Lessons in Government -- Page 4
An article from Huntley Brown - a fabulous concert pianist, a man of God and a black man. I appreciate so much his reasoning for not voting for Obama. I would like to see his article published or spread out via Email to as many as possible.
Why I Can't Vote For Obama
By Huntley Brown
Dear Friends, A few months ago I was asked for my perspective on Obama, I sent out an email with a few points. With the election just around the corner I decided to complete my perspective. Those of you on my e-list have seen some of this before but it's worth repeating...
First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support. Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.
Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness. I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads I follow. I can't dictate the terms He does because He is the leader.
I can't vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.
In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning to name a few, wrong economic concerns will soon not matter.
We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I don't know Obama so all I can go off is his voting record. His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007.
NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)
To beat Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.
There is a reason Planned Parenthood gives him a 100% rating. There is a reason the homosexual community supports him. There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him. There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court. There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill. There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion. There is a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.
Let's take a look at the practice he wanted to continue
The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedures:
A. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. (Remember this is a live baby)
B. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
C. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
D. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
E. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.
God help him. There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law.
Think about this: You can't give a kid an aspirin without parental notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.
There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years.
Obama tells us he has good judgment but he sat under Jeremiah Wright teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why now?
Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 'Go and make disciples of all nations.' This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you; talk like you believe what you believe etc. The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?
Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a ...
1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community.
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
Would you support a President who went to a church like that?
Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside.
This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discover he went to a racist church. The church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world.
A church can't have a value system based on race. The churches value system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if it's a white church or a black church it's still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote.
Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation. Cone once wrote: 'Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.
Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?
So what does all this mean for the nation?
In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment.
Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 'Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.'
Then God says
1 Samuel 1:18 "When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.' 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' they said. 'We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.' 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, 'Listen to them and give them a king.'
Here is what we know for sure.
God is not schizophrenic
He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God.
Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture so I doubt it.
For all my friends who are voting for Obama can you really look God in the face and say; Father based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four Supreme Court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy.
I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions. Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends.
Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation,
1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation?
2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?
Origins: Huntley Brown is, as described on his web site (http://www.huntleybrown.com/), "a Christian concert pianist whose versatile repertoire includes classical, jazz, gospel, reggae and many other styles." An e-mail to Mr. Brown about the item reproduced above, an explanation attributed to him about why he would not be voting for Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, drew the following response:
Yes, I wrote this e-mail. I was responding to my friends who asked me to vote for Senator Obama because he is black.
It was not my intention to send it around the world.
I did not post this e-mail or send out any pictures attached. I wish they had not done that.
My friends did not ask me to vote for Senator McCain which explains why my e-mail was geared towards Senator Obama.
My e-mail was not meant to influence public opinion in any way, but simply to share with my friends my views on why I could not vote for Senator Obama.
I have problems with both candidates, but the differences I have with Senator Mccain are pale in comparison with the ones I have with Senator Obama
For the record, I am not a politician. I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I am a Christian independent who just loves the Lord.
If I knew my e-mail would have generated this much interest on a national level, I would have left out a few points. I don't want people to think I am against gay people or against people who have had abortions. (I am not) We are all sinners saved by grace but we need to have some absolute laws to govern society or else we will self destruct.
What has really bothered me is our beautiful black women constitute only 6% of the population, yet they comprise 36% of the abortion industry's clientele. Obama has done nothing to stop this. Most people don't know that the leading abortion providers have chosen to exploit us blacks by locating 94% of their abortuaries in urban neighborhoods with high black populations. Obama has done nothing to stop this?
To be honest I can't wait to vote for the first black President but it has to be a person who shares the values I read in the Bible.
Thanks for checking to make sure my e-mail is legit it is.
The sad part is I have been getting hate mail and my family is being harassed.
As you can imagine not everyone is happy with my e-mail. God bless you richly.
Obama Bans TV Station over Biden Questions
Sunday, October 26, 2008
By: Phil Brennan
Angry over a hard-nosed interview during which Barbara West of Orlando's WFTV peppered Sen. Joe Biden with the kind of probing questions the pro-Obama mainstream media refuses to ask, the Obama campaign has completely banned the television station from future access and interviews.
According to the Orlando Sentinel, Biden was so disturbed by West's searching questions that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife.
"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best, for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.
McGinnis said the Jill Biden cancellation was "a result of her husband's experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West."
During the interview, West asked Biden: "Aren't you embarrassed by the blatant attempts to register phony voters by ACORN, an organization that Barack Obama has been tied to in the past?"
Biden appeared flustered by the question, but quickly gained his composure and denied that Obama had been close to ACORN.
Biden claimed that the campaign had not paid ACORN any money to register voters.
West did not challenge Obama on this point, though during the Democratic primary in Ohio, the Obama campaign had, in fact, paid more than $800,000 to an ACORN-backed group. West did note that Obama has worked with this group in the past. [See: Obama and ACORN: You Can Run But You Can't Hide below].
West again stung Biden, asking him about Obama's statement to Joe the plumber that he planned to "spread the wealth around."
West queried: "A Gallup poll showed 84 percent of Americans prefer the government focus on improving economic conditions and creating more jobs in the U.S., as opposed to taking steps that distribute wealth. Isn't Senator Obama's comment a potentially crushing political blunder?"
Dodging the question, Biden attacked the Bush economic and tax policies and Sen. John McCain's tax program.
West bored in, quoting Karl Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," and asked Biden, "How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"
Biden appeared stunned and asked, "Are you joking? Is this a joke?"
He then insisted that despite Obama's declaration that he would spread the wealth around, Obama "is not spreading the wealth around."
West then asked Biden about his now-famous statement that Obama would be tested and would not be able to stand up to the challenge without help.
"Are you forewarning Americans that nothing will be done and that America's days as the world's leading power are over?" West asked.
An obviously annoyed Biden responded by asking West who was writing her questions. West is a veteran TV news journalist who had worked as Peter Jennings' producer at ABC News.
Biden responded that whoever is elected will be tested, and then attacked McCain's record.
West returned to the "spreading the wealth" question, asking Biden what he'd "say to the people who are concerned that Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country much like Sweden?"
Biden again ducked the question, saying only that he didn't know anybody who thinks that, "except the far-right wing of the Republican Party."
WFTV news director Bob Jordan told the Sentinel: "When you get a shot to ask these candidates, you want to make the most of it. They usually give you five minutes."
He added that political campaigns in general pick and choose the stations they like. And stations often pose softball questions during the satellite interviews.
"Mr. Biden didn't like the questions," Jordan said. "We choose not to ask softball questions."
See Video: http://election.newsmax.com/biden_angered.html?s=al&promo_code=6E34-1
Here is a creative approach to redistribution of wealth as offered in a local newspaper...
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy outside a restaurant with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server mumbled some *expletive deleted* and angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy my $10 as I decided he could use the money more, and told him to thank the server inside. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment, I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
Hmmm... I guess redistribution of wealth is easier to swallow in concept than
in practical application.
Seeds for Liberalism?
Mr. Obama, an Inexperienced Charismatic Politician who Says He will Give the Country Change and a Bright New Future.
In the Aftermath of World War II everyone was wondering, how did people lose their freedom? How could they let a group of people of extremists take power? Quoting Martin Niemöller's famous poem in which he remembers how fragile our liberty is,
"The Nazi's came for the communists and since he wasn't one, he did nothing. Then they came for the trade unionists, and he wasn't one, so he did nothing. Then they came for the Jews and the Catholics and he again did nothing. Then, when they finally came for him, there was no one left to defend him."
NOW, comes slanted coverage by the media and censorship by outlets like DIRECT TV and DISH Network which refuse to run our DEAR MR. OBAMA ad. Further, newspapers that are running our ad and McCain supporters are being attacked.
See "Dear Mr. Obama" NOW! Send this email to everyone!
We need your help and donations to win the fight for truth. Send this email to everyone you know and have this video viewed.
Niemöller's chilling words ring true about how fragile our liberty is. All it takes is a charismatic speaker to woo the masses into believing that progress and change reside with him and that he will take this nation into a bright new future. Sound familiar?
Well, it should, and this is only the start. If you think Mr. Obama and the lunatic liberal fringe wouldn't go there, they will and already are!
Today You Still Have Free Speech - Tomorrow You May be Persecuted.
Here are just two examples of the loss of liberty happening in the U.S today.
The Paper a local newspaper in California felt the wrath of open minded Obama supporterswhen it ran the RMCPAC Full Page Ad.
If it can happen to us . . . it can happen to you . . . or your newspaper.
"There are some mighty powerful Barack Obama fans out there in North County CA.
It appears Steffani Cobler, Office Administrator at Kaiser Permanente, San Marcos, is one of them.
Ms. Cobler called The Paper last Thursday to advise that we would not be allowed to deliver our paper on the campus any longer. Up until that time we had been dropping 700 copies every week off for staff and patient's reading pleasure.
Why, we asked, would we now be banned from the San Marcos campus?
"You ran an editorial that we did not agree with," she said. "You had a picture of Senator Obama and had derogatory things to say about him. Plus," she went on, "several of your jokes we found offensive. I and several of my colleagues found them offensive." She told us further, "Our Physician-Leader read your editorial critical of Obama and it upset him. He said he didn't want this paper here anymore."
At this point we explained to Ms. Cobler that:
The editorial she was referring to was not editorial at all. It was a paid political advertisement, placed and paid for by The Republican Majority Campaign and if she, or any Democrat wished to place a political advertisement supporting Senator Obama, we'd be happy to accept the order, accept their money, and allow them freedom of expression by placing their ad with us.
We asked Ms. Cobler the name of the "physician-leader" who was so upset about the paid political advertisement concerning Senator Obama. She refused to give us his or her name. We advised her we'd like to talk to him or her and make certain that he or she understood that this was a political advertisement but had it not been, if it had been an editorial statement by The Paper, that this was something called freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and it is covered by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America as well as the California State Constitution. We would have pointed out that for him/her to order The Paper banned because he or she did not agree with the political statement was tantamount to him/her deciding what others could say, hear, or read . . . and this is a serious infringement of freedom of the press.
Read the rest of this account/commentary regarding the ensuing battle with Kaiser Permanente by going to: www.thecommunitypaper.com
Secret Service Sent By Obama Campaign Questions Mother of Three
Roger Hedgecock, former San Diego mayor and radio personality sheds some light on the beginning of the end of freedom as we know it. You MUST read this!
"Jessica Hughes of Lufkin, Texas, former Marine, mother of three, answered her cell phone in the car, coming home from the emergency room. Her 9-year-old had suffered a mild concussion, but was OK. The caller was a female Obama volunteer who asked if Jessica would support Obama for president. Jessica replied, "No, I don't support him. Your guy is a socialist who voted four times in the state Senate to let little babies die in hospital closets; I think you should find something better to do with your time." Then Jessica hung up. The next day, a man and a woman in suits showed up at the door of her home, identifying themselves as members of the Secret Service. The Secret Service agents stated that the Obama campaign had complained of a death threat. They had quoted Jessica as saying, "I will never support Obama, and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor." Jessica's husband had heard Jessica's side of the original phone call and verified the actual quote. To which the female agent replied, "Oh? Well why would she (the Obama volunteer) make that up?"
Jessica replied that the Obama volunteer was probably unhappy about what Jessica had said about her candidate. The female agent then said "That's right, you were rude!" The male agent then displayed a file with Jessica's full name prominently printed on it and asked her how she felt about Obama. At this point, the former Marine told the agent "in no uncertain terms" (as she later recounted) that this was America and that the last time she checked, she was allowed to think whatever she wanted without being questioned by the Secret Service. And was being "rude" a federal crime now too? The agents then admitted they had no tape of the conversation, just the quote from the Obama campaign. Responding to Jessica's questions, the agents would not identify themselves by name, nor reveal the name of the Obama volunteer who had made the complaint. The agents did indicate that Jessica was not in a court of law yet, and that they were trying to not embarrass her "by going to all her family and neighbors."
To these implied threats, Jessica invited the agents to speak to whomever they wanted, and stated she would happily go to court since she had done nothing wrong. Jessica asked the agents, "Look, someone calls me unsolicited on my cell phone to ask me to support their candidate, and I can't tell them why I don't?"
The Secret Service left Jessica that day, but she could not get the "visit" out of her mind."
If this doesn't get a fire burning in your chest, then nothing will! This is the beginning of the end for the freedoms we all know and love. First they will come for the freedom of speech! The liberals in congress are already trying to censor talk radio and shut down any who oppose their radical programs! Think about it, you can't even say what you want to anymore in this politically correct environment that THEY have created. They will use what is "proper" and "correct" to strip you of your right to free speech.
Next they will come for your guns! They will strip of the only way to defend your self in the name of "safety" and "order". Oddly enough, Mr. Obama was against the right to defend your home in the Washington, DC Heller case. The court ruling made it abundantly clear that laws which ban the possession of firearms, or make it simply impossible through regulation for citizens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, are unconstitutional and cannot stand.
Could this ever happen? Could the charismatic speech of a "leader" pull the wool over your eyes and introduce the U.S. to a loss of liberty beyond our imagination? It can happen to you and as history repeats itself it is already happening!
In today's world, you can't even say you aren't voting for Mr. Obama without having a visit from the Secret Service. You are branded as stupid, racist, warmongering if you even THINK of disagreeing with the left. That is censorship and the loss of freedom a change planted with seeds of Liberalism and Obama is the charismatic leader that is heralding that change!
Do not buy the lies, DO NOT STAND BY and watch as your freedoms are taken away!
There are just 2 short weeks to go and we need every donation to continue to get out the message and get out the vote.
We MUST continue to get the word out about Mr Obama's lack of courage, leadership and common sense. His ties to terrorists like William Ayers, a man who once said, "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at" are appalling. A man who doesn't regret bombing the Pentagon and who almost single-handedly launched Barack O-bomb-'s political career.
The major media have already decided who their candidate is! MSNBC host Chris Matthews says Barack Obama makes a "thrill" go up his leg when he hears him speak and NBC runs vulgar ads about John McCain.
For more information click here: http://www.rmcpac.com/video-page/dear-mr-obama/
You can say, WE the American people will pick our president.
Your voice CAN be heard -- we need your urgent help with the Republican Majority Campaign PAC.
We must act quickly. We want to have our first ads up reaching millions in the next two weeks. Ronald Reagan once said, "If not us, who? If not now, when?"
I will let you answer his questions today.
You Can Make a Difference -
SELECT HERE TO REVEAL THE FACTS ABOUT Mr. Obama: http://www.rmcpac.com/video-page/dear-mr-obama/
Thank you and God bless America!
Republican Majority Campaign PAC
P.S. Thanks to our campaign to expose the TRUTH about Mr. Obama and his radical terrorist friend and mentor, THE WORD IS SPREADING. The mainstream media is being forced to finally report on this relationship, because the grassroots across America are demanding it. Clips like this one on YouTube are being uploaded and viewed by hundreds of thousands of people online -- but we MUST get the word out even more in the mainstream media to be able to IMPACT this election!
Please, HELP US spread the word even more, by making your BEST DONATION right now. Thank you.
MAKE YOUR MOST GENEROUS DONATION: https://secure.conservativedonations.com/RMC_PAC_Donate/?a=1844
Obama and "The Left"
Monday, October 27, 2008
Although Senator Barack Obama has been allied with a succession of far left individuals over the years, that is only half the story. There are, after all, some honest and decent people on the left. But these have not been the ones that Obama has been allied with-- allied, not merely "associated" with.
ACORN is not just an organization on the left. In addition to the voter frauds that ACORN has been involved in over the years, it is an organization with a history of thuggery, including going to bankers' homes to harass them and their families, in order to force banks to lend to people with low credit ratings.
Nor was Barack Obama's relationship with ACORN just a matter of once being their attorney long ago. More recently, he has directed hundreds of thousands of dollars their way. Money talks-- and what it says is more important than a politician's rhetoric in an election year.
Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger are not just people with left-wing opinions. They are reckless demagogues preaching hatred of the lowest sort-- and both are recipients of money from Obama.
Bill Ayers is not just "an education professor" who has some left-wing views. He is a confessed and unrepentant terrorist, who more recently has put his message of resentment into the schools-- an effort using money from a foundation that Obama headed.
Nor has the help all been one way. During the last debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, Senator McCain mentioned that Senator Obama's political campaign began in Bill Ayers' home. Obama immediately denied it and McCain had no real follow-up.
It was not this year's political campaign that Obama began in Bill Ayers' home but an earlier campaign for the Illinois state legislature. Barack Obama can match Bill Clinton in slickness at parsing words to evade accusations.
That is one way to get to the White House. But slickness with words is not going to help a president deal with either domestic economic crises or the looming dangers of a nuclear Iran.
People who think that talking points on this or that problem constitute "the real issues" that we should be talking about, instead of Obama's track record, ignore a very fundamental fact about representative government.
Representative government exists, in the first place, because we the voters cannot possibly have all the information necessary to make rational decisions on all the things that the government does. We cannot rule through polls or referendums. We must trust someone to represent us, especially as President of the United States.
Once we recognize this basic fact of representative government, then the question of how trustworthy a candidate is becomes a more urgent question than any of the so-called "real issues."
A candidate who spends two decades promoting polarization and then runs as a healer and uniter, rather than a divider, forfeits all trust by that fact alone.
If Ronald Reagan had attempted to run for President of the United States as a liberal, the media would have been all over him. His support for Barry Goldwater would have been in the headlines and in editorial denunciations across the country.
No way would he have been able to get away with using soothing words to suggest that he and Barry Goldwater were like ships that passed in the night.
If Barack Obama had run as what he has always been, rather than as what he has never been, then we could simply cast our votes based on whether or not we agree with what he has always stood for.
Some people take solace from the fact that Senator Obama has verbally shifted position on some issues, like drilling for oil or gun control, since this is supposed to show that he is "pragmatic" rather than ideological.
But political zig-zags show no such moderation as some seem to assume. Lenin zig-zagged and so did Hitler. Zig-zags may show no more than that someone is playing the public for fools.
Some people who see the fraud in what Obama is saying are amazed that others
do not. But Obama knows what con men have long known, that their job is not
to convince skeptics but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what
they want to believe. He does that very well.
Obama and ACORN: You Can Run, But You Can't Hide
Monday, October 6, 2008 7:26 PM
By: Lowell Ponte
Barack Obama is running as fast and as far away from his association with the radical group ACORN as he can, but he can't hide from the facts of his close relationship with the organization.
ACORN, or Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, describes itself as a "non-partisan" group devoted to helping the poor and to registering millions to vote. Critics accuse ACORN of involvement vote fraud, voter intimidation, shakedowns against businesses, and the promotion of socialist class hatred and class warfare.
Apparently worried by the connection between Obama and the group, his campaign has put claims of his ties to ACORN as the lead item on its "Fight The Smears" Web site -- a site the Obama campaign created to counter what they claim are partisan lies made up against their candidate.
The release on the Obama site reads: "When Obama met with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of his history with ACORN and his beginnings in Illinois as a Project Vote organizer, a nonprofit focused on voter rights and education. Senator Obama said, 'I come out of a grassroots organizing background. That's what I did for three and half years before I went to law school. That's the reason I moved to Chicago was to organize.
"So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the importance of it. I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."
Indeed, Obama was being far too modest. The 2008 Democratic presidential nominee had worked not just alongside ACORN, but also as a key operative for the organization.
He was its lawyer in several pivotal ACORN cases.
Obama funded a number of its activities, as well. When he sat on the board of the prestigious Woods Fund for Chicago alongside former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, he oversaw and approved many grants for ACORN.
As the National Review's Stanley Kurtz reported, one Woods committee report boasted that the fund's "non-ideological" public image "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being accused of partisanship."
Obama was the Illinois director of ACORN's controversial voter registration operation, and he trained the group's leaders in the ways of radical, sometimes illegal, confrontational politics.
He also paid ACORN affiliates during his recent Democratic primary contest. For example, leading up to the 2008 Ohio Democratic Primary, Obama's campaign between Feb. 25 and March 17 paid Citizens Services, Inc., a subsidiary of ACORN, $832,598, apparently for get-out-the-vote activities.
Obama's mysterious, shrouded past as a "community organizer" is closely tied to ACORN, a group that supplies a large share of the Democratic Party political shock troops responsible for the party's recapture of Congress in 2006.
ACORN has at least 350,000 dues-paying member families, and more than 800 chapters spread among at least 104 U.S. cities as well as in Canada, Mexico, Argentina, and Peru.
To outsiders, Obama's "long service with ACORN led many of its members to serve as the voluntary shock troops of Obama's early political campaigns -- his initial 1996 State Senate campaign, and his failed bid for Congress in 2000," wrote Kurtz. "With Obama having personally helped train a new cadre of Chicago ACORN leaders, by the time of Obama's 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, Obama and ACORN were 'old friends.'"
ACORN's Radical Roots
ACORN's four co-founders were 1960s New Leftists. One was George Wiley, whose National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) members practiced confrontation politics, e.g., swarming into welfare offices and bullying social workers. The second ACORN co-founder was NWRO organizer Gary Delgado.
Wiley made no secret that he followed the radical tactics proposed in the far-left The Nation Magazine by socialist Columbia University scholars Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who argued that American capitalism could be bankrupted and destroyed by overloading our system with ever-rising costs and bureaucratic demands. (In 1996, President Bill Clinton invited Cloward and Piven to the White House as honored guests.)
ACORN's other founders and longtime bosses were former Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) activist Wade Rathke, a close NWRO ally, and his brother Dale.
"We are the majority, forged from all minorities," proclaimed ACORN's founding 1970 "People's Platform" manifesto. "We are the masses of many, not the forces of few…. We will wait no longer for the crumbs at America's door. We will not be meek, but mighty."
In ACORN, the Rathkes replaced Cloward-Piven tactics designed to overthrow capitalist America with the confrontational-but-compromising tactics of Chicago socialist Saul Alinsky.
"Instead of trying to overturn 'the system -- to blow it up, as Wiley wanted to do, ACORN burrows deep within the system," wrote Manhattan Institute scholar Sol Stern, adding, "taking over its power and using its institutions for its own purposes, like a political 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers.'"
The Rathkes first established ACORN as the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now and struck a personal deal with that state's liberal Republican then-Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller, who reportedly paid the newly-sprouted ACORN $5,000 in cash to register voters. "Of course, they thought we were going to register Republicans," Delgado later boasted. "We did not register a single Republican voter in that election. However, we did use those resources early on to build the organization."
Obama, ACORN, and Vote Fraud
Selectively adding millions of Democratic names to the voter rolls remains one of ACORN's most lucrative activities, for which this organization has been given millions of dollars by organized labor, non-profit foundations, and Democratic-controlled government agencies.
Because Obama had worked closely with one of its leaders, Madeline Talbott, ACORN, in 1995, specifically sought out this radical young lawyer to help craft its lawsuit to impose President Bill Clinton's 1993 National Voter Registration Act, nicknamed "Motor Voter," according to Chicago ACORN leader Toni Foulkes.
Obama's ACORN lawsuit won, thereby slapping aside state officials who resisted Motor Voter because of what it soon proved to be: a 12-lane superhighway to massive vote fraud.
The Motor Voter law required bureaucrats at welfare offices, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and other government offices to register as voters those who used their services. "Examiners were under orders not to ask anyone for identification or proof of citizenship," wrote Wall Street Journal reporter John Fund in his book "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy." "States also had to permit mail-in voter registrations, which allowed anyone to register without any personal contact with a registrar or election official."
Those who took advantage of government services such as welfare were disproportionately likely to vote for the Big Government party. Motor Voter also made it more difficult to purge voter rolls of fraudulent registrations.
Motor Voter, wrote Fund, "fueled an explosion of phantom voters." But in Barack Obama's Democrat-ruled Chicago, phantom voters and voting graveyards are nothing new.
Motor Voter was the Clinton administration's attempt permanently to tilt voter rolls in favor of the Democratic Party. And Obama, working for ACORN, played a key role in imposing this law.
Perhaps thanks to ACORN's and Motor Voter's influence, of the 19 foreign terrorists who attacked America on 9/11, at least six were registered to vote.
In 1992, Obama took time off as a lawyer to direct Project Vote, ACORN's voter mobilization entity, statewide in Illinois. Project Vote added an estimated 125,000 names to voter rolls, which helped propel Democrat Carol Moseley Braun into the same U.S. Senate seat Obama now holds.
Nationwide, ACORN's Project Vote claims to have helped register more than 4 million voters in low-income and minority neighborhoods. Project Vote's tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status prohibits its involvement in partisan political activity, but one of its leaders told Foundation Watch that "lots of grass-roots members" are assisting the 2008 Obama presidential campaign.
ACORN, wrote Foundation Watch investigators Elias Crim and Matthew Vadum last June, has a "record of highly-publicized voter fraud allegations" lodged against it "in Ohio (2004), Wisconsin (2004), Florida (2004), New Mexico (2004), Colorado (2005), Missouri (2006), and Washington State (2007)." They could have named other states as well.
In 2006, in Missouri's U.S. Senate race, Republican incumbent James Talent lost by about 50,000 votes to Democrat Claire McCaskill.
"A sizeable portion of that margin," wrote columnist Carl Horowitz, "was attributable to ACORN organizers submitting phony or at least suspicious voter-registration cards to election officials in the St. Louis and Kansas City metro areas. Several ACORN members in Kansas City were indicted by the U.S. Attorney's Office just prior to Election Day, and eventually pleaded guilty. [Wade] Rathke, not one for subtlety, called City of St. Louis election officials 'slop buckets' when they questioned the veracity of ACORN-submitted forms."
And who was Missouri state auditor during 2006, responsible at a statewide level for overseeing the honesty of voter registration? "That," wrote Horowitz, "would be Claire McCaskill." And Sen. McCaskill is one of Obama's most ardent supporters.
In Florida, ACORN's 2004 Miami-Dade field director, Mac Stuart, according to David Horowitz's DiscoverTheNetworks.org investigation, "has testified that fraud is standard procedure for ACORN/Project Vote canvassers -- behavior that is not only tolerated, but encouraged by supervisors." Stuart reportedly told investigators: "[T]he voter registration project has been operating illegally since it started."
In 2005, Virginia authorities sampled Project Vote registrations and rejected 83 percent of them for containing false or questionable information.
In Washington state, five ACORN employees were convicted in 2007 in what its Secretary of State Sam Reed called "the worst case of election fraud in our state's history. It was an outrage."
In this state the current Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire was elected literally by a handful of votes, but 450 apparently fictitious names were found registered to vote as Democrats at a single address. At least 1,700 ACORN voter registrations -- using the names of Harry Reid, Dennis Hastert, and movie and sports stars -- were later revoked in just one county of the state.
In Nevada, the state most likely to decide the 2008 presidential election, the Las Vegas Review-Journal last July 7 reported that a Clark County official "sees rampant fraud in the 2,000 to 3,000 registrations ACORN turns in every week."
ACORN, of course, blames a handful of overzealous activists or mercenaries for acts of voter registration fraud. ACORN denies that it condones or encourages any illegal behavior.
Incidentally, Obama's ACORN comrade Madeline Talbott, according to Kurtz, "was so impressed by Obama's organizing skills that she invited him to help train her own staff." In 1997, notes Kurtz, Talbott was "a key leader" of 200 ACORN protestors who on July 31 tried to storm a Chicago City Council session.
These ACORN demonstrators, wrote Kurtz, reportedly "pushed over a metal detector and table used to screen visitors, backed police against the doors to the council chamber, and blocked late-arriving aldermen and city staff from entering the session….almost certainly a deliberate bit of what radicals call 'direct action,' orchestrated by ACORN's Madeline Talbott," who was "led away handcuffed, charged with mob action and disorderly conduct."
Obama has never been led away in handcuffs for radical behavior. But, notes Kurtz, Obama has used groups of ominously angry activists to intimidate and pressure local officials.
A newspaper photo of Obama in his "community organizer" days shows him next to activist group the Developing Communities Project (DCP) posters that read: "It's a power thing." The ACORN organizer manual likewise declares, "This is a mass organization directed at political power where might makes right."
Obama supporters in 2008 have angrily demonstrated against, and shared information intended to disrupt, a radio talk show in Chicago that has had Kurtz as a guest. This could be a foretaste of how intimidation might be used to stifle criticism of a President Obama administration.
By the 1980s, ACORN was expanding its horizons from voter registration to housing.
"In 1985, ACORN illegally seized 25 abandoned buildings owned by New York City and installed squatters as residents," recounted a New York Post editorial. "A weak-kneed City Hall eventually gave the group title to the buildings -- proving that crime can pay."
In 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed the Community Redevelopment Act (CRA), which, in retrospect, was the opening wedge for what now threatens to become a government takeover of all housing in America. Under Carter's administration, the domestic Peace Corps government entity VISTA, Volunteers in Service to America, gave a federal grant of $470,000 to ACORN to train volunteers to help low-income citizens.
A later congressional investigation found that ACORN illegally used this money for labor organizing.
According to ACORN co-founder Delgado, after two of "their own," Sam Brown and Marjorie Tabankin, became directors of Carter's ACTION agency and VISTA program, "over 3 million dollars was funneled directly to ACORN" and other left-wing organizations.
After the Clinton administration gave a grant worth more than $1 million to ACORN Housing Corp, an investigation by the inspector general of AmeriCorps found that AHC used government funds to register low-income persons for paid ACORN memberships, in violation of federal law.
Apparently this taxpayer money was given only to those poor people who agreed to pay $60 immediately back to ACORN.
By the infiltration of ideological comrades into positions of power at government agencies, ACORN became the recipient of a flood of taxpayer-funded grants, including some worth millions of dollars. AHC alone between 1997 and 2006 received more than $11,230,000 in public funds.
In 2005 alone, according to Department of Labor disclosure statements, labor leaders reportedly paid more than $2.4 million to ACORN in gifts, grants, and fees for organizing work.
Mandatory family membership dues bring ACORN another $3 million or so per year.
But foundations and churches, boasted Wade Rathke in 2004, account for less than half the revenue ACORN pockets from corporations that had been the targets of successful ACORN protest campaigns.
ACORN and Today's Credit Crisis
President Carter's CRA and related laws were repeatedly expanded to require lending institutions to avoid "redlining" policies that denied home loans to those in minority neighborhoods.
Obama was one of many lawyers who profited from successfully suing on grounds that discrimination was the reason an African-American was denied a home loan.
Banks and other lenders needed not only public good will but also the cooperation of government regulators to approve mergers and other business activities. Expanding laws such as CRA meant that if ACORN accused a bank of racial discrimination and unleashed protestors against it, however unjustly, that bank might suddenly face very unfriendly government regulators. Banks were thus set up to be easy victims for ACORN shakedowns, and paying protection money became necessary for bank survival.
"The same corporations that pay ransom to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton pay ransom to ACORN," said Robert L. Woodson, President of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise.
"The 2000 tax return for the ACORN Housing Corporation," reported the Employment Policies Institute (EPI), "disclosed grants from Bank of America, Fleet Services Corporation, Fannie Mae Foundation, Chase Manhattan Foundation, and Well Fargo Foundation totaling $4,752,198." And AHC is just one of 100 arms of the ACORN octopus.
"The banks know they are being held up," one financial industry consultant told EPI researchers, "but they are not going to fight over this. They look at it as a cost of doing business."
Politicians and left-wing activist groups including ACORN were doing more than shaking down lending institutions for their own profit. They also demanded that lending standards be loosened for those in the underclass who tend to vote Democratic.
With a large political gun aimed at their heads, banks commenced making hundreds of thousands of what they called "Ninja" -- no income, no job, no assets -- loans to minorities who previously would have been deemed uncreditworthy. Knowing that many of these loans they were coerced to make would go bad, many lending institutions bundled them into new types of investment packages and sold them to shed risk.
The giant quasi-governmental lending institutions Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, both largely run by Democratic appointees, became sources of funding for groups such as ACORN that aided Democratic politicians -- and promoters of high-risk subprime home loans.
Democratic executives at these institutions, such as former Clinton administration member and Fannie Mae chair and chief executive officer, Franklin Raines, arranged to have their incomes increase with the amount of lending their institutions did. In six years of recklessly having Fanny Mae assume an astronomical burden of risk, Raines pushed his own income above $90 million.
As former federal prosecutor James H. Walsh recounted in a Sept. 22 Newsmax.com article, Raines was an adviser to Obama until recent national financial problems made Raines too risky to embrace.
[Editor's Note: Read "Obama, Voter Fraud & Mortgage Meltdown" below].
Obama, noted Walsh, had been "the Senate's second-largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
Is ACORN troubled by what many are calling a credit meltdown and the likelihood that many minority homeowners may lose their homes? Probably not, because the ideological aim of ACORN's radical founders was to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism. In the current financial situation, government will get bigger, free markets will become less free, and vast amounts of capital will shift from private companies to government.
For those like Barack Obama who share ACORN's ideology, the situation is perfect -- heads, government wins; tails, capitalism loses. If people keep their homes, many will naively thank the Democratic politicians and left-wing activists who caused their problems in the first place. If poor people lose their homes, they will be that much easier for ACORN to brainwash with class hatred against evil capitalists.
And lest we forget, the first think that congressional Democrats put into their proposed "bailout package" to solve the financial crisis was a permanent slush fund to be extracted from capitalist institutions that would start growing at more than $20 million. The beneficiaries of this now-deleted slush fund were to have been radical Democrat-allied organizations such as ACORN.
The Rathkes commingled ACORN's socialist redistribute-the-wealth ideology with their own hypocrisy and personal greed. From ACORN, they spun off approximately 100 other legal entities.
They then created a shell game under which money acquired by one ACORN front group, e.g., Project Vote, would be moved to other ACORN-controlled groups, in some cases to acquire property.
One former Arkansas ACORN chair, Dorothy Perkins, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, described the organization as "building up a land portfolio" that was supposed to "translate to money and power for the national organization."
But that money was "never seen" by the poor people ACORN claimed to serve, she said, and "all the money ended up" under Wade Rathke's control. Rathke, she said, ran ACORN "like a Jim Jones cult."
Relatively little of the redistributed wealth of Rathke's ACORN conglomerate trickled down to the poor, and comparatively little went to the organization's thousands of full-time "community organizers."
Typical pay was $25,000 a year or less, for which ACORN employees were expected to work 54 hours or more per week, weekends included. In 2006, ACORN required many of its workers in Missouri to sign an agreement that they would be "working up to 80 hours over seven days of work."
ACORN went to court in California, arguing unsuccessfully that it should be exempt from minimum wage laws. But in recent years, ACORN has staged many demonstrations to demand a "living wage," typically a minimum of $12 or more per hour, for minimum wage workers.
According to Mac Stuart, ACORN collected more than $4 for each completed, and illegally copied, voter registration. Its workers who found people and submitted their registrations were paid only $2, with ACORN and the Rathkes pocketing the difference.
But ACORN had many other sources for its annual $37.5 million budget, including millions in government and foundation grants.
ACORN head Wade Rathke was also chief organizer of a New Orleans local of one of America's most radical labor unions, the Service Employee's International Union (SEIU), and ACORN was a close ally of organized labor. Unions sometimes paid ACORN to have its low-paid workers march with picket signs pretending to be striking union members.
When ACORN workers, as well as those in his SEIU union local, tried to form their own unions to bargain for higher wages and shorter hours, Rathke successfully used a wide array of union-busting techniques to stop them -- the same kinds of techniques he routinely condemned other businesses for using.
But the Rathkes fell from power in 2008 shortly before The New York Times on July 9 reported that in 1999-2000 Dale Rathke, then ACORN's chief financial officer, had diverted $948,607 from ACORN and affiliated charitable organization accounts.
Other ACORN officials in 2001 reportedly obtained a restitution agreement from Wade Rathke to repay the missing funds in $30,000 per-year installments.
ACORN, meanwhile, continued to pay Wade Rathke considerably more than $30,000 each year, in effect covering these repayments, while Dale Rathke's apparent embezzlement of almost a million dollars -- in contributions to help the poor -- was kept secret from the public and from those funding ACORN.
"How did ACORN handle the crime?" asked a July 13 New York Post editorial. "By disguising it on the books as a loan from one of its contractors…." and only letting Rathke go "when word of his fraud leaked to donors…. most of the people who covered up the embezzlement are still working for ACORN."
"We thought it best at the time to protect the organizations," said ACORN President Maude Hurd. "We did what we thought was right." Or what served the interests of the left.
Welcome to ACORN, the organization that made Barack Obama what he is today,
and that may make him president of the United States.
Obama, Voter Fraud & Mortgage Meltdown
Monday, September 22, 2008
By: James H. Walsh
I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work. -- Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007
The excuse parroted by most newsmedia for failing to give Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a full vetting, such as they are doing with Sarah Palin, R-Alaska, is that "after 20 months of campaigning and debate," all is known about the senator. Wrong!
For instance, how many voters know that Obama, during his four-year tenure in Chicago as a community organizer, worked as a trainer for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- the infamous ACORN, whose affiliate, Project Vote, is known for voter fraud -- the same ACORN from which a mighty mortgage mess has grown. Upon his return to Chicago after Harvard Law School, Obama provided legal representation for ACORN and for Tony Rezko (recently convicted of bribery and money laundering), who was Obama's main money man during his years in the Illinois State Senate. Rezko had helped the Obamas purchase a home in Chicago's politically correct Hyde Park. Obama sat on the boards of the philanthropic Woods Foundation and the Joyce Foundation, both of whom funneled millions of dollars to ACORN.
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)
Which community activist/political organization in the United States is the largest, most radical left, and most untrustworthy? The answer is ACORN, which bills itself as the nation's largest community organization for the rights of low- and moderate-income families. Its hidden agenda, however, is to change the form of the U.S. government from a republic to a socialist oligarchy, using class warfare and the aid of radical liberals within the Democrat Party. This hidden agenda explains why the liberal newsmedia go mute on Obama's ACORN ties.
ACORN, which began in 1970 as the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now, evolved into the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. It was the brain-child of Wade Rathke, a well-to-do Williams College dropout who had worked for George A. Wiley at the National Welfare Rights Organization. Professor Wiley was a charismatic African-American PhD in chemistry at Syracuse University when he began his venture into social and political change -- much like Obama. Wiley, however, came from a well-to-do family in Rhode Island.
Both Wiley and Rathke were influenced by Chicago's radical activist Saul Alinsky and by the strategies set forth in his books, Reveille for Radicals (1964) and Rules for Radicals (1971). Disruption, intimidation, physical abuse, and ability to adapt to shifting political events are mainstays of the Alinsky rules and his end-justifies-the-means mentality. Rathke had been active in Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), known for its violence, and in the domestic terrorist group, the Weathermen, which bombed government offices. William Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn, Chicago friends of Obama, also were members of SDS and the Weathermen. Obama chaired the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, funded by a grant obtained by Ayers. For six years, Obama and Ayers worked closely on this liberal boondoggle meant to improve education that was terminated in 2002.
The Cloward-Piven Strategy
Columbia University sociology professors Richard A. Cloward (1926-2001) and his wife, Frances Fox Piven, also influenced ACORN leaders. In 1966, the husband-and-wife team promulgated the Cloward-Piven Strategy to change the U.S. political landscape by overloading local, state, and federal agencies with welfare applicants making impossible demands and leading to violent confrontations with authorities. Cloward and Piven held that poor people can only advance when society is afraid of them. By advocating massive, no-holds-barred voter registration campaigns, they sought a Democratic administration in Washington, D.C. that would re-distribute the nation's wealth and lead to a totalitarian socialist state. Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly newsmedia to force a re-distribution of the nation's wealth. It would be telling to know if Obama, during his years at Columbia, had occasion to meet Cloward and study the Cloward-Piven Strategy.
In 1967, Cloward and Piven had recruited George Wiley to lead the National Welfare Rights Organization; and Wiley hired Rathke. The NWRO confrontations, sit-ins, and boycotts were highly successful. In 1975, when New York City was forced into bankruptcy as a result of overloading the welfare rolls with massive numbers of poor people, New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani called the Cloward-Piven Strategy "an effort at economic sabotage." Nevertheless, the strategy worked and led to ACORN's Project Vote. The Cloward-Piven Strategy and ACORN were major factors in passage of the "Motor-Voter" Act of 1994, which opened a can of worms.
Cloward and Piven were joined over the years by nouveau billionaires led by George Soros. Through his Democracy Alliance, they funded ACORN and Soros groups such as America Votes and Center for Community Change. If this is where Obama got his change message, we have a better idea of what kind of change he has in mind.
The new millennium take on the Cloward-Piven Strategy attempts to bring about this change by using Internal Revenue Service concepts that include tax-cuts to sugarcoat concurrent increases in collateral taxes on Medicare, sales, luxury, gas, user, licensing, property, employment. On the horizon are proposed taxes led by the Obama-sponsored Global Poverty Act that would tax every U.S. man, woman, and child $2,500 for a total of $845 billion to help the United Nations eliminate global poverty. The goal remains the same, to re-distribute the wealth of the nation.
Behind Closed Doors
ACORN, as a private organization, is not required to publicize its activities, donors, expenditures, members, or myriad of front organizations. ACORN is a membership organization with an estimated 175,000 member families in the United States and up to 500,000 member families worldwide paying at least $120 per year. With a budget of $100 million or more, ACORN employs about a thousand people. Money flows in to ACORN coffers from the federal government, including the present Bush Administration, and from such foundations as Heinz, Annie E. Casey, Open Society Institute, Ben and Jerry's, as well as from the Woods Foundation and the Joyce Foundation, on whose boards Obama sat in Chicago.
Among the ACORN subsidiaries and satellites are the ACORN Institute, Project Vote, Service Employees International Union -- Local 100, WalMart Alliance for Reform Now, ACORN Housing Corporation (AHC), Living Wage Resource Center, ACORN Law on the Web, KABF Radio, KRON Radio, Site Fighters, the quarterly journal Social Policy, Financial Justice Center, New York's Working Families Party, Precinct Action League (PAL), Citizens Services Inc., Katrina Survivors Association, Citizens Counseling, Inc., and Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice. In 2008 Wade Rathke and his brother, who admitted to embezzling nearly a million dollars from ACORN, made their departure from the Association.
ACORN, Project Vote, and Voter Fraud
Although ACORN has pled to various charges of voter fraud, it continues today enrolling large numbers of voters, some legitimate and others not so much. ACORN tee shirts are visible at Obama rallies.
According to the Consumer Rights League, ACORN has been involved in voter fraud, directly or indirectly, in Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia. ACORN's Project Vote, for which Obama was a paid employee in Chicago, is the organization that appears to be most active in voter fraud. ACORN and Project Vote have a rap sheet of voter misconduct and voter registration fraud that extends across the nation, as the following examples show:
Colorado -- Television station KUSA reported that when hundreds of voter registration forms appeared suspect, election officials investigated and found a woman forging the forms, for which she received $50 a piece. Who was paying her? In January 2005, two ACORN employees were given community service for submitting false voter forms.
Florida -- When incidents were reported of ACORN issuing fraudulent voter registration cards, a former ACORN field director charged that ACORN submitted "thousands of invalid registration cards".
Minnesota -- Election officials learned that ACORN canvassers were selling voter registration cards for $1 a piece. ACORN denied responsibility and fired the canvasser.
Missouri -- St. Louis, Missouri election officials claim 1,492 of fraudulent voter address changes have been turned in by ACORN. Also Kansas City, Missouri had similar voter fraud attempts. Eight ACORN employees plead guilty to federal election fraud in Missouri.
Ohio -- The Federal Election Commission found that, during the Ohio Democratic primary, the Obama presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to a subsidiary of ACORN, Citizens Services Inc. (CSI). The payment apparently was for get-out-the-vote activities rather than the reported "polling, candidate advance work, and staging events". The exact payment to CSI was for $832, 598.29 to cover services between February 25 and March 17, 2008.
The Cincinnati Inquirer reported that in 2004, a federal grand jury indicted four ACORN employees for submitting 19 fraudulent voter registration forms all with similar handwriting and false addresses.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported on August 28, 2008, that the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections (Cleveland) is investigating 75,000 voter registration forms -- -- many found to be fraudulent and submitted by ACORN.
Pennsylvania -- In March 2008, ACORN was accused by Philadelphia Election officials of filing fraudulent voter registration forms prior to the Democratic primary.
Washington State -- ACORN was fined $25,000 by the state of Washington in 2007 for voter fraud committed by Project Vote. Five ACORN workers pled guilty to filing phony voter registration forms.
Wisconsin -- In Milwaukee, 39 ACORN voter registration workers were referred to the District Attorney for possible voter fraud.
Obama, ACORN, and Mortgage Meltdown
In 1977 a Democrat Congress passed and President Jimmy Carter signed The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), and the ACORN Housing Corporation (AHC) was instrumental in its passage. The U.S. Congress through the CRA compelled banks and lending institutions to make loans to "communities of color" disregarding sound economic and risk guidelines. CRA encouraged the relaxing of "outdated" risk-management protocols and underwriting obligations by lending institutions. In the name of ending discrimination, no longer were "communities of color" required to provide verification of income, employment, credit history, ability to pay homeowner bills, or down payment. In response, many banks and mortgage groups bundled trillions of dollars of "subprime" loans and sold them to investors here and abroad. It is these bundled Community Reinvestment Act mortgages, doomed to fail, that are today causing financial strain in U.S. and global financial markets.
In short, a Democrat Congress and President demanded that banks change the rules of good banking and open the Pandora's Box of mortgage defaults and foreclosures now coming to a head. This home-parity concept of the radical left was mobilized by ACORN. A creative example of the home-parity plan was the 80/20 mortgage. The buyer executed a first mortgage for 80 percent of the purchase price and simultaneously executed a second mortgage for the remaining 20 percent -- -- resulting in a purchase of a property without any credit, income, employment, and zero down payment. Home-parity mortgages are a Cloward-Piven Strategy in action.
In October 1999, the president and chief operating officer of the quasi-governmental Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) was David Glenn, a former Clinton White House aide. Glenn declared, "We need to push into these underserved markets as much as we can." That same year, the quasi-governmental Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) committed to opening half of its business to low- and moderate-income minority borrowers. Mortgage companies were encouraged to seek out Latinos, through Spanish-speaking loan officers. Illegal alien status constituted no impediment. Illegal aliens actually were encouraged to apply regardless of no income verification.
In September 1999, Fannie Mae had pledged to commit more than $1 billion to boost minority home ownership in Chicago by expanding a program to create more affordable housing. The commitment was enlarged to $10 billion over the next four years, and in 2003, Fannie Mae home-parity funding in Chicago reached $600 billion. When Franklin Raines, former chair and CEO of Fannie Mae, stepped down in 2004 but managed to take with him a multimillion-dollar parachute and a monthly pension of $114, 393 for life, and should he die, for his wife's lifetime. Until recently, Raines was an advisor to Obama, who was the Senate's second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
It is high time for Obama to disassociate himself from ACORN's pattern of
fraudulent voter registration drives and criminal charges. It is high time
for election officials nationwide to scrutinize and scrutinize again new voters
enrolled by ACORN and its affiliates. It is high time for U.S. taxpayers to
demand an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the home-parity
lending practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- -- practices that, along
with excessive compensation for "subprime" executives, triggered
the present mortgage crisis.
Obama Refuses to Answer Birth Certificate Lawsuit
Friday, October 24, 2008
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
A Pennsylvania lawsuit alleging that Barack Obama is not a "natural-born citizen" of the United States took an unusual twist this week, after a federally mandated deadline requiring Obama's lawyers to produce a "vault" copy of his birth certificate expired with no response from Obama or his lawyers.
The lawsuit, filed by former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip J. Berg -- a self-avowed supporter of Hillary Clinton -- alleges that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is thus "ineligible" to run for president of the United States. It demands that Obama's lawyers produce a copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he is a natural-born U.S. citizen.
Berg's suit and allegations have set off a wave of Internet buzz and rumors, though Obama could easily have put the matter to rest by providing the federal court with the basic documentation proving he is eligible to take the oath of a president. But Obama has apparently decided to deny the court and the public that documentation.
The Constitution provides that any U.S. citizen is eligible to become president if the person is 35 years of age or older and is a natural-born citizen; that is, born in the territorial United States.
By failing to respond to the Request for Admissions and Request for the Production of Documents within 30 days, Obama has "admitted" that he was born in Kenya, Berg stated this week in new court filings.
Berg released a long list of "admissions" he submitted to Obama's lawyers on Sept. 15, and asked that they produce documents relating to Obama's place of birth and citizenship.
Instead of responding, lawyers for Obama and the DNC asked the court to dismiss the case. But Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has issued no ruling in the case that would have given Obama's lawyers more time.
"There are lots of legal ways to stonewall," a well-placed Republican attorney told Newsmax, who was not authorized to comment officially on the case. "But failing to respond is not one of them."
"The first thing they teach you in law school," he added, "is don't put a complaint like this in a drawer. That's how a nuisance case can become a problem."
The 30-day deadline for defendants to comply with a discovery request is set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.
"It all comes down to the fact that there's nothing from the other side," Berg said after he filed a motion on Thursday for summary judgment.
"The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. [Obama] admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States."
In a contentious case, lawyers on both sides will haggle over the production of documents, and will frequently go beyond the deadlines, several lawyers told Newsmax.
"The rules are more often complied with in the breech rather than the observance," a senior trial attorney who has close ties to the Democrat Party, but is not involved in the current case, told Newsmax.
"Lawyers frequently do not return telephone calls or meet discovery deadlines because of sheer inadvertence. Therefore, we do not consider a failure to respond as a 'violation,'" he said.
Allegations surrounding Obama's place of birth have been swirling for months. Earlier this year, the Obama campaign sought to put down the rumors by making available a computer-generated Certification of Live Birth, issued in 2007 by the State of Hawaii. [See the Certification of Live Birth -- Click Here.]
Respected conservative blogger Ed Morrissey called the Berg lawsuit a "conspiracy theory" that had been put to rest by the Obama campaign over the summer but "has arisen like a zombie yet again to suck the credibility out of the conservative blogosphere."
However, the 2007 document produced by the Obama campaign omits key information that normally appears on birth certificates in the United States, including the name of the hospital where he was born, the size and weight of the baby, and sometimes the name of the doctor who delivered him.
In addition, the critics of the 2007 document note that Obama's father is described as "African," a term used today. The formal language in official documents at the time -- 1961 -- would have identified his race as "Negro" or "Colored."
The Web site snarkybytes.com has produced a vault copy of a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth from 1963, issued by the Hawaii Department of Health. [See the vault copy -- Click Here.]
In addition to naming the hospital and more details about the baby, the 1963 vault copy also includes the "usual residence of the mother," and the "usual occupation" of the father. None of this information appears on the 2007 Live Birth certificate produced by the Obama campaign.
Berg has been a perennial political candidate in Pennsylvania, having run in Democrat primaries for attorney general, lieutenant governor, governor, and other offices without success. He served as deputy attorney general of the State of Pennsylvania from 1972-1980.
His credibility was tarnished by work he did for the far-left "9/11 for the Truth" campaign, which alleged in a federal lawsuit that the collapse of the twin towers in New York was caused by "controlled demolition" ordered by the president of the United States.
Nevertheless, in recent weeks, lawsuits have been filed in seven additional states demanding that Barack Obama produce an original vault copy of his birth certificate, to dispel the rumors that he is not a natural-born United States citizen.
The latest suits have been filed in state and federal courts in Hawaii, Washington, California, Florida, Georgia, New York, and Connecticut to compel Obama to release his birth records.
Lawsuits in Washington and Georgia are seeking state superior courts to force the states' secretary of state, as the chief state elections officer, to require Obama to produce original birth records from Hawaii, or else decertify him as a candidate for the presidency.
Ironically, Obama mentions his birth certificate in passing on Page 26 of his 1995 memoir, "Dreams of My Father." "I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school," he wrote.
Lawyers for Obama and the DNC did not return calls for comment on the current status of the case, or explain why the Obama campaign did not simply put to rest the whole controversy by releasing the birth certificate that Obama apparently cherished as a teenager.
In the past, questions about Sen. John McCain's legal status have arisen.
McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone at a U.S. Army hospital. McCain had
legal experts vet his constitutional qualifications, and he also disclosed
a copy of his birth certificate.
Hillary Backers Decry Massive Obama Vote Fraud
Monday, October 27, 2008
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.
This November, One Vote Will Make a Difference.
A Personal Message from Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center
Dear Members & Friends of the Thomas More Law Center,
A short new inspirational video has begun circulating on the internet, and I wanted to take this opportunity to share it with you today. In just 3 minutes, the video speaks strongly to Americans about the issues that are at stake in this Presidential election… Life. Family. Marriage. Faith. These are the very issues for which the Thomas More Law Center was founded to promote and protect.
Although the video speaks specifically to Evangelicals, it will provide inspiration to people of all faiths who value traditional family values and the sanctity of human life.
Please take a moment today to experience the message this dramatic video contains… and please forward it to family and friends to remind them of what our country is facing this November 4th.
Click here to watch the video now: http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=112
Remember, this November Christians will have one opportunity to shape the future for our generation, and those to follow. One vote will make a difference.
May God bless you… and may God bless America.
President & Chief Counsel
Obama 'admits' Kenyan birth?
Campaign doesn't respond to claims in lawsuit over birth certificate
Philip J. Berg
October 21, 2008
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip J. Berg, who filed a lawsuit demanding Sen. Barack Obama present proof of his American citizenship, now says that by failing to respond Obama has legally "admitted" to the lawsuit's accusations, including the charge that the Democratic candidate was born in Mombosa, Kenya.
As WND reported, Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August, alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Though Obama has posted an image of a Hawaii birth certificate online, Berg demands that the court verify the original document, which the Obama campaign has not provided.
Now Berg cites Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that unless the accused party provides written answer or objection to charges within 30 days, the accused legally admits the matter.
Since Obama has only filed motions to dismiss and has not actually answered the charges in the lawsuit, Berg claims, according to Rule 36, Obama has legally admitted he is not a natural-born citizen.
Now Berg is asking the court for a formal declaration of Obama's admission and asking the Democratic National Committee for another presidential candidate.
In a statement released today, Berg argues that he filed Requests for Admissions on Sept. 15, meaning Obama had until Oct. 15 to answer or face the consequences of Rule 36.
"Obama and the DNC 'admitted,' by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit," Berg's statement reads. "Obama is 'not qualified' to be president and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for president and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate."
Berg's original lawsuit leveled several charges at both Obama and the DNC -- accusing the former of lying about his place of birth, faking his birth certificate and fraudulently running for office; and accusing the latter of not properly vetting its candidate.
Though it hasn't given Berg the evidence he seeks, the Obama campaign has publicly answered allegations that the candidate was born in Kenya and faked his Hawaii birth certificate.
"Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn't have a birth certificate aren't actually about that piece of paper," says the "Fight the Smears" section of Obama's website, "they're about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.
"The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America," the campaign website states. It also includes images of a Hawaii birth certificate bearing the name Barack Hussein Obama II.
Berg has also taken the controversy public through his website and through repeated public offers to revoke the lawsuit if Obama will produce legal documents that establish his citizenship.
Without those documents, Berg has chosen to file two additional motions in district court in Philadelphia. The first asks the court to notify Obama and the DNC of what Berg understands they have now legally "admitted," and the second asks for an expedited ruling, given the quickly upcoming Nov. 4 election.
"It all comes down to the fact that there's nothing from the other side," Berg
told Jeff Schreiber for his blog, America's Right. "The admissions are
there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything.
He admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits
that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally
ineligible to serve as president of the United States."
DNC steps in to silence lawsuit over Obama birth certificate
Democrat suing his own party says it's 'like they're in cahoots'
October 04, 2008
By Drew Zahn
The man suing Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee for proof of Obama's American citizenship is outraged that his own party -- rather than just providing the birth certificate he seeks -- would step in to silence him by filing a motion to dismiss his lawsuit.
As WND reported, prominent Pennsylvania Democrat and attorney Philip J. Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court two months ago claiming Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen and therefore not eligible to be elected president. Berg has since challenged Obama publicly that if the candidate will simply produce authorized proof of citizenship, he'll drop the suit.
Berg told WND the longer the DNC tries to ignore his lawsuit or make it go away -- instead of just providing the documents -- the more convinced he is that his accusations are correct.
Despite assertions by the Washington Post, FactChecker.org and other organizations that Obama has produced a certified Hawaiian birth certificate, Berg told WND he remains "99.99 percent sure" that the certificate is a fake and he wants a court, not a website, to determine its validity.
Earlier last week, lawyers for Obama and the DNC filed a joint motion to dismiss Berg's lawsuit. The fact that the DNC joined in the dismissal request has Berg fuming, believing his party's leaders have ignored his pleas for proof in order to favor their chosen candidate over a rank-and-file constituent.
"I think it's outrageous," Berg said. "The Democratic National Committee should be ensuring the Democratic Party and the public that they have a qualified candidate up there. To file a joint motion is like they're in cahoots.
"Since then, I have asked by way of press release that Howard Dean resign, because (the DNC members) are not fulfilling their duties," Berg said.
"The DNC has a responsibility to all Democrats in this country to make sure that all of their candidates are properly vetted and properly qualified," Berg added. "I think it's really an outrage to the 18-plus million people who voted for Obama and the people who donated more than $425 million to him under false pretenses."
Berg is frustrated, not only with his own party's leadership for allegedly not investigating Obama's background, but also with the major news outlets for failing as well.
"I should also be suing the national media and their disgrace for not properly vetting, inspecting or checking on Barack Obama.
"Look what they're doing to Governor Palin: They're opening up her closet doors, they're going through everything personal, but no one has ever gone after Obama. It doesn't make sense," Berg said.
Obama's website counters Berg's claims with links to articles that affirm the validity of his citizenship and an image of a Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama, born in Honolulu, Aug. 4, 1961. The webpage is part of the Obama campaign website's "Fight the Smears" section, an effort to prevent reports that Obama claims are false from disseminating as damaging rumors.
Berg acknowledges that as long as his lawsuit remains outstanding, the public will talk, and he told WND he wants Obama to quickly prove him wrong or the court to quickly prove him right.
"I've been on about 50 radio shows around the country," Berg said, "and on every one I've put out a challenge: Barack Obama, if I'm wrong, just come forth with certified copies of these documents and I'll close down the case."
Berg told WND, "I've had 19 million hits on my website. …Those people talk to other people, now we're up to 20, 30, 40 million people who are aware of this controversy, and it's going to drastically affect the entire election."
When asked what he would do if the DNC succeeded in getting his case dismissed, Berg said he would "immediately file an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and if we don't get a fair ruling there, immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court."
"We're dealing with the U.S. Constitution and it must be followed," Berg explained. "I want the Constitution enforced; that's my main reason for doing this.
"The real outrage is that there's nothing in our system that provides
that a candidate must provide that his qualifications are true and correct
before he or she runs, and that safeguard should be put into our system by
law," Berg said.
TV ad targets Obama's ties to Kenyan radical
Spot for battleground states refers to WND author Corsi's detention
October 21, 2008
A new television ad focusing on Sen. Barack Obama's support for radical Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga has been produced by a political action committee called Freedom's Defense Fund.
The ad refers to the Kenyan government's decision Oct. 7 to prevent WND reporter and author Jerome Corsi from holding a press conference in Nairobi. Corsi had planned to present the result of a week's research in Kenya further documenting the ties between Obama and Odinga first disclosed in Chapter 4 of his No. 1 New York Times best-selling book, "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality."
Freedom's Defense Fund plans to run the television spot, along with others it has produced, in battleground states during the last two weeks of the campaign.
The video can be seen here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78738
As WND reported, Obama fundraisers and donors raised in the U.S. almost $1 million for Odinga in the three visits the Democratic presidential candidate arranged for Odinga to make to the U.S. An additional $1 million was raised for Odinga by Saif el-Islam Gadhafi, the Libyan dictator's second oldest son.
WND also reported Obama campaigned for Odinga during a Senate "fact-finding" trip, with the arrangements made by Obama Senate staff member Mark Lippert, who Obama designated as the official "go-between" to coordinate strategy.
WND has obtained a copy of an agreement Odinga signed in August 2007 with Sheik Abdullahi Abdi, the chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum, that included plans for wide-ranging attacks on Christians.
In the document, Odinga promised that within six months of becoming president he would "rewrite the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Shariah as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared religions."
Odinga took over the office of prime minister in Kenya after his campaign called for protests of an election he lost by more than 200,000 votes to incumbent Mwai Kibaki. The resulting violence by marauding Muslim mobs left 1,000 people dead, hundreds of thousands displaced from their homes and 800 Christian churches damaged or destroyed. No Islamic mosques were damaged, however.
Freedom's Defense Fund is also running television ads on William Ayers, the
radical Weather Underground bomber with whom Obama served on the Annenberg
Challenge board and Woods Fund for several years; Tony Rezko, the convicted
federal felon who funded Obama's political campaigns for 17 years; and Rev.
Jeremiah Wright, the radical black liberation theology preacher who was Obama's
pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years.
Obama funded foreign thug Raila Odinga who promised Islamic state
Agreement with Muslims pledged to protect terrorists, throttle Christians, impose Shariah
Posted: October 19, 2008
By Jerome R. Corsi
Excerpt: A controversial Kenyan leader for whom Sen. Barack Obama not only
campaigned but raised almost $1 million during the run-up to that nation's
2007 presidential election, concluded a written agreement with Muslim leaders
stipulating that if they delivered him the Muslim vote, he would in turn, once
elected, change the constitution to declare Islamic law as the ruling authority
in Muslim-dominated regions, protect terrorists and muzzle Christian evangelism.
(see link for rest)
Will Michelle Obama tape 'change political atmosphere in America'?
African news says she should 'come clean,' but candidate's campaign calls story 'made up'
The African Press International news agency, which reported that Michelle Obama called to protest its coverage of WND investigative stories about her husband -- characterizing the source of the material as "racist" and describing WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi as "evil" -- now is calling on the possible first lady of the United States to "come clean" about her call.
The Obama campaign immediately denied there had been any telephone call from Michelle Obama, flatly dismissing the story as "not real" and "made up." API later responded by claiming it had recorded the conversation. Besieged by demands from both sides of a campaign that has reached the white-hot stage, the agency said although it had the tapes, it would not release them immediately.
Now, in a statement dated Friday because of the time difference, API Chief Editor Korir has promised that the tape will be made available after his lawyers clear it for publication, and he denied being an advocate either for or against Obama's campaign.
He said the delay also is intended to allow Michelle Obama to explain her actions first.
There was no response to a WND call to the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago tonight to request a comment.
"A number of Americans who are die-hard Obama followers have tried their best to intimidate API using all kinds of threatening methods when they call in and when they e-mail us," the API statement said. "They are implying that API is planning to destroy Obama's chances to become the next U.S. president. API does not have a direct interest in the U.S. presidential elections and we want Obama supporters to understand that. However, when someone who may become the next first lady makes such comments as in the story we have published, the public have the right to know. Intimidation directed to the publishers of the story is not the answer.
"The delay to make public the recordings is expected to give time to Mrs. Obama to come clean and tell the American people that her comments were not meant to harm anyone but that she was reacting to the media pressure on her husband. She should also come out and tell the American people that she will not discriminate those who are not Obama fanatics if she becomes the first lady," the statement said.
"Those who do not support Obama are actively pushing for the release of the recordings also, and we understand them very well. In many telephone conversations with them we, however, get disturbed when we realize that most of them want the recordings to be released because they want to use it to stop Senator Obama from being elected president. They state clearly that if the story is true and released now, the contents will sa[v]e America from a constitutional crisis that may come if things come out after the elections that proves Obama was adopted by a foreigner, thus, disqualifying him from the presidency," Korir wrote.
The statement confirmed that API "has recordings of the conversation between API and Mrs. Obama" and "we confirm that the audio will be released to the public."
"In the last 24 hours, API has been consulting legal advisers on the way forward in order to avoid being sued by the Obama camp. API has realized that the contents of the tapes if made public may change the political atmosphere in America for ever, especially in the next few days," the statement said.
"API now understands the impact of the statements made by Mrs. Obama. The American people have reacted in a way we in API would never have expected.
"Many have question[ed] why Mrs. Obama would choose a little known online media group instead of the American media. API was chosen because of a Nairobi contact that did not like the way API was covering Barack Obama using information collected from American media outlets. The Nairobi contact prevailed upon Mrs. Obama to talk to API," the statement said.
"The only thing API may have done wrong is not informing Mrs. Obama that the conversation was being recorded. This is why it is taking time to release the recording while consulting a legal team because API wants to be legally safe from any Obama camp law suit," Korir wrote.
"API is not out to convince the American public of anything. We do not want to influence the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections. API got a true story and published it. The fact that the story has caused a stir was unexpected, but that does not mean API must rush in a manner that will cause problems to itself, just to satisfy those who want the audio tapes so badly," the statement said. "When the legal concerns are cleared, which is happening in a short while, API will make public all the recordings available. This will also include comments, not yet published, which will most certainly put the Obama campaign spokesperson who had dismissed the story off balance.
"Even if our recordings or any other recordings had surfaced after the elections and if the contents were damaging to the elected person that still could have caused any elected president to vacate the White House. We all know that the tapes released in the U.S. in 1974 forced President Richard Nixon out of office. The truth is the truth. The tapes during Nixon time did not lie. The same here. The recordings that API will release soon will not lie to the American people. Most probably, it will change the political landscape, something the Americans should start getting prepared to face," Korir suggested.
API's original report said Mrs. Obama said she had hoped the African media "was mature enough to be in the front to give unwavering support to her husband, a man Africans should identify themselves with."
API's account said it was "only relaying what the American bloggers and other media outlets had discovered through their investigations." This, according to the story, angered her.
"African Press International is supposed to support Africans and African-American view," she reportedly said. "It is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband. There is no shame in being adopted by a stepfather. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband's face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband's adoption by his stepfather. The important thing here is where my husband's heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that my husband loves this country and his adoption never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner."
After the initial API report, Tommy Vietor, an Obama campaign spokesman, told National Review's Byron York the conversation didn't happen.
"The answer is no, it's not real, the report is made up. She did not speak to the organization," Vietor said, according to York's report on National Review Online's blog "The Corner."
Korir, however, responded to WND's e-mail confirming the report is accurate.
"API hereby confirms to you that the story is true and if the huge interest on this particular story continues, we will post the recording on our website in the next immediate days," his e-mail said.
API asked Michelle Obama to comment on the detention of Corsi during his visit last week to Kenya, where he was investigating the presidential candidate's links to a controversial strongman serving as prime minister.
"When API asked Mrs. Obama to comment on why Dr. Corsi was arrested by the Kenyan government and whether she thought Kenya's prime minister, Mr. Raila Odinga, was involved in Dr. Corsi's arrest, she got irritated and simply told API not to dig [into] that which will support evil people who are out to stop her husband from getting the presidency," the publication reported.
API also said the Democratic candidate's wife had some clear instructions for the publication.
"Mrs. Obama asked API to write a good story about her husband and that
will earn API an invitation to the inauguration ceremony when, as she put it,
her husband will be installed as the next President of the United States of
America next year," the report said.
Michelle Obama is a Racist
"We both know that our talk was -- a sister to brother talk -- black to black person talk -- in the African perspective.
API's "open letter" said its goal was to "avoid any embarrassment
should the whole tape be aired unedited."
"You are well aware of our discussions touching on thorny issues like Iran's good trade relationship with Kenya and the fact Kenya may play a role in mending the relationpship between Iran and the U.S. so that healthy trade relationship may be achieved. ... Remember the depth of our talk on other issues of importance, " the letter said. "We both know that our talk was -- a sister to brother talk -- black to black person talk -- in the African perspective.
"API is interested in handling this matter in a good and reasonable way so that we may not be forced to release the tapes in its entirety. We do not want to be party to causing unnecessary chaos before the elections. If you just come forward and confirm that there was a call you placed to API, that will enable API to be out of it and nobody will continue to demand that we air unedited tape, but that we can release the one with information that is already known to the public," the letter said.
Obama campaign officials have stated that the telephone call never happened.
Corsi releases statement blocked by Kenya
Report: Michelle Obama calls Corsi 'evil'
Michelle Obama had one other point to make -- regarding the endorsement of her husband by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, which she deemed "unfortunate."
She reportedly told AFI that it was unfortunate that the highly controversial Farrakhan made his support known before the election.
Obama raised $1 million for foreign thug's election
Proof Obama backed Odinga
Sendoff to Corsi: 'See you in hell'
Kenya holds Corsi 'incommunicado'
See it with your own eyes:
Obama's book blurb for Ayers
As state senator, presidential candidate praised work of former leader of Weather Underground
A newscast from a future we must never see
October 20, 2008
by Janet Porter
This week, I decided to do something different -- my column is in video form. It's a newscast from a future we must make sure we never see. In it, you'll get a glimpse into our nation should Barack Obama be elected president -- complete with the kinds of people he'll appoint and policies he'll enact based on Sen. Obama's real promises, positions, record and advisers. It would be comical if it weren't so scary. It is an eye-opening look at what the future could hold if we don't do everything we can to prevent it.
I encourage you to watch it (rather than read it) and forward it to everyone you know in an effort to sound the alarm before it's too late … or the news we watch next January will look something like this:
VIDEO:911 Newscast of the future (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78576)
It's January 22, 2009, for 911 News, I'm Janet Porter. Two days after the inauguration of Barack Obama as president, the Middle Eastern reaction is the same. (VIDEO: TERRORISTS DANCING IN THE STREETS.) Obama campaign supporters from al-Qaida to Hamas to Hezbollah, to Islamic Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood, continue to dance in the streets.
The "Death to America Coalition" released a statement: "We have not celebrated like this since 9/11!"
President Obama thanked campaign contributor William Ayers by appointing him as director of Homeland Security. Ayers, who bombed the Pentagon, and after 9/11 said he wished he could have done more, in a statement released today, said, "Now I can."
President Obama's close friend, mentor and pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, accepted the appointment to oversee the president's Faith Based Initiative program with the condition he would quit calling for God to damn America in public.
Obama made good on his long-held campaign promise dating back to 1996, when he told the "Independent voters of Illinois" he would outlaw all handguns. Reiterating his words on the campaign trail, Obama told gun owners to "quit being bitter and clinging to the Second Amendment of the Constitution."
President Obama followed through on his campaign promise to sign the "Freedom of Choice Act" as his first act in office. (VIDEO FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD SPEECH MAKING PROMISE.) This effectively wipes out every pro-life law from parental notice to every ban on partial-birth abortion in all 50 states.
NICKIE NAEVE, 14 year old: "Now that Obama's president, I can get an abortion and mom or dad will never ever know!"
SANDY SLAUGHTER from KTAI (Kill Them All International): "You just worked 36 years for nothing! When Obama won we won! Ha!"
The only thing left of the abortion agenda not yet accomplished is the forced abortion policy of China.
It's been said the ACORN doesn't fall far from the tree, and with a message of gratitude for all their hard work in the elections, President Obama increased federal funding in his budget for the group best known for voting fraud. Senators were warned by ACORN if they voted against their increase in taxpayer funds, they would suffer an enormous backlash from deceased voters in their districts.
Obama said he misspoke when he referred to his health care plan as "socialized medicine," saying, "The term 'socialism' has been given a bad rap," and returned to the discussion of "government takeover of health care" and the fines for those who won't submit.
First lady Michelle Obama spent the day reading from her favorite books to elementary school children.
MICHELLE OBAMA READING TO CHILDREN: "Mr. Ayers knew America was a bad country so he and his lovely wife formed a club called 'The Weather Underground.' (To children) Can you say 'Weather Underground'?"
CHILDREN REPEAT: "Weather Underground."
MICHELLE: "They took action and stood up for what they believed (turning children's book page) in the Pentagon …"
JOHNNIE RAISES HIS HAND: "Mrs. Obama? Did Mr. Ayers ever say he was sorry for blowing up the Pentagon?"
MICHELLE: "No, but nobody really cares about that. Let's move to our next book, "Heather and Her Two Mommies aren't Proud of their Imperialist Country.'"
President Obama appointed his economic adviser and the former CEO of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines, as secretary of the treasury this week. Raines took office and promised to do for the American economy what he did for the housing industry. Referring to his campaign contribution to Obama's campaign, Raines was reported to have said, "That was the best $126,000 we ever spent."
As Senator John McCain predicted, the Russian aggression has moved to the Ukraine. Russian tanks rolled in and soldiers began to burn homes, schools and hospitals this morning. President Obama's immediate reaction was, once again, "We're not sure who's at fault, but this administration stands firm on the principle that we should all get along."
After he had time to talk to his 300 foreign affairs advisers, President Obama's official statement was: "Present!"
As was predicted, successful small businesses and job-providing corporations are closing their doors and moving overseas to escape the enormous tax hikes the Obama administration has imposed in an effort to use them to redistribute or "spread" the wealth. Another victim of this administration's class warfare is Joe the Plumber, who was made famous during the final presidential debate, who is moving from his beloved Holland, Ohio, to Holland. He said they're socialists too, but at least they're honest about it.
President Obama responded, "That's OK, I'll get him with the global tax I tried to pass in the Senate."
The Osama bin Laden video released yesterday has been shown to be authentic.
OSAMA speaks in Arabic.
TRANSLATOR: I am looking forward to meeting with President Barack Obama without preconditions to negotiate our demands of "submit or die." We have much in common: the same supporters, the same allies and we both have friends who blew up the Pentagon.
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Tony Rezko today said he was grateful for the presidential pardon that released him from prison and said he looked forward to serving at HUD. He was happy to have even more tax dollars at his disposal than Obama was able to deliver him in the Senate.
Leader of the "Nation of Islam," Louis Farrakhan who, during the campaign, referred to Barack Obama as the "Messiah" and received an award from President Obama's church, today received another honor from the president, who asked him to be the keynote speaker at the Presidential Prayer Breakfast. Attendees were reportedly told to face east.
Farrakhan called for the loud siren signaling the Muslim call to prayer heard in Muslim Countries (and in Michigan) to be sounded in the capital five times a day. Not surprisingly, President Obama repeated the words he said in a February 27, 2007, interview with the New York Times that this call to allegiance to Allah as the "one true god" was "one of the prettiest sounds on earth."
Despite the rise in oil prices and the cry for offshore drilling, President Obama has once again appeased the environmentalists, saying he will not drill. The reaction from the Middle Eastern oil suppliers was as expected.
As promised, President Obama also overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed by President Bill Clinton. This is sure to spread homosexual marriage not just in Massachusetts, California and Connecticut, but to states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Colorado. President Obama, as he said during the campaign, opposes any efforts to protect marriage by state amendment. He also made good on his campaign promise to use the bully pulpit of the White House to place vulnerable orphan children in the homes of homosexual activists who demanded it during their Gay Pride Parade.
Conservative talk radio just became a thing of the past with President Obama answering the Democrat Congress' call for a gag rule on Rush Limbaugh, conservative and Christian talk radio. With the so-called Fairness Doctrine heading to his desk, Obama vowed to use the FCC to further tighten what used to be referred to as the freedom of speech.
And now the Obama administration is reaching the arm of censorship beyond radio into the television airwaves, starting with new … SCREEN TO SNOW.
Voice over: Help save Western Civilization. Vote McCain/Palin.
Obama denies Michelle made derogatory remark
'Frankly, my hope is people don't play this game'
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
A blogger at Politico.com says presumptive Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama has "batted down" reports on the Internet that there exists a video of his wife using a "derogatory term for white people," -- reportedly "whitey" -- and went further to criticize a reporter for even asking about it.
The report comes from blogger Ben Smith, who said Obama told a McClatchy reporter aboard his campaign plane the video story is just that -- a story.
"We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it," Obama said, according to Smith's commentary.
"That gives legs to the story. If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it," Obama said.
Smith reported Obama then was asked whether he knew it not to be true, and Obama replied that he already had answered.
"Frankly, my hope is people don't play this game," Obama was reported saying. "It is a destructive aspect of our politics. Simply because something appears in an e-mail, that should lend it no more credence than if you heard it on the corner. Presumably the job of the press is to not to go around and spread scurrilous rumors like this until there is actually anything, an iota, of substance or evidence that would substantiate it."
Smith added, "Obama's clearly right that this is how stories for which there's no evidence at all make it into the public eye. So I'm not linking or detailing the rumor, since there's just zero credible evidence for it. This is probably a silly old media vestige, of course; Google has no such standards. And Obama's discussion of it is, more broadly, news: As he acknowledged yesterday, beating back whisper campaigns is perhaps the central challenge his campaign faces."
An anonymous reader told Smith, "The things Michelle has actually said are bad enough, any more would just be overkill. The woman is cleary (sic) an angry and bitter soul."
Another wrote, "Good for Obama! Put up or shut up! We need to end these STUPID stories They do nothing to help our troops, the ecomomy (sic) or our country."
Michelle Obama already has established a reputation for controversial statements.
In a profile in the London Guardian, she was asked how she feels about Bill Clinton's use of the phrase "fairytale" to describe her husband's characterization of his position on the Iraq war, she first responded: "No."
But, after a few seconds of contemplation, and gesturing with her fingernails, she told the reporter: "I want to rip his eyes out!"
Noticing an aide giving her a nervous look, she added: "Kidding! See, this is what gets me into trouble."
In February, Obama set off a national firestorm with comments she made at a Milwaukee rally: "What we have learned over the past year is that hope is making a comeback. And let me tell you something -- for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment."
Probably one of the more complete explanations of the "rumor" appeared at Hillbuzz, another blogging site.
There, writers concluded the video, which has been reported on by NoQuarterUSA.net, if it exists, probably was made at the 2004 Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Conference in Chicago, and may have been made by ABC-7, because the station's news anchors moderated a panel at the conference that Michelle Obama may have participated in.
"If ABC-7 does have tape from this panel discussion, they could solve this mystery … by releasing it all on their website -- particularly the 30 minutes or so of Michelle Obama speaking -- so we can see once and for all exactly what she said that day. The ABC-7 anchors who moderated could also come out and definitively say what Michelle Obama said on the panel (or Michelle could come out herself and recount what she said). That would get to the bottom of this," said the Hillbuzz commentary.
If there is a video, it's important, Hillbuzz wrote, because, "Obama has insisted on many occasions that Michelle is his most trusted and senior advisor: therefore, anything she thinks and says has great importance, because he has stated himself she is a tremendous influence on him and his decisions.
"That's why it's important to look for it now instead of waiting for the Republicans to bring this out whenever THEY choose," Hillbuzz wrote.
The website said is sources revealed, "For about 30 minutes, Michelle
Obama launched into a rant about the evils of America, and how America is to
blame for the problems of Africa. Michelle personally blamed President Clinton
for the deaths of millions of Africans and said America is responsible for
the genocide of the Tutsis and other ethnic groups. She then launched into
an attack on "whitey," and talked about solutions to black on black
crime in the realm of diverting those actions onto white America. Her rant
was fueled by the crowd: they reacted strongly to what she said, so she got
more passionate and enraged, and that's when she completely loses it and says
things that have made the mouths drop of everyone who's seen this," Hillbuzz
Obama's Plan for Driver's Licenses for Illegals
Obama's Plan: Mohamed Atta Gets His Driver's License
Dear Fellow American:
We have just weeks to go before Election Day . . . time is running short for us to avert a major disaster for our country. That disaster's name is President Barack Obama.
But this disaster can be averted. I'm confident about this -- even though the slanted media are overstating Obama's inevitability.
But the numbers don't lie.
Subject: Joe the Plumber: Obama's 3 Biggest Lies
Date: Oct 21, 2008 3:17 PM
An urgent message from our Newsmax Sponsor, The Republican National Trust PAC
Dear Newsmax Reader:
"Joe the plumber" has a secret plan to destroy Barack Obama.
If you believe the media, Joe is a sinister, McCain-supporting Republican of the Reagan type -- he is a true threat to the "Anointed One" -- Barack Obama -- and his chances of becoming president of the United States.
This sounds almost like a make-believe story, but it's true. The media has been seeking to decapitate Joe the plumber.
Why? Because he's an ordinary American who has a dream of business success for himself and his family.
One day, Joe woke up and suddenly realized that Barack Obama is going to punish him with brutal taxes.
Just by coincidence -- and I know Chris Matthews and Katie Couric will never believe it was simply a coincidence -- Joe met Barack Obama as Obama passed through his Ohio neighborhood.
When Joe challenged Obama with a tough question -- something the press has not done during the past two years -- the Anointed One wilted.
How dare Joe want to make and keep his own money? The nerve of this man to want to be a success in a small business!
As Obama put it, shouldn't Joe want to help him "spread the wealth around?"
With that one remark, Obama's disguise as a moderate crumbled.
At the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee (PAC), we are working to remove Obama's disguise as a moderate once and for all.
Dick Morris, the famous Fox News analyst has praised the National Republican Trust for our work and says we can change this election.
Here's what Dick said: "The National Republican Trust is a very effective organization that can make a huge difference on Election Day."
That's why we are going directly to folks like you and millions of Americans via the Internet, cable, and broadcast TV.
We are telling the unvarnished truth about Obama, exposing his out-and-out lies.
You Can Help Us Expose Barack Obama -- Go Here Now
Here are just three of Obama's biggest lies:
Obama Lie No. 1 -- I will tax just the rich.
There is no such thing as a tax on just the rich. Taxes on wealthy people affect everyone.
Remember, Obama defines anyone making over $90,000 a year as "rich."
Joe the plumber discovered that Obama thinks Joe's rich too. Under Obama, he won't be able to hire new employees and grow his business.
Joe's not alone. Obama says he'll strip away the FICA cap at $90,000 for every worker. That means every dollar you earn over that amount, you'll pay 7 percent!
Obama Lie No. 2 -- I want to give a tax cut
to the middle class.
Obama says he will let the Bush tax cuts expire. That's an automatic 5 percent (maximum) tax increase on almost all taxpayers.
Plus middle class folks pay capital gains taxes. Obama has said he wants to almost double them from a low of 15 percent to almost 30 percent.
He wants to hike the dividend tax, and he also has promised taxes on gas and energy.
Obama also wants to dramatically increase the estate tax, which had almost disappeared. There goes your idea of sharing your wealth with your kids in the future.
Obama Lie No. 3 -- I want to make America
Another outright lie.
In an age when crazies like Iran's Ahmadinejad are building ballistic missiles and promise to "destroy" the United States and Israel, Obama has promised to gut the missile defense program created by President Reagan.
"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems," Obama said.
He has promised to cut "tens of billions" of dollars from the Defense Department. In an effort to make us more "secure," Obama plans to disarm us.
In the age of 9/11 can we afford such a radical Leftist in the White House?
No, we can't.
Obama is not just a danger to our economy, with his plans to raise taxes and spend $800 billion in new programs.
He is a radical out to reshape America beyond recognition.
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.
Even Hillary Clinton opposed his radical plan.
But Obama not only touted such a plan running for president, he pushed for giving illegals driver's licenses as a state senator in Illinois.
He is also 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."
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.
Finally, McCain is fighting back -- just like Hillary did. His poll numbers have improved.
But Obama is spending huge amounts of cash in the swing states.
That's why we need your help. To go into these states and tell the American public the truth about Obama.
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.
Joe the Plumber - A Candid Citizen and Media Victim
by Paul Weyrich
Forget the election for the moment. We will know the outcome in two weeks. The question one ought to consider seriously is what to do with one's money. Lord knows there is a great deal of advice out there. One of CNBC's gurus has advised especially older folks or anyone who will need money in the next five years should take all of their money out of the stock market. On the other hand the Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffett, has said the current situation represents A remarkable opportunity to buy. So from his personal account he is investing - and buying American. He is perhaps the shrewdest investor in the world.
What we know about the market is that it will come back. We have had many bear markets from the 1800s. The average recovery time has been around 16 months. We cannot predict when we have hit bottom and will begin to turn around. Only in hindsight will we know. We can say that when the market does recover it most often recovers at least a third higher than when the decline began. My financial advisor is Ric Edelman, who has a better track record then almost any other advisor. He tells his clients to stay in the market. He makes the best case for doing so that I have heard from anyone else. Last year he switched many of us to a different program which he monitors more closely than other investments. While we were hit hard during the recent bear market, those of us in Edelman's program were less severely hit than those who had traditional programs.
This past week we have a new figure on the scene who ties the economic issue together with the political process. I speak of Joe Wurzelbacher, now known as "Joe the Plumber." Senator Barack H. Obama was campaigning door to door near Toledo, Ohio. He knocked on the door of Joe the Plumber. He asked Obama about his economic program. He said he hoped to take over the small plumbing business when his boss retired but that higher taxes would preclude his doing so. Obama said he didn't want to punish Joe's success but he wanted to be sure the people behind Joe would not be hurt. Then he said something which has put him on the defensive. He said that when you spread the wealth around it is good for everyone.
The Federal Tax Code used to spread the wealth around? At last we know the thinking behind Obama tax-cut plan. Well and good. My real problem with this scene is what the media has done to Joe. The media has treated Joe as an enemy and probed his personal life. The media has made a big issue of the fact that Joe doesn't have a plumbing license. He doesn't need one because his boss has one but you would never know that from the media coverage. We learned that he owes $1,000 in back taxes. Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, owes a lot more in back taxes, but Joe received more front-page and hourly coverage by the news networks than did Rangel. Why? All the man did was to ask a question. He was at his own home when the candidate came to him. It is not as if he drove 50 miles and fought his way through the crowds to confront the candidate.
Now both candidates of the major parties are invoking his name. He is appearing on radio talk-shows and television variety programs. There is something wrong with our media when an ordinary citizen can't ask a tough question of a candidate for the Presidency without being the subject of ridicule. If Joe had been a liberal and had asked McCain a tough question the treatment would have been entirely different. We would not know about his personal problems. There would be no ridicule, only adulation. That is because the media is extremely biased. The media has an agenda to advance leftist causes regardless of who represents such a cause.
The one good thing that has occurred from the "Joe the Plumber" episode
is that it has clarified the agenda of the media. That alone will have a positive
effect on the body politic. Andy Warhol was right. The day after the election
no one will remember Joe the Plumber. Next time we have a Presidential election
he never will be mentioned. So take advantage of your instant fame, Joe. Tell
it as it is. We have too little of that from either side.
Obama's Money Won't Be Key Factor
by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Obama sent shock waves through political circles when announced on Monday that he had amassed $150 million in campaign contributions in September, giving him upwards of $600 million for his campaign. While his fund raising makes a mockery of McCain's paltry $100 million in taxpayer funded campaign money, the real advantage to Obama in the election is not likely to be decisive.
Obama is, of course, still the front runner. But McCain is closing hard as the race enters its second to last week. If Obama ultimately wins, it will have a lot more to do with the Dow Jones than with his level of campaign funding. Even if we assume his October funding brings him to even more dizzying heights, the realities of modern politics will limit the advantage that will accrue to his campaign.
McCain is, of course, funded not just by federal matching funds, but also by direct contributions to the Republican Party and to various independent expenditures (such as NationalRepublicanTrust.com). Obama and the Democratic Party will still out raise McCain, federal funds, and the Republican Party, likely by a 2:1 margin. There is, of course, still time for supporters of each candidate to redress or change that ratio.
But, on television, where it counts, Obama will probably have no better than a 60:40 advantage over McCain. Much of the good television time in swing states has been purchased months ago. Extra money can help a campaign run one minute ads, as opposed to 30 second spots, and can make half hour or full hour "infomercials" possible, but the advantage of these extravagances is not proportionate to their cost.
Obama's lingering problem is that with all his money, he does not have anything new to say. He has been repeating the same mantra for his campaign over and over again ever since the spring. By now, we all know that he wants to extend health insurance to "47 million Americans" (never mind that 10 million are here illegally) and wants to cut taxes for "95 percent of the population" (never mind that half don't pay any taxes to begin with and the 'tax cut' is really just a welfare check). But he has nothing new to offer voters.
But McCain's advertising is powering a bold new message, inspired by Joe the Plumber: That Obama will use the tax code to redistribute wealth. The social populist backlash against his proposals is closing the lead that Obama opened up as a result of the financial crisis. With things calmer on Wall Street (our fingers tremble as we write this), voters have two weeks to ponder what the onset of a socialist presidency would mean for Americans.
McCain has enough money to punch his message through. It will not get drowned by a sea of Obama media.
But McCain's supporters must realize that this race is far, far from over.
There is a realistic chance that he can win. And if there was ever a time for
his supporters to open up their checkbooks, it is now. Give it now or he'll
take it later.
The International Crisis Testing Obamas Mettle
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Mark my words, Joe Biden told a group of wealthy contributors. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like it did John Kennedy. A moment later Biden added, Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.
So lets play Name That Crisis, the one Biden says will test Obama within six months of his inauguration. Understand any answer will be tentative. Even if the prognosticator correctly identifies the antagonists and the battlefield, the actual sequence of events will defy astrologers, political science-fiction scenarists and intelligence agencies.
Gomer Pyles kitsch litany (from The Andy Griffith Show) will damn us once again: Surprise, surprise, surprise.
Pyles flabbergast served as a plot device in a family comedy. Obamas test will be an American tragedy. Hope for a better tragedy, one where the body count -- friendly, enemy and in-between -- is minimized and the material destruction manageable.
I know the keyword in that last sentence is hope, a word that plays an energizing poetic and emotional role in Obamas campaign litany.
As president, Obama was supposed to avoid nasty conflicts because he in his very person brings hope and embodies change -- galvanizing hope and fundamental, perhaps utopian change. Review his primary speeches and his oration in Berlin. Thats the messianic message.
Diplomatic and military planners operationalize a policy. Obama promised us a messianic operation: Personal negotiations conducted by himself with some of the worlds worst dictators and America haters, with the implicit point that his bold and sacrificial personal diplomacy would rearrange planetary politics.
Of course, lurking behind this megalomania are two hideous assumptions that are the passionate garbage of anti-Americans everywhere. The first one is the lesser lie -- the U.S. and specifically the Bush Administration dont talk to rogues like Iran. Recall Ambassador Ryan Crockers testimony in September 2007 when he related, in stoic detail, the results of low- and mid-level diplomatic meetings with Iran: Iranian posturing and rhetorical thrashing.
The U.S. talks to everyone including rogues. Spies chat with spies. The State Department employs third parties and the grapevine. The trick is to avoid giving a propaganda coup to a thug. Denying gangsters and vitriolic liars equal footing with an American president isnt stupid or backward or change frustrating behavior -- its savvy procedure.
The second lie, the greater lie, is that the U.S. is somehow directly or indirectly at fault when a crisis occurs. This was the agitprop line of anti-Americans throughout the 20th century, stoked by Nazis in World War II, Communists from Stalin and Mao to Gorbachev, and America haters in general. Obamas forgotten spiritual guide, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, echoed this theme in his noxious sermon that said with the 9-11 terror attacks Americas chickens were coming home to roost.
So what is coming home to roost with what Biden assures us is Obamas imminent test? Obamas blatant naivet is a strong candidate for the triggering incident, and in that light Bidens speech is a pre-emptive inoculation. I guarantee you, Biden said, it's going to happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate."
His scenarios included Afghanistan and Pakistan. Say what? Osama bin Laden challenged America from Afghanistan in 1998 when he declared war on the U.S. Pakistan? Thats where Obama called for a pre-emptive invasion earlier this year. What about Iraq? The certain trigger for debacle in Iraq is wavering U.S. commitment -- and Obama is committed to quitting based on his political schedule, not conditions on the ground. Perhaps a war with Iran over Iraq or the Persian Gulf or in the aftermath of an Israeli strike on Iranian nukes?
Suddenly Obama will face change -- changing conditions that require blood,
sweat, toil and tears to sustain hope.
Why Electing Obama Is an American Nightmare
Sunday, October 19, 2008
If elected, Senator Barack Obama will be my president as well. In these difficult times, I will support him in the few areas I can and major in challenging him where I must, but here is a summary of the reasons not to give him that opportunity.
In these perilous times, Obama's lack of a proven record and relevant experience is a major concern. When you hire anyone to a critical job, you look to their experience. The President of the United States should not be an entry-level position! Experience matters! It's not a sufficient qualification, but it's certainly a necessary one.
Without a track record of impressive experience, voters look at a candidate's judgment. That's why Obama's judgment in picking friends and advisors remains relevant. His close associations with the fraudulent-ridden ACORN, controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright, convicted influence-peddler Tony Rezko, and unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers invite more questions than trust.
At a time when a troop surge has reduced violence, damaged al Qaeda and allowed the Iraqi government to make progress on key milestones, Obama still promises to "bring the war to an end in 2009!" He wants to save $9 billion a month in Iraq and shift the focus to Afghanistan. But he also wants to cut investments in missile defense systems and slow our development of future combat systems. Obama calls for a world without nuclear weapons and promises to develop no new nuclear weapons. Such judgments project weakness as Commander in Chief. Obama's weakness would be provocative!
Obama says that he's a "uniter," but where's the evidence? He voted with the Democrats 97 percent of the time. He's a proven tax-and-spend Democrat with the most liberal voting record in the Senate. He's only a uniter if you'll unite with his partisan position. Unlike McCain, he's never disappointed his own party by crossing the aisle to vote with Republicans.
Obama calls for "Change You Can Believe In," but where is his record of championing positive reform in Cook County, in the Illinois legislature or in his short time in the US Senate. As Senator, he's authored no important legislation and hasn't even convened a hearing on the one subcommittee he chairs. He's devoted his many gifts to chronicling his own life's story and running his presidential campaign. While Alaska Governor Palin took on entrenched corruption in her own party, Obama benefitted from the equally corrupt Chicago Democratic machine. As they say -- "High wind, big thunder, no rain."
His unrealistic and restrictive plan for energy independence is limited to investing in a few, new sources of energy that are not ready to carry the load for our energy independence. His partial plan does not provide for the "all of the above" reliable sources of power and jobs that industry and citizens need now.
Obama wants to raise corporate taxes, inheritance taxes, and income taxes and social security payments for the top wage earners. No reputable economist suggests raising taxes when America needs economic growth. Punishing success limits capital investment. Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times and never introduced any legislation to lower anyone's taxes. You want Obama's "Hope" -- I hope you enjoy your change in taxes and the economic malaise it'll create!
News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch said during an interview with Fox Business Network: "I like Sen. Obama very much….but his policy of anti-globalization, protectionism, is going to...give us a lot of inflation, ,,,ruin our relationships with the rest of the world, …slow down the rest of the world, and…make people frightened to add to employment. You are going to find companies leaving this country…. (H)is policy is really very, very naive, old-fashioned, 1960s."
FDR reminded Americans, "The only thing to fear is fear itself." Obama talks hope but sells doom and gloom for the middle class. He justifies change by suggesting that we're stuck in Iraq and reframes our economic downturn as a recession or worse. Obama blames the Bush economic policy for our current problems, but it was that same Bush plan that helped America bounce back quickly from the 2000 to 2001 downturn. Investor's Business Daily reported IRS data that shows that the average U.S. income had increased five straight years through 2006.
The Bush economic plan isn't the problem. Abuses on Wall Street and in financial institutions had been growing. Bush, McCain and many Republicans called for stronger regulations in 2005. Democrats refused to go along with proposed Freddie and Fannie reforms and helped expand the sub-prime mortgage fiasco by encouraging unwise "affordable housing" mortgages. Who are the top two recipients of PAC and individual contributions from Fannie and Freddie -- Chris Dodd and Barack Obama! You want Obama in charge of reform?
For all his talk on self-reliance, Obama treats citizens as victims incapable of rising to the challenges they face. Obama's "hope" rests in what government can do for you, not on what you can do for yourself or our country. At a time we are struggling to pay for the entitlements we already have, Obama calls for substantial government subsidies for healthcare, college, foreclosure relief, and alternative energies. Milton Friedman said it well, "There are no free lunches." We can't afford an Obama presidency and more "free" entitlements!
The Democrats chose an intelligent, eloquent but untested newcomer as their
standard bearer. Charles warned us of the nagging doubt months ago: "The
oddity of the Democratic convention is that its central figure is the ultimate
self-made man, a dazzling mysterious Gatsby. The palpable apprehension is that
the anointed one 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 last night." This seemingly
neverending campaign cycle has provided Americans with a long engagement, but
don't make the mistake of giving him the ring on November 4th.
McCain must state obvious: Obama is a socialist
Monday, October 20, 2008
As John McCain tries to salvage his presidential campaign over the few weeks he has left, he ought to think about the Coca Cola Company in 1985.
That was the year that Coca Cola, based on what the company thought was good internal market research, introduced a new, sweeter formula to replace the taste that American consumers had always associated with Coke.
The result was disaster. Consumers were unhappy with the new flavor that replaced a product that was more than a drink. It was a time tested American tradition. In short order, Coca Cola brought the old traditional Coke back to market, and in a real feat of marketing gymnastics, was selling both New Coke and Coca Cola Classic.
Sales of Coca Cola Classic swamped sales of New Coke, and shortly thereafter, New Coke was gone.
Today John McCain heads the ticket of a Republican Party that many Americans have fallen out of love with. It's a Republican Party that Americans once knew but now, like New Coke, has confused its customers, the voting public.
Restoring a brand that has been damaged might be an even greater challenge than introducing a new product. You've got the added complexities of confusion. But this is what John McCain has got to do. And he doesn't have a lot of time to do it.
How can anyone be surprised that Americans are confused with the Republican brand? This was the party that once captured American hearts and minds by restoring focus to principles of limited government, traditional values, and personal responsibility.
Apologies to George W. Bush, but time is too precious for tiptoeing around the truth. We've seen the biggest growth of government over the last eight years since Franklin Roosevelt, and the country is in a mess. It's only natural psychology to associate the mess with Republicans.
McCain must disassociate from the mistakes of "new" Republicanism, show that these mistakes are exactly where Senator Obama wants to pick up, and re-establish the "classic" Republican brand.
His approach in the latest debate at Hofstra University showed he is grasping the marketing challenge in front of him. His pitch about Joe the Plumber, and his market-oriented stands on big issues like health care and education, showed that he understands he needs to do more than simply say he's not George Bush.
But he's still not being clear or aggressive enough.
McCain must paint with clarity the starkly different worlds that Americans will be buying into when they step into voting booths in November.
Barack Obama is a socialist. McCain must say it. It's not slinging mud but stating fact.
Perhaps a complicating factor in explaining freedom to Americans today is that when "classic" Republicanism was selling, we all still remembered the Soviet Union and communist China. The difference between the United States and the rest of the world then was clearer than today.
When someone said "socialist" or "communist," we could look abroad and know exactly what this meant.
There is nowhere where Senator Obama sees Americans suffering from excessive government. The opposite. He sees all our suffering from not enough.
The collapse of communism and socialism abroad was not accidental. Central planning is both dysfunctional and immoral.
Incredibly, Obama thinks that a huge and complex market like health care, where a few hundred million Americans spend almost two and half trillion dollars a year, can be improved with more government controls and spending.
And he thinks that parents, in a country that is supposed to be free, should not be given control over where they send their child to school and the type of education their child gets.
To turn things around, McCain must quickly reestablish the Republican brand
of freedom and contrast this with Obama's clear socialism.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
If the election were held today, Barack Obama would be the new President of the United States of America. The latest Real Clear Politics average of national polls shows Obama ahead of McCain by nearly seven percentage points. It looks like the Democrats are going to have control of both the White House and Congress for the next four years.
And, mark it down, if there is a Democrat sweep, conservative Republicans will get the blame.
Counterfeit Conservatism Caused Collapse
The fact of the matter is, however, that President Bush and the Republicans who dominated Congress during most of his administration governed as anything but conservatives. Except during election season, it has been difficult to find any trace of conservative principles among incumbents within the Republican Party. During their tenure, Republican governance was characterized by out of control spending, record-setting earmarks, affirmative action programs for corporate wrongdoers, corrupt relations with special interests, and sexual scandal. While they often described themselves as "conservatives," their walk was very different from their talk.
The names voters associate with Republicans do not evoke visions of commitment to traditional conservative values: Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Tom Delay, Ted Stevens, Alberto Gonzalez, Boeing, Halliburton. Neither do the programs: No Child Left Behind, The Bridge to Nowhere, Amnesty for Illegals. During the period of Republican hegemony, no real ground was gained on reforming entitlements, no major effort was made to curb abortion (or even abortion funding), and the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product rose to a 50-year high!
Few Republicans in leadership in government during the past decade have been authentic conservatives. At best, they have been counterfeit conservatives, which no doubt accounts for why Republicans lost so many seats in 2006 and why they appear ready to lose more seats and the Presidency this November.
In the aftermath of the election, the Republican Party will undoubtedly have the time to engage in serious introspection. Hopefully, its leaders will come to understand that conservatism is not just a "label" or even a "movement." It is a way of life.
Principles of True Conservatism
Because of the divergence between the words and deeds of those who have called themselves conservatives, there is a lack of clarity of what it really means to be a "conservative." Conservatives are sometimes confused with libertarians. But true conservatives are not autonomous individuals seeking absolute freedom. The siren call of extreme libertarianism is no less destructive than the liberal dream of the nanny state. Conservatives understand that every person is a part of a family and a community; they understand that each generation is just one link in the long chain of human history; and they understand that each person and each generation has duties to those who went before, those who are living today, and those who will come after us. A sense of duty and history governs the lives and thoughts of conservatives.
Conservatives understand that the right to life is the foundation of all other rights. They believe that unless government first protects the right to life, all other rights become meaningless. Rights are reserved for the living. They mean nothing to a corpse.
Conservatives also believe that one's rights come from the Creator, not from the government. They believe that Government's chief role is to protect the rights that God has endowed to humankind. They do not believe that human rights or human dignity depend on one's age, size, or location (inside or outside the womb or even in a petri dish). Consequently, conservatives support policies that protect the lives of all innocent human beings from conception to natural death.
A recovery of conservatism begins with a recovery of the family. Families are the cornerstone of a healthy society. Families are the units that raise our children, transmit our values, and prepare children for life in society as responsible adults. In addition to providing protection, provision, and guidance, families provide an environment in which children learn how to order their lives as they live in community with others.
Conservatives believe that both mothers and fathers have unique and invaluable roles to play in the development of healthy children. Feminine and masculine role models are important for girls and boys alike. In our youth, we look to our mothers and fathers to learn how to live and relate to others. However, divorce, promiscuity, and co-habitation have devastated America's families. Many children have only a single parent to raise them. Consequently, children are often raised with a "gender gap," and they receive instruction and guidance at home from just a single parent. The pathologies of single parent children are all too familiar: academic failure, drug abuse, teen suicide, sexual promiscuity, juvenile delinquency. Conservatives, therefore, advocate policies that strengthen and undergird the family, knowing that such policies strengthen and undergird society.
Work, Savings, Investment, Thrift
Conservatives understand the value of work. Work is the means by which families sustain themselves economically. Since families (unlike government) are not able to print money, they understand the work-wealth connection. Conservatives deem the willingness to work hard to support oneself and one's family a virtue. They eschew policies that diminish incentives to work or encourage a lack of self sufficiency.
Conservatives also understand the importance of living within one's means. They understand the importance of savings and investment and know that to do either requires that they resist the temptation for instant gratification. They understand that the future is uncertain and life has its ups and downs. Therefore, in good times they set aside a portion of their earnings for the difficult times that may be around the bend. They favor policies that promote savings and investment and oppose those that promote unhealthy speculation, which they see as the equivalent of gambling.
Conservatives believe that markets should be free from excessive government regulation and that free market forces, not government intervention, should determine winners and losers in the market place. Competition is typically the best and most efficient way to determine which goods and services the consuming public wants. Government control of the means of production of consumer goods and government dictation of consumer preferences should be discouraged.
Recognizing, however, that men are not angels and that accountability and responsibility run hand in hand, businesses and the marketplace should be subject to reasonable regulations designed to secure honesty, transparency, and accountability. Individuals or enterprises, who deem themselves aggrieved by others, should have access to the courts so that disputes may be resolved by a jury of their peers
Conservatives understand that getting a good job and working hard is an important part of life, but they believe that the purpose of education is much greater than just career-preparation. They agree with Russell Kirk that the true purpose of education should be the "cultivation of a person's own intellect and imagination, for the person's own sake.... True education is meant to develop the individual human being...." Conservatives believe that through education children should gain a better understanding of themselves and the world. Consequently, conservatives believe that the education of one's children is first and foremost a parental responsibility.
To the extent that government assumes a role in the educational arena, conservatives believe that schools should not promote values that are inimical to those of parents. Recognizing that one size does not fit all and that all schools are not equal, conservatives believe that parents should be able to choose the venue for their children's education, including the home. Since education is important to the development of our children, conservatives also believe that educational standards should be designed to encourage excellence and discourage mediocrity in the class room.
Our culture is increasingly ambivalent about religion. We have come to believe that religion is a private matter that should only be discussed in the confines of home, if at all. This is in sharp contrast to the traditional conservative understanding of religion's role in culture.
Conservatives believe that the marketplace of ideas should be open to a free and vigorous exchange of religious thought. People should have the freedom to advocate the propriety of their own religious views and to challenge the views of others. Nevertheless, because one's beliefs are ultimately a matter of personal conscience, conservatives believe that neither government nor anyone else should have the power to impose particular religious views on others. People should be free to believe (or disbelieve) in accordance with the dictates of their own conscience. That does not mean, however, that the policies of government may not be informed by its people's religious beliefs. Indeed, conservatives believe that there are self-evident truths rooted in eternity that transcend time and culture and that these truths are binding on individuals and governments alike.
Perhaps the most conspicuous failing of "modern conservatives" is the complete abandonment of care for the environment. Because of their antipathy for "tree-hugging hippies," conservatives have abandoned their duty to care for our world. This is nonsensical -- no one should care more for our world than conservatives. The conservative respect for past and future generations demands that we exercise proper stewardship over the earth, cultivating it and preserving it for our children.
Conservatives believe in the importance of local communities. While liberals look to government to provide for the needs of the community, conservatives believe in the potential of individual neighbors to work together to build strong communities. Placing this responsibility on the shoulders of the government weakens the community and reduces the human potential for hospitality, love, and sacrificial service one to another.
T. S. Eliot understood that government was no replacement for weak, disintegrating communities: "This separation cannot be repaired merely by public organization. It is not a question of assembling into committees representatives of different types of knowledge and experience, of calling in everybody to advise everybody else." There is no replacement for a natural local community. No other entity can provide the kind of common moral basis, the unwritten social rules, the preservation of cultural traditions, and the care and love for one another.
A return to conservatism will not succeed on a national level if it does not first begin at home. No political movement can reestablish true conservatism, because true conservatism is not rooted in the government or political activism. The root of conservatism lies in the second greatest commandment: "...'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Matt. 22:39 NIV) and in the Golden Rule, "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:31 NIV)
"To paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven't left the
Republican Party. It left me."
A Role for Parents in the Election
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The Obama Campaign has infiltrated college and graduate school campuses throughout the United States. One day last week, on my way to class I was asked if I wanted to sign-up to volunteer for the Obama Campaign. On my way to my seat, I passed a student with an Obama button pinned to her shirt. Before my evening seminar, one of my fellow classmates handed out Obama bumper stickers.
Even away from law school in the comfort of my home I am told that as a young person I should be voting for Obama. In a spoof of ads encouraging parents to talk to their children about drugs, smoking and sex, Penn Badgley and Blake Lively, stars of Gossip Girl, along with some other young people implore young people to, "talk to your parents about John McCain." Sponsored by MoveOn.org, the ad opens with Badgley saying, "Mom, Dad, I found this in your room today," as he holds up a trucker hat that reads, "Drill Baby Drill, McCain-Palin 2008." It ends with Lively offering, "And if you're ever out somewhere and you're considering voting for McCain, just call me, and I'll pick you up. No questions asked."
Students are being pressured by their peers and young Hollywood actors to vote for Obama. Voting for Obama is being sold as the cool thing to do. According to the ad, it is time for young people to even have "The Talk" with their parents to convince them to vote for Obama. It should be the other way around: Parents should be initiating another version of "The Talk" with their college-aged children, but this time not about drugs, alcohol or sex -- instead, about the upcoming election.
And if parents think this is a difficult topic to cover, author Hugh Hewitt has articulated the case for young people to think again about voting for Barack Obama in his pamphlet, Letter to a Young Obama Supporter.
Hewitt approaches this topic with the seriousness it deserves, laying out the arguments specifically to appeal to young people. He writes, "There are tremendously appealing reasons to support Senator Obama, especially for young people who think the country is broken, its politics bitter and boring, elected officials stupid and President Bush and Vice President Cheney at best incompetent and at worst evil. The only way to change a young voter's mind about supporting Obama will be to sincerely and persuasively explain to them why the charismatic senator from Illinois would be a disaster as the president and how that will gravely impact their future. In short, you have to make an adult case to your adult children based on the facts."
Ultimately, Hewitt argues that Obama is not ready to be President in a time of war and economic uncertainty. His writing style is easy to digest and he gets straight to the point, "Let me be blunt: The government never gives productive people their money back in equivalent economic benefits."
Rather than writing in the abstract, Hewitt uses examples that resonate with young voters. For instance, instead of getting bogged down in the details of Social Security and Medicare, he addresses these topics by asking, "In fact, if your parents are relatively healthy and relatively young, the retirement system isn't even going to be able to keep the commitments it made to them unless those changes are made. Are you ready to step in? Are you ready to have them move in with you?" This question should wake up young people.
Discussing politics can be challenging. But parents should not leave it to other students or Hollywood actors to educate their children on sensitive topics. They should play an active role in educating their children on the candidates.
We may roll our eyes, but we are listening.
Letter to a Young Obama Supporter
by Hugh Hewitt
In a stunningly short time, Barack Obama has gone from complete unknown to presidential front-runner -- largely by capturing the imagination of America's young people. Never before in the history of the country has the youth vote become such a critical factor in deciding a national election.
But author and radio host Hugh Hewitt argues that young Americans are being misled by Obama; underneath his veneer of exceptional rhetoric and youthful hipness lies a conventional liberal who is moreover thoroughly unqualified to be President of the United States.
In a time of intense crises at home and abroad, Hewitt argues, we can ill-afford a president who lacks experience in either foreign or economic policy, and frequently demonstrates a shocking naiveté about the threats we face.
In a heartfelt appeal directed to America's young people, as well as to their
parents, Hewitt pulls back the curtain on Obama, making clear what an Obama
Administration would really mean in practice. Buy it for the young Obamaniac
in your family! http://store.pamphleteerpress.com/11.html
Joe the Plumber Paves Way for Tax Offensive
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Monday, October 20, 2008
The most important political contribution of Ronald Reagan to the American political dialogue was his ability to move the issue of taxes from its economic populist cast into a populist, blue-collar issue. But under Bush, the issue switched back to one of class warfare, as an increasing number of Americans paid no taxes at all and the rates on those who did pay them were lowered. Now a chance encounter with Joe the Plumber has afforded the Republicans the chance to use taxes as a blue-collar issue.
The opening Joe provided, as McCain skillfully exploited in the third presidential debate, gives the Republican ticket its first shot at victory since its candidate punted on the bailout bill -- the terrible, pork-laden corporate giveaway that Congress passed and Bush signed. Now McCain finally has an issue. Obama's tax plans and spending programs have emerged as the key point of difference between the campaigns. And the Democrat's comment to Joe that he saw his tax policy as a "way to spread the wealth around" underscores the motive behind his program: to redistribute income. Obama might as well have told Joe, "I want to take the hard-earned money you make fixing pipes and give it to other people."
If the Republican Party concentrates its fire on the tax issue and the redistributive impulse behind Obama's plans, it can close the Democratic lead point by point, day by day, until the election. McCain's campaign must resist the temptation to take random shots on a million other issues and zero in on the tax-and-spend issue, emphasizing how taxes penalize those who work hard and live right.
In fact, the rich are paying vastly more in taxes than they ever have. According to the excellent book "Reality Check" by Dennis Keegan and David West, the percentage of income tax revenues paid by the top 1 percent of the population has almost doubled in the past 20 years. Now they pay 40 percent of all income tax revenues. (The bottom half in income pays less than 3 percent.) Despite the lower rates, the rich are paying more and more in taxes because they are earning more and more. In the past eight years, real, after-inflation income growth for the top 10 percent of the population has been more than 45 percent.
Essentially, the tax debate comes down to economic populism vs. social populism. The Democratic economic populists rail against the rich and demand that they pay more in taxes. The Republican social populists decry the notion of income redistribution as rewarding failure and penalizing hard work. Until Joe, the economic populist polarity dominated the presidential race, to the detriment of the Republicans. But now Joe has brought the social populist argument back to life.
Because there always are, there will doubtless be those who see the social populist approach as a code word for racism, especially because it is directed against the proposals of an African-American candidate. But the dichotomy social populism exploits is one that separates the most productive members of our work force from the others, in the spirit of Joe the Plumber. Race is quite beside the point.
The question is whether McCain has the discipline to pursue the tax issue doggedly for the rest of the campaign. The other targets -- from Ayers to ACORN -- are so tempting but ultimately appeal to the Republican base and few others. But taxes hit us all.
The core difference between the American working class and its European equivalent
is that Europeans are inclined to vote based on their current conditions, while
Americans base their decisions more on their goals and objectives for the future.
Americans assume upward mobility, while Europeans do not. Both groups are correct
in their assessments. Despite the widening gap between the richest 20 percent
and the poorest in the United States, the economic chart constantly is churning,
and people are continuously moving out of the bottom fifth and upward on the
scale, their places on the bottom of the ladder yielding to new arrivals, usually
from abroad. So Americans are right to vote their dreams. And Obama's European
socialist tendency to sabotage growth in the interest of "fairness" would
serve merely to convert an American model that works into a European one that
Believers in Obama
Monday, October 20, 2008
Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a friend.
It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don't want to be confused by the facts, they resent being told the facts.
An e-mail from a reader mentioned trying to tell his sister why he was voting against Obama but, when he tried to argue some facts, she cut him short: "You don't like him and I do!" she said. End of discussion.
When one thinks of all the men who have put their lives on the line in battle to defend and preserve this country, it is especially painful to think that there are people living in the safety and comfort of civilian life who cannot be bothered to find out the facts about candidates before voting to put the fate of this nation, and of generations yet to come, in the hands of someone chosen because they like his words or style.
Of the four people running for President and Vice President on the Republican and Democratic tickets, the one we know the least about is the one leading in the polls-- Barack Obama.
Some of Senator Obama's most fervent supporters could not tell you what he has actually done on such issues as crime, education, or financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, much less what he plans to do to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear nation supplying nuclear weapons to the international terrorist networks that it has supplied with other weapons.
The magic word "change" makes specifics unnecessary. If things are going bad, some think that what is needed is blank-check "change."
But history shows any number of countries in crises worse than ours, where "change" turned problems into catastrophes.
In czarist Russia, for example, the economy was worse than ours is today and the First World War was going far worse for the Russians than anything we have faced in Iraq. Moreover, Russians had nothing like the rights of Americans today. So they went for "change."
That "change" brought on a totalitarian regime that made the czars' despotism look like child's play. The Communists killed more people in one year than the czars killed in more than 90 years, not counting the millions who died in a government-created famine in the 1930s.
Other despotic regimes in China, Cuba, and Iran were similarly replaced by people who promised "change" that turned out to be even worse than what went before.
Yet many today seem to assume that if things are bad, "change" will make them better. Specifics don't interest them nearly as much as inspiring rhetoric and a confident style. But many 20th century leaders with inspiring rhetoric and great self-confidence led their followers or their countries into utter disasters.
These ranged from Jim Jones who led hundreds to their deaths in Jonestown to Hitler and Mao who led millions to their deaths.
What specifics do we know about Barack Obama's track record that might give us some clue as to what kinds of "changes" to expect if he is elected?
We know that he opposed the practice of putting violent young felons on trial as adults. We know that he was against a law forbidding physicians to kill a baby that was born alive despite an attempt to abort it.
We know that Obama opposed attempts to put stricter regulations on Fannie Mae-- and that he was the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. We know that this very year his campaign sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines.
Fannie Mae and Raines were at the heart of "the mess in Washington" that Barack Obama claims he is going to clean up under the banner of "change."
The public has been told very little about what this man with the wonderful
rhetoric has actually done. What we know is enough to make us wonder about
what we don't know. Or it ought to. For the true believers-- which includes
many in the media-- it is just a question of whether you like him or not.
Do Facts Matter?
Friday, October 03, 2008
Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."
Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.
Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.
The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.
It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?
Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.
It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.
Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.
Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?
We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't.
Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?
Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.
Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs.
Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!
The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead.
The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.
But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media.
Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.
The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose.
But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky
know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement
of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with
a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.
Record Versus Rhetoric
Friday, October 17, 2008
Apparently there is something about Sarah Palin that causes some people to think of her as either the best of candidates or the worst of candidates. She draws enthusiastic crowds and provokes visceral hostility in the media.
The issue that is raised most often is her relative lack of experience and the fact that she would be "a heartbeat away from the presidency" if Senator John McCain were elected. But Barack Obama has even less experience-- none in an executive capacity-- and his would itself be the heartbeat of the presidency if he were elected.
Sarah Palin's record is on the record, while whole years of Barack Obama's life are engulfed in fog, and he has had to explain away one after another of the astounding and vile people he has not merely "associated" with but has had political alliances with, and to whom he has directed the taxpayers' money and other money.
Sarah Palin has had executive experience-- and the White House is the executive branch of government. We don't have to judge her by her rhetoric because she has a record.
We don't know what Barack Obama will actually do because he has actually done very little for which he was personally accountable. Even as a state legislator, he voted "present" innumerable times instead of taking a stand one way or the other on tough issues.
"Clean up the mess in Washington"? He was part of the mess in Chicago and lined up with the Daley machine against reformers.
He is also part of the mess in Washington, not only with numerous earmarks, but also as the Senate's second largest recipient of money from Fannie Mae, and someone whose campaign has this year sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, who was at the heart of the subprime crisis.
Why then the enthusiasm for Obama and the hostility to Sarah Palin in the media?
One reason of course is that Senator Obama is ideologically much closer to the views of the media than is Governor Palin. But there is more than that. There are other conservative politicians who do not evoke such anger, spite and hate.
Sarah Palin is the one real outsider among the four candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency on the Republican and Democratic tickets. Her whole career has been spent outside the Washington Beltway.
More than that, her whole life has been outside the realm familiar to the intelligentsia of the media. She didn't go to the big-name colleges and imbibe the heady atmosphere that leaves so many feeling that they are special folks. She doesn't talk the way they talk or think the way they think.
Worse yet, from the media's perspective, Sarah Palin does not seek their Good Housekeeping seal of approval.
Much is made of Senator Joe Biden's "experience." But Frederick the Great said that experience matters only when valid conclusions are drawn from it.
Senator Biden's "experience" has been a long history of being on the wrong side of issue after issue in foreign policy. He was one of those Senators who voted to pull the plug on financial aid to South Vietnam, which was still defending itself from Communist invaders after the pullout of American troops.
Biden opposed Ronald Reagan's military buildup that helped win the Cold War. He opposed the surge in Iraq last year.
Sarah Palin will not be ready to become President of the United States on the first day that she and John McCain take office. Nobody is.
But being Vice President is a job that can allow a lot of time for studying, and everything about Governor Palin's career says that she is a bright gal with her head on straight. The country needs that far more than it needs people with glib answers to media "gotcha" questions.
Whatever the shortcomings of John McCain and Sarah Palin, they are people
whose values are the values of this nation, whose loyalty and dedication to
this country's fundamental institutions are beyond question because they have
not spent decades working with people who hate America. Nor are they people
whose judgments have been proved wrong consistently during decades of Beltway "experience."
Sowell: Judge Obama's Alliances vs. Distancing
Monday, October 27, 2008
By: Thomas Sowell
Although Sen. Barack Obama has been allied with a succession of far left individuals over the years, that is only half the story. There are, after all, some honest and decent people on the left. But these have not been the ones Obama has been allied with -- "allied," not merely "associated" with.
The controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is not just an organization on the left. In addition to the voter frauds that ACORN has been involved in over the years, it is an organization with a history of thuggery, including going to bankers' homes to harass them and their families, to force banks to lend to people with low credit ratings.
Nor was Obama's relationship with ACORN just a matter of once being its attorney long ago. More recently, he has directed hundreds of thousands of dollars toward ACORN. Money talks, and what it says is more important than a politician's rhetoric during an election year.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger are not just people with left-wing opinions. They are reckless demagogues preaching hatred of the lowest sort, and both are recipients of money from Obama.
Bill Ayers is not just "an education professor" who has some left-wing views. He is a confessed and unrepentant terrorist, who more recently has put his message of resentment into the schools, an effort using money from a foundation that Obama headed.
Nor has the help all been one way. During the most recent debate between Obama and Sen. John McCain, McCain mentioned that Obama's political campaign began in Bill Ayers' home. Obama denied it, and McCain had no real follow-up.
It was not this year's political campaign that Obama began in Ayers' home but an earlier campaign for the Illinois Senate. Slickness at parsing words to evade accusations is one way to get to the White House. But slickness with words is not going to help a president deal with either domestic economic crises or the looming dangers of a nuclear Iran.
People who think that talking points on this or that problem constitute "the real issues" that we should be talking about, instead of Obama's track record, ignore a fundamental fact about representative government.
Representative government exists, in the first place, because we the voters cannot possibly have all the information necessary to make rational decisions on all the things that the government does. We cannot rule through polls or referendums. We must trust someone to represent us, especially as president of the United States.
Once we recognize this basic fact of representative government, then the question of how trustworthy a candidate is becomes a more urgent question than any of the so-called "real issues."
A candidate who spends two decades promoting polarization and then runs as a healer and uniter forfeits all trust by that fact alone.
If Ronald Reagan had attempted to run for president as a liberal, the media would have been all over him. His support for Barry Goldwater would have been in the headlines and in editorial denunciations across the country.
No way would he have been able to get away with using soothing words to suggest that he and Goldwater were like ships that passed in the night.
If Obama had run as what he has always been, rather than as what he has never been, then we simply could cast our votes based on whether we agree with what he has always stood for.
Some people take solace from the fact that Senator Obama has shifted position verbally on some issues, like drilling for oil or gun control, since this is supposed to show that he is "pragmatic" rather than ideological.
But political zigzags show no such moderation, as some seem to assume. Lenin zigzagged, and so did Hitler. Zigzags may show no more than that someone is playing the public for fools.
Some people who see the fraud in what Obama is saying are amazed that others do not. But Obama knows what con men have long known: that their job is not to convince skeptics but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe. He does that very well.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University
in Stanford, Calif. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.
The High Cost of Racial Hype
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Sometimes you don't know when you are lucky. Certainly I did not consider myself lucky when I left home at seventeen and discovered the hard way that there was no great demand for a black teenage dropout with no experience and no skill.
In retrospect, however, those days of struggling to earn money to pay the room rent and buy food left little time or energy for navel-gazing over things like "identity."
All this came back to me recently when I saw a font-page story about middle-class blacks worrying about their racial identity. There, on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, was a picture of a black teenager whose mother was fixing his bow tie as he was getting dressed in a tuxedo, in preparation for a cotillion.
I never had the problem of wearing a tuxedo to a cotillion, so it was hard for me to empathize with their angst.
When I was that kid's age, I had real problems that taught me real lessons to remember when times got better, not navel-gazing problems that can distract you from reality for a lifetime.
Apparently there are middle-class blacks who spend a lot of time and energy worrying about losing their roots and losing touch with their black brothers back in the 'hood.
In one sense, it is good that there are people who think about others less fortunate than themselves. That's fine but, like most good things, it can be carried to the point where it is both ridiculous and counterproductive for all concerned.
In a world where an absolute majority of black children are born and raised in fatherless homes, where most black kids never finish high school and where the murder rate among blacks is several times the national average, surely there must be more urgent priorities than preserving a lifestyle and an identity.
During decades of researching racial and ethnic groups in countries around the world-- with special attention to those who began in poverty and then rose to prosperity-- I have yet to find one so preoccupied with tribalistic identity as to want to maintain solidarity with all members of their group, regardless of what they do or how they do it.
Any group that rises has to have norms, and that means repudiating those who violate those norms, if you are serious. Blind tribalism means letting the lowest common denominator determine the norms and the fate of the whole group.
There was a time when most blacks, like most of the Irish or the Jews, understood this common sense. But that was before the romanticizing of identity took over, beginning in the 1960s.
Back in 19th century America, the Catholic Church took on the task of changing the behavior of the poverty-stricken Irish immigrants, in order to prepare them to rise in American society. As this transformation succeeded, employers' signs that said "No Irish Need Apply" began to disappear in the 20th century.
The Jewish community likewise made many efforts to change the behavior of immigrants from Eastern Europe, to enable them to better fit into American society-- and to rise in that society.
The Urban League and other black uplift groups made similar efforts to prepare their fellow blacks to rise in American society. In fact, those efforts began to pay off in dramatic reductions in poverty among blacks, even before the civil rights laws of the 1960s.
The unanswered question is why an approach with a proven track record, not only in American society but in various other countries around the world, has been superseded by a philosophy of tribal identity over-riding issues of behavior and performance.
Part of the problem is the "multicultural" ideology that says all cultures are equally valid. It is hard even to know what that means, much less take it seriously as a guide to living in the real world.
Will time and energy spent on rap music and wearing low-riding baggy pants like guys in prison-- as badges of identity-- provide as good a future for young people as learning math, computers and the English language?
Romantic self-indulgence and self-deception are things that some people can
afford when they reach the point where they can afford identity angst. But
millions of other people will remain mired in poverty if they believe such
Dem Playbook Shows Dirty Tactics
Monday, October 27, 2008
Dirty campaign tricks don't die. They just become more refined with age.
Documents obtained by Townhall show the Democratic Party encouraged party activists to accuse the GOP of intimidating minorities on Election Day even if no evidence of intimidation existed in the 2004 presidential election. The tactic is being used again in 2008, this time to downplay fraud charges against a predominantly minority non-profit supporting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
Weeks before the Nov. 4 election Barack Obama's campaign said the Republicans are attempting to suppress votes by drawing attention to the Association for Community Organizers for Reform Now's involvement in rampant voter registration fraud across the nation. The nonprofit actively supports Democratic causes, such as minimum wage increases and housing assistance. ACORN endorsed Obama for president last February and has been paid by his campaign to conduct get out the vote activities during the Democratic primary.
ACORN wasn't a household name in the last election but documents show Democrats were just as eager to accuse the GOP of treating minorities unfairly in 2004 as they are in 2008.
A nine-page section of 66-page 2004 Kerry Edwards Colorado state Election Day Manual titled "Minority Voter Intimidation" begins: "Over the past twenty years, there have been repeated efforts by the Republican party and Republican Party candidates to harass and intimidate minority voters in an effort to reduce the number of African-American and/or Latino voters." The manual then instructs Democrats how to look for minority voter intimidation tactics and how to publicize it to the media with special tactics designed for mainstream and specialty press.
Such intimidation tactics might take the forms of "efforts to create longer lines at the polls, targeting in minority communities," or "slower responses to voting machine breakdowns in minority precincts."
"If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike.'" The manual said this should be done by placing stories in mainstream and specialty press "in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics" and "prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points."
Some of the suggested talking points included lines like "Nothing is more despicable than trying to deprive any American of the previous right to vote, the foundation of our democracy for which so many have sacrificed."
The 2004 manual said a preemptive strategy was "particularly well-suited to states in which there [sic] tactics have been tried in the past."
The Democrats' preemptive strike has been delivered from Barack Obama's legal team this time around.
Obama's lawyers are demanding that the Department of Justice to investigate GOP presidential candidate John McCain, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and other Republican politicians because they have drawn attention to ACORN's fraudulent activities on the campaign trail.
"Agents of the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee have been striking locally at election officials and boards around the country, sowing confusion and seeking through baseless legal maneuvers to discourage and harass voters and impede their exercise of their right to vote," Obama for America's General Counsel Robert Bauer said on a conference call with reporters last week.
Obama's legal team is specifically taking issue with McCain's remarks that ACORN's voter registration fraud "threatens the fabric of our Democracy" and Palin's assessment that there is a "choice between a candidate who won't disavow a group committing voter fraud and a leader who won't tolerate voter fraud."
Bauer made his request for an investigation in a letter to the DOJ that said McCain and Palin were "sensationalizing this message by repeating it at the state and local level in violation of the law to harass voters and impede their exercise of their rights."
Former Republican Sens. John Danforth of Missouri and Warren Rudman of New Hampshire are chairing an "Honest and Open Elections Committee" on behalf of the McCain campaign to take action against voter fraud. The GOP has asked Obama to participate, but the Democrats have declined.
Bauer said the committee will impede people from voting rather than safeguarding against voter fraud.
"They get a United States senator who's the head of the Republican ticket
doing everything he can to make it harder for them to be -- to vote, making
it harder for them to get through the lines quickly, making it harder for them
to cast their ballot without impediment, without harassment, without humiliation," Bauer
John the Populist
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Share the wealth.
Those three words should send shudders down the spine of any hardworking, over-taxed, get-government-out-of-my-pocketbook American.
Yet the image and rhetoric of Barack Obama has buried his progressive government-knows-best philosophy.
Obama's eloquence and his propensity to rarely make a mistake have made him the candidate that more Americans trust with the economy, according to many opinion polls.
Allan Meltzer, an economist at Carnegie Mellon University, says that when it comes to the economy, the other guy is better for the country.
Meltzer says John McCain "has a better health plan in several respects. It promotes competition, provides choice, and avoids nationalizing health care."
On taxes, he says, McCain's plan to reduce corporate tax rates is a much-needed reform. "That's much better than pumping up spending for a few quarters by giving away $1,000 per taxpayer," he explains.
McCain's plans are responsible populism, a good fit across party lines, especially during unsettling economic times. Too bad no one is picking up what he is putting down.
This country is generally an optimistic nation. People want to move up the economic ladder. That's been an American credo since our creation, and anything that sounds as if it will stifle America's entrepreneurial spirit runs contrary to who we are.
So it stands to reason that it is truly extraordinary that voters would consider Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress as the best team to fix today's economic crisis -- because, the fact is, they created it.
Columnist Orson Scott Card, himself a Democrat, put it in perspective last week when he wrote that the financial crisis was completely preventable. Card pointed out that congressional Democrats blocked any attempt to prevent it; when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and congressional Republicans of enacting financial deregulation that caused the crisis, no one in the media called her on that lie, Card complained.
Absent in the daily-news narrative is that, as a senator, McCain tried to avert this mess and to get others in Congress to regulate lending responsibly.
Once again, the McCain message is buried, either by the daily political sideshows or by the brilliant way Obama's campaign has "flooded the zone" with its message: A vote for McCain is a vote for four more years of failed Bush policies.
Some of the blame goes to McCain, too; he has been ineffective on the national stage at explaining his plan.
In a phone interview last week with the Trib's David M. Brown, McCain was asked to explain some of the fundamentals of what he would do to fix this mess. He emphasized job creation, making sure that people do not lose their homes so that their neighborhoods' values continue to grow, and investing in our own natural resources, especially coal.
He proposed doubling the federal tax exemption of every child and family. He said his fundamentals also include keeping taxes low and stopping Washington's spending spree.
All of it is a very appealing yet responsible populist message -- the polar opposite of Obama's "spread the wealth" message.
McCain's plans are about equal opportunity, not equal outcomes; he does not propose that politicians have some inherent right to confiscate our hard-earned incomes and to give those to others. Individual effort should be rewarded, not penalized.
That's the essence of the "American dream" -- it's why millions of people around the globe fight to become citizens of this country. Anyone who works hard enough can make it. We're not a country bound by bloodlines or centuries of tradition; we're a country that is bound by an ideal.
Yet the Obama-Biden way is all about equal distribution. That much was evident in one of Obama's presidential-debate responses: Asked why he supports increasing capital-gains taxes, when cutting them has been shown to increase revenue, he replied that it is a "fairness" question.
McCain has become "John the Populist."
Too bad too few hear him.
See more articles by Thomas Sowell, a black conservative with a Ph.D. from
Harvard earned and paid for by his own hard work -- not by "Affirmative
Bill Ayers' Scary Plans for Public Schools
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Will William Ayers be secretary of education in a Barack Obama administration? All parents should ponder that possibility before making their choice for president on Nov. 4.
After all, Ayers is a friend of Obama, and professor Ayers's expertise is training teachers and developing public school curriculum. That's been his mission since he gave up planting bombs in government buildings (including the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon) and assaulting police officers.
Ayers brashly admitted that he was "guilty as hell" in planting bombs in the 1970s, and that he has no regrets and feels that he and his Weather Underground associates "didn't do enough." After successfully avoiding trial and prison because of legal technicalities, he picked up his Ph.D. at Columbia Teachers College for a second career, landing a tenured job as distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago.
Ayers's political views are as radical now as they were in the 1970s. "Viva President Chavez!" he exclaimed in a speech in Venezuela in 2006, in which he also declared, "education is the motor-force of revolution."
From his prestigious and safe university position, Ayers has been teaching teachers and students in rebellion against American capitalism and what he calls "imperialism" and "oppression." The code words for the Ayers curriculum are "social justice," a "transformative" vision, "critical pedagogy," "liberation," "capitalist injustices," "critical race theory," "queer theory," and of course multiculturalism and feminism.
That language is typical in the readings that Ayers assigns in his university courses. He admits he is a "communist street fighter" who has been influenced by Karl Marx, as well as Che Guevara, Ho Chi Minh and Malcolm X.
Ayers speaks openly of his desire to use America's public school classrooms to train a generation of revolutionaries who will overturn the U.S. social and economic regime. He teaches that America is oppressive and unjust, socialism is the solution, and wealth and resources should be redistributed.
In Ayers's course called "On Urban Education," he calls for a "distribution of material and human resources." His left-wing notions would be very compatible with those of Obama, who publicly told Joe the Plumber that we should "spread the wealth."
Ayers's books are among the most widely used in America's education schools. Ayers even uses science and math courses as part of his "transformative" political strategy to teach that the American economic system is unjust.
Ayers is an endorser of a book called "Queering Elementary Education" by William J. Letts IV and James T. Sears, a collection of essays to teach adults and children to "think queerly." The blurb on the cover quotes Ayers as saying this is "a book for all teachers … and, yes, it has an agenda."
Unfortunately, Ayers's far-out education theories are already having an effect in education schools. One after another, teachers colleges are using their courses to promote socialist notions of wealth distribution, "social justice," diversity and environmentalism, and to punish students who resist this indoctrination by giving them low grades or even denying them graduation.
The U.S. Department of Education lists 15 high schools whose mission statements declare that their curricula center on "social justice."
Propaganda about Obama is already finding favor with textbook publishers. The McDougal Littell 8th-grade advanced-English literature book (copyright 2008, Houghton Mifflin Co.) has 15 pages featuring Obama and his "life of service."
Most of Ayers's socialist propaganda is financed with taxpayer money at state universities and teachers colleges. Some of the schools that have adopted Ayers-style pedagogy have received grants from ACORN or from Bill Gates' charitable foundation.
You might assume that Ayers's political ideas would put him on the outer fringe of the left-wing education establishment. However, his peers recently elected him to serve as vice president for curriculum in the American Education Research Association, the largest organization of education school professors and researchers.
Is an appointment to the U.S. Department of Education his next career advancement?
Is Ayers's transformative public school curriculum the kind of "change" Obama
will bring us?
Government Can't Do it All (Or Even Most of It)
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
People who put faith in government to solve national or even individual problems are headed for deep disappointment, if it hasn't already arrived. Still, that doesn't stop politicians from attempting to sell political snake oil to the gullible. No one ever lost money betting on the ignorance of the uninformed masses.
What should be required viewing before the election is "John Stossel's Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics," a "20/20" report critical of the U.S. government's ability to get things done (abcnews.com). The report looked at facts, not opinions, or "feelings" concerning government's inability to live up to the high expectations caused by over-promising politicians.
Stossel visited New Orleans to see how government reconstruction is progressing three years after Hurricane Katrina. What he found should not surprise anyone. Huge numbers of houses remain un-repaired thanks to a bureaucracy that could serve as a plot for a horror movie called "Nightmare on Bourbon Street." The forms necessary to apply for permits to conduct any repairs or construct new buildings take 10 minutes to explain. As for the houses themselves, "Of the 314 public projects (New Orleans Mayor Ray) Nagin promoted in his 'One New Orleans' rebuilding campaign announced in January 2006, only six are complete."
Contrast that with what the nonprofit Habitat for Humanity has done: "They built 70 homes quickly," noted Stossel. "Even Nagin admitted they did what government didn't." Private enterprise has succeeded, where government has failed. Actor Brad Pitt ("Brad Pitt has done more for this community than anyone," said Malik Rahim, one of the co-founders of Common Ground Collective, a group formed in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina) and singer Harry Connick Jr. have been at the forefront of efforts to circumvent government stagnation.
Stossel asked the obvious question: If Pitt and Connick can help build dozens of new homes, why does it take government so long to follow through on its plans? Nagin explains he's made it easier for people to rebuild their homes, providing permits online at kiosks throughout the city.
Stossel visited city hall and guess what? Not one of the kiosks worked! Conclusion? Individual Americans do things better, with less bureaucracy and at less cost than the central planning collective known as government.
Another issue was campaign finance reform, which has come back to bite its chief promoter, Sen. John McCain. It is a maze of incomprehensible regulations. Stossel displayed the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulation book, which contains nearly 500 pages of small print set in double columns. For effect, he taped the pages together and then stretched them out on the Giant's football field. The pages "spanned the whole field and halfway back."
He showed people who ran afoul of the law by placing signs in yards in opposition to an annexation ballot initiative. It's a head-shaker. Another example: Ada Fisher, a retired doctor, ran for Congress in North Carolina with an all-volunteer staff. The FEC imposed a $10,000 fine on her because she somehow violated their rules. She noted that even "reform" laws are designed to help incumbents stay in office. Stossel said the extremely high re-election rate of members of Congress remains the same as it was before "reform," which was promoted as a way to open up the system to more challengers.
Stossel used a visual metaphor to demonstrate why government regulations stifle individual initiative, leading to dysfunction. He visited a skating rink where people managed to go in the same direction and at about the same speed without instructions from anyone. Then he introduces Brian Boitano, a former Olympic skater, who begins telling some skaters they are going too fast and others too slow and shouting other commands. Chaos results. The moral? "Intuition leads us to think that complex problems require centrally planned solutions, but political decision-making is rarely the answer. Life works best when we govern ourselves."
Both John McCain and Barack Obama are asking us to trust them to "fix" what is wrong in Washington. One would make things worse, but neither would have the power to make things much better. That would take cooperation. Politicians promote faith in themselves, though such faith has proven to be misplaced. They want the power. The worst thing the public can do is to give one party unchecked power with no restraints.
If Obama wins and Democrats expand their congressional majorities, especially
to a filibuster-proof advantage in the Senate, this will be to our collective
A Personality Profile of Barack Obama's Leadership
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Obama will not lose his bid for the presidency because of his connections to Ayers, ACORN or socialist politics. In fact, he won't lose it because of his stand on any issue. The coup de grace for Obama's presidential election downfall will come only through convincing the American public of his lack of decisive leadership under pressure. I'm not just talking about facing rogue nations or terrorist thugs. I'm referring to making major choices in conflict. Indecisiveness is his greatest weakness, and it's one this country cannot afford at this time in its history.
Interestingly, a while back, the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics, at St. John's University and the College of St. Benedict, did a professional personality profile "for anticipating Obama's likely leadership style as chief executive, thereby providing a basis for inferring the character and tenor of a prospective Obama presidency." The study concluded:
"The combination of Ambitious, Accommodating, and Outgoing patterns in Obama's profile suggests a confident conciliator personality composite. Leaders with this personality prototype, though self-assured and ambitious, are characteristically gracious, considerate, and benevolent. They are energetic, charming, and agreeable, with a special knack for settling differences, favoring mediation and compromise over force or coercion as a strategy for resolving conflict. They are driven primarily by a need for achievement and also have strong affiliation needs, but a low need for power."
While most might laud Obama's personality as a needed polar opposite to George W. Bush's, I pose to you that Obama's "accommodating-conciliator-favoring-compromise" personality pendulum swing is way too far to the other side. Even Obama's voting record proves that. His own Democratic colleagues have a difficult time understanding why, when he was an Illinois state senator, he voted "present" (instead of "yes" or "no") 129 times, including a number of noncommittal tallies on issues such as gun rights and abortion.
You also have heard that Obama doesn't have any executive experience, whether it be running a government or a business. I would pose to you the reason is simply that he's not comfortable making executive decisions. An "executive conciliator" overly depends upon others, at times compromising judgment and needed action in order to appease the masses. Proof of that was seen in how Obama handled his and our "emergency" economic decisions.
A few months ago, Obama did not turn to Warren Buffett for counsel on the housing crisis. As The Washington Post reported July 16, he turned to Franklin Raines, the former Fannie Mae chief executive officer and six-year money manipulator. The Post said Raines took "calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."
And consider Obama's handling of the "emergency" bailout crisis. During the first go-round of the bailout, while McCain was certain of his stand, Obama wouldn't say where he stood because he was afraid it would be a wrong or unpopular stand. Only after most of his political cronies were bribed in favor of the bailout did Obama give it his stamp of approval. If he cannot take decisive action as a senator in the greatest nation on earth, how in the world is he going to make critical and emergency decisions as the president?
Obama's inability to draw and hold hard lines is the primary reason he repeatedly struggles with -- and caves and morphs into -- the polls or people in front of him. More than any other politician in history, he has flip-flopped on a host of critical issues: Iraq, Iran, gay rights, NAFTA, abortion, race, religion, gun control, etc. It's one thing to be political, but it's quite another to be a chronic people pleaser under pressure. Swaying based on political expediency is not a leadership quality we need in tough times. Sooner or later, that character flaw will bite Obama big-time -- and us if we elect him president.
I'm not saying Obama has no continued future in politics. He just needs more experience in life to weed out those character deficiencies. That's why I'm asking Americans to look afresh at these questions: Is Obama crisis-leadership qualified? Will he truly be ready Jan. 20 to assume the helm of our country?
Actually, those leadership questions have been answered already by three leading Democrats (before they could taste the perks from their alignment with the Democratic presidential nominee). Obama's own running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, replied only months ago about whether Obama is ready for the presidency: "Right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training." Then he later told George Stephanopoulos, "I stand by the statement." Biden was right.
Before Obama was her party's choice, Hillary Clinton repeatedly proved him to be an indecisive waffler who couldn't or wouldn't be pinned down on any issues. Hillary was right.
Even former President Bill Clinton dodged having to give an affirmative answer to an ABC correspondent when asked whether Obama is ready to be president by saying, "You can argue that no one is ready to be president." Another smooth answer, Bill. The fact is he totally understands that Obama is not ready.
America is in one of its toughest hours -- a market meltdown, the worst fiscal
environment since the Great Depression -- an economic 9/11, if you will. Do
we really believe we can be delivered by an indecisive people pleaser as our
Polls and Pols
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
It may seem hardly worthwhile going to the polls to vote this election year, since ACORN and the media have already decided that Barack Obama is to be the next President of the United States.
Still, it may take more than voter fraud and media spin to put Senator Obama in the White House. Most public opinion polls show Obama ahead, but not usually by decisive margins, and sometimes by a difference within the margin of error.
There has been a history of various polls over the years projecting bigger votes for the Democrats' presidential candidate in October than that candidate actually gets in November.
Some of these polls seem like they are not trying to report facts but to create an impression. One poll has been reported as using a sample consisting of 280 Republicans and 420 Democrats. No wonder Obama leads in a poll like that.
Pollsters have to protect their reputations but they can do that by playing it straight on their last poll before election day, after having created an impression earlier that a landslide for the Democratic candidate was all but a done deal.
The general media bias is more blatant than usual this year.
There was more media outcry about Sarah Palin's response to "gotcha" questions than to Joe Biden's talking about President Franklin D. Roosevelt going on television in 1929 after the stock market crash-- at a time when FDR was not yet president and there was no television to go on.
An editor at Time magazine has admitted that there has been bias but expressed a desire in the future to be more fair to both sides. Just the fact that he expresses the issue this way shows that he still doesn't understand the real problem.
The point is not to be "fair" to "both sides." The point is to be straight with the readers, who are buying the magazine to learn something about the facts of the real world, not to learn about its reporters' ideology and spin.
There is another factor at work in this year's election that makes polls and predictions more unreliable than usual. That factor is race.
Barack Obama's string of victories in early Democratic primaries against far better known white candidates shows that large segments of the American population have moved beyond race.
It is Barack Obama and his supporters who have hyped race, after his large lead in the polls began to shrink or evaporate, as more of the facts about his checkered career came out.
Almost any criticism of Obama has been equated with racism, even if there is no connection that can be seen under a microscope.
Barack Obama himself started this trend when he warned that his opponents were going to try to scare the public with various charges, including a statement, "And did I say he was black?"
McCain said no such thing. Palin said no such thing. But those who support Obama-- and this includes much of the media-- are acting as if they just know that this is the underlying message.
Congressman John Lewis has likened Senator McCain to George Wallace. Congressman John Murtha has condemned a whole section of the state of Pennsylvania as "racists" because they seem reluctant to jump on the Obama bandwagon.
Senator Harry Reid has claimed that linking Obama to deposed and disgraced Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines is racist, since they are both black-- as if the financial and political connection between the two does not exist.
Much is being made of the fact that, in past elections, some white voters who told pollsters that they are going to vote for a black candidate did not in fact do so, so that a black candidate with a lead in the polls ended up losing on election day.
This is supposed to show how much covert racism there is. It might instead show that people don't want to be considered racists by pollsters because they are leaning toward someone other than the black candidate.
In other words, the media themselves helped create the charged atmosphere in which some people give misleading answers to pollsters to avoid being stigmatized.
All in all, going into the voting booth this year is not an exercise in futility
for those who don't want to be bum's rushed into voting for Obama by the media's
picture of a done deal. If nothing else, genuine voters can offset some of
the thousands of fictitious voters registered by ACORN.
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted 10/21/2008 ET
Updated 10/21/2008 ET
Was race a factor in the decision of Colin Powell to repudiate his party's nominee and friend of 25 years, Sen. John McCain, two weeks before Election Day, and to endorse Barack Obama?
Gen. Powell does not deny it, contending only that race was not the only or decisive factor. "If I had only that fact in mind," he told Tom Brokaw, "I could have done this six, eight, ten months ago."
Yet, in hailing Barack as a "transformational figure" whose election would "electrify our country ... (and) the world," Powell seems to testify to the centrality of Barack's ethnicity to his decision.
For what else is there about this freshman senator, who has no significant legislative accomplishment, to transform our politics and to electrify the world, other than the fact that he would be the nation's first African-American president?
Powell's endorsement follows that of another African-American icon, Congressman John Lewis of Selma Bridge fame, who switched allegiance from Hillary to Barack, while Clinton still had a fighting chance to win.
When Lewis deserted her in February, he, too, claimed a Road-to-Damascus experience, to have seen a transformational figure:
"Something's happening in America, something some of us did not see coming ... Barack Obama has tapped into something that is extraordinary. ... It's a movement. It's a spiritual event."
Lewis' desertion, however, was not unrelated to a primary challenge in his Atlanta district and angry constituent demands to know why he was not backing the first black with a real chance at winning the White House.
Powell was under no such pressure. Hence, what he did, and why, are subjects of media and political speculation.
Understandably, Powell is being hailed by the Obama media as a profile in courage. Equally understandably, his endorsement of Obama is said by Republicans to smack of ingratitude, opportunism, and even vindictiveness toward a party to which he owes his fame and career.
Here was a man who was rendered extraordinary honors by three Republican presidents. Reagan raised him from Army colonel to national security adviser, the first African-American in the post. George H. W. Bush named him chairman of the Joint Chiefs, over hundreds of more senior officers. George W. Bush made him the first African-American secretary of state.
While he may have gotten well with the capital elite with this decision, Powell has wounded his party's nominee at a point of maximum vulnerability, a friend who supported him on the war, and agreed with Powell on the need for a larger invasion force. And Powell has embraced a liberal Democrat who owes his nomination to his fierce opposition to the war Powell sold the nation, a war Obama calls the worst blunder in U.S. history and a manifestation of a lack of judgment by those, like Colin Powell, who launched it.
Joe Biden, who voted to authorize the war, now calls his vote a mistake. Yet, Powell endorses him, too, while repudiating a McCain-Palin ticket that continues to defend his war.
And the scatter-gun attack Powell launched on the GOP ticket -- hitting McCain for fumbling the financial crisis, choosing Sarah Palin, pressing Barack's association with William Ayers, and not defending Obama's Christianity -- suggests a man with scores to settle with the party of George W. Bush.
Yet, what kind of Republican can Powell be when he professes deep concern that McCain might choose Supreme Court justices like John Roberts and Sam Alito? Every Republican in the Senate voted for Roberts. All but one voted for Alito.
Does Colin Powell have a problem with Antonin Scalia? Is the general a Ruth Bader Ginsberg Republican?
There is speculation Powell feels badly used by the neocons who cherry-picked and hyped the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction he presented at the U.N., and that he harbors a distrust of the neocons now reassembling around McCain.
If so, he surely has a case, and should have made it.
But in the last analysis, one comes back to the forbidden issue of ethnicity. For example, would Powell have endorsed Hillary, had she won the nomination? After all, her views on Iraq -- having supported the war and never apologized -- are even closer to Powell's than Obama's.
The issue cannot be avoided.
After all, we are in a year where Obama defeated the wife of "our first black president," Bill Clinton, 90-10 in the black wards of Philly, and African-Americans, in one poll, are going 94-1 for Barack. And a Republican ticket that is hammering Barack on his ties to William Ayers fears to bring up his far closer ties to the Afro-racist anti-American Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Organizing a fundraiser last year for New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, an Hispanic Democrat, Lionel Sosa of San Antonio, a political strategist for Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, said, "Blood runs thicker than politics."
Mr. Sosa is perhaps more candid about his motives than folks in D.C.
Ayers: Radical Loon When Obama Was Only 47
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The media are acting as if they completely and fully vetted Obama during the Democratic primaries and that's why they are entitled to send teams of researchers into Alaska to analyze Sarah Palin's every expense report.
In fact, the mainstream media did no vetting. They seem to have all agreed, "OK, none of us will get into this business with Jeremiah Wright, 'Tony' Rezko, Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers and everyone's impression of an angry Michelle Obama on 'The Jerry Springer Show.'"
During one of the Democratic primary debates, Hillary Clinton was hissed for mentioning Syrian national Rezko, and during another, ABC moderator George Stephanopoulos nearly lost his career for asking Obama one question about William Ayers.
In the past week, TV anchors have taken to claiming that Obama "refuted" John McCain's statement that Obama launched his political career at the home of former Weather Underground leader Ayers.
No, Obama "denied" it; he didn't "refute" it. If "denying" something is the same as "refuting" it, then maybe the establishment media can quit harping on Palin's qualifications to be president, since she too "refuted" that by denying it.
Back before the media realized it needed to lie about Obama launching his political career at Ayers' house, the Los Angeles Times provided an eyewitness account from a liberal who attended the event.
"When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him -- introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread."
The Times has now stripped this item from its Web page, but the great blogger Patterico has preserved it for posterity on his Web page.
Obama's glib remark that "Bill Ayers is a professor of education in Chicago; 40 years ago when I was 8 years old he engaged in despicable acts with a domestic group. I have roundly denounced those attacks" -- doesn't answer anything.
First of all, the fact that Ayers is a professor of education proves only one thing: He is dumber than any person without an education degree.
Ayers is such an imbecile, we ought to be amazed that he's teaching at a university -- even when you consider that it's an ed school -- except all former violent radicals end up teaching. Roughly 80 percent of former Weathermen are full college professors -- 99 percent if you don't include the ones killed in shoot-outs with the police or in prison -- i.e., not yet pardoned by a Democratic president.
Any other profession would have banned a person like Ayers. Universities not only accept former domestic terrorists, but also move them to the front of the line. In addition to Ayers, among those once on the FBI's most-wanted list who ended up in cushy college teaching positions are Bernardine Dohrn (Northwestern University), Mark Rudd (a junior college in New Mexico) and Angela Davis (History of Consciousness Department, University of California at Santa Cruz).
While others were hard at work on Ph.D.s, Susan Rosenberg was conspiring to kill cops and blow up buildings, and was assembling massive caches of explosives. This put her on the fast track for a teaching position at Hamilton College!
Despite having absolutely no qualifications to teach, having earned only a master's degree in "writing" through a correspondence course, Rosenberg was offered a position at Hamilton within a few years of President Clinton pardoning her in 2001, releasing her from a 58-year prison sentence for participating in the murder of cops and possessing more than 700 pounds of explosives.
But Obama thinks it's a selling point to say that Ayers is a college professor.
Hundreds of college professors have signed a letter vouching for Ayers, which would be like Lester Maddox producing a letter from George Wallace assuring us that Maddox is a respected member of the community. No, really, I've got the letter right here!
The media keep citing the fact that the money Obama and Ayers distributed to idiotic left-wing causes came -- as The New York Times put it -- "from Walter H. Annenberg, the billionaire publisher and philanthropist and President Richard M. Nixon's ambassador to the United Kingdom."
Great Republican though he was, Walter Annenberg died in 2002. The money came from the Annenberg Foundation, which, like all foundations, distributes money to projects that its founder would despise. John Kerry ran for president on the late John Heinz's money. That didn't mean Republican Heinz was endorsing Kerry.
As John O'Sullivan says, any foundation that is not explicitly right-wing will become a radical left-wing organization within a few years. It could be the Association of University Women, the American Association of Retired People, the American Rose Growers, the Foundation for the Study of Railroad Engineers or the Choral Society of Newport Beach.
Left-wing radicals swarm to free foundation money, where they can give gigantic grants to one another and they will never have to do a day's work. That's exactly what Obama and Ayers did with Annenberg's money.
None of the Annenberg money went to schoolchildren. It went to Ayers' left-wing crank friends to write moronic papers that we hope no one ever reads.
Instead of teaching students reading and writing, Ayers thinks they should be taught to rebel against America's "imperialist" social structure. In 2006, Ayers was in Venezuela praising communist dictator Hugo Chavez, saying, "We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution."
He has backed a line of schoolbooks such as one titled "Teaching Science for Social Justice."
Forget about Ayers' domestic terrorism when Obama "was 8 years old." Does
he agree with Ayers' idiot ideas right now?
Not the Time for On-the-Job Training
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The media's almost universal opinion that Sen. Joe Biden simply made just another one of his gaffes -- when he warned that the election of the untested Barack Obama would inevitably result in a global crisis where our enemies take measure of the man by confronting him and America with a challenge -- was dead wrong.
It was no gaffe; it was a clear warning that Obama will not only be tested, but also that he will not be up to the challenge and will need help in dealing with something he cannot deal with on his own.
I cannot remember a more frightening scenario, especially since it came from Obama's own running mate and not John McCain or the Republican Party. I have no doubt Biden was sincere in alerting the nation to a very real threat to our national security -- the prospect of a totally inexperienced and naive Barack Obama being confronted by an enemy he would rather talk with.
That the nation isn't alarmed by this prospect, which Biden guaranteed would surely come about, is simply bizarre. Here in a post-9/11 world, when America's foes have proven they'll stop at nothing to bring America down to our knees, if the polls are correct voters are on the verge of electing a man to the presidency whose very election will light the spark of an international crisis in a nuclear age.
This is an unprecedented situation, but it's not the first time the voters have chosen a president who lacked the bona fides required in a leader facing an international threat and a determined enemy.
Unlike Barack Obama, however, John Kennedy had been tested when in harm's way during WW II, and had shown himself capable of acting with both courage and initiative.
Moreover he had been a first-hand witness at momentous events during his father's ambassadorship to war-torn Britain and had even written a book, "Why England Slept," about the crisis England faced because they failed to recognize the threat Hitler posed to their very existence.
Yet even with his experience evident when he won election in 1960, the Soviet Union thought he not only should be tested but was convinced he would fail the test.
As a result America found itself facing a nuclear war with the Soviets after Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev met with JFK, saw what he judged to be his weakness, and confronted America with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
It was only after JFK promised to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey and pledged to halt all efforts to remove Fidel Castro from power that Khrushchev agreed to take his missiles out of Cuba.
We cannot afford another such crisis, yet if Joe Biden is correct that's exactly what will happen if Barack Obama wins the presidency on November 4. He's guaranteed it.
We can expect that the challenge to Obama to come from Iran which has already observed him promising to sit down with their leaders without preconditions, thus to meet with them as equals.
Iran has already shown how they react to U.S. presidents who show signs of weakness. They saw weakness in Jimmy Carter, and they seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days.
When my father won election in 1980 Iran had no need to test him; they had already taken his measure and he scared the daylights out of them. As a result, minutes after he took the oath of office the Iranians released the hostages.
A soon-to-be nuclear power, Iran is certain to test what they see as a politician with absolutely no experience. And given his demonstrated willingness to greet hostility with mere words eloquently spoken, we an expect Iran to risk a global crisis by facing him with a direct challenge to his leadership, probably by rattling their nuclear sword.
We had better heed Joe Biden's warning and vote against an untested politician
from Chicago's rowdy and corrupt political machine.
MSNBC Teams Up With ACORN, La Raza
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
MSNBC has launched a news project with a variety of left-wing special interest groups to boost their Election Day coverage and help viewers experiencing problems at the polls.
One of the groups involved in MSNBC's "Election Protection" project is the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now. ACORN has been involved in rampant voter registration fraud across the nation this election cycle and is actively supporting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama for president.
"Our partnership with Election Protection will play a major role in NBC News' 'Making Your Vote Count' coverage, said Phil Alongi, Executive Producer of NBC News' Election Coverage in an Oct. 22 press release. "Not only will we be able to direct voters who are experiencing problems with a hotline to call, we will also have our team of reporters and producers follow-up on the information Election Protection is gathering."
When asked for comment about ACORN's role in the project MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines wrote Townhall in an email "this a question for them, not us."
Most of the groups MSNBC wants their viewers to contact and shape their news coverage on Election Day have extreme liberal agendas ranging and focus on variety of issues including housing, gay rights, amnesty, environmental policies and labor.
The National Council of La Raza, U.S. Pirg, NAACP, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Law Association, Sierra Club and the Service Employees International Union are among Election Protection's many partners.
ACORN is not listed as a partner on the Election Protection's main website, but is listed as a partner on a promotional flyer that is available on the website.
These groups actively lobby Congress to support liberal policies. Most of them are openly supporting Barack Obama and other Democrats in the November elections.
Election Protection claims to be non-partisan. None of their listed partner groups, however, lean conservative.
Daytime anchor David Shuster promoted the effort Wednesday by telling viewers, "NBC is making your vote count. If you have a question about voting or problems at the polls, our partners at Election Protection can help. They have trained volunteers available to answer your questions. Call 1-866-OUR-VOTE if you have a question or if you run into or see any problems."
Anchor Contessa Brewer has similarly hyped the project. The Election Project
features a snippet of her telling viewers about the project on their website.
She described MSNBC's relationship with Election Protection as an "exclusive
On meaning of a possible Obama presidency
Thursday, October 23, 2008
John McCain: "Senator Obama is measuring the drapes and planning with Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi and (Senate Majority Leader Harry) Reid to raise taxes, increase spending, take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections, and concede defeat in Iraq."
The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial: "Taxes will rise substantially (under Barack Obama), the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend, and capital-gains rates for 'the rich,' substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP."
Carnegie Mellon economics professor Adam Lerrick: "Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income redistribution formula Democrats have long sought. . . . In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40 percent -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center . . . this will jump to 49 percent when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11 percent of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5 percent of their income and less than $1,000 annually."
Emory University economics professor Paul Rubin: "Democrats draw their political power from trial lawyers, unions, government bureaucrats, environmentalists, and, perhaps, my liberal colleagues in academia. All of these voting blocs seem to favor a larger, more intrusive government. If things proceed as they now appear likely to, we can expect major changes in policies that benefit these groups."
Robert McFarlane, National Security Adviser to Ronald Reagan: "In 2006, when conditions on the ground (in Iraq) were trending downward and a decision was required either to continue the struggle or to cut our losses, Barack Obama stated that the proposed deployment of more forces, the 'surge,' was doomed to failure and instead called for a phased withdrawal of all forces within a defined period. In short, Senator Obama was willing to lose. It was an astonishing display of ignorance to be so cavalier about defeat, almost as if losing a war was tantamount to losing a set of tennis -- something without lasting consequence."
Obama: "I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning; and as president, I will end it. Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems."
The Journal's William McGurn: "Barring divine intervention, a President Obama would not have a Republican Congress to worry about. Instead, he would be working with a Democratic speaker of the House who loaded billions in pork onto a bill meant to fund our troops; with a Democratic Senate majority leader who promised to change the way Congress spent but fought earmark reform; and with committee leaders such as Senator Chris Dodd and Representative Barney Frank, who did so much to bring us the financial implosion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
Movie actor Jon Voight: "Nobody's vetting Obama's past, this fellow of strange associations. Nobody's talking about his effort to radicalize Chicago schools."
Investor's Business Daily, in an editorial: "(Former Weather Underground domestic terrorist and longtime Obama associate in radicalizing Chicago's schools) Bill Ayers' totalitarian revolutionary agenda isn't history. . . . (Today Ayers sits) on the directorate of the Miranda International Center, a think tank funded by the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez, unofficially a state sponsor of terror that (early this month) was found to be hosting terror training camps with Cuban and (Colombian Leninist) FARC operatives to attack its neighbors. Ayers is both a hero and adviser to Hugo Chavez and a colleague of Obama's."
Former POW Paul Galanti, held for six years in Hanoi, now Virginia chairman of Veterans for McCain: "What I see on the scene, the alternative, is the most scary thing I've ever seen. I we don't win, if we don't pull this off for John McCain -- it will make (George Orwell's novel) '1984' look like a Sunday-school picnic."
Columnist Charles Krauthammer: "Obama has shown that he is a man of limited experience, questionable convictions, deeply troubling associations (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko) and an alarming lack of self-definition -- do you really know who he is and what he believes?
Princeton politics and international relations professor Aaron Friedberg and Commentary magazine senior editor Gabriel Schoenfeld: "In the past the American political process has managed to yield up remarkable leaders when they were most needed. As voters go to the polls in the shadow of an impending world crisis, they need to ask themselves which candidate -- based upon intellect, courage, past experience, and personal testing -- is most likely to rise to an occasion as grave as the one we now face."
Joe Biden's Gift
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Just like that, Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden has given voters the single reason why they should not elect Barack Obama president of the United States.
In rambling remarks (does he ever make any other kind?) in Seattle, Biden guaranteed, like Babe Ruth calling his home run shot, that if Obama is elected president there will be an international incident to "test him" less than six months after his inauguration. Biden made no such assertion about a testing of John McCain should he be elected. Perhaps that is because McCain has already been tested ... and he passed.
Behind the public's swoon over Obama is the gnawing doubt that we are about to elect the wrong man, an inexperienced man who is more fluff than substance, more personality than resume, more idealist than realist. Obama, himself, said he lacked experience and was not ready to run on a national ticket shortly after his election to the United States Senate just four years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BnLozS-TnM
And from where, exactly, will this test come? Biden mentioned the Middle East and Russia as possible administrators of such a test. Might Iran's Ahmadinejad test Obama by following through on his repeated threat to wipe out Israel? Would terrorists living in this country get a signal to blow up shopping malls and government buildings?
Two historic events offer instruction about what happens when foreign leaders believe an American president might not have the backbone or judgment for the job. Nikita Khrushchev twice tested John F. Kennedy after meeting him in Vienna in 1961. Khrushchev believed Kennedy was out of his league and that his youth and inexperience on the national stage made him and the United States vulnerable. So Khrushchev approved plans proposed by East German leader Walter Ulbricht to build the Berlin Wall and nearly caused a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Biden referred to Kennedy and Khrushchev in his Seattle remarks.
The other teachable moment came on Jan. 20, 1981, when Ronald Reagan took the oath of office and Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini immediately released 52 American diplomats held hostage for 444 days. Khomeini likely believed some American press accounts that Reagan was a "cowboy" and might bomb Iran back to the Stone Age, if that were possible, since the religious fanatics had already taken the country there.
Why shouldn't a President Obama be tested by the world's tyrants and wouldn't it be better if they feared a President McCain and decided not to put him to the test? Not having a president tested in this way would benefit America, the fragile economy and world order.
Biden said something else that was bizarre. He said that it could appear in response to such a testing that Obama responds in the wrong way, but he appealed to the crowd to stick with he and Obama because even though the decision might appear wrong, it will actually be right. What kind of logic is this? The "messiah" can make no mistakes, because he is anointed, so even if a decision appears to be the wrong one and disaster occurs, let not your heart be troubled. It will actually be the right decision and to say otherwise makes it our problem and not his because of our lack of faith in Obama.
This is beyond hubris. This is cult-like devotion and dangerous. No politician enjoys angelic status and anyone who beatifies one in this way is setting himself up for more than disappointment.
What will John McCain do with this gift he has been given? At first, he dropped it. Instead of tagging Biden with the quote, he said that Obama had said it. He's recovered from his own gaffe and he should now pound away on Biden's statement, which is not a gaffe at all, but one of those rare moments in politics: a statement that reveals what a politician actually believes.
"Mark my words," said Biden to emphasize that this self-proclaimed (and Obama proclaimed) expert on foreign policy knows what he is talking about. So let's mark them and take them seriously and decide whether electing Barack Obama guarantees another international incident -- perhaps a second terrorist attack on our homeland, which has not happened since 9/11 and for which the Left will never give President Bush credit.
Worship should be reserved for Sunday mornings, not Election Day.
The Case Against Barack Obama, Part 1
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama promises to "cut taxes for 95 percent of American workers." That's not possible.
Why? More than 30 percent pay nothing in federal income taxes. Obama comes up with this number by calling tax credits "tax cuts." One can debate whether these things are good or bad, but they are not tax cuts. McCain offers refundable tax credits for health care, as well as other credits, but he doesn't insult the intelligence of the American people by calling them "tax cuts." When Obama's credits go to people who pay no federal income taxes or who pay less than the value of the credit, they are not "tax cuts." They are transfers of money from one pocket to another, or redistributions of wealth, but they are not tax cuts.
Republican candidate John McCain should tell people in real, human terms how hiking taxes on the so-called rich affects us all. My friend Nina is a self-employed interior decorator. She just met a prospective married client, whose husband works in the entertainment industry. The client may pull the job because of Obama's impending tax cuts. Nina makes well under $250,000, lives in an apartment, has no maid, and drives a midsize non-luxury car.
But the couple she hopes to get the job from face a tax rate of 39.5 percent plus increased Social Security taxes, on top of higher taxes for capital gains and dividends.
In promoting his tax cuts, President Kennedy said, "The soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the (tax) rates now." When Kennedy says it, it's Camelot. When Reagan says it, it's trickledown. By the way, Kennedy cut taxes by 22 percent (reducing the top marginal rate from 90 percent to 70 percent), and Reagan by 60 percent (top marginal rate from 70 percent to 28 percent). The "unfair, pro-rich" Bush tax cuts that are set to expire? A reduction in the top marginal rate of approximately 7.5 percent. A recent headline in Agence France-Presse says it all: "Sweden Announces Income Tax Cuts to Boost Jobs."
On spending, Obama now says -- as with taxes -- he may defer some of it because of a poor economy. But didn't he consider the spending "investments" that are "fully paid for"? If they are investments that "don't cost" anything, why put them off because of a bad economy? If Obama's been telling the truth, the ideal time to spend and to raise taxes is precisely when things are bad, unless they a) are not paid for and b) are not investments that will "jump-start our economy."
McCain mistakenly put off-limits going after Obama for his 20-year relationship with his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. But Obama's relationship with his "spiritual adviser" serves as a window into Obama's character. During the primary season, Obama even called this a "legitimate" issue, but insisted he knew nothing about many of Wright's radical views. Really?
In "Dreams from My Father," Obama talks of attending the "Audacity of Hope Sermon" (pages 292-293). There is an audio book in Obama's own voice reading this passage. Obama hears Wright speak of Hiroshima and Sharpeville as examples of acts of injustice. A personal aside: My dad, a former Marine, served as a cook in a segregated unit and was stationed on the island of Guam in anticipation of the invasion of Japan. The invasion never occurred because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which military historians believe saved at least 1 million lives.
What is Sharpeville? In 1960, the South African apartheid government shot down unarmed protestors, killing 69 black men, women and children. Most of the dead were shot in the back, and nearly 200 more were wounded.
Obama felt no sense of outrage to hear Hiroshima and Sharpeville mentioned in the same breath. Indeed, he was so inspired by the sermon that he uses the sermon's title -- "Audacity of Hope" -- for his second book, and as the theme of his campaign!
In "Dreams," Obama tells of how he met Wright. Obama made an appointment at Wright's church to meet the pastor. Wright was late. While waiting, Obama spoke with Wright's assistant, a single mom whose husband had just died. She told Obama that she intended to leave Chicago and move to the suburbs to escape the violence. She also wanted her son to attend a better school. Her son, she said, wanted to join a band, and his school didn't have one. His future school had a band and free uniforms (pages 280-284). "'He's always wanted to be in a band,' she said softly" (page 281). When Obama told Wright of his assistant's plans, Wright said he tried to talk her out of it. Why? Wright argued that the boy "won't have a clue about where, or who, he is"?! Obama joined the church.
Next week, more about Obama, including Bill Ayers, Iraq, ACORN and the financial crisis.
The Case Against Barack Obama, Part 2
Thursday, October 23, 2008
1) What about this business of Barack Obama and William Ayers?
Ayers and his wife, Bernardine, belonged to a radical terror group in the '60s and '70s called Weather Underground. The organization committed murders, bombings and attempted acts of terrorism. In a Sept. 11, 2001, article about Ayers' book "Fugitive Days," Ayers showed no remorse. Indeed, he said: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."
When Obama ran for state senator in Illinois, Ayers hosted what one person present called Obama's political "coming-out party."
Ayers and Obama sat on two boards together. One -- the Chicago Annenberg Challenge -- distributed more than $100 million from 1995 to 2001 to improve Chicago schools. Their own assessments show they failed. The money went for things such as peace initiatives, multiculturalism, Afrocentrism, bilingualism and courses that condemn capitalism and encourage attacking "oppressors."
Obama and Ayers also served on the board of the Woods Fund, an organization that distributed grant money to ACORN, which pushes its leftist agenda -- "tax justice," livable wages, anti-school choice, voter registration and affordable housing. The nearly 400,000-person-strong organization is currently under investigation by state and federal authorities in several states for voter registration fraud. The Obama campaign dismisses any connection to ACORN as tangential.
But on Dec. 1, 2007, Obama spoke at the Heartland Democratic Presidential Forum before leaders of community organizing groups, including ACORN. He said: "Let me even say before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we'll be calling all of you (community organizers) in to help us shape the agenda. We're gonna 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."
"Meet the Press" moderator Tom Brokaw called Ayers -- a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago -- a "school reformer." Ayers, on the other hand, calls himself a Marxist and a "small 'c' communist." A Venezuelan government Web site, translated to English, calls Ayers "the leader of the revolutionary and anti-imperialist group the Weather Underground, which initiated armed struggle against the government of the USA." Ayers sits on the directorate of a think tank funded by Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.
2) Is McCain's support for the Iraq war a political winner or loser?
McCain needs to clearly state that America and the world sleep easier without Saddam Hussein in power, and that Saddam intended to restart his chemical and biological programs. McCain makes a mistake by conceding, through silence, that the war was a mistake. A recent Rasmussen poll shows that more Americans than not believe that history will judge Iraq a success.
Obama was wrong about the surge, and continues to maintain -- despite clear evidence to the contrary -- that political reconciliation is not taking place. Even The Washington Post, which endorses Obama, editorialized against Obama's insistence on withdrawing troops by a date certain. Furthermore, the Post wrote: "Democrat Barack Obama continues to argue that only the systematic withdrawal of U.S. combat units will force Iraqi leaders to compromise. Yet the empirical evidence of the past year suggests the opposite: that only the greater security produced and guaranteed by American troops allows a political environment in which legislative deals and free elections are feasible."
3) Obama supports the use of our military to stop genocide in Darfur while showing indifference about a possible one in Iraq.
Brokaw, moderating a debate, asked Obama when American combat forces should be used to quell humanitarian crises that pose no threat to U.S. security. Obama -- specifically mentioning Darfur and Rwanda -- said, "When genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us." But after a 2007 interview with Obama, The Associated Press wrote, "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there." So Obama wants to use our military to stop genocide in Darfur -- a tragedy that we did not start. But he wants our military to withdraw in Iraq, possibly resulting in a genocide of our own making. Got that?
4) As for the current financial crisis, does Obama bear some responsibility?
In the subprime crisis, many people took out unaffordable loans, and lenders lent under government policies that encouraged them to make risky loans. As a lawyer, Obama and his firm filed a class action lawsuit against Citibank, alleging that the bank systematically shut out minority borrowers. According to The Associated Press: "The case was settled out of court. Some class members got cash payments, and the bank agreed to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages."
Bottom line. When the Communist Party USA approvingly says Obama would "advance
progressive politics for the long term" -- run.
Book titled The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate
Written by crack investigative reporter David Freddoso, The Case Against Barack Obama is so revealing, so jam-packed with facts that the liberal media have done their best to suppress, that I'm convinced it could affect the 2008 presidential election the way Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry did in 2004.
But time is short. Conservatives and other patriotic Americans must get The Case Against Barack Obama into their hands right now -- and start spreading the word immediately.
That's why, by special arrangement with the publisher, we're making The Case Against Barack Obama available to you absolutely FREE -- just for trying HUMAN EVENTS.
The corrupt Chicago Machine politician who "made a U.S. senator" out of Barack Obama -- and how he did it.
Payback: How Obama intervened to keep the Chicago Machine in power while he was a U.S. senator.
How he won his first election by having his lawyers knock his opponents off the ballot on technicalities.
His vocal support for a grotesque "infanticide bill" that was too extreme even for Nancy Pelosi.
How his wife's salary tripled the year he became a senator and started earmarking funds to her employer.
How Obama has repeatedly steered legislation to pay off campaign donors.
"I've never done any favors for him," says Obama about convicted developer Tony Rezko. Oh, but he has...
And much more!
Obama Ignores Credit Card Donation Fraud
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
Bart Simpson, Family Guy, Daffy Duck, King Kong, O.J. Simpson and Raela Odinga 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. Newsmax's Kenneth Timmerman reports on how the Obama campaign suspended normal credit card security features allowing for massive donation fraud.
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.
The Republican National Trust PAC
Dear Newsmax Reader:
We have launched a new, powerful ad exposing Obama's radical agenda and his dirty little secret.
I think it will knock your socks off.
This 30-second ad exposes Obama's 'dirty little secret the media won't talk about' -- his radical plan to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits and Medicaid, full healthcare coverage.
By Obama's own count there are 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. and he wants them all getting government benefits.
Obama has stated he also wants to give each and every one of them amnesty and citizenship.
As for them learning English, he has stated he thinks American kids, your kids, should learn Spanish.
There is no doubt this man is the most radical leftist ever nominated by the Democratic party.
We have already exposed Obama's shocking plan to give illegals driver's licenses -- even though everyone knows the 9/11 plot began with 13 of the 19 terrorists getting driver's licenses.
As the American people find out about Obama and his plans, they will turn on him.
McCain can still win this.
Take a moment today to:
See our New TV Ad 'Obama's Social Security Plan for Illegals': http://www.nationalrepublicantrust.com/video_ss4illegals_eg.html
and . . .
Donate! We need to run this ad as well as new ones we are preparing in key battleground states.
Donate Now: https://secure.yourpatriot.com/ou/tnrt/nmxn/donate.aspx
With your help we have had a huge effect in Ohio as McCain is now leading in two polls.
The latest polls also show Indiana is solidly back in McCain's fold.
Even Pennsylvania -- once an Obama state -- is now in contest.
McCain's Problem -- You Can Help
McCain has a big problem. If he attacks Obama, the media portrays him as mean-spirited.
But, as an independent PAC, the National Republican Trust can tell the American people the absolute truth about Obama's radical record and plans.
That's one reason why Dick Morris, the famous political strategist and Fox News guru says, "The National Republican Trust is a very effective organization that can make a huge difference on election day."
We hope you agree with that view.
Dick says McCain can definitely win. That's why we have launched our air war on Obama, bypassing the major media and going directly to the American people.
Help us in this urgent campaign to expose Obama in key swing states!
You can donate now by Going Here Now.
If you are on a mobile device or want to call in your donation call 1-866-957-1467
Remember, every dollar counts. Every vote matters. You can make a difference by helping us.
Yours for America,
P.S. Poll data shows that when voters find out Obama supports giving illegal aliens driver's licenses, Social Security, Medicaid, college tuition and other benefits, they turn against him. Let's get our message out. Help Us Today.
Paid for by The National Republican Trust PAC.
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
2100 M St. NW Suite 170-340 Washington, DC 20037-1233
Islamic group calls on NMGOP to repudiate remarks made by Marcia Stirman
Alamogordo Daily News
By Tim Korte, Associated Press Writer
Click photo to enlargeMarcia Stirman campaigning in 2006. She was running for a... (Alamogordo Daily News file photo)«1»ALBUQUERQUE The chairwoman of an Otero County Republican women's group on Tuesday defended a letter to the editor in which she wrote, "I believe Muslims are our enemies."
Marcia Stirman, a 56-year-old interior decorator, also called Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama "a Muslim socialist."
A national Islamic group expressed outrage over Stirman's letter and called on state and national Republican Party officials to repudiate the publication of "anti-Muslim comments."
"Because these hate-filled remarks were made by a prominent Republican, it is incumbent on state and national GOP officials to repudiate her divisive and intolerant views," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Officials with the Republican Party of New Mexico had no immediate comment.
The letter ran Tuesday in the Alamogordo Daily News. It was titled "Why I'm a Republican" and listed 16 reasons for her party affiliation.
The list ends with Stirman saying Obama is "a Muslim socialist." She also wrote, "I believe war is a fact of life and we should always win."
Stirman told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that she was surprised
by reaction to her letter, which she said included support from all over the
country. She wrote it after the newspaper recently published another reader's
letter titled "Why I'm a Democrat."
Asked for a response to Awad's concerns, she said of Muslims: "I don't trust them at all. They've sworn across the world that they are our enemies. Why we're trying to elect one is beside me."
Obama's Kenyan father was Muslim, but Obama grew up in a Christian family. Although he has professed his Christianity repeatedly and explained how his Christian faith shapes his politics, he has battled Internet-fueled rumors throughout the campaign that he is Muslim.
Stirman said she carefully considered what she wrote in the letter, refused to apologize and defended her right to express her views.
"I still have freedom of speech and an opinion. If the Islamic group
doesn't like it, well, I don't like what's going on in their camp, either," Stirman
A Savage prediction for McCain
Exclusive: Ellis Washington sees senator as a 'moribund, uninspired political hack'
Friday, October 24, 2008
By Ellis Washington
Not only do I predict that John McCain will lose to Obama in a landslide,
but that McCain will also lose his Senate seat in Arizona because he ran an
incompetent campaign and will soon disappear from the political landscape.
~ Michael Savage's radio show, Oct. 6, 2008
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guardians?)
~ Plato, "The Republic" (question to Socrates)
As we approach the November elections, I -- like many conservatives -- am in a state of impending angst. I am convinced during these perilous times that without the Bible, WorldNetDaily and the Michael Savage radio show to comfort me, I would be certifiable for the asylum by now.
Last Monday, while listening to Dr. Michael Savage perform one of his brilliant impromptu monologues, he made the following statement, which I will paraphrase in the following manner: "Not only do I predict that John McCain will lose to Obama in a landslide, but that McCain will also lose his Senate seat in Arizona because he ran an incompetent campaign and will soon disappear from the political landscape."
As he spoke these words, I felt a burning in my heart like I was listening to a prophet of ancient Israel. While I hoped he was wrong, I knew deep down in my soul that Savage was right. But who's listening? Certainly not the McCain campaign.
Sen. McCain, despite his self-admitted lack of knowledge of economic issues, should be taking a crash course by reading "An Idiots Guide to Economics." He and Palin should be hammering Obama and the Democrats every day regarding the bailout of the Wall Street crooks and incompetent mortgage executives at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and others. These corporate criminals have been protected for years by the Democrat majority in Congress, even as Republicans repeatedly sought for tighter regulations of Wall Street and the home mortgage industry.
Instead, what does McCain do? On Sept. 24th he concocted a ridiculous political stunt by suspending his presidential campaign and traveling to Washington, D.C., ostensibly to help the Senate steal $1 trillion dollars from the American people in order to pay off the arrogant thieves of Wall Street and their Democrat enablers in Congress, particularly Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, chairmen of the Senate Banking Committee and House Financial Services Committee, respectively.
Why would Sen. John McCain, a so-called "conservative Republican," so cavalierly misuse the taxpayers' money by voting for this outrageous $1 trillion corporate welfare bailout bill, yet seems oblivious to his own political suicide by continually angering his conservative base?
The fix is in.
Savage then did a masterful analysis of the current congressional hearing of Lehman CEO Richard S. Fuld Jr. who received $350 million in compensation just since 2000, including a $20 million bonus shortly before for bankrupting Lehman Brothers, a once-vaunted investment bank on Wall Street that has existed for almost 160 years!
Below are some excerpts of the testimony from a New York Times article:
At the start of 2008, Mr. Fuld said he believed that Lehman's capital position
was strong and that it did not face an impeding liquidity crisis. It was on
that basis that he approved billions in compensation and other cash payments,
he said. As late as five days before Lehman's collapse, investors were told
in a conference call that no new capital would be needed, that the bank's real
estate investments were properly valued.
"Did you mislead your investors?" Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat from Ohio, asked Mr. Fuld.
"No sir, we did not mislead our investors, and to the best of our ability at the time, we made disclosures that we believed to be accurate," Mr. Fuld responded.
Mr. Fuld's individual compensation, which totaled some $350 million since 2000, was repeatedly criticized by lawmakers. But Mr. Fuld pointed out that he had still held 10 million shares in Lehman when the bank filed for bankruptcy, and therefore lost out on tens of millions in additional compensation.
Savage then reminds Congress that as part of its investigatory powers, they can immediately arrest someone brought before one of its committees who is found to commit perjury while under oath.
What galls me the most regarding Fuld's testimony is the last sentence where he arrogantly and in an accusatory manner states that, "he had held 10 million shares in Lehman when the bank filed for bankruptcy, and therefore lost out on tens of millions in additional compensation."
Boo hoo hoo!
Fuld's jaded, selfish view of America's dire financial collapse is extremely insulting to all Americans of good will. It was as if he was some great heroic figure that was doing America a favor by giving up tens of million dollars of his ill-gotten gain.
While the hubris of Fuld and the titans of Wall Streets is beyond the pale, Savage reminded his listeners of Plato's paradox from his magnum opus, "The Republic," where Socrates answers the question: Who will guard the guardians? with these words for the ages:
"... [W]e must choose from among our guardians those men who, upon examination,
seem most of all to believe throughout their lives that they must eagerly pursue
what is advantageous to the city and be wholly unwilling to do the opposite."
Analysis: Plato's Socrates is clearly saying that in addition to having the wisdom-loving and spirited parts of their souls well-trained, the rulers of his ideal state are to have a very highly developed sense of social concern [care] (throughout their lives, he says, they are to be tested to see that they don't put their own advantage above that of the state).
Essentially, Plato's Socrates contends that the guardians will guard themselves. This view admittedly is Pollyannaish; however, in his defense, Plato hadn't considered scoundrels like Fuld, Wall Street and their enablers in the Democrat majority of Congress -- men who place profits above people, principle and morality. Surely in the ideal republic or state these men would not be allowed to benefit from their thievery, right?
About 200 years before Plato's dialogues on Socrates were written, 2,600 years ago, the great biblical prophet Ezekiel declared: I searched for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before Me for the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one. So it is in America today.
As the stock market continues to drop around the world, I am not at all hopeful that those who have abused our financial system in America will not only profit greatly, but are enabled by our very own guardians (i.e., Congress, the president, the SEC, the Federal Reserve, the courts) who are supposed to protect the interests of "We the People" over their own selfish needs.
Tragically, McCain is neither the philosopher-king that Plato exalted in "The Republic," nor the man to stand in the gap as the ancient prophet Ezekiel longed for the nation of Israel. McCain seems to be an example of an old, moribund, uninspired political hack of a bygone era who is desperately trying to have his last hurrah on the backs of America's taxpayers.
America's other choice for president is a certified Marxist Manchurian Candidate
against whom I probably played basketball 20 years ago while at Harvard.
EXCLUSIVE: McCain lambastes Bush years
Joseph Curl and Stephen Dinan
Washington Times NEWSMAKER INTERVIEW:
Thursday, October 23, 2008
ABOARD THE STRAIGHT TALK AIR -- Sen. John McCain on Wednesday blasted President Bush for building a mountain of debt for future generations, failing to pay for expanding Medicare and abusing executive powers, leveling his strongest criticism to date of an administration whose unpopularity may be dragging the Republican Party to the brink of a massive electoral defeat.
"We just let things get completely out of hand," he said of his own party's rule in the past eight years.
In an interview with The Washington Times, Mr. McCain lashed out at a litany of Bush policies and issues that he said he would have handled differently as president, days after a poll showed that he began making up ground on Sen. Barack Obama since he emphatically sought to distance himself from Mr. Bush in the final debate.
"Spending, the conduct of the war in Iraq for years, growth in the size of government, larger than any time since the Great Society, laying a $10 trillion debt on future generations of America, owing $500 billion to China, obviously, failure to both enforce and modernize the [financial] regulatory agencies that were designed for the 1930s and certainly not for the 21st century, failure to address the issue of climate change seriously," Mr. McCain said in an interview with The Washington Times aboard his campaign plane en route from New Hampshire to Ohio.
"Those are just some of them," he said with a laugh, chomping into a peanut butter sandwich as a few campaign aides in his midair office joined in the laughter.
In the interview, Mr. McCain rejected the notion that he could win on the strength of voters who won't vote for a black president.
"I reject categorically the concept that people would, any number of people would vote on the basis of race," he said.
He also hit Mr. Obama for breaking his pledge to take public campaign financing; said Democratic vice-presidential nominee Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. has as much as acknowledged that Mr. Obama would make the world more dangerous; and cautioned that while he may be down in the race, he's not out.
"There is one lesson of history, and that is every time we've been written off, that's when we've had a comeback," he said with an emphatic chop of his hand, just after flying out of the state that propelled him to the Republican nomination.
The self-described maverick, who was counted out of the Republican race in summer 2007, may to be doing just that. Although he trails in the polls in at least a half-dozen pivotal states, a new Associated Press survey finds the race statistically even, with Mr. Obama at 44 percent and Mr. McCain at 43 percent.
The survey found that Mr. McCain had surged among whites and people earning less than $50,000; among rural voters -- he now has an 18-point advantage, up from four points in the previous poll -- and on the issue of the economy, where he picked up nine percentage points and now trails the Democrat by just six points.
Mr. Obama has spent virtually the entire campaign linking Mr. McCain to the president, saying a McCain term would be "four more years of George Bush" and identifying various Republican policies with the adjective "Bush-McCain."
Mr. McCain has in recent days sharpened his criticism of Mr. Bush, including adding a line from his final debate to his daily stump speech, that if Mr. Obama "wanted to run against George Bush, he should have run four years ago."
But on Wednesday, Mr. McCain went further in distancing himself from the man who beat him for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination. In addition to the long list of failures he attributed to Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain blamed the president for supporting the Medicare prescription-drug bill, saying, "They didn't pay for it."
"They put a trillion-dollar debt on future generations of Americans, then allowed the liberals to expand it so they're paying my -- they're paying for my prescription drugs. Why should the taxpayers pay for my prescription drugs?" he said with exasperation.
He rejected Mr. Bush's use of issuing "signing statements" when he signs bills into law, in which the president has suggested that he would ignore elements of the bills, labeling them potentially unconstitutional.
"I would veto the bills or say, 'Look, I don't like it but I'll obey the law that's passed by Congress and signed by the president.' I think the signing statements was not a correct implementation of the power of the executive. I think it was overstepping," he said.
And Mr. McCain emphatically rejected Mr. Bush's claims of executive privilege, often used to shield the White House from scrutiny.
"I don't agree with that either. I don't agree with [Vice President] Dick Cheney's allegation that he's part of both the legislative and the executive branch," he said.
Still, Mr. McCain said Mr. Bush deserves credit for expanding faith-based organizations, which he said have done "enormously good things, domestically and overseas."
"The president put into real practice compassionate conservatism when they supported and helped grow enormously a lot of these faith-based organizations, which, by the way, is now at risk because Senator Obama says they have to adhere to federal hiring practices, which would then cause them not to be able to function," he said.
The Republican also targeted his own party, saying they got drunk with power and lacked the resolve of President Reagan.
"I think, frankly, the problem was, with a Republican Congress, that the president was told by the speaker and majority leaders and others, 'Don't veto these bills, we need this pork, we need this excess spending, we need to grow these bureaucracies.' They all sponsor certain ones. And he didn't do what Ronald Reagan used to and say, 'No'; say, 'No. We're not going to do this.'"
When contacted about Mr. McCain's criticism of Mr. Bush, White House spokesman Anthony E. Warren said the administration would have no comment.
Mr. McCain said Mr. Biden has now as much as acknowledged that the world will be more dangerous if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election.
"We live in a dangerous world and Senator Obama's running mate has just assured Americans it'll be a heck of a lot more dangerous if you elect him president," he said.
Mr. Biden predicted at a fundraiser Sunday that if elected president, Mr. Obama would face immediate challenge from a hostile power or terrorist group intent on testing the first-term senator.
"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember, I said it standing here, if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
Mr. Biden said Mr. Obama would have to make "some really tough" decisions when that occurs, adding emphatically: "As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's going to happen."
The Democratic vice-presidential running mate said he could envision four or five scenarios, citing the Middle East and Russia.
Mr. McCain called Mr. Biden's comment "the most remarkable comment I have ever seen in presidential politics."
"Now he is saying -- if we elected Senator Obama as president of the United States we are going to have an international crisis in these very dangerous times with the economy in the tank?" Mr. McCain said.
At a press conference Wednesday in Virginia, Mr. Obama noted Mr. Biden's words, saying that although "Joe sometimes engages in rhetorical flourishes," his central point was correct and a reason to back the Democratic team.
"His core point was, the next administration is going to be tested, regardless of who it is," Mr. Obama said. "The question is: Will the next president meet that test by moving America in a new direction, by sending a clear signal to the rest of the world that we are no longer about bluster and unilateralism and ideology?"
In a statement, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds responded: "It's not leadership for Barack Obama to promise to be straight with Americans, only to dismiss serious statements and concern from his own running mate as simple 'rhetorical flourishes.'"
As for the state of the campaign map, Mr. McCain said he sees himself five percentage points down to Mr. Obama in the race for Pennsylvania, although every poll in the past two weeks has put the deficit in double digits. Still, he said he is making a comeback, and pointed to comments by Democratic luminaries he said encourage him.
"Ed Rendell just said, I want President Clinton to come back because I'm nervous," Mr. McCain said, referring to the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania who has reportedly sent memos asking the Clintons to return to the state to campaign for Mr. Obama.
Mr. McCain said Mr. Obama's giant fundraising total -- he announced this weekend that he raised more than $150 million in September -- is going to produce "a scandal."
His campaign and the Republican National Committee have released the names of all his donors, including those who have contributed less than $200. That's not required by federal election rules, and Mr. Obama has declined to release his small-dollar donors, leading to speculation that some donors are trying to circumvent fundraising laws.
"History is a clear indicator. Senator Obama has unleashed a force which we will pay a very heavy price for sometime in the future if not now, because it's very unlikely we can track down and document the contributions that he refuses to reveal," said Mr. McCain, who co-authored a bipartisan bill to overhaul campaign fundraising laws.
Mr. McCain took great umbrage at comments by Rep. John Lewis, Georgia Democrat, who compared the atmosphere at recent Republican rallies to those of 1960s-era segregationist George Wallace.
"Here, a guy I admire and respect, a hero of the civil rights movement, saying, making a statement that somehow [Governor Sarah] Palin and I are involved in segregationist behavior, I mean, is beyond reason. In the debate the other night, Barack Obama refused to repudiate those remarks. I've repudiated every time there's been some inappropriate comment by a GOP operative anywhere."
Mr. McCain called that failure to repudiate Mr. Lewis' comment "certainly something that I don't think is acceptable."
The Republican nominee defended his campaign strategy of targeting Mr. Obama's ties to former domestic terrorist William Ayers but not to his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.
Saying the issue of Mr. Wright has been "pretty well-ventilated," Mr. McCain said Mr. Obama has been slippery on his links to Mr. Ayers. He would not himself say being linked to Mr. Ayers makes Mr. Obama radical.
"The American people can make that judgment, he said, adding, "it's about full revelation of the relationship."
"First [he] said it was a guy in the neighborhood, then he said, aw, well, that he knew him, now we find out he wrote blurbs for his book, now we find out that he served on the Woods Foundation board, which, coincidentally, gave ACORN $230,000," he said, referring to the liberal activist group which has long-standing ties to Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers and is accused of voter-registration fraud in several states.
"Look, it was an extensive relationship -- the American people need to know the full extent of it. He's not being candid and truthful," the senator from Arizona said.
Asked whether he thinks he's getting bad press coverage (the Project for Excellence in Journalism says in a report out today that 57 percent of the stories written about him for the past six weeks have been negative, with just 14 percent positive), he said, "Ah, listen, I'm not going to complain about the press corps."
But he bristles when asked about whether he is still the "old McCain," the maverick who wowed the media with his 2000 presidential run, when he bucked the Republican Party establishment, drawing gushing praise from an infatuated media.
"The interesting thing is, and it's happened on numerous occasions, I get 'How come you're not the old McCain?' and usually it's an Obama talking point from somebody. And I say, 'OK, tell me how I've changed.' 'Well, you changed on taxes.' I say, 'Look, I was for tax cuts, I wasn't for those tax cuts,'" he said, explaining his opposition to Mr. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.
"There is no example they can cite that I'm any different, but they want
people to believe that I'm different. I understand that, but it's just baloney.
I'm the same guy. … We're working as hard as we can. You just put one
foot ahead of the other for the next 13 days as we have for the past two years," he
said with a laugh.
Obama: Most Secretive Democratic Candidate Ever
By: David A. Patten
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign says his campaign will bring a new level of honesty and transparency to the White House. Obama proudly touts that he and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, passed a law requiring more transparency via a public database of all federal spending.
But when it comes to offering the public documents about his own public and private activities, Obama's record for openness gets an "F" grade.
During the heated Democratic primary, Obama complained of the Bush White House being "one of the most secretive administrations in our history" and chided Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.
Ironically, Obama, just days away from possibly being elected president, continues to stonewall a growing chorus of information requests for documents about his legislative, personal health, education, financing, and background -- leaving many voters to cast ballots based on incomplete information.
And serious questions about his past continue to swirl as Election Day looms, fueled in part by his own campaign's refusal to make relevant documents available.
And the press, usually banging at the door for candidates to make "full disclosure" is strangely quiet about Obama's stonewalling.
A Newsmax survey of key Obama aspects of Obama's public and private life continued to be shielded from the public.
Among the examples:
Obama has released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hands, released what he said was his complete medical file totaling more than 1500 pages. After criticism on the matter, last week the Obama campaign also released some routine lab-test results and electrocardiograms for Obama. All test results appeared normal, but many details about his health remain a mystery.
Obama has refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois, and has been unable to produce correspondence, such as letters from lobbyists and other correspondence from his days in the Illinois state senate. There are also no appointment calendars available of his official activities. "It could have been thrown out," Obama said while on the campaign trail during the Democratic primary. "I haven't been in the state Senate now for quite some time."
Obama has not released his client list as an attorney or his billing records. Obama has maintained that he only performed a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June. But he has not released billing records that would prove this assertion.
Obama won't release his college records from Occidental College where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia.
Obama's campaign refuses to give Columbia University, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Such transcripts would list the courses Obama took, and his grades. President George W. Bush, and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry, all released their college transcripts. (McCain has refused to release his Naval Academy transcript.)
Obama's college dissertation has simply disappeared from Columbia Universities archives. In July, in response to a flurry of requests to review Obama's senior thesis at the Ivy League school, reportedly titled "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told NBC News "We do not have a copy of the course paper you requested and neither does Columbia University."
The senator has not agreed to the release of his application to the Illinois state bar, which would clear up intermittent allegations that his application to the bar may have been inaccurate.
Jim Geraghty of the National Review has written extensively about Obama's unwillingness to release records related to clients he represented while he was an attorney with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill, and Gallard. Obama was required to list his clients during his years in the Illinois senate. "Obama listed every client of the firm," Geraghty reported, making it impossible to discern which clients he represented.
Obama has never released records from his time at Harvard Law School.
Obama also has not disclosed the names of small donors giving $200 or less to his campaign. An exception to the finance-reporting laws exempts the campaign from reporting those who donate less than $200, but that law never envisioned the more than $300 million that has been raised by Obama in small amounts. The Republican National Committee has released its small donors, as well as McCain's, on a public database.
On several occasions, the Obama campaign has offered to provide additional information to reporters if they have specific questions or issues. And in some cases, it has done so.
When Internet rumors began to fly that perhaps Obama was born outside the United States, for example, the campaign released images of a birth certificate that verified his birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii. When that led to suggestions the birth certificate had been altered, the campaign again responded, allowing reporters to examine the actual birth certificate, complete with raised seal. (In late July, according to FactCheck.org, a researcher uncovered an announcement of Obama's birth in the August 13, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser).
Such instances of cooperation pale, however, compared to the many unanswered questions surrounding Obama, such as the financing of his education, and requests for the complete release of all donors to his campaign.
Of course, candidates are often reticent to disclose any information that opposition researchers could use against them.
But Politico.com notes that the Obama's failure to share documents is "part of his campaign's broader pattern of rarely volunteering information or documents about the candidate, even when relatively innocuous."
The hue and cry from the media for disclosure usually forces candidates to
release sought after documents. But the press has largely acquiesced to Obama's
Expert Claims McCain Is Wrong on Global Warming
A British editor and politician prominent in the discussion of climate change has written an open letter to John McCain criticizing statements the Republican candidate has made about global warming.
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who was an adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, sought to keep Al Gore's global warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" out of public schools in Britain, and in March 2007 challenged Gore to a debate on climate change.
Now in his letter to McCain, published on the Web site American Thinker, Monckton calls manmade global warming fears "scientifically discredited" and advises, "Not for a single moment longer must you allow yourself to be distracted by the murderous foolishness of the climate alarmists."
Monckton quotes a McCain statement that "we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures."
Monckton, saying he bases his assertions on "peer-reviewed scientific literature," counters, "For most of the past 600 million years, the temperature that most often prevailed globally is thought to have been 12.5 degrees higher than today's temperature . . .
"From 1700 to 1998, temperature rose at a near-uniform rate of about 1 degree per century. In 1998, 'global warming' stopped, and it has not resumed since. Indeed, in the past seven years, temperature has been falling at a rate equivalent to as much as 0.7 degrees per decade."
Responding to McCain's statement that greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide, "are heavily implicated as a cause of climate change," Monckton writes, "Two-thirds of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally present, and carbon dioxide occupies just one ten-thousandth more of the atmosphere today than it did 250 years ago."
Monckton, who was an editor and writer with Britain's Evening Standard newspaper, quotes McCain, "We need to deal with the central facts of . . . rising waters."
He counters, "Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago . . . The rate of increase has averaged four feet per century. Yet in the 20th century, when we are told that 'global warming' began to have a major impact on global temperature and hence on sea level, sea level rose by just eight inches."
Then in a swipe at Al Gore, whom he does not mention by name, Monckton observes, "There is not and has never been any scientific basis for the exaggerated projections by a certain politician that sea level might imminently rise by as much as 20 feet.
"That politician, in the year in which he circulated a movie containing that projection, bought a $4 million condominium just feet from the ocean at Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco."
Monckton also seeks to refute statements McCain has made on receding glaciers, melting polar ice sheets, extreme weather events, threats to polar bears, and more.
And in reference to the candidate's stated support for efforts to control
climate change by reducing the emission of greenhouse gases, Monckton tells
McCain: "With every respect, there is no rational basis for your declared
intention that your great nation should inflict upon her own working people
and upon the starving masses of the Third World the extravagantly pointless,
climatically irrelevant, strategically fatal economic wounds that the arrogant
advocates of atmospheric alarmism admit they aim to achieve."
BUSH'S RESIGNATION SPEECH
The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maine-iac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine]. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective.
This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.
The speech George W. Bush might give:
Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time.
If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore.
I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.
I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you:
There have been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.
The reason I'm quitting is simple: I'm fed up with you people.
I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world.
Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours.
And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.
Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.
Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.
We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.
Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office.
Some guy named 'Clinton' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?
Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel . Did you sleep through high school?
You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.
That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die.
That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.
You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'
Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.
Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy.
Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well Fed Ex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.
In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter.
Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.
I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below ow sea level and has a hurricane approaching.
I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from.
But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.
So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again.
Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.
Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it.
Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.
So that's it. God bless what's left of America .
Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.
PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.
For 20 years Barack Obama followed a preacher of hate and said nothing is Wright raged against our country.
[Clip of Rev. Wright:] "Not God Bless America, God Damn America . . . US of KKKA!"
[Quote of Obama appears on screen:] "I don't think my church is particularly controversial."
He built his power base in Wright's church.
Wright was his mentor, adviser and close friend.
For 20 years Obama never complained until he ran for President.
Barack Obama. Too radical. Too risky.
See videos: http://www.nationalrepublicantrust.com/
The Obama Witch Project: RAAAAAAAAACISM!
By Michelle Malkin • October 10, 2008 09:45 AM
My second syndicated column of the week today mocks Obama's frightened supporters in Washington and in the media who see the specter of racism everywhere they turn. Jim Treacher's "Wacism" post provides the perfect graphic. Wanna freak out your liberal friends for Halloween? Buy a Sarah Palin mask, wear white, do your "thug thizzle," and don't forget to "otherize."
The Obama Witch Project
by Michelle Malkin
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 bogeyman have Obama operatives and sympathetic journalists discovered lurking in "coded language" and attire? Let us count the ways:
*At 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 set of the Blair Witch Project movie. "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 prof 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-traffic 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 = 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," yet another member of Obama's rabid base declared.
My racial decoder ring must be on the fritz. Because I'm not getting the signal. If she wears white stockings, drinks a vanilla milk shake, 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, New York. 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. Democrat New York Gov. David Paterson says conservative criticism of Obama's community organizing days is code for "black." Democrat Rep. Gregory Meeks complained to the New York Observer: "They are trying to throw out these codes." In the same piece, Democrat 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 Democrat 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 up 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.
Smells Like Socialist Spirit
by Ed Morrissey
October 27, 2008
If people thought Joe the Plumber was some kind of stumble for Barack Obama, a rediscovered interview from 2001 should dispel any doubts about Barack Obama's redistributionism. Seven years ago, Obama told Chicago Public Radio that the Warren Court was too conservative and missed its opportunity to redistribute wealth on a much grander scale.
In fact, Obama wanted them to break the Constitution and reorder American society far outside of what the founders intended.
Update: People in the comments are asking for the original source, skeptical of the editing on this clip. Listen to it for yourself, he said what he said…no creative editing or missing context. Here is the original.
For everyone that thought Obama was taken out of context, listen very closely. In a 2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview Obama is discussing the best way to bring about a Redistribution of Wealth.
Stop the ACLU has the transcript: http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/10/26/audio-obama-the-marxist/
(via Michelle): http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/26/obama-in-2001-how-to-bring-about-redistributive-change
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I'd be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.
To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way.
People have assumed that Obama merely offered a rhetorical stumble, and Obama and Joe Biden have strenuously attacked anyone that claimed he intended to bring about radical socialist change. This sounds very much like socialism and radical change, and there is no mistaking the context of this statement. While Obama recognizes in this passage that the judiciary doesn't have the "structure" to make radical changes to the Constitution, he doesn't sound at all happy about it.
Instead, Obama sees community organizing as the essential path to move from a Constitution of personal liberties to a Constitution of federal mandates. He wants a new governing document that essentially forces both the federal and state governments to redistribute wealth, and he sees that as the natural outcome of the civil rights movement. That certainly smells of socialism on a far grander scale than ever attempted in the US, with the New Deal and Great Societies looking like pale imitations of Obama's vision.
In fact, as Jeff Goldstein notes, that's almost classic Marxism, and it would leave America somewhere to the left of 1970s France:
In Obama's America, we'll finally be able to break free of the "constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" -- and in so doing, achieve "social justice" through "redistributive change."
Well, then. Fine.
But this is not the America I knew…
The government does not exist to determine the acceptable level of wealth of its individual citizens. For government to assume that role, it would have to end private property rights and assume all property belonged to the State. That is classic Marxism, and as Barbara West of WFTV noted, it runs in Marx's classic philosophy of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". That economic direction has been an abject failure everywhere it has been tried, and in many cases resulted in famines that killed millions of people.
The RNC and the McCain campaign has to get these quotes out to the American public in the final week of this election.
Update: One more clarifying thought is in order. Barack Obama complains that the Constitution is a "charter of negative liberties". That's because the Constitution was intended as a limiting document, to curtail the power of the federal government vis-a-vis the states and the individual. The founders intended at the time to limit the reach of the federal government, and built the Constitution accordingly.
Barack Obama wants to reverse that entirely. And that's radical change you'd better believe in, or else.
Update II: Via Jake Tapper at ABC (who gives us a nice link), Team Obama responds.
I'm including the entire statement, to avoid more accusations of context shifting:
"In this interview back in 2001, Obama was talking about the civil rights movement -- and the kind of work that has to be done on the ground to make sure that everyone can live out the promise of equality," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says. "Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Obama's economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut. It's just another distraction from an increasingly desperate McCain campaign."
Burton continues: "In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of 'redistributing' wealth. Obama's point -- and what he called a tragedy -- was that legal victories in the Civil Rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better. That view is shared by conservative judges and legal scholars across the country.
"As Obama has said before and written about, he believes that change comes from the bottom up -- not from the corridors of Washington," Burton says. "He worked in struggling communities to improve the economic situation of people on the South Side of Chicago, who lost their jobs when the steel plants closed. And he's worked as a legislator to provide tax relief and health care to middle-class families. And so Obama's point was simply that if we want to improve economic conditions for people in this country, we should do so by bringing people together at the community level and getting everyone involved in our democratic process."
I'd say that the first hint that the initial analysis was correct was in Obama's estimation of the Warren Court -- one of the most activist in history -- as somehow not radical in its nature.
Second, in the quote itself, Obama calls the failure to "bring about redistributive change" a tragedy. That doesn't sound like someone who hails the court's limitation on redistributionism -- or, to use Obama's analogy, liked the fact that the court allowed him to eat at the lunch counter but didn't pick up the tab for him as well.
The point about the courts is really secondary. In this passage, Obama identifies himself as a redistributionist, even if he's saying that the courts are not going to be a successful venue for it. Despite Burton's little bit of misdirection, it's very clear that Obama is highly sympathetic to "redistributive change" -- and with an Obama administration coupled with a Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress, the courts won't be necessary to effect that redistributive change anyway.
Update: Obama camp responds:
"In this interview back in 2001, Obama was talking about the civil rights movement -- and the kind of work that has to be done on the ground to make sure that everyone can live out the promise of equality," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says. "Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Obama's economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut. It's just another distraction from an increasingly desperate McCain campaign."
Burton continues: "In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of 'redistributing' wealth. Obama's point -- and what he called a tragedy -- was that legal victories in the Civil Rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better. That view is shared by conservative judges and legal scholars across the country.
"As Obama has said before and written about, he believes that change comes from the bottom up -- not from the corridors of Washington," Burton says. "He worked in struggling communities to improve the economic situation of people on the South Side of Chicago, who lost their jobs when the steel plants closed. And he's worked as a legislator to provide tax relief and health care to middle-class families. And so Obama's point was simply that if we want to improve economic conditions for people in this country, we should do so by bringing people together at the community level and getting everyone involved in our democratic process."
Ed Morrissey rebuts:
I'd say that the first hint that the initial analysis was correct was in Obama's
estimation of the Warren Court -- one of the most activist in history -- as
somehow not radical in its nature. Second, in the quote itself, Obama calls
the failure to "bring about redistributive change" a tragedy. That
doesn't sound like someone who hails the court's limitation on redistributionism
-- or, to use Obama's analogy, liked the fact that the court allowed him to
eat at the lunch counter but didn't pick up the tab for him as well.
The point about the courts is really secondary. In this passage, Obama identifies himself as a redistributionist, even if he's saying that the courts are not going to be a successful venue for it. Despite Burton's little bit of misdirection, it's very clear that Obama is highly sympathetic to "redistributive change" -- and with an Obama administration coupled with a Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress, the courts won't be necessary to effect that redistributive change anyway.
Update: McCain camp gives response to the audio:
"The American people continue to learn more about Barack Obama. Now we know that the slogans 'change you can believe in' and 'change we need' are code words for Barack Obama's ultimate goal: 'redistributive change.' In a previously uncovered interview from September 6, 2001, Barack Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn't been more 'radical' and described as a 'tragedy' the Court's refusal to take up 'the issues of redistribution of wealth.' No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench -- as insurance in case a unified Democratic government under his control fails to meet his basic goal: taking money away from people who work for it and giving it to people who Barack Obama believes deserve it. Europeans call it socialism, Americans call it welfare, and Barack Obama calls it change," McCain senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said in a statement.
Obama advisor pushes back on 'redistribution'
A top legal advisor to Barack Obama, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, said today that Obama's 2001 remarks on "redistributive change" -- pushed hard on the right today -- are being misinterpreted, and that he was actually articulating "conservative" legal principles, and that the then-law professor's "law-speak" was being misinterpreted.
Obama's remarks came in a long interview on civil rights and Constitutional law with two other law professors on the Chicago public radio station WBEZ in 2001. (The full transcript is here, and audio is here.) Sunstein argued that Obama is discussing redistribution in a relatively narrow legal context: The discussion in the 1970s of whether the Supreme Court would create the right to a social safety net -- to things like education and welfare. He also noted that in the interview, Obama appears to express support for the court's rejection of that line of argument, saying instead that the civil rights movement should aim for the same goals through legislative action.
"What the critics are missing is that the term 'redistribution' didn't man in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer," Sunstein said. "What he's saying -- this is the irony of it -- he's basically taking the side of the conservatives then and now against the liberals."
The first mention of redistribution, which does not appear on the YouTube clip, comes when Obama discusses a 1973 Supreme Court ruling finding that there is no right to education.
"One other area where the civil rights area has changed... is at the state level you now have state supreme courts and state laws that in some ways have adopted the ethos of the Warren Court. A classic example would be something like public education, where after Brown v. Board, a major issue ends up being redistribution -- how do we get more money into the schools, and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity? Well, the court in a case called San Antonio v. Rodriguez in the early '70s basically slaps those kinds of claims down, and says, 'You know what, we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities. With respect to schools, that's not a race issue, thats a wealth issue and something and we can't get into."
Later in the interview, Obama seemed to concur with conservative and mainstream liberal scholars on the court's more modest view of its powers:
"Maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know, I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts," he said. "You know the institution just isn't structured that way. Just look at very rare examples where during he desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order ... changes that cost money to local school district[s], and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out, you start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. The court is not very good at it, and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So i think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts, I think that as a practical matter that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it."
Obama did suggest in the interview that he favors "redistributive change," and that it should come though "political and organizing activities," and that's the discussion Republicans are jumping on, arguing that it shows the same philosophical impulse as Obama's now-famous commetn to an Ohio plumber that he favors "spread[ing] the wealth around."
"Now we know that the slogans 'change you can believe in' and 'change
we need' are code words for Barack Obama's ultimate goal: 'redistributive change,'" said
McCain advisor Doug Holtz-Eakin. "No wonder he wants to appoint judges
that legislate from the bench -- as insurance in case a unified Democratic
government under his control fails to meet his basic goal: taking money away
from people who work for it and giving it to people who Barack Obama believes
deserve it. Europeans call it socialism, Americans call it welfare, and Barack
Obama calls it change."
Can you imagine if an Obama effigy were hung from a noose?
Effigy of Obama hung from roof by noose
Halloween Palin Prop Sparks Controversy In WeHo
WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. (AP) A Halloween decoration showing a mannequin dressed as vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin hanging by a noose from the roof of a West Hollywood home is drawing giggles from some passers-by and gasps of outrage from others.
The mannequin is dressed in brunet wig, glasses and a red business suit. Another mannequin dressed as John McCain emerges from a flaming chimney.
Chad Michael Morisette, who lives in the house, told CBS 2 News that drivers and bus passengers have been stopping to snap pictures of the macabre scene.
Morisette says the effigy would be out of bounds at any other time of year, but it's within the spirit of Halloween.
He says "it should be seen as art, and as within the month of October. It's Halloween, it's time to be scary it's time to be spooky."
See the double standard?
Obama missed more votes in 3 years than McCain did in 21.
Re: Effigy of Obama hung from roof by noose
hell, if the magic negro was hung there there would be arrests, violence , the race pimps jackson and sharpton would be out en masse...
calls demanding john mccain condemn it and all the rest of the limp-wristed leftist assclowns of seethingness lispin RAGE! HOW DARE THEY!
Rev Wright-Tony Rezko-Louis Farrakhan-Hamas-Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades-Raila Odinga-Daniel Ortega-Raul Castro-Commie Party of IL-Frank Marshall Davis-Bill Ayers-Bernardine Dohrn-Black Panthers-James Cone-Cornell West-PLO Rashid Khalidi-Commie Larry Lessig-Hanoi Jane Fonda-Michael Moore-Al Franken-Richard Belzer-James Meeks-Fr Pffleger-Aiham Alsammarae-OH Judge James Burge-Col Gaddafi of Libya-Ludacris-Kwami Kilpatrick-Alexi Giannoulias-Khalid Al-Mansour-Oprah-SpikeLee-Howard Gutman
Socialism, change you can count on...
Obama and Wright: He Never Complained Once
The preacher of hate that Obama followed for 20 years was the foundation of Obama's powerbase.
Watchdog Group Presses for Obama Donor List
Monday, October 27, 2008
By: Dave Eberhart
Judicial Watch contends that the Obama campaign continues to stonewall on listing its many donors, a step that would go a long way toward clearing up whether the Democratic presidential candidate is accepting unlawful contributions from overseas.
Sen. Barack Obama has raised about $3.3 million from contributors who did not list a home state or who designated their state with an abbreviation that did not match one of the 50 states or U.S. territories, The Associated Press reported, citing records from the Federal Election Commission.
The $3.3 million total does not include donors who have given less than $200 and whose contributions do not have to be itemized. Some of that money also could have come from overseas. About half of Obama's $455 million in contributions so far are un-itemized.
The campaign does not identify those donors, the AP report said.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, "While the evidence suggests illegal foreign contributions are flooding into Obama's campaign coffers, we have no idea as to the extent of the problem because Senator Obama refuses to divulge the names of all of his donors."
Fitton said that, when Obama campaign spokesman David Axelrod was asked about the decision to keep these donor names secret, he replied, "We're probably more forthcoming about disclosure than anyone."
But the president of the watchdog group countered: "Not true. While John McCain has had problems of his own for allegedly accepting foreign donations, to his credit, Senator McCain does publish the names of all donors to his presidential campaign on his Internet site, regardless of the size of the contribution."
Fitton said he believes that the Obama campaign appears to be playing fast and loose with campaign finance laws, and he said it has to stop.
The FEC should investigate these allegations immediately, and the Obama campaign should publicly list the source of every single campaign contribution, Fitton said.
"Frankly, it is suspicious that these names have not already been made public," he said. "There is something deeply unsettling about the fact that foreign nationals can so easily corrupt our presidential election through illegal contributions, while American service men and women stationed overseas may be deprived of the opportunity to even vote."