elected President while
the Democrats control Congress and the ACORN THUGS are being funded with our
taxpayer dollars to keep the Dems in power!!!
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:29 PMMary Ann Miller, Alexandria, LA
I have no racist issues, I feel discriminated against by the very idea I could
be, just because i am republican and believe Obama wants a socialist US? If
his skin were blue like a smurf and he had green lips and pink eyes OR my color
skin (which is yelloweyish peach off beige) and had long flowing blonde hair,
I would think he was STILL socialist and therefore a danger to my beliefs in
this country. We are ALL so tired of being called racist
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:31 PMWhat a freak I am, when I don't want to be like you
Yes, McCain looks like he's tired. If I were 72, I'd feel the same way. However,
perky and full of energy does not a good President make! Obama is cocky and
pompous and must be relishing in this stupid adoration of brain-dead followers.
He's a socialist with radical ties and no where near ready or qualified to
be the leader of this great Nation. He's a great orator, given the notes, and
a real smooth, clever politician. I fear for America if he is allowed to move
into the White House!!!
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:31 PMCarol, Northport
Bottom line: Obama may be a smooth talker but he represents high taxes, greater
government control, and less job growth because small businessess will need to
cut back to support mandated health care and higher overall business taxes.
Basically, most people would call this ideology socialism. This is not what America
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:38 PMFloridaforMcCain
The Obama Timeline: 1961-2008
The following is an attempt to present relevant aspects of Barack Obama’s life from birth to the present. Every attempt has been made to present accurate names, information, and dates. If errors or significant omissions are noted, please free to contact the author at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Barack Obama Jr. is allegedly born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961,  to atheist  Stanley Ann Dunham;  Dunham (who understandably dropped the “Stanley”) was not legally married to Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., an African Muslim, who was at that time still married to a woman in Kenya named Kezia, with whom he had two children. [3,7] (Obama and Kezia later had two more children, re-uniting after he separated from Ann Dunham; Obama also had several other children with other women.)
Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he was nevertheless technically both an American and a Kenyan citizen because his father was a Kenyan. Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired, however, when he turned age 21. 
Although the later divorce of Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham in 1964  suggested they had been married on February 2, 1961 , there are no records or witnesses to indicate a marriage [4,10], and Michelle Obama has said in an interview that Ann Dunham was “very young and very single when she had him (Barack).”  Dunham was an “Adlai Stevenson liberal,” a secular humanist,  leftist social-activist,  and student of cultural anthropology. Ann Dunham had met Barack Obama Sr. when both were studying the Russian language [4,5] at the University of Hawaii.
In 1962 or 1963,  Obama’s parents separate; his father leaves Hawaii to attend Harvard and then return to Kenya, where he has at least eight other children with four other women. He does not see his son Barack Jr. again until 1971,  and is eventually killed in 1982, at age 46,  in a drunk driving accident.
The 1961 birth certificate posted on the Internet by the Obama campaign is alleged to be a forgery, based on his sister’s birth certificate.  Obama’s legitimate birth certificate possibly does not list a father. (At that time, the custom was to omit the father’s name when the father and mother were not married). There has been some speculation that Obama was born in Kenya [197,199,199] and brought to Hawaii as an infant, because the airlines would (in 1961) likely not have allowed a pregnant Dunham to fly. (Kenyan relatives of Obama, who are no doubt unaware of the eligibility requirements of the U.S. Presidency, state he was born there.) The Kenya birth speculation is incorrect if it is assumed that Dunham met Obama Sr. while both were students at the University of Hawaii and if they did not travel to Kenya in 1961.
Although Obama’s campaign has given the names of two different Hawaiian hospitals where he was supposed to have been born (Kapiolani Women’s Center and Queens Medical Center, both in Honolulu), that may be due to campaign staff ignorance or incompetence, and not deceit. Still, no one has been able to confirm the birth from either hospital’s records. There is apparently a register of the birth in the public records office, dated one week after the birth, but it does not list a place of birth. (A register of birth is not the same as a birth certificate.)
Few sources have been listed here for the many Obama birth speculations; there are far too many, and rumors and stories can readily be found on the internet. Speculation will not end until original birth documents are released, and the likelihood of that is minimal. A lawsuit has been filed  to block Obama from running for President without first proving he is an eligible U.S. citizen; it alleges he was born in Kenya. Whether that lawsuit leads to anything remains to be seen, and the truth may never be known. Obama himself may not even know the facts surrounding his birth.
Obama moves to Indonesia with his mother in 1966 or 1967.  Dunham marries Indonesian Muslim Lolo Soetoro.  Soetoro likely adopts Obama, whose name is changed to Barry Soetoro. Elementary school records in Indonesia list Obama’s new name as Barry Soetoro and his religion as Islam. [14,172] Obama may or may not have actively practiced the Muslim religion, but according to one of his Indonesian school principals, Tine Hahiyary, the young Obama studied “Mangaji,” which involves the recitation of the Quran. 
Obama is sent back to Hawaii to live with his mother’s parents; his mother remains in Indonesia. His grandfather, Stanley Dunham, manages a furniture store and his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, is a bank vice-president.  Obama completes elementary school in Hawaii and then attends the elite, expensive, private Punahou High School.  The school is racially diverse and whites are in the minority. The final day of school is traditionally known as “Kill Haole Day” (“Kill Whitey Day”).  Because of his drug abuse, Obama’s grades are poor in his final two years of high school. Obama later writes that “Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though.” 
Obama’s high school grades are not exemplary; rather than do homework, he reads the works of black authors like Langston Hughes, Ralph Ellison, James Baldwin, Richard Wright, W.E.B. DuBois, and Malcolm X. [20,190]
High school friend Keith Kakugawa relates later that Obama “…made everything out like it was all racial.” After Obama complains about being picked on at the basketball court because of his race, Kakugawa’s father tells Obama, “No, Barry, it’s not because you’re black, it’s because you missed two shots in a row.” 
While a teenager in Hawaii, Obama spends considerable time with Frank Marshall Davis (who Obama describes only as “Frank” in his book, “Dreams From My Father”),  a dope-smoking drinking buddy of Obama’s grandfather, Stanley Dunham.  (Obama had met Davis shortly after arriving in Hawaii, at age 10,  but was most influenced by him during his high school years.) In place of his absent father, Davis becomes Obama’s mentor.
Davis is a member of the Communist Party of the USA, a propagandist, and radical agitator. (In 1948, Davis had fled Chicago after the FBI and the House Un-American Activities Committee investigated his subversive anti-American activities. ) Davis is also alleged to have been a bisexual, sex pervert, and pornographer, and authored the book “Sex Rebel: Black” under the pseudonym Bob Greene;  Davis “…would cruise in Hawaii parks looking for couples or female tourists to have sex with. He derived sexual gratification from bondage, simulated rape and being flogged and urinated on. He boasted that ‘the number of white babes interested in at least one meeting with a Negro male has been far more than I can handle’ and wished ‘America were as civilised as, say, Scandinavia.’” He concluded: ‘I regret none of my experiences or unusual appetites; for me they are normal.’” 
Obama joins Davis at his home on most evenings, shares alcohol and drugs, is tutored in socialism, and taught not to trust the white establishment.  "They'll train you so good," Davis said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh_t." 
Obama moves to Los Angeles, and attends Occidental College,  where he plays basketball and continues taking drugs. He becomes friends with Pakistani Muslims Mohammed Hasan Chandio, (or perhaps Chandoo) and Wahid Hamid,  and Indian Vinai Thummalapally. [189,245] At Occidental College, Obama indulges in alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine.  He becomes involved in the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. While at Occidental, Obama is mentored by an openly gay professor, Lawrence Goldyn, and had a string influence on his acceptance of gays. 
Obama’s friends at Occidental tend to be blacks, foreign students, Chicanos, Marxist professors, feminists, and punk-rock performance poets. [187,192] Obama is rebuked on one occasion for calling another black student, who wasn’t “black enough,” an “Uncle Tom.” One female student criticizes Obama with the remark, “You always think it’s about you.”
Obama makes a 1980 trip to Kenya to visit his father. During that trip, he may also have visited Pakistan, and Indonesia (to visit his mother). [194,195,196]
Probably in late 1980, Obama decides to stop using the name Barry Soetoro and returns to the name Barack Obama, Jr. 
Obama is disappointed in a grade he receives from political science Professor Roger Boesche, and complains he is being graded “on a different curve” because of his race. 
In 1981, Obama visits his mother and half-sister in Indonesia, then continues on for three weeks to Karachi, Pakistan and Hyderabad, India, [26,194,195,196] with his friends Chandio  and Hamid,  and finally to Kenya to visit his father’s family.  One of Obama’s hosts in Pakistan is Muhammadian Mian Soomro , Obama’s senior by 11 years, son of a Pakistani politician and himself a politician, who later becomes interim President of Pakistan when Pervez Musharraf resigns in August of 2008. Soomro states that “someone” personally requested that he “watch over” Barack Obama, but Soomro will not name that individual - who today allegedly lives in South America. 
It is unknown who financed Obama’s costly 1981 trip.
(Note that a trip to Pakistan in 1981 was not possible for Americans, except for those who were on official government business, because it was on the list of nations banned by the State Department for U.S. travelers. It is possible that Obama was able to enter Pakistan with an Indonesian passport, if he retained his Indonesian citizenship. Pakistan, being almost 100 per cent Muslim, would have welcomed foreign Muslim visitors.)
Obama moves to New York City and enrolls at Columbia University. He attends socialist conferences “for inspiration.” His roommate is Pakistani Muslim Sohale Siddiqi. [26,27] Siddiqi is a drug user; Obama allegedly stops using drugs while at Columbia. Living a few blocks away from Obama is William Ayers.  Obama studies political science and international relations. His thesis is allegedly on nuclear disarmament.  (The Obama campaign will not release copies of that document. ) Obama graduates from Columbia in June of 1983.
After graduation from Columbia, Obama joins the New York Public Interest Research Group, an organization founded by Ralph Nader. Obama becomes an organizer at Harlem’s City College, working with student volunteers on recycling programs. 
Obama works briefly for Business International Corporation in New York, a small newsletter-publishing firm that printed articles relating to global business,  Obama later “embellishes” that job, saying he was hired as a “research assistant” by a “consulting house to multinational corporations,” had his own private secretary, and dealt with Japanese financiers and German bond traders; his former co-workers say Obama’s accounts of his job are grossly inflated – he wore jeans, shared cubicles with others in a dumpy office, had no secretary, and merely re-wrote articles for newsletters.  Obama remarks later in life that the job exposed him to the “coldness of capitalism.” [31,32]
Obama moves to Chicago, and hangs out with black militants and leftists.  Obama works as a “community organizer” for the “Industrial Areas Foundation” (IAF), an organization founded by Marxist and radical agitator Saul Alinsky. Its national activities have included a “Citizens USA” project to obtain citizenship for over one million illegal aliens. (Coincidentally, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s senior honors thesis at Wellesley College, “There is Only the Fight,” is about Alinsky; [45,192,229] in 1968 Alinsky offered her a job, which she declined.)  Obama also works with the Alinsky group Developing Communities Project, and ACORN (the “Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now”) and Project Vote, both Alinsky-network creations.  ACORN is an off-shoot of what had been the National Welfare Rights League, a militant 1960s group that staged protests in welfare offices and, often successfully, demanded increased benefits with threats of violence. 
While at IAF, Obama reports to Gerald Kellman.  Kellman is a follower of Alinsky, whose book “Rules for Radicals” was widely read by 1960s radicals, such as members of Students for a Democratic Society, Weather Underground, and the youths who rioted at the 1968 Democrat Convention in Chicago.  (Obama’s line about “the world as it is and the world as it should be,” which his future wife swooned over and which she repeated twice in her speech to the Democrat National Convention, comes from Chapter 2 of Alinsky’s book.)
Obama is hired with $25,000 Kellman receives from the Woods Fund.  Obama will later serve on the Woods Fund board, along with former Weather Underground domestic terrorist, Pentagon bomber, radical, leftist, communist, and fugitive from justice William Ayers. [33,204]
Kellman later relates that Obama’s job “largely consisted of interviewing community members and creating a narrative out of their experiences, the problems the community faced.” 
As a community organizer, Obama, despite being a “master of agitation,”  has limited success [35,47] working for more welfare programs for the poor on the south side of Chicago. Obama also works on voter registration drives during this period, comes into contact with leftists political groups like the Democratic Socialists of America and Socialist International; Obama is also likely to have first met William Ayers during this period, as well as Carl Davidson, former member of the radical group Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), and later member of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, which organized the 2002 rally where Obama announced his public opposition to the looming Iraq War. 
Obama learns from the Alinsky crowd the method for getting people to support radical change they would ordinarily not be willing to accept. "They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.”  Thus, just as it has been the theme of most Democrat Presidential campaigns over the last 30 years, so is it Obama’s: everything is terrible and headed in the wrong direction, your lives are in shambles, greedy capitalism is at fault, and you need to trust government and the candidate’s plans to solve all your problems.
For three years, Obama is the director of the “Developing Communities Project,” part of the “Gamaliel Foundation,” another Alinsky-like group which uses “in your face” tactics and threats against banks to obtain more loans to people in poor neighborhoods. [227,228]
About 1985, Obama joins the black liberation theology Trinity United Church; it’s pastor is Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a fiery orator who preaches Marxism, black liberation theology, gives controversial sermons, supports communists in Cuba and Nicaragua, and who later says America deserved the 9/11 terrorist attacks and that America intentionally spread the AIDS virus to remain wealthy at the expense of poor Africans.  For what it calls a “commitment to truth, education, and leadership,” Obama’s church magazine, Trumpet Newsmagazine, gives a “lifetime achievement award” to Louis Farrakhan,  a man whose quotes include, “Hitler was a very great man,”  “Judaism is a gutter religion,”  and “white people are potential humans, they haven’t evolved yet.”  Obama considers Wright to be his “moral compass,” “sounding board,” and “confidant.”  Obama is likely an atheist, like his mother and father, but joined the church for “street cred” and to satisfy his wife. 
1988 – 1991
In the spring of1988, Obama visits his family in Kenya. 
In the fall of 1988, Obama begins his studies at Harvard Law School;  helping Obama gain acceptance at Harvard is a letter of recommendation from civil rights activist and Malcolm X attorney Percy Sutton; Sutton is asked to write the letter by Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour (aka “Donald Ward”), radical Muslim and vitriolic anti-Semite, mentor of Black Panther Party founders Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, close associate of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, and acquaintance of Obama, who alleges in his 1995 book, “The Lost Books of Africa Rediscovered,” that the United States is plotting genocide against black Americans.  A letter of recommendation for Obama is also written by John McKnight, who serves on the Gamaliel Foundation’s Board of Directors, as well as the board of National People’s Action, another group of Alinsky-inspired agitators that pickets homes of business leaders and politicians. 
It is unclear how Obama got into Harvard Law School, which has exceptionally high admissions standards, with applicant LSAT scores expected in the 98 to 99 range, and a grade point average of 3.8 or higher. It is assumed that if Obama had such scores, his campaign would be bragging about them; it has not.  The assumption, therefore, is that Obama had connections, such as Khalid al-Mansour.
It is also unclear how Obama paid for his education, especially his years at Harvard Law School. He appears not to have held any steady jobs during the period, and he also took several extensive and expensive trips overseas. He and his wife later say they needed many years to pay off student loans, but those loans are not recorded on financial disclosure statements Obama was required to submit when he became a Senator.
Attorney Percy Sutton told reporters in 2008, “I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour.” Gifts from al-Mansour may have funded Obama’s years at Harvard. In April of 2008, however, Obama’s wife said that Obama had “just paid off his loan debt” for his Harvard Law School education. But that is not consistent with a review of Obama’s financial disclosures, which went back to 2000 and which did not list any outstanding college loans. (As a candidate for the U.S. Senate, Obama was required, in 2004, to file a financial disclosure form detailing his assets, income, consulting contracts, and liabilities. Obama listed zero for liabilities in 2004 and in all subsequent U.S. Senate financial disclosure forms. 
If Obama’s school loans had been paid off earlier, then his wife’s statement that he “had just paid off his loan debt” was a lie; a pandering lie intended, no doubt, to make the two of them appear to be “just another struggling middle class family.” If the loans had, in fact, just been paid off, then the candidate lied on his financial disclosure forms, which could subject him to impeachment from the Senate. (Not that his fellow Democrats would ever do so.) Another possibility is that the candidate and his wife were both lying, and the school loans were actually gifts from Khalid al-Mansour, which were expected to be paid back with future political favors – such as promoting a Palestinian state at the expense of Israel. If Obama’s tuition and expenses were financed by others without any expectation of direct reimbursement, they were thus gifts that should have been listed on his income tax filings. Obama’s failure to do so means he violated the income tax laws and is subject to additional taxes, interest, and penalties, and perhaps criminal charges.
Obama is selected as one of 40 editors of the Harvard Law Review,  but he apparently wrote only one article for the HLR in which he argued against placing any limits on abortion, with the remarkable statement that abortions would “…prevent increasing numbers of children born into lives of pain and despair.”  His fellow editors elect Obama President of the HLR, partly in response to the demands of Professor Derrick Bell that a black woman be appointed to the law faculty. 
While on a break from class at Harvard, Obama spends eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Saul Alinsky's “Industrial Areas Foundation.” 
Obama works briefly at the Sidley Austin LLP Law Firm,  as a summer associate from Harvard law School, where he meets future wife Michelle LaVaughan Robinson. Also working at the firm (1984-1988) is Bernadine Dohrn, former Weather Underground radical, bomber, fugitive from the FBI, and wife of fellow radical William Ayers. (Although Dohrn works for the firm, her criminal record prevents her from being admitted to the Illinois bar.) 
In 1990, Obama turns down a job offer from Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s low-income housing development company; this may have been Obama’s first contact with Tony “the fixer” Rezko.  Rezko, born in Aleppo, Syria, maintains varied contacts with Obama until he is convicted and jailed in 2008. 
In 1991 Obama receives his law degree. 
Obama returns to Chicago in 1991, where he is involved with “Project Vote” (an affiliate of “ACORN,” a group infamous for its involvement in vote fraud), to help increase the number of black voters.  Project Vote adds an estimated 125,000 new voters in Illinois in 1992, mostly Democrats, who helped Carol Moseley Braun win a United States Senate seat. 
In 1991, Michelle Robinson is hired by Valerie Jarrett to work for the City of Chicago; Jarrett is rumored to be the likely chief of staff in an Obama Administration; she was born in Iran in 1956, to American parents, while her father was working there on the staff of the Nemazee hospital. It is said that Obama makes few major decisions without referring to Jarrett. [245,246]
In 1992 Obama marries Michelle LaVaughan Robinson.
One of Obama’s tasks at ACORN, where he works with Madeline Talbott,  is training “community activists” how to use “direct action” and be more forceful in demanding change. The “in your face” style is preached by Obama, and used by activists to stage sit-ins and demonstrations at banks to garner publicity and support for more bank loans for unqualified poor people. (ACORN even staged a two-day sit-in at the House Banking Committee room in1991.) Tactics even include picketing at the homes of bank executives, calling them racists for not lending to the poor. Among those banks targeted was Chicago’s Bell Federal Savings (which, not surprisingly perhaps, no longer exists). The Chicago Tribune, in September of 1992, referred to the ACORN agenda as “affirmative action lending.” Critics later refer to those types of loans as “ninja” loans (“no income, no job, no assets”). 
Obama plans his first book, “Dreams From My Father.” He receives a $125,000 advance from publisher Simon and Shuster, but fails to write the book. Obama travels with his wife to Bali to have the “peace and quite” to write, but still produces no manuscript. The contract is canceled, and Obama is asked to return part of the advance payment he receives. Obama returns to Chicago, signs a new contract (this time with Times Book, a Random House Division) for $40,000, and subsequently delivers a completed manuscript. It is believed that “Dreams From My Father” was ghost-written by Obama’s friend, William Ayers, based on the startling similarities of Ayers’ writings and the Obama book, and the fact that Obama’s only previous public writings were atrocious poetry he had written in college and his inability to speak coherently when not reading from a script or off a teleprompter.  The book is a critical and financial dud – until Obama becomes famous and it is re-printed. [57,58]
In 1992, Obama helps found “Public Allies,” a voluntary public service organization (modeled after Alinsky’s AIF) that recruits youths to perform “public service” while indoctrinating them in socialist ideology; Obama’s wife Michele becomes the group’s executive Director in 1993. The program is the model for Presidential candidate Obama’s “Universal Voluntary Public Service” program, which he promotes as an expansion of Kennedy’s “Peace Corp.” [51,52]
1993 – 1996
Obama is hired by Miner, Banhill and Galland, a law firm that specializes in making government deals to develop low-income housing, and which deals with Tony Rezko’s firm “Rezar.”  Obama’s specific duties at the law firm are not known (he refuses to provide a list of his clients to the media). Obama is also a law lecturer at the University of Chicago during these years. Obama likely remained on the payroll of the law firm until his 2004 Senate campaign, although his law license became inactive in 2002. [42,53]
In 1995 Obama’s first book, “Dreams From My Father,” is published. It sells only a few thousand copies and has to be remaindered;  critics call it “overwrought”  and “self-indulgent.” The book is re-published in 2004, with some changes, after Obama becomes famous. 
IN 1994, Obama represents ACORN in a lawsuit against redlining. 
In 1995, Obama sues the State of Illinois on behalf of ACORN to get the state to comply with the federal “Motor Voter Law” law, which Republican Governor Jim Edgar correctly argues will invite voter fraud, partly because government officers registering new voters were “under orders not to ask anyone for identification or proof of citizenship.” [54,240]
In 1995, urged by Obama, the Woods Fund gives even more money to “community organizer” groups like ACORN. The Woods Fund publicly lies about its ideology, which allows it to obtain donations from many who aren’t aware of its radical intentions. Obama’s committee’s own report even brags that its claim to be “non-ideological 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 of partisanship.” 
William Ayers (who may have met Obama as early as 1985) selects Obama as chairman (1995-2000) of the “Chicago Annenberg Challenge on Excellence in Education” (CAC) [59,60], an educational reform program that proves to be remarkably unsuccessful [60,204]; Ayers and Obama approve grants of $175,000 and $482,662 to groups founded by Ayers and run by former communist party leader Mike Klonsky. [61,155,156,201] (It should be noted that the selection of Obama, a 33 year-old junior lawyer at a small law firm, as chairman of the educational reform group CAC is strange, inasmuch as the board also includes several older and experienced university presidents – one of whom, Stanley O. Ikenberry of the University of Illinois, would later remark, “It was unusual, here you had a person trained in the law chairing a board on school reform.”) 
In 1995, Obama’s political career starts with a fundraiser at home of Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn [60,66]. Ayers and Dohrn are former 1960s radicals and former Weather Underground militants, who disappeared in 1970 after their bomb, designed to kill army officers in New Jersey, accidentally destroys a Greenwich Village townhouse; they eventually turn themselves in to authorities in 1980; but because of improper FBI surveillance Ayers and Dohrn are never prosecuted for their involvement in 25 bombings; [67,71] Ayers and Dohrn (who has met with communists in Cuba and Viet Cong representatives in Budapest) [68,69] are alleged to have been occasional baby-sitters for the Obama children. [70,71]
The North Vietnamese have presented both Ayers and Dohrn with rings made with metal from an American plane shot down in North Viet Nam.  (An interesting side note: Ayers and Dohrn are the adoptive parents of Chesa Boudin, whose parents, David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin, are serving three consecutive 25 year prison terms for felony murder, having killed three Brinks guards in a 1981 robbery to get cash to fund their Weather Underground, SDS, Black Liberation Army, and Black Panther Party activities. Chesa Boudin was named a Rhodes Scholar, through the help of Dennis Hutchinson, a professor at the University of Chicago, where Ayers and Obama taught.) 
Obama successfully seeks the endorsement of the “New Party,” a Marxist third party in Chicago, for his 1996 state senate run. The endorsement of the New Party requires that the candidate “sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.” Obama receives the endorsement with an in-person appearance with the NP; it is not an unsolicited endorsement. After his victory in the election, the NP states that “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.” [72,243]
Obama also receives the support of the Democrat Socialists of America; Obama was then (and may still be) an associate of the DSA’s Chicago branch.  The members of the New Party, the DSA, and ACORN are, to a great extent, interchangeable. 
The Marxist New Party refers to Obama as one of its own party members in an October, 1996 “Running to Win: The Key Races” announcement, that reads, “Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).” 
Obama’s state senate run also receives the support of Dr. Quentin Young, a neighbor of Obama’s and a long-time advocate of a single-payer, national health care system; Young is believed to be a member of the Communist Party of the USA, and had been active in Chicago socialist circles since the 1930s; in 1992 Young received from the Chicago Democratic Socialists its highest honor, the Debs Award; while in the Illinois State Senate, Obama supports Young’s single-payer health care program and introduces several bills in failed attempts to get it established. [73,74]
Obama is elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996; he takes the seat long held by Democrat State Senator Alice Palmer (also an official of a Communist Party of the USA front group), who agrees to let Obama run for her state seat only if she loses her bid for U.S. Congress; Palmer loses the Congressional primary, but Obama reneges on the deal and works with lawyers to get Palmer and three other opponents removed from the primary ballot on technicalities, in order to insure his opponent-free victory.  (Obama follows the practice preached by Davis and Alinsky: don’t try to beat the opponent, remove them from the playing field entirely.) Obama’s reliance on petition challenges runs counter to his self-made image of a reformer and crusader for voter’s rights;  Timuel Black, a mutual friend, tries unsuccessfully to mend the rift between Obama and Palmer; Black is a long-time socialist, who associated with communists and Trotskyists in the 1930s, allegedly joined the Communist Party of the USA, was active in the Progressive Party, was president of the local chapter of the allegedly communist Negro American Labor Council, and was frequently involved with the annual Chicago Debs Day Dinners, an awards celebration for Illinois socialists. 
In January and February of 1997, renters of several Chicago slum tenements owned by Tony “the fixer” Rezko go without heat for five weeks; Rezko doesn’t come up with the money to turn on the heat, but manages to contribute $1,000 to Obama’s Illinois State Senate political campaign;  Obama then seeks state funds for even more Rezko housing developments. (The Syrian-born Rezko can afford to travel widely in the Middle East.) Obama continues to have associations with Rezko and other corrupt housing developers in Chicago; Obama gets state money for them and, in exchange, they contribute to his campaigns. Obama becomes, indirectly, one of the biggest slum-lords in Chicago. 
In 1997, Obama and Ayers appear together as speakers on several occasions; at the University of Chicago, their topic is, "Should a child ever be called a ‘super predator?’” [71,83] The announcement of their November, 199 appearance together states, “Ayers will be joined by Sen. Barack Obama, Senior Lecturer in the Law School, who is working to combat legislation that would put more juvenile offenders into the adult system.” 
In 1997, Obama endorses William Ayers’ book on juvenile justice; [77,84] Michelle Obama hosts a panel discussion of the book, in which both her husband and Ayers participate.  (In 2008, when the media questions him about his relationship with Ayers, Obama responds that he doesn’t know him well and that he is only “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” 
In March, 1998, Obama delivers the eulogy at the funeral of Saul Mendelsen, a leader of Chicago’s far left and a socialist “community organizer” and activist. 
In October, 1998, Obama writes a letter supporting plans for low-income senior citizen housing. The project’s site, an empty lot owned by the city of Chicago, is sold to Obama’s friend Tony Rezko, and Obama’s former law-firm boss, Mr. Allison Davis, for one dollar. The project, “Cottage View Terrace,” eventually consumes $14.6 million in taxpayer dollars, with a substantial amount going to Rezko and Davis as development fees. Taxpayer funds are later given to Rezko for additional housing projects, despite the fact that some of his prior projects fell into significant disrepair. In 2007 and 2008, Obama says he “never did any favors” for Rezko. Obama’s former boss, Davis, donates more that $400,000 to dozens of political campaigns, including Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and Obama. 
In 1998 Obama is re-elected to Illinois State Senate.
In 1999, Obama’s daughter Malia is born.
In 1999, Obama casts the only vote against Illinois Senate Bill 485, which makes felons convicted of sexual abuse crimes serve their full sentences without getting credit for time served in the county jail. 
Between 1999 and 2002, Obama serves, with William Ayers, on the board of the Woods Fund, a liberal Chicago nonprofit organization.  Grants from the fund are given out to Reverend James T. Meeks (a fiery, anti-white and anti-Semitic Chicago preacher, in the style of Obama’s reverend Jeremiah Wright), and Father Michael Pfleger (perhaps best known encouraging his parishioners to buy time from prostitutes as a way of inviting the women to counseling and job training).
The Woods Fund also gives money to ACORN, which registers voters in poor black neighborhoods, to garner additional support for Obama. Arguably, these actions by Obama and ACORN are illegal because, as an allegedly independent, apolitical, tax-exempt, non-profit group, ACORN cannot legally “pimp for Obama” - but that is essentially what it does in registering voters while drumming up support for the candidate who is financing its operations; its tax-exempt status is thus flagrantly violated by ACORN. 
In 2000, Obama enters the primary for U.S. Congress. In a television interview he gives during the campaign, he cites as a qualification his experience with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the educational reform project on which he worked with William Ayers. (The project ends up wasting over $100 million, without accomplishing any of its stated goals.) [60,204]
The Chicago scuttlebutt is that Obama’s 2000 campaign for Congress is funded by what some call the “Hyde Park mafia,” a group of University of Chicago leftists, and that there is a master plan to “push him up the political ladder.” 
Obama’s tone in the campaign comes off as condescending by many (“I gave up a career with a high-priced law firm to run for public office”), and he loses the primary to opponent Bobby Rush, who defeats him by 30 per cent; Rush describes Obama as an “elitist” who is not “black enough” to serve the district. [87,193] Obama reviews the demographics of his loss and works with Democrat consultant John Corrigan to get the district’s borders re-drawn (“gerrymandered’) to favor his political goals; they establish a new district that is still heavily black, but which also includes liberal North Shore whites who would be more inclined to vote for Obama than Rush (a former member of the radical Black Panthers). 
In 2000, Obama campaign volunteer Kenny B. Smith donates $550 to Obama’s Illinois State Senate campaign; in 2001, Obama steers $100,000 in tax dollars to a newly-formed Smith organization to build a gazebo, “parrot sanctuary,” and “walk of fame” in a blighted Chicago neighborhood; by 2008 only the gazebo has been built, and there is no sign of the rest of the $100,000. 
In 2001, Obama’s daughter Natasha is born.
While Obama serves on the board of the Woods Fund, it approves (in 2001) a $40,000 grant to the “Arab American Action Network” (AAAN); a second grant, for $35,000, is approved in 2002. President of the AAAN is Mona Khalidi, wife of Rashid Khalidi, a professor Obama met while at Columbia University. Khalidi, a former spokesman for Yassir Arafat, strong critic of Israel, and supporter of Palestinian terrorism and the PLO, later holds fundraisers for candidate Obama. AAAN calls the founding of Israel a “catastrophe,” supports liberal immigration reform in the United States, and encourages giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens. 
Other groups receiving money from the Woods Fund include the voter-registration group ACORN [62,82] (which has been highly criticized for thousands of questionable and illegal registrations), [63,64] Bernadine Dohrn’s “Children and Family Justice Center,” and Trinity United Church (Obama’s church, and home of Reverend Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright). 
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Obama writes, in a “blame America” op-ed piece in the Hyde Park Herald, that the essence of the tragedy “derives from the fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others,” that the terrorist attackers “lacked empathy,” and their attitude “…grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.” 
At least six of the 19 terrorists involved in the attacks of September 11 are illegally registered to vote in the United States, partly because of ACORN’s activities in spreading “motor voter” laws. 
Obama is re-elected to Illinois State Senate, with no opponent on the ballot.
In 2002, Obama, as an Illinois legislator, votes against the “Induced Infant Liability Act,” a law meant to protect the lives of babies who “inadvertently” survived attempted abortions and then need medical attention to survive; Obama’s is the sole vote against the bill, and a similar bill later passes unanimously in the United States Senate. 
Obama votes against an Illinois bill banning state funding of late term abortions.
In 2001, Obama votes against Illinois House Bill 1812, a law designed to toughen penalties for crimes committed in furtherance of organized gang activities. 
In 2002, Ayers and Obama appear at the University of Illinois for a discussion called, “Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?" 
During the course of his Illinois State Senate career, Obama votes “present” at least 130 times, in an effort to avoid being pinned down on issues that might later be used against him by an opponent in a campaign. [95,96]
With Chicago political pro David Axelrod, Obama starts working on his plans to enter the 2004 U.S. Senate race.
In 2003, Tony Rezko arranges a fundraiser for Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign. 
Obama, in 2004, illegally uses state funds for a political mailing. 
Democrats take control of the Illinois Senate in the 2004 election. Obama persuades Senate President Emil Jones to “steer bills” his way so he can make a name for himself; Democrat colleagues in the Illinois State Senate are critical of Obama’s legislative tactics in getting credit for bills he had virtually nothing to do with; State Senator Ricky Hendon says, “No one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the half-back who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book.” (Hendon is the original sponsor of racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation; Jones takes it away from Hendon to give to Obama so Obama can put his name on it as his.) Once in the U.S. Senate, Obama repays Jones with tens of millions of dollars in federal spending for his district, which Jones glibly refers to as “steak” rather than the “pork.” [98,99,239]
Obama pushes legislation (Senate Bill 1332) to reduce the number of members of the Health Facilities Planning Board from 15 to 9, and (with the help of Tony Rezko, Stuart Levine, and Governor Rod Blogojevich) gets three of his campaign contributors appointed to the Board. One of the doctors, Robert Weinstein, is later convicted, along with Stuart Levine, of embezzling millions from charities and a medical school. FBI agents record Rezko telling Levine that he influences the Board. [207,209]
In 2004 Obama enters the Democrat primary for U.S. Senate; there are 15 candidates, Obama’s most formidable is wealthy executive Blair Hull; Obama’s campaign manager is David Axelrod, a long-time political pro in Chicago; Hull leads in the polls, but four weeks before the primary, Axelrod leaks to the Chicago Tribune information that Hull’s divorce documents reveal a request for an “order of protection” from Hull’s wife; the wife-beating supposition sinks Hull, and Obama wins the primary handily. 
By 2004, Obama and ACORN are “old friends.” Over the years Obama receives campaign support and voter registration help from ACORN; in exchange, Obama helps obtain funding for ACORN via the Woods Fund, Joyce Foundation, and the legislature, and attempts to introduce “ACORN-friendly” legislation (like massive minimum wage increases, preventing the construction of new Wal-Mart stores, forcing banks to lend more to poor people and donate to voter turn-out drives, rolling back welfare reform, and forcing businesses that flee the city of Chicago to pay “exit fees”). 
The Chicago Communist Party endorses Obama for the U.S. Senate; he receives volunteer support from the Young Communist League. 
In June of 2004, leftist billionaire George Soros (who bankrolls the radical web site moveon.org) hosts a fundraiser in New York for Obama’s Senate campaign; Soros chips in $60,000; the total “take” for the evening is unknown. 
On July 27, 2004, Obama gives the keynote address at the Democrat National Convention which nominated John Kerry for President.
Obama’s Republican opponent in the fall campaign for the U.S. Senate is Jim Ryan, a popular reformer and tough prosecutor. The press manages to get Ryan’s sealed divorce documents unsealed, and an embarrassed Ryan withdraws from the race. The Republicans field a last-minute replacement, Alan Keyes, a black, anti-abortion, fiery speaker who is ridiculed by the press and never taken seriously. (The ultra-conservative Keyes does not help his case saying things like “Jesus Christ himself would not vote for Barack Obama.”) Obama wins easily. [102,103]
In 2004, the “Code Pink” anti-war group delivers $600,000 in cash and supplies to Iraq – not to American soldiers, but to the terrorists who are fighting them in Fallujah. Jodie Evans, co-founder of Code Pink, later donates $2,300 to the Obama Presidential campaign. 
In November of 2004, before he is even sworn in as a United States Senator, Obama has “toe in the water” conversations with close associates about his running for President in 2008.  Publicly, however, Obama says “I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I’m the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois.” 
In early 2005, the mass media adopts its long-term “suck up to Obama” posture, with Time Magazine naming Obama one of “The World’s Most Influential People.” 
In June, 2005, Obama purchases a mansion in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood, for $1.65 million ($300,000 less than the asking price), with the help of friend, fundraiser, and political “fixer” Tony Rezko; Rezko’s wife, who earns $37,000 per year, purchases the empty lot adjacent to the Obama house for the full price of $625,000, with a down payment of $125,000. Three weeks before the purchase, $3.5 million is loaned to Rezko by Nadhmi Auchi, a wealthy Brit. (Rezko is convicted in 2008 of receiving kickbacks for political favors.) Mrs. Rezko then sells a 10-foot strip of the empty lot to Obama, for an undisclosed price. Rezko later asks Obama to help Auchi obtain a visa to travel in the United States; the State Department refuses. Auchi, a member of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party and former high-ranking official in his oil Ministry, had been found guilty of corruption charges in France. [105,106]
In 2005, Obama introduces a bill opposing photo identification for voting. 
In 2005, Virginia officials reject 83 per cent of ACORN’s Project Vote new voter registrations as fraudulent. 
Obama votes against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which would prevent minors from being taken across state lines without the consent of the parents in order to have an abortion. 
Obama votes in 2005 for an energy bill that includes billions of dollars in subsidies for oil and natural gas production. 
During 2004 and 2005, the FBI notes repeated visits by Obama and Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to the offices of Rezmar Corporation, a joint business venture of Daniel Mahru and Tony Rezko. The purpose of the visits is unclear. 
Obama’s second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” is published. The book’s title is inspired by Obama’s controversial pastor, Reverend “Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright. 
Obama pushes for a $1 million earmark for the University of Chicago Hospitals; his wife, Michelle Obama, is promoted to “Vice President of Community and External Affairs” for the hospitals; her salary jumps from $121,900 to $316,962; her main responsibilities, in an “Urban Health Initiative,” are to encourage the poor, uninsured to go to neighborhood clinics rather than to the hospital emergency rooms; assisting her with the public relations nightmare is David Axelrod. [110,111,112]
The Board of Trustees of Chicago’s Adler Planetarium raises $250,000 for Obama’s Presidential campaign; Obama then obtains a $3 million earmark for the planetarium; $300,000 had been sought by the Trustees to upgrade a projector system. 
Obama is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe, but never convenes the committee for a meeting. 
The federal government, in 2006, shuts down an Islamic charity called KindHearts because of its fund-raising for terrorist groups, including Hamas; the chairman of the organization, Hatem El-Hady, then directs his fund-raising efforts to Obama’s election. 
Obama visits Kenya in 2006. During the visit he makes a speech to university students in Nairobi, in which he criticizes the existing government, rallies the students against it, and talks of the need for change. This action is seen as an endorsement by Obama of the Kenyan President’s opponent, Raila Odinga, a Muslim who supports Sharia law (and who may be a cousin of Obama). By making his speech and supporting Odinga, Obama violates the stated conditions of his Official Government Visa (“to nurture relations between the (African) Continent and the United States”). The Kenyan government lodged an official protest of Obama’s passport abuse and misconduct, [207,208]
Alexi Giannoulias runs for Illinois State Treasurer in 2006 and receives a strong endorsement from Obama, who states Giannoulias is “…one of the most outstanding young men I could ever hope to meet” - despite the candidate’s youth, total lack of experience, mob connections, and his family bank’s financing of a Chicago crime figure; one year later Giannoulias raises $100,000 for Obama’s Presidential campaign. [116,117]
Obama campaigns in Vermont for socialist Senator Bernie Sanders; Sanders calls rookie Senator Obama “one of the great leaders of the United States Senate;” by the 2008 Presidential election, Obama’s voting record is more to the left than that of socialist Sanders. 
Illinois’ Cook County Board President John Stroger becomes ill during the 2006 primary election campaign; Chicago Democrats keep his illness a secret until the deadline for candidate filings passes, and then manage to place the name of his son, Todd Stroger, on the ballot; despite his total lack of experience and history as a corrupt, machine-style ward boss, Obama supports the young Stroger, calling him a “good, progressive Democrat.” More qualified Democrats are outraged, especially those who supported reform of the corrupt and deficit-spending Cook County Board. As predicted by many, Stroger proves to be a disaster. 
In an article in the Jakarta Post of November 29, 2006, Julia Suryakusuma, a long-time friend of Obama’s mother and an outspoken feminist writer, states that Obama could run for President of Indonesia; it is assumed she means that Obama retains his Indonesian citizenship. (Because Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, Obama cannot be an American citizen if he has not renounced his Indonesian citizenship.) 
In February of 2007, Obama announces his candidacy for U. S. President; Obama’s main campaign strategist is David Axelrod. (Two weeks before he launches his Presidential campaign, Obama pays $375 for two decades worth of parking tickets.) 
New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof interviews Obama and writes, “Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated... Mr. Obama described the Muslim call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’” The interview has since been deleted from the New York Times web pages. 
Robert Wolf, CEO of the American branch of the Swiss banking giant USB, collects more than $370,000 in campaign contributions for Obama; USB lies to the government and conceals the identities of over 19,000 clients in order to help them avoid paying U. S. income taxes. 
In 2007, the Obama campaign receives $32,000 from companies affiliated with Robert Blackwell. While an Illinois State Senator, Obama received $112,000 from Blackwell in monthly $8,000 retainers, funneled through the law firm where he had previously worked. Obama persuaded the Illinois legislature to award $320,000 in state grants to Blackwell’s company, Killerspin. 
Obama’s wife charges $500 to have a photo taken with her, to raise money for her husband’s campaign. 
Five ACORN employees are convicted in Washington State in “the worst case of election fraud” in the state’s history. 
On May 24, 2007, Obama votes to cut off all funding of military efforts in Afghanistan; on the campaign trail Obama says American troops need to be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan. 
Obama gives support to Raila Odinga, a Muslim candidate for President in Kenya (and possible cousin of Obama) who has ties to both Al Qaeda and Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, and who tried to get Shariah Muslim law established; after Odinga loses the election, his followers burn women and children alive in a Christian church where they sought refuge. Obama’s actions are denounced by the U.S. State Department as being in direct opposition to U. S. National Security. [126,127]
Despite a long history of corruption in the Teamsters Union, Obama tells the union he will end its federal oversight if he is elected. Obama receives substantial campaign donations from the Teamsters Union. 
In a Colorado campaign appearance, Obama announces plans for a “civilian national security force.” After inquiries about Obama’s intentions with such a “security force,” the proposal is dropped from his speeches and references to it are deleted from the campaign’s official web site. 
Obama tells friend Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago, that he was sorry he wasn’t talking more about the Palestinian cause, but his primary campaign had “constrained” what he could say. [130,223]
Obama receives support from Zbigniew Bzrezinski, Robert O. Malley, Samantha Power, General Merrill A. McPeak, Joseph Cirincione, and Daniel Kurtzer – all known for their anti-Israel views.
Obama ousts his campaign’s Muslim outreach director, Chicago lawyer Mazen Asbahi, when questions about his ties to a radical Muslim imam and the Muslim Brotherhood surface. 
Obama promises Planned Parenthood the first piece of legislation he will sign if elected will be the “Freedom of Choice Act,” which would overturn all state pro-life laws, including prohibitions against partial-birth abortions and parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortions. [132,133]
In December of 2007, Donald Young, the gay choir director of Obama’s church is murdered, gangland style; the choir director “knew more,” according to a man named Larry Sinclair, who says he once shared drugs and homosexual “activities” with Barack Obama in the back of a Chicago cab. (It should be noted that Sinclair has a long arrest record, and has committed crimes involving fraud and deceit. Sinclair’s accusations may be true, or may be for the sole purpose of receiving donations from visitors to his web site; the media has chosen not to interview the cab driver, Paramjit Singh Multani.) [134,135,136]
Obama is one of the Illinois politicians cited in the indictment of his long-time friend and fund-raiser, Tony Rezko, for having received political contributions from Rezko’s kickback funds. Obama allegedly returns between $85,000 and $250,000 in political contributions received from Rezko. [138,139,207]
In 2008, ACORN feverishly registers new Democrat voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and other states to boost Obama’s chances of winning the primaries and the general election. In Cuyahoga County, Ohio alone, ACORN registers more than 75,000 new voters; fraud is certainly involved, inasmuch as the voter rolls in that county already exceed the number of adult residents living there by 200,000.  ACORN’s Project Vote activity has a tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code, which prohibits its involvement in partisan political activity; it’s workers consistently violate those laws when they pass out Obama literature and advocate his candidacy as they register new voters. 
During 2007 and 2008, Obama requests $860 million in “earmarks” (according to Taxpayers for Common sense); they include $1 million for his wife’s employer, $62 million for the “Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy,” $8 million for “Human Genome Expression,” $4.8 million for a “Light Emitting Diode Healing Program,” $2 million for a “Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center,” and money for projects linked to campaign donors. 
Obama defends his association with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn with the statement, “The notion that…me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago… somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense.”  (Dohrn once publicly praised Charles Manson and his followers for killing actress Sharon Tate. Dohrn’s words were, “Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!”)  In 2007, Ayers describes the United States as an “…incipient fascist country,” and talks about overthrowing capitalism,  while Dohrn, at a reunion of the radical group Students for a Democratic Society, says that “…living in America constitutes living in the belly of the beast” and “the heart of the monster.” 
When further criticized for his friendship with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the Obama campaign issues a lengthy document trivializing their actions as 1960s radicals and defending them as “respectable fixtures of the mainstream in Chicago.”  In a September 11, 2001 New York Times interview, Ayers says of the bombings history, “I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough.”  In a memoir published by Ayers after 9/11, he wrote that America is “not a just and fair and decent place… it makes me want to puke.”  The cover of Ayers’ book is a photograph of him trampling on an American flag.
“Accountable America,” an organization which supports Obama, sends letters to nearly 10,000 citizens who often contribute to Republican causes, threatening them with potential legal problems if they finance conservative groups. [145,146]
Obama supports a Democrat housing bill that provides $200 million to community groups (including “ACORN”) for homeowner foreclosure counseling; ACORN pledges to spend $35 million in 2008 to register new Democrat voters. [147,148,149]
The audio book version of Obama’s “Dreams From My Father” is released; a line-by-line comparison of the print version shows that the audio version Obama recorded omits a substantial number of references that many white people might call controversial.
When Reverend Jeremiah’s controversial, anti-American sermons are brought up by the media, Obama says he knows nothing about such remarks, and, “I wasn’t in church that day.” 
Before the Ohio primary in 2008, Obama’s campaign gives ACORN $832,598, allegedly for get-out-the-vote activities; ACORN has a shameful track record of fraudulent and illegal activities. 
In March, 2008, Obama says of his controversial pastor, Jeremiah Wright, “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.” 
In March of 2008, Obama’s foreign policy advisor, Samantha Powers, resigns from his campaign after having been caught calling Hillary Clinton a “monster.” [234,235] Powers nevertheless expects a top position in an Obama Administration, despite having publicly discussed the possibility of invading Israel to help create a Palestinian state. [233,236]
Under political pressure, Obama, in May of 2008, half-heartedly disowns Reverend Jeremiah Wright and (at least temporarily) quits his controversial church. It is not clear if his wife still attends the church. 
When questioned about attempts by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to introduce legislation that would restrict conservative radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, Obama’s campaign press secretary, Michael Ortiz, says Obama supports “media-ownership caps, network neutrality” and more “public broadcasting.” 
A birth certificate purported to be Obama’s turns out to be that of his younger half-sister, Maya Kassandra Soetoro, which was altered to make it look like the candidate’s. 
In June, Obama tours a solar power plant in Nevada, where he says that renewable energy “isn’t some pie-in-the-sky, far off future, it is now… providing cheap alternatives to $140 per barrel oil.” That facility powers only 75 homes, and took ten years to build, at a cost of almost $300,000 per home. 
Fearing additional publicity of his links to radical socialists, Obama removes all of Mike Klonsky’s blogs from his official campaign web site; [155,201] Klonsky, a political activist and leader of the New Communist Movement, was a 1960s radical in the Students for a Democratic Society, and an avid advocate of Maoism, who formed a pro-Chinese sect called the October League, which then evolved into a Beijing-recognized Communist Party. Klonsky, a disciple of Saul Alinsky, was chairman of the party.
In an interview with the New Republic, Mike Kruglik, one of Obama’s early mentors in the fine art of community agitation, said of Obama, “He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.”  That modus operandi is what Obama follows on the campaign trail: list quickly rattle off many things that are wrong with America, get the crowd riled up and angry and feeling hopeless, and then present himself as the one who can save them from their problems – regardless of whether he actually can.
Obama’s lawyers file a complaint with the Justice Department, in an effort to stop the broadcasting of an “American Leadership Project” campaign ad linking Obama to William Ayers. 
According to the State Department, Obama’s federal passport file was improperly viewed at least three times, at least once by someone sympathetic to his campaign. 
In July of 2008, a complaint is filed with the Illinois Bar Association alleging that Obama should be disbarred as a result of lying on his bar application. His application conceals his felony drug use (cocaine) in New York, as well as approximately $400 in unpaid parking fines. (The bar application requires listing fines in excess of $200.) 
Candidate Obama remarks, "I am confident I will get her votes if I'm the nominee. It's not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee." 
Dr. Alveda King, a niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, remarks that 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.” 
Obama defeats Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primaries to become the Democrat candidate for President of the United States. Obama arrives at the Democrat National Convention without having won enough delegates in the primaries to win the nomination, but manages to persuade enough “super delegates” to win the nomination; the “persuasion” techniques include DNC Chairman Dean and his surrogates telling them they must vote for Obama or he will unseat them by funding primary challengers in their Congressional or local races. 
Obama’s campaign accuses the McCain campaign of being fed in advance the questions asked Senator McCain by Pastor Rick Warren at a Saddleback Church appearance, and makes sure NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell repeats the unfounded charges on the evening news; Warren categorically denies the charge; no apology to Warren or McCain is issued. 
Reverend Leah Daughtry is named by Obama and DNC chair Howard Dean to be the Democrat convention chief; in Daughtry’s home-town House of the Lord Church in Brooklyn hangs a banner supporting slavery reparations, which reads, “They Owe Us.” 
Eric Holder, who was instrumental in persuading Bill Clinton to pardon members of the terrorist group FALN, leads Obama’s team to select his Vice-Presidential running mate, and is rumored to be a potential Attorney General in an Obama Administration. 
Among the groups supporting Obama is Progressives for Obama, founded by Mark Rudd, former Weather Underground member and close ally of William Ayers; Tom Hayden, former husband of actress Jane Fonda and principle founder of the radical Students for a Democratic Society, who traveled to North Vietnam to give support to the Viet Cong; Bill Fletcher, founder of the Marxist Black Radical Congress; Barbara Ehenreich, honorary chairman of the Democratic Socialists of America; and actor Danny Glover, recipient of $20 million from Venezuela’s dictator Hugo Chavez to make a movie about a Haitian communist revolutionary. 
During the campaign, in support of abortion, Obama remarks that if his daughters ever make a mistake and get pregnant, he wouldn’t “want them punished with a baby.” 
A review of campaign donations filed with Federal Election Commission shows that Obama’s campaign receives a substantial number of contributions in unusual amounts, such as $74.37 or $42.95, suggesting they were illegal foreign contributions originally in “even amounts” which were then converted to U.S. dollars, resulting in “odd amounts;” the Obama campaign appears to have made no effort to identify or return illegal foreign contributions. [166,167]
Obama’s wife criticizes President Bush’s $600 economic stimulus checks at a “working-women’s round table discussion,” saying ”The short-term quick fix kinda sounds good, and it may even feel good that first month when you get that check, and then you go out and buy a pair of earrings.” 
Obama visits Iraq in July; although campaigning publicly for a quick and steady withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Obama - not wanting the Bush Administration to receive credit for any successes - tries, in private, to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a reduction of American troops. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari confirms that Obama demanded the delay during discussions with Iraqi leaders, stating that Obama “…asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington.” Obama tells the Iraqis it is in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion." Zebari relates that he told Obama “As an Iraqi, I believe that even if there is a Democratic administration in the White House it had better continue the present policy instead of wasting a lot of time thinking what to do,” meaning that Obama was attempting to thwart U.S. policy, and Zebari was telling Obama not to "waste time." [169,200] The action by Obama in Iraq is likely in violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments; the crime is a felony, and can be punished with a three year prison sentence. After the information comes out, Obama denies having made the statements; either Obama or Zebari is therefore lying, but even Obama’s own protestations suggest Obama is making the false statements. 
At a meeting with Democratic lawmakers on July 29, Obama says he represents the “world’s hopes for America” and “This is the moment the world is waiting for.” He then adds, “I have become a symbol of restoring America to its best traditions.” 
In July and August of 2008, the head of Nigeria’s stock market held Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria; an estimated $900,000 is raised for Obama, despite the fact that it is illegal for the campaign to collect contributions from foreign countries. The media ignores to investigate illegal Obama campaign contributions, but sends a reporter to remote Little Diomede island in Alaska, to see if Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin can “actually see” Russia from Alaska. 
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that a Clark Count (Nevada) official “sees rampant fraud in the 2,000 to 3,000 registrations ACORN turns in every week.”  Nevada is one of the states targeted by Obama as one he can switch from Republican to Democrat; vote fraud may be the reason for his confidence.
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that Obama’s tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt, including interest, by 2018. 
The media reports that Obama’s half-brother, George Obama, lives in poverty in a slum outside Nairobi;  Obama provides his brother with no assistance, but supports a United nations “anti-global poverty tax” that would cost Americans approximately $65 billion per year, with much of it going to Africa (through the United Nations). [174,175]
Reporter Stanley Kurtz asks to view the historical public records of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), an education reform program led by Obama and William Ayers; there is an initial refusal to release the records, orchestrated by Ken Rolling, former executive director of the CAC and an associate of Obama and Ayers, but they are later released - after being “cleansed” of sensitive documents by Rolling and/or others. Rolling is a former board member of the Woods Fund, which paid for Obama’s job as a “community organizer.” [176,177]
Obama claims “nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti-Semitism than I have,” a claim that was widely ridiculed for its outrageousness.  Obama also states that Hezbollah and Hamas have legitimate grievances, and offers to sit down with their leaders and the leaders of Muslim nations to listen to their grievances.  (Their number one grievance, of course, is the very existence of Israel and Jews.)
At the Democrat National Convention, although the convention center is good enough for Kennedy and Clinton speeches, Obama insists on giving his acceptance speech at a football stadium that seats 76,000.
In September of 2008, the federal government takes over the failed mortgage buyers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; Federal Election Commission records reveal that Obama received $137,950 (Fannie Mae) and $68,750 (Freddie Mac) in campaign contributions from them, second only to Christopher Dodd (who received $165,400); John Kerry is in third place with $111,000. 
As of September, 2008, Obama’s Senate and Presidential campaigns had received significant contributions from failed financial institutions, including Bear Stearns ($570,614), Fannie Mae ($137,950), Freddie Mac ($68,750), and Lehman Brothers ($370,524). Lehman Brothers is owed at least $250 million by BNP Paribas, a French bank whose biggest shareholder is Nadhmi Auchi (friend and financer of Toney Rezko, and contributor to Obama campaigns), and which made a fortune through the United Nations “Oil for Food” scandal with Saddam Hussein. [179,180,181,182]
Obama receives about $300,000 per year from Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Countrywide Financial, and Washington Mutual. After less than four years in office those companies and their employees had given Obama a total of $1,093,329.00; just over half is from Goldman Sachs alone. 
When Chicago’s WGN radio interviews David Freddoso, author of “The Case Against Barack Obama,” Obama’s campaign sends an “Obama Action Wire” to key supporters, encouraging them to protest the program and call in repeatedly to tie up its telephone lines so that listeners can’t get through; the same had been done when WGN interviewed Stanley Kurtz, a reporter who had been prevented from trying to gain access to public documents of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. [183,184]
The Obama campaign runs an anti-McCain ad criticizing him for not being computer savvy and not sending e-mails; apparently Obama’s team did not realize McCain has other people type e-mail responses for him because the North Vietnamese broke his fingers and shattered his arms while imprisoned in Hanoi. 
In September of 2008, mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fail, partly because of Enron-like accounting practices, and are rescued in a multi-billion dollar federal bail-out. An Obama economic and housing policy advisor, Franklin Raines, had been chief executive of Fannie Mae; in 2002, when staff advised him of bookkeeping problems and earnings manipulations, Raines fired the whistleblowers rather than correct the problems; Raines also forced Fannie Mae employees to falsify accounting records to enable him to receive larger pay bonuses; also receiving inflated bonuses were Jamie Gorelick (formerly of the Clinton Administration); Raines was eventually forced out of Fannie Mae because of accounting fraud, after obtaining nearly $50 million in improperly calculated bonuses; Raines paid back only a small portion of that amount; Obama and Christopher Dodd are the top Senate recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Raines was also involved in the collapse of Countrywide Financial, which provided “special loan rates” for connected people like James Johnson, advisor to Obama who was on his vice-presidential selection team, and who preceded Raines as CEO of Fannie Mae, and Senator Christopher Dodd.) 
Obama encourages supporters to be rude to Republicans and undecided independents, telling them, “I want you to argue with them and get in their face.” [213,214]
Obama fundraiser and Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans meets with Iranian President Ahmadinejad while he is in New York in September, 2008. 
September 24, 2008, lawyers for Obama and the Democrat National Committee file a Joint Motion to Dismiss (on the last day to file a response) the case of Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083, which purports that Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States because he was born in Kenya.  Inasmuch as it should have been easier to produce proof of Obama’s American birth and citizenship than fight the lawsuit, this delay tactic suggests Obama does not, in fact, have the proof. One of Obama’s lawyers is Joe Sanders, of the Washington law firm of Sandler, Reiff, and Young; Sanders also represents the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization with terrorist ties, and is an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holyland Foundation Hamas Funding trial. 
Leading Code Pink activists and Obama fundraisers (Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin) met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New York. 
Obama enlists St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, and Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer as a so-called “truth squad” in an effort to intimidate radio and television stations into not airing ads critical of Obama. The tactic is immediately criticized by Missouri Governor Matt Blunt, who says, “The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.” 
In the first Presidential debate with Senator McCain, Obama brought attention to a bracelet he was wearing in honor of a slain Wisconsin soldier, Brian Jopek, despite requests from Jopek’s family that Obama stop wearing it and referring to it. 
In September and October of 2008, an auditor at the federal Election Commission requests a formal investigation into Obama campaign contributions, suspecting it of collecting $200 million or more in illegal contributions, including illegal foreign donations; the auditor states, “I believe we are looking at a hijacking of our political system that makes the Clinton and Gore fundraising scandals pale in comparison.” 
The Obama staffers in charge of the campaign’s “small” (less than $200) Internet campaign contributions are Obama’s former college roommates from Pakistan, Muhammad Hasan Chandio and Wahid Hamid; those “small” contributions total at least $223 million; many are believed to be illegal contributions from foreign countries. Campaigns are required to keep track of names of those who contribute more than $200 in aggregate, and verify their nationality as U.S., but the Obama campaign does not – in direct violation of federal election laws. 
On October 6, 2008, Obama and the Democrat National Committee file a “Joint Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery Pending a Decision on the (9/24/2008) Motion to Dismiss.” With that motion, Obama and the DNC attempt to stall the lawsuit demanding that Obama provide his actual birth certificate to prove he is technically a U.S. citizen eligible to become President; the assumption is that Obama cannot provide a certified copy of a Hawaiian “vault” birth certificate because it does not exist, and that Obama’s Certificate of Citizenship received when he returned to Hawaii from Indonesia is being kept hidden because it would prove he is a “naturalized” citizen, ineligible to be President. The attorney who filed the lawsuit, attorney Philip Berg, asserts that “…Obama is an illegal alien and therefore should be arrested, tried, and deported. He certainly cannot hold his Senate seat.” 
On October 7, WND staff reporter, researcher, and author (“The Obama Nation”) Jerome Corsi is detained by authorities in Kenya just as he is about to hold a press conference in which he planned to describe evidence of Obama’s dealings and connections with controversial Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga. The news conference would allegedly be used to "expose details of deep secret ties between U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and a section of Kenya government leaders, their connection to certain sectoral groups in Kenya and subsequent plot to be executed in Kenya should Senator Obama win the American presidency." 
Obama continues to refuse to provide the media with school records, passports, college theses, law school records, law firm clients, medical records, Illinois State Senate files, and other documents about his record:
Original birth certificate - not released
Obama/Dunham marriage license - not released
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license - not released
Soetoro adoption records - not released
Besuki School application - released
Punahou School records - not released
Selective Service Registration - released
Occidental College records - not released
Passport (Pakistan) - not released
Columbia College records - not released
Columbia thesis - not released
Harvard College records - not released
Harvard Law Review articles - none
Baptism certificate - none
Medical records - not released
Illinois State Senate records - none
Illinois State Senate schedule – not released (alleged to have been lost)
Law practice client list - not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles - none [23,29,56,186,239]
For references, see: http://colony14.net/id41.html
Fail Me Once, Shame on You
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
In a few short weeks, Americans will go to the polls to cast their ballot. During this period politicians will be making their final push to convince an engaged electorate why they are the best choice. Unfortunately for Democrats, increased scrutiny does not bode well for their electoral chances. Simply put, America stands at the precipice of an economic abyss and the failed policies of liberalism are not the answer.
Policies such as taxing hard working Americans will not stimulate the economy. Such tactics further harm our economy, making growth much more difficult. Yet, the next generation of left-wingers that national Democrats are trying to elect, including Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Jeff Merkley of Oregon have a history of opposing pro-growth policies at the state level. While on the federal level, Boulder Liberal Mark Udall (D-CO) has aggressively advocated for economy choking taxes to fund bigger government.
Jeanne Shaheen’s economic record would make even the most unabashed tax and spend liberal blush. During her campaigns for Governor, Shaheen repeatedly pledged her opposition to any broad-based tax. Yet in 1999, Shaheen overturned centuries of New Hampshire tradition and implemented the first-ever broad based tax in the Granite State. While implementing new taxes, Shaheen also doubled the state budget to $2 billion. Additionally, Shaheen has yet to answer questions regarding her relationship with failed national bank Providian, which pushed through legislation to relax consumer protection for credit card holders – including allowing banks to switch customers from a fixed rate to a variable rate. Actions supported and signed into law by then Governor Shaheen. No wonder the Union Leader said she, “sold out consumers in exchange for money and a cozy relationship with a major national bank,” further underscoring the fact that Jeanne Shaheen is ill-equipped to shepherd our economy.
Kay Hagan shares Shaheen’s affinity for taxing hard-working Americans, but her failures also include running up debt on the backs of North Carolina’s taxpayers. Hagan’s crusade to raise taxes includes multiple votes for a higher sales tax, costing North Carolina residents billions, yes billions, of dollars over a six-year period. Hagan also voted multiple times against a decrease of the personal income tax rate. It’s no surprise Hagan needed to keep taxes high, because during her stint as the state Budget Committee Chairwoman, state spending increased by 64% or $8.1 billion. But even those higher taxes could not offset Hagan’s reckless economic plans, as her irresponsible spending drove the state’s debt up to $7 billion. Hagan failed at the state level, but wants taxpayers to overlook this and elect her to the Senate subjecting our fragile national economy to her reckless economic policies.
Jeff Merkley’s record on taxes would be laughable, if it weren’t so tragic. Merkley stated “I advocate for tax hikes every night in living rooms across Oregon” during a recent debate. Additionally, he tried to stop the Oregon government from giving people back their own money. Merkley sponsored legislation to override a constitutional mandate that the government return excess money to the taxpayers. Merkley’s legislation would have diverted the money from taxpayers and back to the government. So after a lifetime of raising taxes and opposing tax cuts, Merkley worked to ensure that even excess funds remained with the government, not the taxpayer.
On the federal level, Boulder Liberal Mark Udall has opposed tax relief for middle class families, including doubling the per-child tax credit and relief from the marriage penalty. The tax cuts Udall voted against have lowered taxes for more than 1.7 million Coloradans, saving families with children an average of $2,864. Not only that, Udall strongly opposed assisting small business owners, voting 11 times against repealing the Death Tax. But like Hagan, it is obvious why Udall needs to consistently vote for higher tax burdens. Udall voted for a record $2.9 trillion spending plan. Worse, he was the only member of Colorado's delegation to vote for a plan that would add $68.6 billion in additional spending. Udall’s record on taxes is so bad he lied about it in an ad, was exposed by a local television station, and still used the same lie again in his next ad. Not the economic acumen or ethical standards Coloradans deserve.
The crisis facing this economy cannot be overstated. There is not a quick fix to solve the various problems causing the crisis. But solutions will not come from increased tax burden, debt and government spending, which are the hallmarks of Jeanne Shaheen, Kay Hagan, Jeff Merkley and Mark Udall’s political careers. These candidates have repeatedly failed their constituents when it came to economic policy and it is important this election we work to ensure that we only reference their failures in the past, not present, tense.
The next several years of this economy will be critical and we need fiscally
conservative, common-sense elected officials at the helm. That is why this
November the choice is clear, the choice is Republican.
The Obama-Ayers Connection
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
In the best tradition of Bill Clinton’s famous declaration that the answer to the question of whether or not he was having an affair with Monica depended on “what the definition of ‘is’ is,” Barack Obama was clearly splitting hairs and concealing the truth when he said that William Ayers was “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood.”
The records of the administration of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), released last week by the University of Illinois, show that the Ayers-Obama connection was, in fact, an intimate collaboration and that it led to the only executive or administrative experience in Obama’s life.
After Walter Annenberg’s foundation offered several hundred million dollars to American public schools in the mid-’90s, William Ayers applied for $50 million for Chicago. The purpose of his application was to secure funds to “raise political consciousness” in Chicago’s public schools. After he won the grant, Ayers’s group chose Barack Obama to distribute the money. Between 1995 and 1999, Obama distributed the $50 million and raised another $60 million from other civic groups to augment it. In doing so, he was following Ayers’s admonition to grant the funds to “external” organizations, like American Community Organizations for Reform
Now (ACORN) to pair with schools and conduct programs to radicalize the students and politicize them.
Reading, math and science achievement tests counted for little in the CAC grants, but the school’s success in preaching a radical political agenda determined how much money they got.
Barack Obama should have run screaming at the sight of William Ayers and his wife, Bernadette Dohrn. Ayers has admitted bombing the U.S. Capitol building and the Pentagon, and his wife was sent to prison for failing to cooperate in solving the robbery of a Brink’s armored car in which two police officers were killed. Far from remorse, Ayers told The New York Times in September 2001 that he “wished he could have done more.”
Ayers only avoided conviction when the evidence against him turned out to be contained in illegally obtained wiretaps by the FBI. He was, in fact, guilty as sin.
That Obama should ally himself with Ayers is almost beyond understanding. The former terrorist had not repented of his views and the education grants he got were expressly designed to further them.
So let’s sum up Obama’s Chicago connections. His chief financial supporter was Tony Rezko, now on his way to federal prison. His spiritual adviser and mentor was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, of “God damn America” fame. And the guy who got him his only administrative job and put him in charge of doling out $50 million is William Ayers, a terrorist who was a domestic Osama bin Laden in his youth.
Even apart from the details of the Obama/Ayers connection, two key points emerge:
a) Obama lied and misled the American people in his description of his relationship with Ayers as casual and arm’s-length; and
b) Obama was consciously guided by Ayers’s radical philosophy, rooted in the teachings of leftist Saul Alinksy, in his distribution of CAC grant funds.
Since Obama is asking us to let him direct education spending by the federal government and wants us to trust his veracity, these are difficulties he will have to explain in order to get the votes to win.
Now that Obama is comfortably ahead in the polls, attention will understandably shift to him. We will want to know what kind of president he would make. The fact that, within the past 10 years, he participated in a radical program of political education conceptualized by an admitted radical terrorist offers no reassurance.
Why did Obama put up with Ayers? Because he got a big job and $50 million of patronage to distribute to his friends and supporters in Chicago. Why did he hang out with Jeremiah Wright? Because he was new in town, having grown up in Hawaii and Indonesia and having been educated at Columbia and Harvard, and needed all the local introductions he could get to jump-start his political career. Why was he so close to Rezko?
Because he funded Obama’s campaigns and helped him buy a house for $300,000 less than he otherwise would have had to pay.
Not a good recommendation for a president.
In Defense of "The Rich"
Thursday, October 09, 2008
So, what do "the rich" pay in federal income taxes? Nothing, right? That, at least, is what most people think. And Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants to raise the top marginal rate for "the rich" -- known in some quarters as "job creators."
A recent poll commissioned by Investor's Business Daily asked, in effect, "What share do you think the rich pay?" Their findings? Most people are completely clueless about the amount the rich actually do pay.
First, the data. The top 5 percent (those making more than $153,542 -- the group whose taxes Obama seeks to raise) pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes. The rich (aka the top 1 percent of income earners, those making more than $388,806 a year), according to the IRS, pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 1 percent's taxes comprise 17 percent of the federal government's revenue from all sources, including corporate taxes, excise taxes, social insurance and retirement receipts.
Now, what do people think the rich pay? The IBD/TIPP poll found that 36 percent of those polled thought the rich contribute 10 percent or less of all federal income taxes. Another 15 percent thought the rich pay between 10 and 20 percent, while another 10 percent thought the rich's share is between 20 and 30 percent. In other words, most people thought the rich pay less -- far less -- than they actually do. Only 12 percent of those polled thought the rich pay more than 40 percent.
Let's try this another way. A U.S. News & World Report blogger went to the Democratic National Convention in Denver and conducted an informal poll of 24 DNC delegates. He asked them, "What should 'the rich' pay in income taxes?" Half the respondents said "25 percent"; 25 percent said "20 percent"; 12 percent said "30 percent"; and another 12 percent said "35 percent." The average DNC delegate wanted the rich to pay 25.6 percent, which is lower than what the rich pay now -- both by share of taxes and by tax rate!
Thirty percent of American voters pay nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- in federal income taxes. And, not too surprisingly, compared with taxpaying voters, they are more likely to support spending that benefits them. The majority of the 30 percent who don't pay federal income taxes agree with Obama's $65 billion plan to institute taxpayer-funded universal health coverage. But the majority of the 70 percent who pay federal income taxes are opposed to Obama's health care plan.
Non-taxpayers support Obama's plans for increased tax deductions for lower-income Americans, along with higher overall tax rates levied against middle- and upper-income households. The majority of non-taxpayers (57 percent) also favor raising the individual income-tax rate for those in the highest bracket from 35 percent to 54 percent. And the majority (59 percent) favors raising Social Security taxes by 4 percent for any individual or business that makes at least $250,000.
Obama calls increasing taxes and giving them to the needy a matter of "neighborliness." Vice presidential running mate Joe Biden calls it a matter of "patriotism."
Yet when it comes to charitable giving, neither Obama (until recently) nor Biden feels sufficiently neighborly or patriotic to donate as much as does the average American household: 2 percent of their adjusted gross income.
Liberal families earn about 6 percent more than conservative families, yet conservative households donate about 30 percent more to charity than do liberal households. And conservatives give more than just to their own churches and other houses of worship. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, give far more money and donate more of their time to nonreligious charitable causes than do liberals -- especially secular liberals.
In 2007, President George W. Bush and his wife had an adjusted gross income of $923,807. They paid $221,635 in taxes, and donated $165,660 to charity -- or 18 percent of their income. Vice President and Mrs. Cheney, in 2007, had a taxable income of $3.04 million. And they paid $602,651 in taxes, and donated $166,547 to charity -- or 5.5 percent of their income.
Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned between $200,000 and $300,000 a year between 2000 and 2004, and they donated less than 1 percent to charity. When their income soared to $4.2 million in 2007, their charitable contributions went up to 5 percent.
Joe and Jill Biden, by contrast, made $319,853 and gave $995 to charity in 2007, or 0.3 percent of their income. And that was during the year Biden was running for president. Over the past 10 years, the Bidens earned $2,450,042 and gave $3,690 to charity -- or 0.1 percent of their income.
So let's sum up. The "compassionate" liberals -- at least based
on charitable giving -- show less compassion than "hardhearted" conservatives.
The rich pay more in income taxes than people think. Voters, clueless about
the facts, want the rich to pay still more.
Campaign Runs Afoul of Finance Rules
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
A Newsmax investigation of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign finance reports has turned up more than 2,000 cases in which individuals have made donations far above the legal limit of $2,300 per election.
Such donations, if not returned within 60 days, violate federal campaign finance laws.
Some can be chalked up to common names, such as Michael Brown, William Taylor, or James Smith.
But many others cannot.
On Aug. 31, for example, the Obama campaign filed a report listing a single donation from a Debra Myers in “Rancho Palos Verde, Calif.,” for $28,500 – more than 10 times the amount the law allows per election. Although Debra Myers is identified as a physician, only two individuals with that last name have a listed phone number in Rancho Palos Verdes (the city’s name actually does have an “s” at the end). Neither is a Debra or a “D” Myers, or a physician.
The Obama campaign also identified Woodrow Myers Jr. of Indianapolis, Ind., on Aug. 31 as having given $28,500 to the campaign. Woodrow “Woody” Myers is a former Indiana state health commissioner who spent $2.1 million of his own money in a failed special election to challenge Andre Carson, the grandson of U.S. Rep. Julia Carson, who died in December. The younger Carson won the race this year, with heavy backing from lobbyists, the Democratic Party and related PACs. (Interestingly, Woodrow Myers' wife is identified as Debra, although Newsmax could not confirm whether this is the same Debra Myers the campaign report lists as being from Palos Verdes.)
In an initial reply to Newsmax questions, the Obama campaign said it had refunded both contributions on Sept. 30, a day after a Newsmax investigation was published that revealed extensive federal election campaign violations by the campaign.
[Read “Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign” — Go Here Now].
The Republican National Committee cited that earlier Newsmax investigation in a formal complaint against the Obama campaign with the Federal Election Commission on Monday.
Several hours later, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt e-mailed Newsmax to say that the contributions had been “reattributed” to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee, and that the excess had been refunded.
That still put both Debra Myers and Woodrow Myers over the federal limits – unless the Obama campaign refunded their entire checks, since Debra gave another $28,500 earlier in the year to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Woodrow was way over the $108,2000 overall election cycle limit for individuals.
Individuals can give $2,300 to a federal candidate in both the primary and the general election, for a total of $4,600 in a single election cycle. They also can give $28,500 to a national party committee, $10,000 to a state or local committee, and $5,000 to other political committees.
If a candidate loses the primary, any money counted toward the general election must be refunded, a wrinkle in the federal election laws that can sink losing candidates deep in debt.
In exchange for receiving federal funding, the McCain campaign agreed not to take any money from individual donors for the general election, so its donors are limited to $2,300.
In addition to Debra Myers and Woodrow Meyers, hundreds of other individual donors have given to the Obama campaign far in excess of the legal limit, a Newsmax analysis of campaign finance records shows.
James Sievers of Big Sky, Mont., gave a total of $20,700 to the campaign, in five donations between March and June of this year. The campaign has returned close to $7,000 of the money but has kept the rest.
Martin Dies of Austin, Texas, also gave $20,700 to the campaign, in four separate checks, each dated June 30, 2007. The campaign returned $2,300 of it immediately, and another $4,600 in September, but kept $13,800 – three times the legal limit.
Robert Watt of Brooklyn, N.Y., gave close to $17,000 to the campaign starting in February of this year, including a whopping $10,000 check logged by the campaign on Aug. 31. Despite the obvious violation of the campaign limits, FEC records show that the campaign returned just $2,300.
Ryan Finley of Portland, Ore., has given $15,400 to Obama for America, starting with two checks on March 6, 2007, totaling $6,900. The campaign immediately returned $2,300, bringing him within the legal limit. He gave another $8,500 in a lump sum on Aug. 26, 2008.
Ms. Merry T. O’Donnell of Juno Beach, Fla., has given $13,150 to the Obama campaign, starting with three donations in March 2007 that totaled $2,000. In January 2008, she gave two more donations of $1,000 each, as well as donations for $600 and for $2,000. In February, she gave another $4,600. As of the latest filing, the campaign has refunded just $2,300 of the total, leaving her net donations at over two times the legal limit for the two elections.
Jerry Rubin of Whitefish Bay, Wis., has given $12,700 to the Obama campaign in varying amounts since February 2007. Despite the obvious violation, the campaign has refunded just $3,400 of that total, still putting him at double the legal limit.
These are just a sampling of the 2,087 individuals who have given Obama more than the $4,600 combined total for the primaries and the general election.
Donors with common names but who live in different parts of the country are among these 2,087 names. For example, the top individual contributor is Michael Brown, listed as giving $36,706 to the campaign.
But a closer look turns up what appear to be 46 different people sharing the same name, each giving addresses in different cities around the United States.
Newsmax has screened donors appearing in the FEC database to weed out those with similar names and different addresses.
For example, in the examples listed in this article, we have eliminated any donations from individuals with the same name who are listed as having a different address.
The FEC regularly sends letters to the Obama campaign, questioning contributions that appear to go over the legal limits. In many cases, the Obama campaign has amended its reports as a result.
But the examples cited here have not been amended.
“It is illegal to make contributions in excess of the limits, and it is illegal to receive contributions in excess of the limits,” FEC spokesman Bob Biersack told Newsmax.
So both the donors and the campaign may have broken the law. “But there are lots of circumstances, and until the four commissioners have agreed to rule, it’s hard to judge,” he said.
Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told Newsmax that the McCain campaign also has caught excess donations and has “refunded $1.2 million in contributions.”
Sean Cairncross, the general counsel for the Republican National Committee who filed the complaint with the FEC on Monday, told Newsmax that the McCain campaign has been “completely transparent with respect to its contributions” by making the names of all donors available to the public in a searchable database. The McCain campaign has even disclosed donors of $200 or less, though it is not required to do so. The Obama camp has not disclosed those donors.
“The Obama campaign has steadfastly refused to make that information public,” he said.
Referring specifically to the huge amount of money that the Obama campaign claims it has raised from small donors, Cairncross said the identity and nationality of those donors could very well remain secret until well after the election unless the Obama campaign makes their names public.
“The American people deserve to know where $250 million in contributions — money
that could potentially elect a president — is coming from,” he
said. “And at this point, we have no way of knowing.”
Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
Monday, September 29, 2008
More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.
And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.
Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.
But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet.
The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.
But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.
Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).
Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.
Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.
“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”
The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.
It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.
Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama’s coffers with no public reporting.
But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money.
“We feel comfortable that it isn’t the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign,” he told Newsmax.
But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors.
Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.
“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”
The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud.
But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse.
“While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.
Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum.
FEC and Mr. Doodad Pro
When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send letters to the campaign’s finance committee requesting additional information, such as the complete address or employment status of the donor.
Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama campaign to “redesignate” contributions in excess of the finance limits.
Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books.
In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.
Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”
A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.
In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.
Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.
There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.
In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there’s no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.
Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.
But in some of them, he didn’t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by “VCX” and that his profession was “VCVC.”
Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600.
Here again, LaBolt pledged that the contributions would be returned but gave no date.
In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later.
In response to FEC complaints, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro even before he reached these limits. But his credit card was the gift that kept on giving. His most recent un-refunded contributions were on July 7, when he made 14 separate donations, apparently by credit card, of $25 each.
Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report specified that Doodad’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $10,965.
And then there are the overseas donations — at least, the ones that we know about.
The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” which the FEC often uses as an abbreviation for "information requested." Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.
More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.
But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.
Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.
With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.
In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.
At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.
The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter.
Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities.
In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.
“All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..."
Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.
The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200.
Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to “root out fraud,” including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online.
One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store.
In response to an investigation conducted by blogger Pamela Geller, who runs the blog Atlas Shrugs, the Obama campaign has locked down the store.
Geller first revealed on July 31 that donors from the Gaza strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through bulk purchases of T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza.
The online campaign store allows buyers to complete their purchases by making an additional donation to the Obama campaign.
A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show.
Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaign’s year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned.
The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30.
The Edwan brothers listed their address as “GA,” as in Georgia, although they entered “Gaza” or “Rafah Refugee camp” as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms.
According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made.
Many of the Edwan brothers’ contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups.
The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December.
A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million.
But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date.
Many of the small donors participated in online “matching” programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs.
The Obama Web site described the matching contribution program as similar to a public radio fundraising drive.
“Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight,” campaign manager David Plouffe e-mailed supporters on Sept. 15. “And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate.”
FEC spokesman Biersack said he was unfamiliar with the matching donation drive. But he said that if donations from another donor were going to be reassigned to a new donor, as the campaign suggested, “the two people must agree” to do so.
This type of matching drive probably would be legal as long as the matching donor had not exceeded the $2,300 per-election limit, he said.
Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, “We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program.”
Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous — and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out.
The original version of this story, published on this Web site Sept. 29, reported that the "IR" listed on 520 overseas donations is "often an abbreviation for Iran."
However, FEC spokesman Bob Biersack said Oct. 7 that “IR” generally
means “information requested,” not Iran. “That’s often,
but not always, what it means,” he said.
Can McCain Still Win?
Patrick J. Buchanan
Friday, October 10, 2008
Two weeks after the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn., John McCain and Sarah Palin were striding forward toward victory.
They had erased the eight-point lead Barack Obama had opened up in Denver and watched as one blue state after another moved into the toss-up category.
That is ancient history now.
Since mid-September, the stock market has cratered, losing half of the $8 trillion that has vanished since October 2007. All five of America's great investment banks -- Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill-Lynch, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley -- have either ceased to be independent or ceased to be.
The nation's largest savings and loan, Washington Mutual, and largest insurance company, AIG, have gone belly up, with the federal bailout of the latter costing $100 billion and counting. Perhaps $3 trillion of the $8 trillion in stock value that is gone disappeared after passage of the $700 billion federal bailout of Wall Street.
No bottom is in sight to the worst market crash since 1929. Recession is now certain. George W. Bush has fallen to 26 percent approval, a level unseen since Richard Nixon was driven from office in the Watergate summer of '74. Four in five think the nation is on the wrong course.
Yet, Obama has only a six-point lead in an averaging of national polls. While he has moved ahead in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, one senses America is not so much rallying to him as running away from a Republican brand that is now on the same shelf with Chinese baby formula.
Obama still has not closed the sale. He has overtaken McCain not because of any brilliant campaign he has conducted but because of the dreadful news pouring out of Wall Street. McCain and Palin are being dragged down by Dow Jones, not Barack Obama.
As of today, the country is not so much voting for Barack and the Democrats as it is preparing to vote against the Republicans.
Consider: The Congress, whose Democratic ranks the nation is getting ready to enlarge -- the Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid -- has an approval rating half that of Bush.
Indeed, looking back on the Year of Barack, 2008, it is clear he has never closed the sale, either with the people or his own party.
After he came off the blocks with a startling triumph in Iowa and ran up a dozen straight primary and caucus victories in February, arrived the spring when Hillary, though Obama's media auxiliary was ordering her to get out, defeated him in Texas, crushed him in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and humiliated him in West Virginia and Kentucky.
Each time the voters take a long second look at Barack, their positive first impressions seem to dissipate. Barack is a weak closer.
Herein lies McCain's hope. The country wants change, but it has not concluded it wants Obama. But if John McCain cannot raise grave doubts about his agenda, his associates, his record, his character, his fitness to be president, Obama is going to win by default.
Obama has succeeded in the debates by playing defense. By his cool demeanor and persona, he has diminished apprehensions about an Obama presidency. There is no evidence of surging enthusiasm.
The Obama media are well aware of Obama's Achilles' heel, his great vulnerability, the doubts about him that still exist in the public mind. That is why they are near hysterical about Palin's ripping of Obama for "palling around" with "domestic terrorists" like William Ayres, the 1960s and 1970s Weatherman radical who conspired to bomb the Capitol and Pentagon and was quoted the morning of 9-11 as saying he wished he had set off more bombs.
The mainstream media call this irrelevant, as it was so long ago.
Yet, can one imagine how the media would have reacted had they learned that a GOP presidential nominee was introduced to politics and worked in harness with a KKK bomber of black churches in the 1960s, who was quoted the morning of Oklahoma City as saying he wished he had planted more bombs?
As McCain is an establishment man on illegal aliens, NAFTA and Wall Street bailouts, uneasy with social issues like affirmative action and abortion, he lacks the full panoply of weapons that successful Republicans like Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bush II used to win two terms. He seems to confine himself to the limited arsenal Gerald Ford, Bush 1 and Bob Dole employed when they went down to defeat.
This election is not over. Yet, even if McCain gets a bit of luck, a dead cat bounce on Wall Street, he must persuade the nation Obama is an unacceptable occupant of the White House if he is to win.
Palin appears ready to take the heat to make that case. But McCain seems ambivalent to the point of being bipolar on whether he wants to take responsibility for peeling the hide off Barack Obama.
Perhaps it comes down to what McCain really thinks about an Obama presidency, and how he wants to be remembered by history.