Lessons in Government - Page 7
The Real Obama
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Critics of Senator Barack Obama make a strategic mistake when they talk about his "past associations." That just gives his many defenders in the media an opportunity to counter-attack against "guilt by association."
We all have associations, whether at the office, in our neighborhood or in various recreational activities. Most of us neither know nor care what our associates believe or say about politics.
Associations are very different from alliances. Allies are not just people who happen to be where you are or who happen to be doing the same things you do. You choose allies deliberately for a reason. The kind of allies you choose says something about you.
Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, William Ayers and Antoin Rezko are not just people who happened to be at the same place at the same time as Barack Obama. They are people with whom he chose to ally himself for years, and with some of whom some serious money changed hands.
Some gave political support, and some gave financial support, to Obama's election campaigns, and Obama in turn contributed either his own money or the taxpayers' money to some of them. That is a familiar political alliance-- but an alliance is not just an "association" from being at the same place at the same time.
Obama could have allied himself with all sorts of other people. But, time and again, he allied himself with people who openly expressed their hatred of America. No amount of flags on his campaign platforms this election year can change that.
Unfortunately, all that most people know about Barack Obama is his own rhetoric and that of his critics. Moreover, some of his more irresponsible critics have made wild accusations-- that he is not an American citizen or that he is a Muslim, for example.
All that such false charges do is discredit Obama's critics in general. Fortunately, there is a documented, factual account of what Barack Obama has actually been doing over the years, as distinguished from what he has been saying during this election campaign, in a new best-selling book.
That book is titled "The Case Against Barack Obama" by David Freddoso. He starts off in the introduction by repudiating those critics of Obama who "have been content merely to slander him-- to claim falsely that he refuses to salute the U.S. flag or was sworn into office on a Koran, or that he was born in a foreign country."
This is a serious book with 35 pages of documentation in the back to support the things said in the main text. In other words, if you don't believe what the author says, he lets you know where you can go check it out.
Barack Obama's being the first serious black candidate for President of the United States is what most people consider remarkable but how he got there is at least equally surprising.
The story of Obama's political career is not a pretty story. He won his first political victory by being the only candidate on the ballot-- after hiring someone skilled at disqualifying the signers of opposing candidates' petitions, on whatever technicality he could come up with.
Despite his words today about "change" and "cleaning up the mess in Washington," Obama was not on the side of reformers who were trying to change the status quo of corrupt, machine politics in Chicago and clean up the mess there. Obama came out in favor of the Daley machine and against reform candidates.
Senator Obama is running on an image that is directly the opposite of what he has been doing for two decades. His escapes from his past have been as remarkable as the great escapes of Houdini.
Why much of the public and the media have been so mesmerized by the words and the image of Obama, and so little interested in learning about the factual reality, was perhaps best explained by an official of the Democratic Party: "People don't come to Obama for what he's done, they come because of what they hope he can be."
David Freddoso's book should be read by those people who want to know what the facts are. But neither this book nor anything else is likely to change the minds of Obama's true believers, who have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts.
"The Democratic Party has become taken over by distorted closet socialists."
Tom DeLay: McCain 'Hard to Swallow'
Monday, October 6, 2008
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay believes that conservative Republicans will face a difficult challenge if John McCain is elected president.
"His stance on global warming, immigration, campaign finance, affirmative action -- it's just a whole list of things that is not going to appeal to conservative Republicans," the Texas Republican told PolitickerCA.com.
"I've known McCain for 23 years, and McCain's hard to swallow.
"And if he becomes president, teaming up with the Democrats, we're going to have a lot of work to do to stop them."
DeLay, who supported Mike Huckabee in the GOP primaries, said that despite his differences with McCain he still plans to vote for him because Democrat Barack Obama would be far worse.
"He's as far left as anyone who's ever run for president in this country," DeLay said.
DeLay also said the choice of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate was an "absolutely brilliant move" and urged the McCain campaign to "turn Palin loose … Quit handling her. Let her be Palin."
DeLay represented a Texas district for more than 20 years before resigning from Congress in June 2006.
Obama Has Racist Agenda
Friday, March 28, 2008
By: George Putnam
It is this reporter's opinion that presidential candidate Barack Obama's supporters have a full-time job trying to clean up the senator's 20-year association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
The question remains: Sen. Obama, why have you been following an anti-white, American-hating pastor for the last 20 years?
Columnist and book author Dr. Thomas Sowell calls our attention to Shelby Steele's book about Obama. In his book, "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win," published by Free Press, Steele makes it painfully clear that Obama was one of those people seeking a racial identity, that he was trying to become a convert to his racial heritage.
Dr. Sowell says Obama's own account of his life proves that he consciously sought out people on the far left.
Obama chose his friends carefully, according to his own words in his first book, "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance," published by Crown.
Those friends included Marxist professors, structural feminists, punk rock performance poets, as well as more politically active black students. And according to his book, Obama later visited a former member of the Weathermen Terrorists who endorsed him when he ran for state senator in Illinois.
Obama didn't just happen to encounter Jeremiah Wright who has said all those vicious things. Wright is in the same mold as the people Obama sought out in college -- members of the left, anti-American counterculture.
Obama has not changed. His voting record in the U.S. Senate is the farthest left of any senator. And now he panders to whatever gullible America will accept.
Columnist Patrick Buchanan hasn't been fooled by Obama's rhetoric.
Obama works both sides of the aisle according to Buchanan. He tells of 350 years of slavery and segregation, lists black grievances, instructs white America as to what we must do to close the racial divide and heal the nation.
How are we to perform this healing process? Obama says the white community must invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, insure fairness in the criminal justice system, and provide this generation of blacks with opportunities unavailable to Obama and the Rev. Wright's generations.
It is the same old con. The same old shakedown black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit, and a myriad of other cities … blamed everyone but the rioters themselves.
Alright Obama, let's make it a two-way conversation between Americans. White America needs to be heard from too, not just lectured to, says Buchanan.
America has been the best country on earth for black folks -- 600,000 black people were brought from Africa in slave ships and grew into a community of 40 million. It is in this great country that they reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity ever known by their race.
"Wright ought to get down on his knees and thank God he is an American," said Buchanan, because no group of people anywhere on earth has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans.
Buchanan maintains that untold trillions of dollars have been spent in America on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, housing, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, and poverty programs designed to provide African-Americans with the opportunity to pursue the American dream.
Pat Buchanan says, "We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?"
Is white America responsible for statistics showing crime incarceration rates for African-Americans that are seven times that of white America?
Is it white America's fault that the illegitimacy rate of children in the African-American community is a whopping 70 percent, or that the dropout rates from high schools for black students has reached a high of 50 percent in some cities?
The Rev. Al Sharpton has repeatedly barraged the media with recriminations and allegations in the alleged rape case of Tawana Brawley in New York in 1987, the alleged rape at Duke University, as well as the Jena Six controversy. However, the allegations in these cases were hoaxes.
Barack Hussein Obama, we've heard it all before! America has seen through your phony rhetoric and theatrical style of discourse.
We speak of equality. Equality, according to Sowell, means a black demagogue exposed as a phony deserves exactly the same treatment as a white demagogue who has been exposed as a phony.
In the words of Sowell, "We don't need a president of the United States who got to the White House talking one way, voting a very different way in the Senate, and who for 20 years followed a man whose words and deeds contradict Obama's carefully crafted election-year image."
Even Pastor Wright's flock has seen the predicament they face. The black Chicago church attended by Obama for 20 years has now removed from its Web site an entire section outlining a radical belief system for blacks.
The Web site for the Trinity United Church of Christ also outlines a controversial code of ethics written by blacks for blacks that they call the "Black Value System."
It has become too hot to handle even for Wright's and Obama's followers.
Fellow Americans, it's time to collectively place a hand over the heart and join in shouting: God Bless America!
Peterson: The 'Scam' Against African Americans
Jon E. Dougherty, NewsMax.com
Friday, June 25, 2004
Radio talk show host, author and syndicated columnist Larry Elder says critics
of economists Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell owe them an apology and will
someday offer it. That includes, presumably, black critics as well.
All three men, who are prominent African-American thinkers, as well as talented political and economic analysts, believe that, in many ways, the black leadership in America has failed fellow blacks in a number of ways.
"For over 30 years, Thomas Sowell, currently with the Hoover Institution, and Walter Williams, chairman of the economics department at George Mason University, led the charge against the 'victicrat' mindset," Elder writes. "Through decades of weekly columns, books, speeches and lectures before often-hostile crowds, they long argued that racism cannot be blamed for poverty, crime, illegitimacy and under-performing schools."
He adds, "Over 20 years ago, Sowell appeared on William F. Buckley Jr.'s PBS show, 'Firing Line,' and calmly dismantled the basis for affirmative action, arguing it immoral, divisive, and unconstitutional."
He goes on to note that both men, using facts and substantiated data, have proven the black middle class did not spring from racial set-asides or preferences or quotas, urban renewal programs, enterprise zones or welfare benefits. Racism, they point out persuasively, is bad for capitalism.
Yet black political, cultural and social leaders, virtually all of them lockstep Democrats, have used each of these "reasons" as excuses for continued black poverty, low education scores, high drop-out rates, illegitimacy and crime.
As prominent African-American leader, the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, says it's all a "scam" -- an apt depiction and, not coincidentally, the title of a new book he's written laying out his case.
In "Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America," Peterson argues against today's self-styled "civil rights" establishment in America, which has little to do with the heroes of the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
He says the black community's leadership is corrupt, and has called on all African-Americans to rid themselves of the current crop of black leaders and regain control of their own destinies.
Among those Peterson skewers are the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, the Rev. Al Sharpton and Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.
'Throw off the Oppression'
"It's time to throw off the oppression of the established black leadership and stand for the American ideals of freedom, personal responsibility, free enterprise and moral principles," writes Peterson, who is also the head of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, whose stated goal is "rebuilding the family by rebuilding the man."
Among his observations:
Government and corporate race programs are "a substitute for character."
Immorality is "totally out of control in our communities."
Black music, such as gangsta rap, "elevates the most degrading vices into virtues."
The call for slavery reparations is "absolutely shameful" because
American blacks already "live in the most opportunity-rich country in
"Black Americans do not need the kind of self-appointed 'leaders' they currently have," he says. "By preaching race hatred and the cleverly packaged ideology of socialism, these leaders have convinced millions of blacks that 'white' America owes them special treatment. These leaders need to be unseated, removed, boycotted, bounced, dismissed, junked and jettisoned."
Peterson has, for years, lead an annual event against Jackson, in which he urges blacks to abandon the "leader."
Some White Blame
Peterson, in his book, also complains of "white cowardice," which he says hurts blacks as well.
As an example, he used an incident with former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., which cost him his leadership role.
In December 2002, Lott praised the late Sen. Strom Thurmond's 1948 Dixiecrat presidential bid, which Thurmond lost but in which he did capture Lott's home state. The Dixiecrat had, like other Southern Democrats, adopted a segregationist platform.
Peterson predicted early in the controversy "that even if Trent Lott killed himself to make amends for his misstatement, this wouldn't be enough for the black racists and liberal crowd."
In a press release issued shortly after Lott's comments, Peterson said he accepted the Senate Republican's apology and said that it ended the matter, as far as he was concerned.
"We should judge people based on their hearts and actions, and unlike many of his detractors, Trent Lott has no history of being a racist," Peterson said in his statement.
But in his book, he points out that "whites have been so terrorized by the politically correct crowd that even when no racism is intended, a white person can find himself crucified by the professional racists."
In another example included in his book, Peterson recalled an incident in which a white aide to the newly elected black mayor of Washington, D.C., used the word "niggardly" instead of a synonym such as "stingy" to describe the city's tight budget spending.
"Instead of simply telling his critics to get a dictionary to learn the real definition of the word he had used, the man apologizes for his comment and resigned," Peterson writes.
In his trilogy, "Race and Culture," "Migrations and Cultures" and "Conquests and Cultures," Sowell traveled the world asking why some groups survive and thrive under the most adverse conditions while others disappear.
"His answer," Elder pointed out, was this: "People who possess cultural capital -- a reverence for education, strength in family, and self-reliance -- endure."
"Their reward?" Elder continued. "Former NAACP President Benjamin Hooks called people like Sowell and Williams 'a new breed of Uncle Tom ... some of the biggest liars the world ever saw.' Liars? For saying that the welfare state has done more to destabilize the black family than Jim Crow laws ever did?"
Still, today's Democrat-leaning black leaders continue to "promise solutions to the grievances and complaints of black Americans, but they fail to produce real answers or resolution," Peterson explained.
"If some blacks wonder why things don't improve despite this 'leadership,' they need to wake up to the fact that these leaders profit by creating and perpetrating hatred and animosity between the races," Peterson writes. "In fact, it is imperative for these leaders to continue creating problems even where none exist. If they don't, they're out of business."
Elder says after writing his own book, "The 10 Things You Can't Say in America," in which he tried to point out some of the same things regarding black problems today, he was avalanched with angry letters from blacks all around the country, most implying he was simply acting as a pawn of whites.
Elder and others point out that many of the nation's top newspapers have "obligatory" and "angry" black writers who harp on similar themes -- "the country screws blacks; banks refuse to lend them money; cops routinely brutalize blacks; the SAT is culturally biased; racist insurance companies practice red-lining," writes Elder.
Congressional Black Caucus
Perhaps nowhere is the fundamental Democrat position of exploiting African-American sentiments more powerful and embedded than in the House Congressional Black Caucus.
The very language used by the caucus, as well as its individual leaders and members, suggests exactly what Sowell, Williams, Elder and Peterson say exists: An implied national racism towards blacks, continued inequality, and constant downward economic and cultural pressure and opportunity.
The Caucus is headed by Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. On its Web site bears a statement by Cummings: "We choose to stand up and speak out when others choose to sit down and remain silent. We are the voice for the voiceless. . ."
Who is choosing to remain silent? And about what? Who are the voiceless? Cummings doesn't answer these questions, but since he heads a "black" caucus in Congress, one is left to assume he means African-Americans.
There are more examples. In statements carried on the same site, the caucus:
Makes a point to mention it has been called the "conscience of the Congress," but goes on to call itself the "conscience of the country," as if the nation as a whole was still guilty of mistreating blacks.
Claims its members "work every day on behalf of the American people to achieve equality and justice," insinuating that "the American people" believe there is no equality or justice for blacks.
Says its "agenda is deliberately focused on what we believe are the most pressing issues facing our country," which it says includes -- but is not limited to -- "building wealth by creating new jobs and businesses; universal health care for every American; ensuring equity in the education of our children; strengthening and enforcing our civil rights laws; and providing both homeland and hometown security. Many of these "pressing issues" again imply -- when you measure them against the backdrop of a congressional "black" caucus -- they are inherently skewered against blacks, which is false.
Points out the White House and both Houses of Congress are controlled by
Republicans, but promises that, "in light of these obstacles, the Congressional
Black Caucus will pursue a pro-active legislative, economic and social policy
agenda that seeks to address the difficult policy challenges facing America." So
the message is, the Republican Party is anathema to providing economic, cultural
and social justice for African-Americans.
Concludes Peterson, "Blacks with racist attitudes or chips on their shoulders are doomed to failure in the work world. Blacks who think all whites are their enemies are signing their own warrants of arrested development . . . We must reject the defeatist socialist policies that are routinely advocated by the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, and other socialist radicals."
In short, a new breed of black leaders is advocating a rejection of the Democratic Party because it has not only preyed upon African-Americans, but has abused their trust and loyalty for pure political gain.
Minister: Blacks' Loyalty to Democratic Party 'Unfounded'
Jon E. Dougherty, NewsMax.com
Thursday, June 24, 2004
(Editor's Note: This is part one of a two-part series examining the relationship between black voters and the Democratic Party, why historically blacks have given almost blind loyalty to Democrats, why their support is unfounded, and how black leaders exploit their own people on behalf of Democrats.)
Few things in politics are certain, but one thing that has rung true for
decades is this: Most blacks who vote consistently pull the lever for Democrats.
Story Continues Below
But politics reflect the times, and the times, they are a-changin'. Increasingly, blacks are beginning to realize there is another truth about the ethnic group's loyalty to Democrats: It hasn't been a resounding success.
Still, in recent elections - and likely in the 2004 general elections - most blacks could be counted on to vote for Democrats.
Political demographers and analysts know this, and so do Democratic candidates -- so much so that black leaders like Kwesi Mfume, head of the NAACP, has complained recently that the Democratic Party, led by presumptive presidential nominee John Kerry, is taking the ethnic group for granted.
Former newspaper publisher and talk show host Rev. Wayne Perryman doesn't understand why blacks support Democrats so blindly.
In fact in his new book, "Unfounded Loyalty: An In-depth Look Into the Blind Love Affair Between Blacks and Democrats," Perryman points out a number of facts that should have turned African-Americans against Democrats long ago.
Instead, blacks largely shun Republican politicians, though historically the GOP has been much kinder to blacks as a whole.
Perryman says his book is a reflection of a question asked of him by "a group of inner-city young people who had an interest in their African-American heritage, history, religion and culture." That question was: "Why are most blacks in America Democrats?"
In a refreshing breath of honesty, Perryman doesn't offer up warm platitudes or tired clichés. Instead, he prods readers to "answer that question yourself."
But to help all Americans in their journey to discover the truth, the former publisher and talk host provides some examples that not only bear repeating, but should be food for thought for all African-Americans. He writes:
"For 150 years blacks were victims of terrorist attacks by the Democrats and their Klan supporters, including lynchings, beatings, rapes and mutilations" (Editor's note: One of the most widely known Democratic ex-Klansman is Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia);
"On the issue of slavery, the Democrats literally gave their lives to expand it; the Republicans gave their lives to ban it;"
Many believed the Democrats had a change of heart and fell in love with
blacks. To the contrary, history reveals the Democrats didn't fall in love
with black folks, they fell in love with the black vote knowing this would
be their ticket to the White House."
History as Proof
Perryman says he researched American history spanning 1832 to 2002 to arrive at his conclusion that Democrats are not real friends or allies of blacks.
". . . I found two familiar strains running through the cultural development of the American Black: the positive and powerful role of Christianity and the little-known and debilitating role of the Democrats -- from slavery through the Clinton administration," he writes.
He also notes current black leaders are also not serving the community well. "These conclusions may not be popular, but they are truthful and, as the Bible says, 'You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.'"
Other black pundits and leaders have also noted that historically, Democrats employ a double standard when it comes to race relations and politics.
Writing in his syndicated column, radio talk show host Armstrong Williams pondered why Democrats were outraged when Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., former Senate majority leader, made an off-handed comment about former segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond, but didn't utter a word when Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., praised former Klansman colleague Byrd recently.
"There is no one I admire more, there is no one to whom I listen more closely and carefully when he speaks on any subject matter" than Byrd, Dodd said.
Williams wrote, "For obvious reasons, Dodd neglected to mention that Byrd is a former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan. Nor did Dodd dwell on the fact that Byrd voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or that Byrd broadcast his racial insensitivity by using the N-word during a 2001 appearance on Fox News."
The columnist and talk host went on to note Dodd praised Byrd as a man who "would have been a great senator at any moment. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation. ... "
"Really? A former Klansman would have been great during the Civil War? Great for whom? I'm not aware of many Klansmen who fought to free the slaves, or to uphold the union, or to protect those basic rights we associate with happiness," Williams wrote, concluding: "It would be nice if the party that demanded Sen. Lott's ouster for praising a former segregationist could be equally outraged when one of their own praises a former Klansman. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Democrats to end their double standard on race."
Civil Rights, Poverty and Welfare
Former Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., once called the Democrats' chosen black leader Jesse Jackson and his ilk "race-hustling poverty pimps" for their continual support of Democrat-leftist policies that keep blacks on the government's dole.
Other pundits and analysts have also noted that Democrats who say they are the champions of black civil rights have really only led blacks down a road of poverty.
Syndicated columnist Robert Tracinski says liberal orthodoxy espoused by Democrats has failed, and the "ideological momentum has shifted to the right." He says the gauntlet of conservatism has been picked up by "new black intellectuals" like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and John McWhorter.
Larry Elder, a noted African-American author, talk show host and columnist, says critics of Williams and Sowell will someday apologize to them because for years they have correctly characterized the damage caused to blacks by dependency on Democrats.
For more than three decades, Elder writes, Sowell and Williams have "led the charge against the 'victicrat' mindset."
"Through decades of weekly columns, books, speeches and lectures before often-hostile crowds, they long argued that racism cannot be blamed for poverty, crime, illegitimacy and under-performing schools," Elder said in a Jan. 4, 2001 column.
Many of these problems, Elder and other black scholars and pundits note, began under the tutelage of Democratic presidents and congresses.
For example, it was President Lyndon B. Johnson whose "war on poverty" and "Great Society" programs led to today's massive welfare system, which author Perryman and others argue has kept blacks in poverty, in poor neighborhoods with bad schools, and left them with few options to improve themselves.
"Inner-city blacks, who have given their vote to the Democrats for the past forty years, are left wondering what that party has done to remedy the still-prevalent problems within their community," Perryman writes.
He makes a good case. According to government statistics, for example, blacks prospered under the late President Ronald Reagan, though most Americans wouldn't know that, listening to the mainstream media.
"Some blacks in D.C. say he was a 'racist' and see him as the cause for a lot of suffering in the '80s," charged a June 10 headline on Newsday's op-ed pages.
Adds CNN correspondent Adaora Udoji, in an interview with black leader Rev. Jesse Jackson: "As he left office, a Lou Harris poll found nearly 80 percent of blacks considered his administration oppressive."
Jackson readily agreed, saying Reagan's relationship with blacks was "very hostile."
Earlier, Jackson said Reagan "believed in states' rights and Jefferson Davis" while he believes "in the Union and Abraham Lincoln."
But the facts prove otherwise. "Under Reagan, black adult unemployment fell faster than did white unemployment," noted Larry Elder in a 1999 op-ed for the Ethnic News Watch. "Black teenage unemployment fell faster than did white teenage unemployment. And blacks started businesses at a rate faster than that of whites."
"In 1981," Elder continued, "the nation's poverty rate stood at 14 percent. It declined to 11.6 percent in 1988, Reagan's last year in office."
U.S. Census Bureau statistics concur. "A set of minority economic profiles released by the Census Bureau show that black households had a median income of $19,758 at the time of the 1990 census, up 84% from 1980," The Associated Press noted in 1992. "During that period, white median household incomes climbed 84 percent."
The New York Times also reported on the 1990 Census figures indicating blacks did better economically during the Reagan 80s.
High school graduation rates also increased, records indicate.
Dems = Racism
Perryman argues that Democrats are quick to demand Republicans believed to be guilty of racism apologize, but so far have refused to do so for their party's own racist past.
"The Democratic Party has never offered an apology for their racist legislative practices or their terrorist and lethal tactics -- both initiated by members of their party and their Klan supporters," he writes.
Speaking of Lincoln, Perryman also notes that some "key traditional black colleges" -- such as Lincoln University in Jefferson City, Mo., which was founded in 1865 for Abraham Lincoln -- are named after noted white Republicans who funded and supported them, even as "Democrats were trying to destroy them."
Perryman notes the nation's premier black civil rights organization -- the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) -- was "founded and financed by three white persons" who rose up in opposition of the Democrats' "racist practices and the lynchings of blacks."
"History reveals the Republican Party has a far more impressive track record in Civil Rights legislation than the Democratic Party," Perryman says.
Next in Part II: Black leaders exploit black Americans
The Great Reparations Scam
Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2002
My Irish ancestors fled Ireland after 700 years of brutality and persecution under British rule. Shouldn't Irish-Americans be demanding reparations from the Brits? Aren't all of us refugees from British tyranny entitled to be compensated for hundreds of years of mistreatment, and for being driven out of our homeland?
I mean, after all, if some so-called black leaders think African-Americans are entitled to a payoff from Uncle Sam for their ancestors' enslavement, why shouldn't Irish-Americans make similar demands of Mr. John Bull for his egregious exploitation of our glorious and sainted race?
Let me tell you why we shouldn't.
To begin with, none of my fellow Irish-Americans suffered at the hands of the Brits (except in my case, where certain British editors endeavored to make my life miserable, even trying to force me to drink warm beer and iceless highballs ("Drink yer beer before it gets cold.").
Moreover, if it hadn't been for my ancestors' flight from British tyranny, neither I nor a number of generations of my forebears would have had the blessing of living and prospering in this land of the free and home of the brave. Thank you, John Bull!
The same thing can be said for African-Americans. As a black friend of mine in Washington told me years ago, "I thank God for slavery - if it hadn't been for that I'd be living in a hut in Africa and probably going hungry all the time." No other blacks, anywhere in the world, live as well as today's African-Americans, and the idea of forcing me and all U.S. taxpayers, black and white, to cough up trillions of dollars in reparations for slavery borders on the insane.
To begin with, I never owned a slave. Not one. Neither did my father nor his father. My maternal great-grandfather, Patrick Carlin, was wounded at Bull Run fighting in the Irish Brigade to free the slaves, and he never recovered from his wounds, eventually dying from them 10 years after the Civil War.
That's my family's reparation payment. Hundreds of thousands of my fellow Americans can make the same claim on behalf of ancestors who were killed in that war fighting against the sin of slavery.
The other day they had a rally in Washington demanding reparations for America's black descendants of slaves. What the organizers wanted to be a huge gathering of African-Americans turned out to be a mere corporal's guard, much to the dismay of the demagogues running the show.
What that tells me is that the vast majority of African-Americans couldn't care less about the reparations scam. They're too busy going about their business to waste their time listening to a lot of ranting and raving from the self-styled black leaders who would probably end up with the lion's share of the hoped-for reparations, which, by the way would simply drive this nation into the poor house and ruin the lives of all Americans, black and white.
But what really galls me is this latest attempt to drive a wedge between white and black Americans. Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of whites in this country simply won't sit still for this attempt at extortion by a few black demagogues. Unfortunately, many will unjustly react with hostility to their black brothers and sisters at a time when America desperately needs to be unified.
And the issue will inevitably create hostility among blacks for their white brothers and sisters. It's a no-win situation -- except for the demagogues -- who'll make a lot of bucks pushing this pie-in-the-sky scam.
Blame this on these so-called members of the self-appointed black leadership who make a splendid living creating divisiveness between the white and black races. It's their stock-in-trade. They're in it for bucks, and in the case of reparations, there are quite a few trillion bucks involved.
This is a very dangerous situation, and I would hope that all Americans, black and white, will shout NO to this thinly disguised attempt to provoke racial hatred.
Somehow I think that the demagogues may have overreached themselves this time. I hope and pray that the great mass of African-Americans will treat this thing for what it is, a scam designed to exploit them for the gain of its proponents, who know it will never happen but who will pocket a lot of money convincing their fellow blacks it can be made to happen.
It can't be, but they'll play it for as long as they can get away with it.
Let there be peace.
Subject: Must See Video: Cindy Sheehan Lambasts The Billionaire's Bailout
and Pelosi In New TV Spot
Date: Oct 3, 2008 4:34 AM
Congress Has Betrayed Us Yet AGAIN!!
Hundreds of billions more in the last 2 years for a senseless military occupation, the FISA outrage, paralysis on impeachment or even enforcing subpoenas, and now a total surrender of the future of our treasury in an 850 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street fat cats. Congress has done worse than do nothing, they have done categorically the WRONG thing, and the whole rest of the world knows it, and THAT is why the stock market has been dropping like a rock ever since the Senate stampeded through this bailout monstrosity.
What Are We Going To Do About It?!
TV Spot Action Page: http://www.usalone.com/cindy/bankers_bailout.php
By arrogantly ignoring our literally millions of phone calls and emails vehemently opposed to this lunatic policy blunder, Congress has demonstrated that they are for the most part beyond redemption. We have only one practical recourse. Vote the losers out of office as just soon as possible, and replace each and every one of them with strong progressives who WILL be accountable to the people.
We MUST Help Cindy Sheehan defeat Nancy Pelosi
This is our only real chance for the next two years. Nothing would send a stronger message that the voice of the people actually COUNTS for something that a resounding victory for Cindy Sheehan in the Congressional race for the 8th district of California against Nancy Pelosi in just 4 weeks. NOTHING would send a stronger message to the gutless wimps in Congress that their reign of cowardice is over.
What we need is literally a tsunami of donations to put Cindy Sheehan's new TV spot on the air, where she pulls no punches about the abject failure of Pelosi to lead. If you are frustrated, if you are angry, if you can make a donation of any amount, please do so from the page below.
Watch The New TV Spot: http://www.usalone.com/cindy/bankers_bailout.php
And as if all this weren't galling enough. How do you like how Bush came out in the Rose Garden after signing the "Fox In Charge Of The Hen House Bill" to basically say, "Thanks, chumps."?
How dare they call themselves "Representatives"? How dare they! With their phones flooded a hundred to one shouting down this massive theft from the American taxpayer, with such an avalanche of emails coming the House email servers almost crashed, how dare they?! And guess what, the people were right. The hundreds of top economists pleading for sanity and a hearing were right.
Pelosi, the queen of the cave-ins must be defeated. There can be no honor in allowing her to remain in office. Shame on us if we don't do everything we could have done to remove her. Then and only then can all the other things that need to be done to fix this disaster be implemented.
And please, if you are the San Francisco area. Cindy needs an army of volunteers to hit the streets inspiring voters. And even if you are not, you can help make phone calls. There are volunteer links on the same page with the video. You can do something. You must do something. Please help.
And let election day this time be a bright and shining day where we the people actually start to take back control of our own government.
Paid for by Cindy Sheehan for Congress
Donations to Cindy Sheehan for Congress are not tax-deductible
Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this alert as widely as possible.
If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at http://www.usalone.net/in.htm
No Amnesty For Wall Street
by Chuck Baldwin
September 26, 2008
At the time of this writing, the U.S. House and Senate are poised to pass a $700 billion bailout to Wall Street. At the behest of President George W. Bush, the U.S. taxpayers are going to be on the hook for what can only be referred to as the biggest fraud in U.S. history.
Virtually our entire financial system is based on an illusion. We spend more than we earn, we consume more than we produce, we borrow more than we save, and we cling to the fantasy that this can go on forever. The glue that holds this crumbling scheme together is a fiat currency known as the Federal Reserve Note, which was created out of thin air by an international banking cartel called the Federal Reserve.
According to Congressman Ron Paul, in the last three years, the Federal Reserve has created over $4 trillion in new money. The result of all this "money-out-of-thin-air" fraud is never-ending inflation. And the more prices rise, the more the dollar collapses. Folks, this is not sustainable.
Already, Bear Stearns was awarded a $29 billion bailout, followed quickly by the bailout of Freddie and Fannie that will cost the taxpayers up to $200 billion. Then the Fed announced the bailout of AIG to the tune of $85 billion. Mind you, AIG is an enormous global entity with assets totaling more than $1.1 trillion. Moreover, the Feds agreed to pump $180 billion into global money markets. And the Treasury Department promised $50 billion to insure the holdings of money market mutual funds for a year. Now, taxpayers are being asked to provide $700 billion to Wall Street. (I hope readers are aware that, not only will American banks be bailed out, but foreign banks will also be bailed out. Then again, at least half of the Federal Reserve is comprised of foreign banks, anyway.) In other words, the Federal Reserve is preparing to spend upwards of $1 trillion or more. Remember again, this is fiat money, meaning it is money printed out of thin air.
All of this began when the U.S. Congress abrogated its responsibility to maintain sound money principles on behalf of the American people (as required by the Constitution) and created the Federal Reserve. This took place in 1913. The President was Woodrow Wilson. (I strongly encourage readers to buy G. Edward Griffin's book, The Creature from Jekyll Island.) Since then, the U.S. economy has suffered through one Great Depression and several recessions--all of which have been orchestrated by this international banking cartel. Now, we are facing total economic collapse.
But don't worry: the international bankers will lose nothing--not even their bonuses. They will maintain their mansions, yachts, private jets, and Swiss bank accounts. No matter how bad it gets on Main Street, the banksters on Wall Street will still have the best of it--President Bush and the Congress will make sure of that. This is one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on.
America's founders were rightfully skeptical of granting too much power to bankers. Thomas Jefferson said, "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Jefferson also believed that "banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
Daniel Webster warned, "Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money."
Webster also said, "We are in danger of being overwhelmed with irredeemable paper, mere paper, representing not gold nor silver; no, Sir, representing nothing but broken promises, bad faith, bankrupt corporations, cheated creditors, and a ruined people."
Our first and greatest President George Washington said, "Paper money has had the effect in your State [Rhode Island] that it ever will have, to ruin commerce--oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice."
If George W. Bush, John McCain, or Barack Obama had any honesty and integrity, they would approach the current banking malady in much the same way that President Andrew Jackson did. In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Jackson said, "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out."
What President Andrew Jackson said to the bankers in 1832 is exactly what an American President should say to these criminal international bankers today. But what George Bush, John McCain, and Barack Obama want to do is provide amnesty for the international bankers, just as they want to provide amnesty for illegal aliens. I say, No amnesty for Wall Street, and no amnesty for illegal aliens, either. Instead of sending these banksters on extended vacations to the Bahamas with millions of taxpayer dollars in their pockets, we should be sending them straight to jail!
The only way to fix this economic mess that the international bankers have created is to return America to sound money principles, as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution. This means dismantling the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service, overturning the 16th Amendment and the personal income tax, and returning the American monetary system to hard assets: gold and silver. Anything short of this will only delay and worsen the inevitable collapse that has already begun.
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
*Disclaimer: I am currently a candidate for President of the United States on the Constitution Party ticket. My official campaign web site is located at:
Chuck Baldwin, Constitutional Candidate for President
If elected, Baldwin would end all Federal taxes, and replace them with "an across-the-board, general 10-percent tariff on all imports and that would meet the Constitution's prescription for financing the federal government -- duties, imposts, tariffs." Which would also help keep jobs in the country.
Baldwin is also a supporter of private schools and an opponent of the Department of Education.
Dr. Baldwin has spoken of Lincoln as one of the two worst presidents in history. The second being Woodrow Wilson, saying:
Woodrow Wilson continued the collectivist, Big-Government policies of Lincoln and helped usher in the Sixteenth Amendment, the IRS, the Federal Reserve, and many other monstrosities. He also paved the way for the United Nations and other entities designed to steal America's liberty and independence.
Baldwin is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and he believes that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed by the government. He says:
The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; it may not properly be infringed upon or denied. Therefore, a Baldwin Administration will uphold the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms and will oppose attempts to prohibit ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens, and, further, will stand against all laws which would require the registration of guns or ammunition. Judge Roy Moore, recently noted that "Our ancestors firmly believed in God-given "unalienable rights" and had no reservation about using guns, when necessary, to defend those rights against tyrannical oppression. Before there was a Constitution, our guns guaranteed the rights God had already given us, including the right to bear arms. The Constitution was written and designed to protect, not preclude, those very rights." Richard Henry Lee, a signer of the Declaration, once said, "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Just as the right to bear arms is necessary in the defense against tyranny, so to is that same right vital for the purpose of self-defense. American citizens use a firearm to defend themselves more than 2.4 million times EVERY YEAR. That is more than 6,500 times EVERY DAY. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Furthermore, of the 2.4 million self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual assault. And in less than eight percent of those occasions is a shot actually fired. The vast majority of the time (92%), the mere presence of a firearm helps to avert a major crime from occurring. That is what Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) concluded after extensive research. According to Rep. Bartlett, the number of defensive uses is four times the number of crimes reported committed with guns. 
He also wrote that "the South was right in the War Between the States", and that he does not believe the leaders of the old Confederacy were racists.
He wrote an article about Martin Luther King Jr., stating that King was an "apostate" minister who renounced his Christian faith. He also stated that King spent the night of his murder with two paramours and physically fought with a third. He added that "One look at the plight of black families today reveals that his legacy is one of destruction not healing." 
He feels that "the invasion and occupation of Iraq was absolutely unnecessary."
Baldwin has written that "the Mexican government is deliberately and systematically working to destabilize and undermine the very fabric and framework of American society."
Baldwin says that freedom of choice in health care is important. Stating that "I strongly support the freedom of choice of practitioner and treatment for all citizens for their health care." As well as "The government should not have the power to force people to receive immunizations or vaccinations." He also said that he would "Eliminate Food and Drug Administration as unconstitutional."
Baldwin believes that the "Happy Holidays" greeting is wrong, stating that "America was deliberately and distinctively founded as a haven for Christians", and has defended his views against avant-garde egalitarians who disagree with this.
Baldwin opposes Roe v. Wade, and favors Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act.
Baldwin opposes the USA PATRIOT Act, among others, saying that it infringes on personal freedom and privacy.
Baldwin has said that France is an "atheistic, secularist country".
Baldwin feels that our National Sovereignty is a key issue, saying:
Gone, too, is the NAFTA superhighway. And for that matter, I would lead the United States out of NAFTA and CAFTA altogether. And any prospect for the FTAA would be dead as well.
Roosevelt vs. Wilson
Monday, October 06, 2008
Barack Obama claims that he is a new breeze, but he is actually a throwback to Woodrow Wilson both in his policies on many issues and in his manner of thinking and speaking. John McCain implies that he is a throwback to Theodore Roosevelt, "my great hero and role model," and both his policies and his style show that he is self-aware.
Wilson was born in 1856 and Roosevelt on Oct. 27, 1858, making this month the 150th anniversary of his birth. A few hardy souls still visit T.R.'s birthplace on 20th St. in Manhattan, a brownstone that was his home until age 14. Guides there talk about the esteem Roosevelt had for his father, whom he called "the best man I ever knew."
McCain's autobiography, Faith of My Fathers, shows his veneration for his father and grandfather, both of whom were Navy admirals. But Obama, who grew up without a dad's presence, emphasizes newness rather than tradition: "We are the change we have been waiting for. . . . I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."
Wilson, who grew up in a traditional Southern Presbyterian setting but abandoned those beliefs to embrace theological modernism, spoke the same way, referring to himself as the "ambassador of salvation" and "the personal instrument of God." He predicted that Americans "will turn to him almost as they would turn for salvation," and that he was the one who could "exert upon men that influence which will turn their eyes from themselves."
If Obama gets to the White House, his inaugural address will probably be as exultant as Wilson's first one: "The feelings with which we face this new age of right and opportunity sweep across our heartstrings like some air out of God's own presence." Wilson said his administration would work "to purify and humanize every aspect of our common life . . . to lift everything that concerns our life as a Nation to the light that shines from the hearthfire of every man's conscience and vision of the right."
Wilson at times claimed direct divine inspiration; for example, his League of Nations proposal arose "by no plan of our conceiving but by the hand of God who had led us into this way." (Unlike God, however, Wilson was so far short of omniscient that he did not even know the geography and demographics of one "country" he abstractly stitched together, Czechoslovakia.)
European crowds this summer showed Obama love as they did for Wilson in 1919, but experienced European leaders back then guffawed. British Prime Minister Lloyd George scorned Wilson's statement that "Jesus Christ so far [has] not succeeded in inducing the world to follow His teaching because He taught the ideal without devising any practical scheme to carry out His aims."
Wilson often talked around subjects with torrents of words, as Obama and his running mate Joe Biden do now. Once in office Wilson raised taxes, pioneered a regulatory regime by pushing through the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Trade Commission, and campaigned in 1916 on a "He kept us out of war" slogan, only to propel the United States into war early the following year.
As Americans learned then and British appeasers belatedly realized two decades later, war is more likely to come when great powers give ambiguous signals than when they are forthright. McCain is forthright and direct in answering questions. Like Roosevelt, he is assertive on foreign policy and opposed to what T.R. called "mere sentimentality" in helping the needy.
Guides at Roosevelt's boyhood home emphasize the training in compassion he garnered from his philanthropically fervent father: He insisted that "voluntary action by individuals in the form of associations" was most likely to produce "that most important of all forms of betterment, moral betterment -- the moral betterment which usually brings material betterment in its train." McCain's views are similar.
The decade in which Wilson and Roosevelt were born, the 1850s, was next to the 1960s the weirdest one in American history. The stacks of the Library of Congress contain hundreds of books from the 1850s that purport to be messages spoken during séances by George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and other long-dead notables purportedly channeled by "spiritualists." But this year's campaigning sounds like Roosevelt and Wilson going at it.
Florida Family Association is providing the following Presidential Voters Guide from Wallbuilders to help you cast an informed vote during the November 4th general election.
To help cut through the noise and the haze of the campaigns, WallBuilders has prepared a Presidential Voters' Guide that reviews fourteen positions held by the candidates.
For a downloadable version of the Presidential Voters Guide which you may PRINT and DISTRIBUTE to family, friends, church fellowships and co-workers please click here
Every vote will count in this tight election. The family members and friends that you help to vote could make the difference in the public policies we will live under for years to come.
PLEASE forward this Presidential Voters Guide to family and friends.
Letter to my children about this election:
I've included some links to help you be able to learn more about wise voting choices. Some of my favorites are Thomas Sowell (a very smart black man who got his PhD from Harvard through his own hard work -- not affirmative action -- and he's totally against Obama and Democratic high taxes, handouts and job and education racism based upon skin color -- i.e., "affirmative racism"), Michelle Malkin, and others.
The Democrats have majorities in both the Senate and House and are constantly doing all kinds of gradeschool stunts to win at any cost, regardless of what's right. For example, Nancy Pelosi (the Democratic Speaker of the House who has the power to do almost everything she wants because of the majorities -- which must be taken away from them this upcoming election so that fair discussion of things before they're passed can be allowed again) blocks any discussion or voting upon what the American people want and instead forces votes on things the Democrats want passed, without letting the congressmen even read, much less discuss things. They bury things in bills that have nothing to do with the things they've added and "forget" to mention it to anyone -- and then everyone discovers what new things, extra taxes, etc. have just become laws later, when it's too late.
Obama cult members mindlessly repeat the mantra "Change..." without even understanding that the changes Obama wants are to make America Marxist/Socialist/Communist, and take money from the productive members of society who work and give it to those who don't want to work (the privileged -- not just the ones who can't work) -- he calls it "redistributing wealth", oddly the same thing Karl Marx called it, and Marx's misguided ideology led to the likes of Josef Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Tito, Mao Tse Tung and others. By the way, Obama has stated that these are his mentors and heroes, and has numerous domestic terrorist long-time friends who helped pay for his way through law school and held fund-raisers for him recently. He wants us to give up our soverignity (so that the UN dictates to us what we do, taxes us directly and "redistributes" the money to Africa without us having even the slightest say-so about what would be done with our money), our defense (which is especially important with heightened terrorism and countries like Iran, North Korea and Pakistan having "the bomb" and openly stating "first comes Saturday, then comes Sunday" (meaning that first they get rid of the Israelis, then the U.S.); our flag and national anthem (Obama is ashamed of them -- he said he'd rather sit down with our enemies and sing "I'd like to teach the world to sing" -- seriously!) He even salutes his crotch and refuses to place his hand over his heart when they play the anthem and everyone faces our flag. He said that the most important thing is that we dissolve the U.S. (and the way we want to do things) and become "citizens of the world". My website has a lot more about what Marxism is, etc., if you're interested (on the "Issues" page).
Some of the other parties have really good candidates (Libertarian and Constitution Parties -- Bob Barr and Dr. Chuck Baldwin, along with Ron Paul) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76015 (by the way, WorldNetDaily is a good overall, unbiased news site -- you'll be surprised how biased CBS, NBC, CNN and ABC are after reading the conveniently "left-out" information, and oftentimes outright lies of the media, on WorldNet).
The problem I see that might happen is a situation like the time Ross Perot intentionally ran against Clinton in order to divide the Republican vote and allow Clinton to win: if conservatives split their vote instead of voting for one candidate, Obama will probably win, since 94% of the blacks are voting solely based upon skin color and not based upon the qualifications of the candidate, and many whites have been manipulated by the media into believing that they're racist if they don't vote for Obama solely based upon skin color and reject his Marxist and high tax plans for us.
I really wish Ron Paul was still running, as he is the best choice. I believe that Chuck Baldwin (Constitutional Party) is the next best choice, but I might have to vote for McCain in order to prevent the country our founding fathers created and died for from being totally destroyed (the lesser of two evils, so to speak).
Republicans used to be conservative, but they are fast becoming the new Democrats. The so-called "Democrats" are really Marxists and desire lots of government regulation of everything, tons of new laws, higher taxes and more social programs to support not only those who cannot work but favored groups of people who do not WANT to work -- all in the name of "redistributing wealth" (or "Changes"). The Constitutional and Libertarian parties desire minimal government, low taxes and want to protect our God-given (not state-given) rights and preserve our original Constitution the way our forefathers intended it to be -- not as "re-interpreted" by today's activist judges ("Well, this is the way I think it should've been written...") Some Republicans are conservative, but many are not. For example, McCain is a Republican, but he favors open immigration, even though he knows it will hurt American citizens more, because he's courting the Latino vote and cares more about getting elected than doing what is right.
Race Riots if Obama Loses
Columnists with several excellent relevant articles -- good for future (after this election) reference, also:
Michael Reagan, the eldest son of Ronald Reagan:
Ann Coulter: Treason, Slander,
I Have Decided To Become A Write-In Candidate (by Bill Cosby)
Here Is My Platform:
(1) 'Press 1 for English' is immediately banned. English is the official language;
speak it or wait at the border until you can.
(2) We will immediately go into a two year isolationist posture to straighten out the country's attitude. NO imports, no exports. We will use the 'Wal-Mart's policy, 'If we ain't got it, you don't need it.'
(3) When imports are allowed, there will be a 100% import tax on it.
(4) All retired military personnel will be required to man one of our many
observation towers on the southern border. (six month tour) They will be under
strict orders not to fire on SOUTHBOUND aliens.
(5) Social security will immediately return to its original state. If you didn't put nuttin in, you ain't gettin nuttin out. The president nor any other politician will not be able to touch it.
(6) Welfare - Checks will be handed out on Fridays at the end of the 40 hour
school week and the successful completion of urinalysis and a passing grade.
(7) Professional Athletes --Steroids - The FIRST time you check positive you're banned for life.
(8) Crime - We will adopt the Turkish method, the first time you steal, you lose your right hand. There is no more life sentences. If convicted, you will be put to death by the same method you chose for your victim; gun, knife, strangulation, etc.
(9) One export will be allowed; Wheat, The world needs to eat. A bushel of wheat will be the exact price of abarrel of oil.
(10) All foreign aid using American taxpayer money will immediately cease, and the saved money will pay off the national debt and ultimately lower taxes. When disasters occur around the world, we'll ask the American people if they want to donate to a disaster fund, and each citizen can make the decision whether it's a worthy cause.
(11) The Pledge of Allegiance will be said every day at school and every day in Congress.
(12) The National Anthem will be played at all appropriate ceremonies, sporting events, outings, etc.
Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes but a vote for me will get you better than what you have, and better than what you're gonna get. Thanks for listening, and remember to write in my name on the ballot in November.
God Bless America!
Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign
Monday, September 29, 2008 9:23 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.
And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.
Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.
But because of Obama's high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage -- at least, not yet.
The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.
But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.
Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).
Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.
Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.
"Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed," said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. "They don't appear anywhere, so there's no way of knowing who they are."
The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.
It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.
Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama's coffers with no public reporting.
But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money.
"We feel comfortable that it isn't the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign," he told Newsmax.
But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors.
Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.
"We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors," he said. "The Obama campaign never responded," whereas the McCain campaign "makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online."
The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud.
But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse.
"While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years," said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.
Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum.
FEC and Mr. Doodad Pro
When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send letters to the campaign's finance committee requesting additional information, such as the complete address or employment status of the donor.
Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama campaign to "redesignate" contributions in excess of the finance limits.
Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can "redesignate" the contribution to the general election on its books.
In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as "Will, Good" from Austin, Texas.
Mr. Good Will listed his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You."
A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.
In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.
Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 -- still well over the $4,600 limit.
There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama's Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will's cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.
In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there's no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.
Similarly, a donor identified as "Pro, Doodad," from "Nando, NY," gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You," just as Good Will had done.
But in some of them, he didn't even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by "VCX" and that his profession was "VCVC."
Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600.
Here again, LaBolt pledged that the contributions would be returned but gave no date.
In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later.
In response to FEC complaints, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro even before he reached these limits. But his credit card was the gift that kept on giving. His most recent un-refunded contributions were on July 7, when he made 14 separate donations, apparently by credit card, of $25 each.
Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report specified that Doodad's cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $10,965.
And then there are the overseas donations -- at least, the ones that we know about.
The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their "state" as "IR," often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as "UK," the United Kingdom.
More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.
But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.
Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Unlike McCain's or Sen. Hillary Clinton's online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton's presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.
With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.
In July and August, the head of the Nigeria's stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria's largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.
At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.
The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter.
Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities.
In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.
"All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man," the Libyan leader said. "They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..."
Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were "legitimate," the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.
The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200.
Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to "root out fraud," including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online.
One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store.
In response to an investigation conducted by blogger Pamela Geller, who runs the blog Atlas Shrugs, the Obama campaign has locked down the store.
Geller first revealed on July 31 that donors from the Gaza strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through bulk purchases of T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza.
The online campaign store allows buyers to complete their purchases by making an additional donation to the Obama campaign.
A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show.
Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaign's year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned.
The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30.
The Edwan brothers listed their address as "GA," as in Georgia, although they entered "Gaza" or "Rafah Refugee camp" as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms.
According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made.
Many of the Edwan brothers' contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups.
The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December.
A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million.
But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date.
Many of the small donors participated in online "matching" programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs.
The Obama Web site described the matching contribution program as similar to a public radio fundraising drive.
"Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight," campaign manager David Plouffe e-mailed supporters on Sept. 15. "And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate."
FEC spokesman Biersack said he was unfamiliar with the matching donation drive. But he said that if donations from another donor were going to be reassigned to a new donor, as the campaign suggested, "the two people must agree" to do so.
This type of matching drive probably would be legal as long as the matching donor had not exceeded the $2,300 per-election limit, he said.
Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, "We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program."
Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous
-- and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential
campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out.
Flighty Votes from Little ACORNS Grow
September 30, 2008
Writing in today's Washington Times, former Senators Warren Rudman (R-N.H.) John C. Danforth (R-Mo.) call on both campaigns to work together to reduce incidents of fraud this election year. They point out how both campaigns have squads of attorneys for either self-protective or nefarious reasons and that "(b)efore the 2004 presidential election, lawyers filed more than 60 lawsuits concerning voting procedures." Writing elsewhere columnist Mona Charen brings up a glaring example of how wary we need to be about voter fraud this November 4th. Her column exposes the uber-liberal, taxpayer-funded Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). ACORN says it is "the nation's largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people." However, their two main accomplishments appear to be perpetuating voter fraud and furthering their reliance on the federal trough. ACORN employees are under investigation in a number of places, most of them battleground states. Both candidates need to do everything in their power to ensure that voter fraud does not occur.
ACORN, Obama, and the Mortgage Mess
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The financial markets were teetering on the edge of an abyss last week. The secretary of the Treasury was literally on his knees begging the speaker of the House not to sabotage the bailout bill. The crash of falling banks made the earth tremble. The Republican presidential candidate suspended his campaign to deal with the crisis. And amid all this, the Democrats in Congress managed to find time to slip language into the bailout legislation that would provide a dandy little slush fund for ACORN.
ACORN stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a busy hive of left-wing agitation and "direct action" that claims chapters in 50 cities and 100,000 dues-paying members. ACORN is where Sixties leftovers who couldn't get tenure at universities wound up. That the bill-writing Democrats remembered their pet clients during such an emergency speaks volumes. This attempted gift to ACORN (stripped out of the bill after outraged howls from Republicans) demonstrates how little Democrats understand about what caused the mess we're in.
ACORN does many things under the umbrella of "community organizing." They agitate for higher minimum wages, attempt to thwart school reform, try to unionize welfare workers (that is, those welfare recipients who are obliged to work in exchange for benefits) and organize voter registration efforts (always for Democrats, of course). Because they are on the side of righteousness and justice, they aren't especially fastidious about their methods. In 2006, for example, ACORN registered 1,800 new voters in Washington. The only trouble was, with the exception of six, all of the names submitted were fake. The secretary of state called it the "worst case of election fraud in our state's history." As Fox News reported:
"The ACORN workers told state investigators that they went to the Seattle public library, sat at a table and filled out the voter registration forms. They made up names, addresses, and Social Security numbers and in some cases plucked names from the phone book. One worker said it was a lot of hard work making up all those names and another said he would sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out the forms."
ACORN explained that this was an "isolated" incident, yet similar stories have been reported in Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, and Colorado -- all swing states, by the way. ACORN members have been prosecuted for voter fraud in a number of states. (See www.rottenacorn.com.) Their philosophy seems to be that everyone deserves the right to vote, whether legal or illegal, living or dead.
ACORN recognized very early the opportunity presented by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977. As Stanley Kurtz has reported, ACORN proudly touted "affirmative action" lending and pressured banks to make subprime loans. Madeline Talbott, a Chicago ACORN leader, boasted of "dragging banks kicking and screaming" into dubious loans. And, as Sol Stern reported in City Journal, ACORN also found a remunerative niche as an "advisor" to banks seeking regulatory approval. "Thus we have J.P. Morgan & Co., the legatee of the man who once symbolized for many all that was supposedly evil about American capitalism, suddenly donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to ACORN." Is this a great country or what? As conservative community activist Robert Woodson put it, "The same corporations that pay ransom to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton pay ransom to ACORN."
ACORN attracted Barack Obama in his youthful community organizing days. Madeline Talbott hired him to train her staff -- the very people who would later descend on Chicago's banks as CRA shakedown artists. The Democratic nominee later funneled money to the group through the Woods Fund, on whose board he sat, and through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, ditto. Obama was not just sympathetic -- he was an ACORN fellow traveler.
Now you could make the case that before 2008, well-intentioned people were simply unaware of what their agitation on behalf of non-credit-worthy borrowers could lead to. But now? With the whole financial world and possibly the world economy trembling and cracking like a cement building in an earthquake, Democrats continue to try to fund their friends at ACORN? And, unashamed, they then trot out to the TV cameras to declare "the party is over" for Wall Street (Nancy Pelosi)? The party should be over for the Democrats who brought us to this pass. If Obama wins, it means hiring an arsonist to fight a fire.
Ahmadinejad Feted at Obama Fundraiser's Hotel
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was feted on Thursday night by left-wing U.S. religious leaders and self-styled pacifists at a gala reception at New York's Hyatt hotel -- which is owned by the family of the Obama campaign's national finance chairperson, Penny Pritzker.
Several thousand protesters gathered on 42nd street, directly across from the hotel, late Thursday afternoon, including Beth Gilinsky, president of the Jewish Action Alliance; Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy; and the Rev. Keith Roderick, the Episcopal canon to persecuted Christians.
Ahmadinejad arrived at 8:45 p.m., nearly three hours late, and was protected by the Secret Service and Iranian security guards, Newsmax correspondent Kenneth R. Timmerman reported.
Inside, the Iranian president was given a warm welcome by John Brademas, a former congressman from Indiana who rose to become Democratic whip in the House from 1977-1981.
Also welcoming him was Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was named as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in an alleged criminal conspiracy to fund the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas.
Ahmadinejad began his address with an invocation of the 12th imam, according to a source who attended the event.
He made a similar invocation of the 12th imam at the start of his speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, adding that he hoped his actions "would hasten the Imam's return." He went on to blast Israel and the United States in that speech.
The Mahdivist cult of Shia Islam, to which Ahmadinejad subscribes, holds that the 12th imam will "return" to earth after a period of worldwide conflagration, mass destruction, famine, and starvation.
By calling on his own actions to "hasten" the imam's return, many scholars of Islam believe that Ahmadinejad is revealing his intention to provoke a world war.
Ahmadinejad has referred to Israel as "a dried, rotten tree that will collapse with a single storm," and has called on the Muslim world to "prepare for the great war, so as to completely wipe out the Zionist regime and remove this cancerous growth."
Government buildings in Tehran are festooned with giant banners that read, "Israel should be wiped out of the face of the world" in English and Persian. Similar banners are draped across Shahab-3 missiles when the Iranian regime drives them through the streets of Tehran in military parades, Timmerman reports.
Barack Obama has made negotiations with Ahmadinejad and other dictators a cornerstone of his foreign policy approach, in contrast to John McCain, who believes that the U.S. must spearhead an international coalition to prevent Iran from going nuclear.
Obama has said that he is ready to sit down with Ahmadinejad "without preconditions" to negotiate a sweeping security agreement with his regime. McCain has dismissed this as "reckless," and McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, has called it "cowboy diplomacy."
The World Still Blames America
Friday, September 12, 2008
Al-Qaida's media relations department must be seething. Or rather, they must be seething beyond the usual Destroy America/Kill the Jews/Behead the Infidels/Convert-or-Die seething that is their second nature. After years of churning out throat-slitting propaganda videos, investing in the finest video editing software and studio sets, and establishing cozy relations with sympathetic international newspapers and global network news channels, the jihadists still don't get no respect from world opinion.
They are the Rodney al-Dangerfields of global mass murderers.
A poll released this week of more than 16,000 people in 17 nations revealed that "majorities in only nine countries believe al-Qaida was behind the attacks on New York and Washington that killed about 3,000 people in 2001." A mere 46 percent of individuals overall said they believed al-Qaida executed the attacks -- despite all the back-patting, fist-pumping video productions from AQ's media arm, al-Sahab, claiming credit.
In 2006, the AQ flacks released tape of Osama bin Laden at an Afghan training camp with several of the 9/11 hijackers. "I ask you to pray for them and to ask God to make them successful, aim their shots well, set their feet strong and strengthen their hearts," bin Laden urged in the sicko promo. In April, another clip showed irate and aggrieved jihadi leader Ayman al-Zawahri lambasting Hezbollah for crediting Israel for the 9/11 attacks. "The purpose of this lie is clear -- (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it," he griped.
But to no avail. Maybe this is why FBI Most Wanted Terrorist Adam Yahiye Gadahn, the American-born Muslim convert turned al-Qaida publicist, has not been heard from in a while. He's been falling down on the job. Either that or those damned 9/11 Truther conspiracy nuts have surpassed the Islamic jihadis' recruitment efforts on YouTube. Time to hire a new viral violence marketing team.
So, who's stealing the bin Laden operation's thunder around the globe and getting all the blame (er, credit) for the September 11 terrorist attacks? The citizens of the world have cast their vote. Seven years after Mohamed Atta, Hani Hanjour and their Allahu Akbar-screaming team succeeded in slaughtering nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children, large numbers of our putative allies in the civilized world still blame America and Israel.
"Israel was behind the attacks, said 43 percent of people in Egypt, 31 percent in Jordan and 19 percent in the Palestinian Territories," according to the survey. "The U.S. government was blamed by 36 percent of Turks and 27 percent of Palestinians." The pollsters noted that no prompting was necessary: "These responses were given spontaneously to an open-ended question that did not offer response options."
Among our great friends south of the border, Mexico boasted "the second-largest number citing the U.S. government as the perpetrator of 9/11 (30 percent, after Turkey at 36 percent). Only 33 percent name al-Qaida." Which, of course, is no shock to those who remember when the U.S. soccer team was taunted with chants of "Osama! Osama! Osama!" after a match in Guadalajara four years ago; or when the team was booed again in 2005 and plastic bags filled with urine were reportedly tossed on American players.
They hate us. They still really, really hate us. And it is not all about Iraq. As a Mexican soccer fan told the Christian Science Monitor: "'Every schoolboy knows about 1848. When they robbed our territory,' referring to when Texas, California and New Mexico were annexed to the U.S. as part of a peace treaty ending the war between the two countries, 'that was the beginning.'"
Not coincidentally, another world opinion poll was released this week that dovetails with the 9/11 survey. While the global community refuses to unite against al-Qaida as a common enemy to humanity, it has decided on who should be America's next president. The BBC-commissioned poll named Barack Obama the world's favorite candidate by an overwhelming margin of four to one. They see in their fellow "citizen of the world" a kindred spirit:
Someone whose former spiritual mentor shares the European elite's "chickens coming home to roost" schadenfreude. Someone who has promoted the need for "empathy" toward the head-chopping jihadists. Someone who shares their fetishizing of terrorists as poor victims of imperialism in need of more "understanding" and "education." Someone who cynically hawks "Buy American" campaign stickers while courting the "Blame America" Left at home and abroad.
Obama is their man. Never forget.
Sisterhood of the Protected Female Liberal Journalists
by Michelle Malkin
Let's talk Mommy Wars, double standards and the media elite. Last Friday, Howard Gutman, a member of the Obama campaign's National Finance Committee, attacked Sarah Palin's ability to be a good parent and have a high-powered public life at the same time. In a finger-wagging appearance on the Laura Ingraham radio show, Obama's operative scolded the Republican mother of five children for not putting her professional career on hold.
"Your responsibility is to put your family first," Gutman lectured as he singled out Palin's Down Syndrome baby and pregnant teenage daughter. "The proper attack is not that a woman shouldn't run for vice president with five kids, it's that a parent, when they have a family in need" should get out of the public sphere and stay home.
The Gutman standard has now been proffered by countless Obama hacks and water-carrying commentators. Damningly, it's high-powered working mothers in the journalism business who are helping to broadcast the anti-Palin slams or doing nothing to defend her.
How would Katie Couric like the Gutman standard applied to her? Her husband died at 42 when her daughters were 6 and 2 years old. With two young children devastated by the loss of a father, she opted not to quit journalism. She anchored NBC's "Today Show" through his illness and death, continued working an intensive, time-consuming schedule as one of America's most visible broadcast journalists while a single mother with two fatherless children at home, and then jumped to CBS News, where she maintains a rigorous on-air schedule, travel plans and an off-air social calendar. Where are the finger-waggers?
How about CNN's Soldedad O'Brien? She's been working overtime covering the presidential campaign season, anchoring daily coverage and nighttime conventions, and producing documentaries that require large chunks of time away from home. Disney's Family Parenting website lauds her as "a modern mom balancing a thriving career as one of America's top news anchors along with her four children" -- two daughters now ages 7 and 6 and twin boys who are 4. Where are the Palin-bashers to lambaste O'Brien's professional pursuits?
Also at CNN, Campbell Brown flew to Las Vegas last year to moderate a political debate while 8 and a half months pregnant. Fox News host and left-wing blogger Alan Colmes, last seen questioning Palin's commitment to prenatal care because she worked and traveled late in her pregnancy, had no comment. When Brown initially left the "Today Show" in 2007, she said she was stepping down to devote more time to family and baby. She immediately turned around and jumped ship to CNN, where she has anchored wall-to-wall CNN Election Center coverage and will launch a new nightly show in November.
At NBC, famous balancer of work and motherhood Meredith Viera replaced Couric on the "Today Show." She has three children at home and a husband who has battled multiple sclerosis and two bouts of colon cancer. By the Gutman standard, Viera should have left the business years ago to tend to her family in need.
As a working woman in the media for 16 years and a working mother in the media for the last eight, I know the commitment and energy it took for these women to get to the top. I've filed columns from hospital beds, written books while nursing, brought my toddlers to TV studios, and told bedtime stories on the cell phone while boarding planes. I've worked hard to strike the "balance" we all seek. I've made good choices and bad choices, and have no regrets about the opportunities I've taken or the opportunities I've rejected. I couldn't have done it without a supportive husband willing to forego his own career goals -- the kind of spouse the media has ignored in Todd Palin and the kind of spouse I'm sure the Sisterhood of the Protected Female Journalists all have.
I don't challenge the commitment these fellow working mothers in the media have to their home lives. What I challenge is their silence and complicity as the Palin-bashers impose a "Family First" double standard on conservatives. The sorority is closed to the Right.
The lib/progs are continuously experience existential threats. That is why they let their attack dogs scream 'oreo' every time a black person becomes prominent in the Republican party. That is why they treat Republican women as they are doing with Gov. Palin. That is why they resort to the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy EVERY time a member of a group that they reckon belongs to them, gets out of step and doesn't listen to the Democrat political massa.
The Book Banners Hollywood Ignores
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Have you ever heard Hollywood liberals talk about suspected Islamic jihadists the way they talk about suspected Republican "book-banners"? The September 11 terrorist attacks didn't turn celebrity leftists into hawks. But the minute they started reading false rumors about Sarah Palin restricting unfettered access to "Daddy's Roommate" and "Heather Has Two Mommies" in her hometown library, Tinseltown's docile doves became militant warmongers.
Actor Matt Damon, parroting left-wing Internet lies about Sarah Palin censoring novels while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, took a defiant stand against the "terrifying possibility" of a McCain-Palin victory. "We can't have" book-banning, he inveighed.
And now we know what keeps feminist playwrights like Eve Ensler ("The Vagina Monologues") awake at night. Not Iranian nuclear ambitions or al Qaeda beheading videos. She is haunted by nightmares of Bible-thumping, book-burning Sarah Palin. A McCain/Palin ticket "is one of the most dangerous choices" of her lifetime, Ensler seethed in her viral call-to-arms e-mail, because "Sarah Palin does not much believe in thinking," The evidence: "From what I gather she has tried to ban books from the library, has a tendency to dispense with people who think independently. She cannot tolerate an environment of ambiguity and difference."
Classic projection. Damon, Ensler and the anti-censorship crusaders are the unthinking ones who can't tolerate independence, ambiguity and difference. The rumormongers continue to spread a bogus banned book list attributed to Palin that includes books not even published at the time she served as mayor. No city records corroborate Internet reports that she tried to keep anti-homosexual books, as gay lobbying organizations have claimed, or any other books off government-funded library shelves available to children.
And even if she did inquire about the process, so what? Regulating age-appropriate content is only alarming to the same kind of civil liberties extremists who oppose reasonable filtering of sexually explicit material in public spaces Who is scarier: hockey moms who want to put tax-subsidized books about lesbian couples out of reach of kindergarteners or Hollyweird ideologues who want to ensure that homeless people can surf porn websites in your neighborhood library?
If book banning is such a life-and-death issue to these celebrity foot soldiers for free speech, where were they four years ago when John Kerry and his rabid minions were pressuring Regnery Publishing to withdraw "Unfit for Command" from bookstores? Where were they when members of the Borders Books Employee Union were openly advocating sabotaging book sales? A message on the union's members-only website urged:
"You guys don't actually HAVE to sell the thing!
"Just 'carelessly' hide the boxes, 'accidentally' drop them off pallets, 'forget' to stock the ones you have, and then suggest a nice Al Franken or Michael Moore book as a substitute ...
"I don't care if these Neandertals (sic) in fancy suits get mad at me, they aren't regular customers anyway. Other than 'Left Behind' books, they don't read. Anything you can do to make them feel unwelcome is only fair. They are the people pushing retailers to cut costs, don't forget. And they would censor your speech, your books, your music in a heartbeat, so give them a taste of it!"
Where were they when left-wing hitman David Brock of Media Matters for America sent a demand letter to Wal-Mart, Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble urging them to pull "Unfit for Command" from their shelves?
Where were they two years ago when two Democrat lawmakers, New Jersey Assemblywomen Joan Quigley and Linda Stender, called on merchants to ban the sale of Ann Coulter's book, "Godless," because of her remarks about anti-Bush 9/11 widows. "No one in New Jersey should buy this book and allow Ann Coulter to profit from her hate-mongering," the politicians lashed out. "We are asking New Jersey retailers statewide to stand with us and express their outrage by refusing to carry or sell copies of Coulter's book. Her hate-filled attacks on our 9-11 widows has no place on New Jersey bookshelves."
Where were they in 2005, when a University of North Carolina law professor, Eric Muller, called on his blog readers to get one of my books banned from a national parks bookstore? Where were they when J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins's "Alms for Jihad" was banned in Britain; Robert Spencer's "The Truth about Muhammad" was banned in Pakistan; and "The Jewel of Madina" was banned, well, everywhere?
And where are they now? Stewing in their salons and screenwriting rooms. Concocting horror stories about terrifying Christian conservative bogeymen who threaten peace, tolerance, independent thought, ambiguity and difference. Patting themselves and each other on the backs as the valiant protectors of dissent.
(But only the kind with which they agree, of course. Shhhhh.)
Democratic Platform's Hidden Soros Slush Fund
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The Democratic Party platform is like a bag of pork rinds. You never know what high-fat liberal government morsel you're gonna get.
Buried in the 94-page document is a noble-sounding proposal to create a "Social Investment Fund Network." The program would provide federal money to "social entrepreneurs and leading nonprofit organizations [that] are assisting schools, lifting families out of poverty, filling health care gaps, and inspiring others to lead change in their own communities." The Democratic Party promises to "support these results-oriented innovators" by creating an office to "coordinate government and nonprofit efforts" and then showering "a series of grants" on the chosen groups "to replicate these programs nationwide."
In practice, this Barack Obama brainchild would serve as a permanent, taxpayer-backed pipeline to Democratic partisan outfits masquerading as public-interest do-gooders. This George Soros Slush Fund would be political payback in spades. Obama owes much of his Chicago political success to financial support from radical, left-wing billionaire and leading "social entrepreneur" Soros. In June 2004, Soros threw a big fundraiser at his New York home for Obama's Illinois Senate campaign. Soros and family personally chipped in $60,000. In April 2007, Obama was back in New York for a deep-pocketed Manhattan fundraising soiree, with Soros lurking in his shadow.
No doubt with Soros' approbation (if not advice from the hands-on "progressive" activist or his advisers), Obama fleshed out his Social Investment Fund Network plan last December. In concert with his mandatory volunteerism pitch and $6 billion anti-poverty plan, Obama called for the creation of a "Social Entrepreneurship Agency" to dispense the funds in unspecified amounts. The agency would be a government-supported nonprofit corporation "similar to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting," which runs public television. (And we've all seen how fair and balanced that lib-dominated, Bill Moyers-boosting private-public enterprise turned out.)
Obama cites the Harlem Children's Zone, which provides after-school activities and mentors to children in New York, as an example of a program that should be funded. (HCZ's former senior leader Shawn Dove is now an official at Soros' Open Society Institute.) The problem with such initiatives, as Mitchell Moss pointed out in the Manhattan Institute's City Journal several years ago, is that these private-public partnerships formed under the guise of economic renewal often become nothing more than fronts that coordinate "an enormous safety net for social services." Private donations give the illusion of self-help and philanthropic independence, but in reality, the "clients" are never weaned from the teat of the welfare state. They simply learn how to milk it more efficiently.
Even more troubling is how the Democratic Party/Obama plan would siphon untold millions or billions of public tax dollars into the Soros empire without taxpayer recourse. Obama promises "accountability" measures to ensure the money is spent wisely. But who would assess effectiveness of the spending? Why, experts in the social entrepreneurship community, of course. Fox, meet henhouse.
Soros has donated some $5 billion of his fortune to left-wing nonprofit groups through the Open Society Institute -- an institution committed to Soros' militant ideology of toppling the "fascist" tyranny of the United States, which he says must undergo "de-Nazification" in favor of "justice." The mob at Obama-endorsing MoveOn, purveyors of the "General Betray Us" smear against Commanding General, MNF-I, David Petraeus, is the most notorious Soros-backed political arm. But scores of other activist nonprofits have received Soros funding under the guise of doing nonpartisan "community" or "social justice" work -- and it is exactly such leftist activist groups that would be first in line for the Democratic Party/Obama's "social investment" seed money.
Point in case: ACORN. As I've reported before, Obama's old friends at the Chicago-based nonprofit now take in 40 percent of their revenues from American taxpayers. They raked in tens of millions in federal antipoverty grants while some of their operatives presided over massive voter fraud and others were implicated in corporate shakedowns and mortgage scams across the country. Soros has donated at least $150,000 to the group, according to Investor's Business Daily, and "heads a secretive rich-man's club called 'Democracy Alliance' that has doled out $20 million to activist groups like ACORN."
Once the spigot is turned on, there's no turning back.
Where are fiscal conservatives on this far-left boondoggle? Well, if you're wondering why the McCain campaign doesn't raise hell over this proposed left-wing nonprofit/government pipeline, it's because McCain himself is a Soros beneficiary. His "Reform Institute," a tax-exempt, supposedly independent 501(c)(3) group focused on campaign finance reform, was funded by the Soros-funded Open Society Institute and Tides Foundation.
Birds of a Big Government feather flock together -- and look out for each
other. Watch your wallet.
What I Saw At the Discombobulation
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
DENVER -- Never was so much hype created by so few to simulate the appearance of so many.
The hard-core left vowed to turn out 50,000 protesters for the Democratic National Convention this week. They pledged to "Re-create '68" and cause the kind of tear-gas-infused revolutionary havoc that marked the DNC in Chicago four decades ago. Police prepared for the worst riots. Media from around the world anticipated the best pictures.
But when rhetorical push came to real-life shove, the nostalgic, Marx-adoring organizers of Re-create '68 seem to have mustered no more than, oh, 68 bodies. Their presence here is dwarfed by the massive show of police, press and camera-toting looky-loos. You can't take a picture without someone else taking pictures of everyone else taking pictures of not much else getting in your frame.
The chaos-inducers' mouths were a mile wide. Their crowds have been an inch deep. What's left of the leftover '60s movement is all sizzle and no steak. Or veggie burger. Deep-fried tofu. Whatever.
At an abortion protest/counter-protest on Saturday in front of a Planned Parenthood mega-facility, I counted fewer than a dozen pro-abortion activists milling about with three times as many media members. The majority of demonstrators were more exercised about the war in Iraq than about the vaunted woman's right to choose death for her unborn child -- the stated focus of the demonstration.
And while Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean excoriates the Republican Party as the "white" party, I saw only one non-white agitator among the pro-abortion gaggle. (This goes for the rest of the Re-create '68 populace, too. It's as pale and colorless as a Colorado snowfall.) Across the street from the Planned Parenthood event, however, were many incensed black- and brown-skinned moms -- incensed that an abortion mill had been built right across from the park where their children practice football and swing on the playground set.
One of the moms said bluntly: "I don't want a f**king abortion clinic in my neighborhood!" A Hispanic mother added: "It's against the Catholic Church." (Are you listening, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi?) When asked about her views on abortion, a black mother of three told me simply from her minivan: "I don't believe in it."
Speaking of disbelief, behold the dregs of the self-pitying anti-war movement. The white-flag crowd had so much trouble getting coverage of its worn-out, giant puppet-toting, drum-beating, ratty lingerie-flashing, Bush-cursing antics on Sunday that a sympathizer at the Associated Press devoted an entire sob story to the apathy. "CodePink faces tough odds for public's attention," the AP's Christine Simmons mourned. Perhaps if more than 10 of them showed up at one time to do something other than scream about BusHitler or bawl about detained Gitmo jihadists, they'd have better luck.
At Denver's City Center on Monday night, law enforcement authorities encountered about 100 aimless grievance-mongers -- self-described as "anti-capitalist, anti-fascist, anti-war" -- who finally fixed on something concrete to protest when their friends were arrested for refusing to disperse. "My freedom of speech was suppressed," one protester complained as she spoke freely to the media and acknowledged that she hadn't been arrested or asked to show identification.
In the melee, a few responsible adults were accidentally hit with pepper spray. Otherwise, Denver blogger Charlie Martin, who was covering the scene for Pajamas Media, quipped: "It was the world's most boring riot."
Finally, in a sorry attempt to re-create Abbie Hoffman's satirical stunt aimed at levitating the Pentagon, a dozen Re-create '68 stragglers dressed up like the cast of "Harry Potter," wielded magic wands and joined hands to float the Denver Mint. The Mint stayed firmly on the ground. To salvage the abysmal turnout, an unhinged contingent of 9/11 conspiracy theorists started barking at me. One buffoon shouted, "Kill Michelle Malkin," while the levitation experts chanted, "Peace and Justice!" and a wizard paraded around in his "Arrest Bush" T-shirt with Che Guevara promoters tossing fake quarters in the air.
To paraphrase a favorite left-wing bumper sticker slogan, discombobulation is the highest form of patriotism. Blame bankrupt ideology, not the altitude.
Idols of Crowds
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
"A human group transforms itself into a crowd when it suddenly responds to a suggestion rather than to reasoning, to an image rather than to an idea, to an affirmation rather than to proof, to the repetition of a phrase rather than to arguments, to prestige rather than to competence."
Jean-François Revel was not referring to the United States when he wrote those words, nor to his own France, but to human beings in general. He was certainly not referring to Barack Obama, whom he probably never heard of, since Revel died last year.
To find anything comparable to crowds' euphoric reactions to Obama, you would have to go back to old newsreels of German crowds in the 1930s, with their adulation of their fuehrer, Adolf Hitler. With hindsight, we can look back on those people with pity, knowing now how many of them would be led to their deaths by the man they idolized.
The exultation of the moment can exact a brutal price after that moment has passed. Nowhere is that truer than when it comes to picking the leader of a nation, which means entrusting that leader with the fate of millions today and of generations yet unborn.
A leader does not have to be evil to lead a country into a catastrophe. Inexperience and incompetence can create very similar results, perhaps even faster in a nuclear age, when even "a small country"-- as Senator Obama called Iran-- can wreak havoc anywhere in the world, when they are led by suicidal fanatics and supply nuclear weapons to terrorists who are likewise suicidal fanatics.
Barack Obama is truly a phenomenon of our time-- a presidential candidate who cannot cite a single serious accomplishment in his entire career, besides advancing his own career with rhetoric.
He has a rhetorical answer for everything. Those of us who talk about the threat of Iran are just engaging in "the politics of fear" according to Obama, something to distract us from "the real issues," such as raising taxes and handing out largesse with the proceeds.
Those who have studied the years leading up to World War II have been astonished by how many people and how many countries failed to see what Adolf Hitler was getting ready to do.
Even though Hitler telegraphed his punches, few people seemed to get the message. Books about that period have had such titles as "The Gathering Storm" and "Why England Slept."
Will future generations wonder why we slept? Why we could not see the gathering storm in Iran, where one of the world's leading oil producers is building nuclear facilities-- ostensibly to generate electricity, but whose obvious purpose is to produce nuclear bombs.
This is a country whose president has already threatened to wipe a neighboring country off the map. Does anyone need to draw pictures?
When terrorists get nuclear weapons, there will be no way to deter suicide bombers. We and our children will be permanently at the mercy of the merciless.
Yet what are we talking about? Taxing and spending policies, socking it to the oil companies and rescuing people who gambled on risky mortgages and lost.
Are we serious? Are we incapable of adult foresight and adult responsibility?
Barack Obama of course has his usual answer: talk. Rhetoric seems to be his answer to everything. Obama calls for "aggressive" diplomacy and "tough" negotiations with Iran.
These colorful adjectives may impress gullible voters but they are unlikely to impress fanatics who are willing to destroy themselves if they can destroy us in the process.
Just what is Senator Obama going to say to Iran that has not been said already? That we don't want them to develop nuclear weapons? That has already been said, every way that it can possibly be said. If talk was going to do the job, it would already have done it by now.
Go to the United Nations? What will they do, except issue warnings-- and when these are ignored, issue more warnings?
But what does Obama have besides talk-- and adoring crowds?
Foreign Policy "Experience"
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Now that the Democrats have recovered from the shock of Governor Sarah Palin's nomination as the Republican's candidate for vice president, they have suddenly discovered that her lack of experience in general-- and foreign policy experience in particular-- is a terrible danger in someone just a heartbeat away from being President of the United States.
For those who are satisfied with talking points, there is no need to go any further. But, for those who still consider substance relevant, this is an incredible argument coming from those whose presidential candidate has even less experience in public office than Sarah Palin, and none in foreign policy.
Moreover, if Senator Barack Obama is elected, he will not be a heartbeat away from the presidency, his would be the heartbeat of the president-- and he would be the one making foreign policy.
But the big talking point is that the Democrats' vice-presidential nominee, Senator Joe Biden, has years of foreign policy experience as a member, and now chairman, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
That all depends on what the definition of "experience" is.
Before getting into that, however, a plain fact should be noted: No governor ever had foreign policy experience before becoming president-- not Ronald Reagan, not Franklin D. Roosevelt, nor any other governor.
It is hard to know how many people could possibly have had foreign policy experience before reaching the White House besides a Secretary of State or a Secretary of Defense.
The last Secretary of War (the old title of Secretaries of Defense) to later become President of the United States was William Howard Taft, a hundred years ago. The last Secretary of State to become President of the United States was James Buchanan, a century and a half ago.
The first President Bush had been head of the C.I.A., which certainly gave him a lot of knowledge of what was happening around the world, though still not experience in making the country's foreign policy.
Senator Joe Biden's years of service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is even further removed from foreign policy experience. He has had a front-row seat as an observer of foreign policy. But Senator Biden has never had any real experience of making foreign policy and taking the consequences of the results.
The difference between being a spectator and being a participant, with responsibility for the consequences of what you say and do, is fundamental.
You can read books about crime or attend lectures by criminologists, but you have no real experience or expertise about crime unless you have been a criminal or a policeman.
Although I served in the Marine Corps, I have no military experience in any meaningful sense. The closest I ever came to combat was being assigned to photograph the maneuvers of the Second Marine Division at Camp Lejeune, N.C.
That was photographic experience, not military experience. If someone gave me a policy-making job in the Pentagon, I wouldn't have a clue.
The fact that Senator Joe Biden has for years listened to all sorts of people testify on all sorts of foreign policy issues tells us nothing about how well he understood the issues.
Out of the four presidential and vice-presidential candidates this year, only Governor Palin has had to make executive decisions and live with the consequences.
As for Senator Obama, his various pronouncements on foreign policy have been as immature as they have been presumptuous.
He talked publicly about taking military action against Pakistan, one of our few Islamic allies and a nation with nuclear weapons.
Barack Obama's first response to the Russian invasion of Georgia was to urge "all sides" to negotiate a cease-fire and take their issues to the United Nations. That is standard liberal talk, which even Obama had second thoughts about, after Senator John McCain gave a more grown-up response.
We should all have second thoughts about what is, and is not, foreign policy "experience."
We Heard . . .
THAT you might not know anything about the hacking of Sarah Palin's Yahoo e-mail account if you relied on several members of the left-wing mainstream press.
Computer hackers broke into the private e-mail account of the Republican vice presidential nominee and posted some of her messages and a list of contacts on the Internet.
But The New York Times' print edition didn't cover the story at all, relegating it to their blog.
And the Los Angeles Times buried its 85-word article in the middle of Page A16 in its Sept. 18 edition.
THAT Wikileaks, the Web site that posted screen shots of Sarah Palin's e-mail account, has posted documents indicating that Fox News' Bill O'Reilly's site may also have been hacked.
A short list of names and passwords for premium members of BillOReilly.com was recently posted, according to Wikileaks.
But it wasn't clear if user names or passwords were authentic, pcmag.com reported.
Premium members receive discounts at the BillOReilly.com store, among other benefits.
THAT the mainstream media gave plenty of coverage to a professional basketball player's remarks disrespecting "The Star Spangled Banner" -- but there's more to the story than has been told.
Dallas Mavericks star Josh Howard was taking part in a recent charity flag football game and was videotaped during a playing of the national anthem.
Howard was widely quoted as saying, "'The Star Spangled Banner' is going on right now. I don't even celebrate that [bleep]. I'm black."
What was NOT reported was that as Howard completed his remarks, a voice could be heard saying: "Obama '08."
Kissinger: Obama Was Wrong
Sunday, September 28, 2008 11:06 AM
During Friday night's presidential debate, Barack Obama claimed that one of John McCain's advisers, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, supported his view that the U.S. president should meet with Iran's president and other rogue dictators without preconditions.
The point made McCain livid, as he repeatedly pointed out that Kissinger, his friend of 35 years, would never back such a dangerous position.
McCain turned out to be right.
Kissinger released a statement immediately after the debate. It read:
"Sen. McCain is right. I would not recommend the next president of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the presidential level."
"Look, I'll sit down with anybody, but there's got to be preconditions," McCain said during the debate. He painted Obama's previously stated position as reckless and naive.
Obama Wants NRA Ads Banned
Saturday, September 27, 2008 8:10 PM
By: Newsmax staff
The Obama camp has been threatening television and radio stations to keep them from airing anti-Obama ads.
The latest target is the NRA and stations in Pennsylvania.
Earlier this week, the National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund released a series of radio and television spots to educate gun owners and sportsmen about Barack Obama's longstanding anti-gun record. In response to the NRA-PVF ads, a clearly panicked Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are doing everything they can to hide Obama's real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.
They have gone to desperate and outrageous lengths to try to silence your NRA by bullying media outlets with threats of lawsuits if they run NRA-PVF's ads.
The Obama camp is particularly angry with an NRA ad entitled "Hunter" which lays out Obama's record on gun control.
You can see the "Hunter" ad -- Go Here Now.
Other NRA ads include "Way of Life" and another focusing on Joe Biden's record, "Defend Freedom, Defeat Obama."
This week, Obama's campaign general counsel Bob Bauer wrote seeking to censor the ads at stations in Pennsylvania.
"Unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations do not have a 'right to command the use of broadcast facilities,'" Bauer writes. "Moreover, you have a duty 'to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.'"
"This advertising is false, misleading, and deceptive," Bauer continued. "We request that you immediately cease airing this advertising."
The NRA says Obama's camp are sending out these "intimidating cease and desist letters" to cable operators and television stations, threatening their FCC licenses if they run the ads.
The NRA charged that "Obama and the DNC have been using strong-arm tactics reminiscent of Chicago machine politics to try and cover up the truth and silence NRA by forcing the stations to assist them in hiding Obama's radical anti-gun record."
And now, Obama and the DNC have opened a new front in their assault on your First Amendment rights by calling on their followers to contact these station managers to demand that the stations not run NRA-PVF's ads.
NRA stands behind the accuracy of these ads, and NRA attorneys have responded to the Obama campaign's despicable and abusive attempt to trample on the First Amendment by sending a thorough rebuttal to station managers. This rebuttal clearly and conclusively refutes the Obama campaign's fallacious claims that the ads are inaccurate.
The NRA has set up a Web site detailing its position on Obama at www.gunbanobama.com.
A copy of the NRA's letter to station, written by its counsel Cleta Mitchell, follows below:
TO: Station Managers
FROM: Cleta Mitchell, Esq.
Counsel to National Rifle Association
DATE: September 25, 2008
RE: Documentation for Advertising by National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF")
This firm serves as counsel to the National Rifle Association ("NRA") and the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF"), which is the federal political action committee of the NRA and the sponsor of certain advertising purchased and soon-to-be purchased on your station. It has come to my clients' attention that the Obama for President campaign is engaging in an effort to prevent or stop the airing of certain ads by NRA-PVF, falsely alleging that the ads are 'inaccurate'. The Obama presidential campaign apparently relies on an article appearing in the Washington Post on September 23, 2008 to support its contention hat the NRA-PVF ads should not be aired.
The Washington Post is hardly an objective news source on any subject related to the issues to which the NRA is dedicated, having spent decades attacking not only the NRA but also fighting against the legislation and policies NRA supports to protect the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as supporting every conceivable government proposal or policy any officeholder or candidate suggests to weaken and disrupt the guarantees of the Second Amendment. It is therefore no surprise that the Washington Post would now attack the NRA for advertisements which truthfully disclose the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment record of Barack Obama, the candidate supported by the Washington Post.
Attached please find the point-by-point refutation of the Washington Post's article about the NRA-PVF ads regarding Obama's record on the Second Amendment, as well as an article disclosing the bias of the decidedly not neutral "FactChecker" on which the Washington Post article is ostensibly based.
The NRA devotes 100% of its time and resources to protecting the Second Amendment and fighting for government policies and legislation furtherance of the rights of the American people to keep and bear arms.
The legislative and policy record of candidates and officeholders such as Barack Obama are well known and documented by the NRA on an ongoing basis. NRA-PVF's advertising during the 2008 election cycle is based on that extensive research and documentation, which is being furnished to you with this Memorandum.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that your station disregard the shamefully
false assertions from the Obama campaign and its attorneys regarding the NRA-PVF
ads and that the ads run in accordance with the purchase(s) made by NRA-PVF
in the media buy.
DANFORTH and RUDMAN: Fair and square
John C. Danforth and Warren Rudman
Washington Times OP-ED
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
News outlets and citizens groups across the country are beginning to express concerns over voting rights in this year's election. The nightmare scenario is that Election Day won't be the end of it, that 2008 will be a rerun of 2000 and that if the election is as close as many expect, neither side will concede to the other on election night. However contentious a campaign, presidential elections are the people's time to decide the issue one way or another, to pick a course for the country and to begin the process of pursuing that course as a people, whether we were on the winning or losing side. Presidential elections give us a chance, at least for a time, to settle our differences and to give the new president our consent to lead the country.
This presumes that the losing side believes that it has lost fairly. It had its chance, and it simply came up short in votes. However disappointed we may be with the outcome, it's a result we accept. We say that the people have spoken. What we can't and won't accept is the belief that the election was not fair, that the other side has cheated and has stolen the election from us. As a country, we will not likely rally behind a new president if we do not believe that he has won his office fairly.
Both parties enlist squads of lawyers to protect their candidates from nefarious practices or to devise tactics for gaming the system or to persuade the public that the other side is trying to steal the election. Before the 2004 presidential election, lawyers filed more than 60 lawsuits concerning voting procedures. Whether meritorious or not, this litigation carried the single message that the other side was corrupt and that the election results could be suspect.
We have accepted Sen. John McCain's invitation to chair his campaign's Honest and Open Election Committee. Our group includes former members of Congress, former state election officials and prominent experts in election law. Our objective has two components: 1) to ensure that every qualified citizen has an honest and transparent opportunity to vote that is free of intimidation; and 2) to make sure that there is no dilution of the franchise of people qualified to vote by "stuffing the ballot box" with votes obtained by fraud. Our strong conviction is that these twin objectives should not favor one candidate above the other, that they transcend partisanship and that they should be the goals of supporters of both Mr. McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.
With that conviction, we have written the chairman of the Democratic National Committee and the manager of the Obama-Biden campaign and invited them to join with us in a cooperative effort to address election issues that would otherwise be adversarial.
Specifically, we have suggested that each campaign list every precinct in battleground states where either side fears there is a potential for voter intimidation, fraud or mistrust of the tabulation process. We proposed that each campaign recruit a volunteer for each named precinct to work jointly as an observation team. Similarly, the campaigns would recruit bipartisan teams that would oversee multiple precincts and respond to and investigate reports of problems. Such teams would invite members of the media to be embedded with them or to be present in central locations.
In addition, we suggested that the two campaigns work together in each state with the appropriate election officials to establish, in advance of the election, clear rules for when polling places will be kept open after the closing time established by law. In every state, voters in line at closing time are entitled to vote, so that is not the issue. Controversy and charges of unfairness occur when selected polling places remain open so that campaign workers can round up absentees and deliver them to the polls after the hour established by law. If there are to be exceptions to the closing rules, their basis should be agreed to in advance and should be fair.
Moreover, the two campaigns, working together and with the courts, could identify duty judges who would be on call on election night to rule on applications for extending voting hours, and they could provide systems for notifying the opposing side before going to court.
These are simply our suggestions of ways in which the two campaigns can work together to further the common objective of an honest and open election. We would welcome the suggestions of our Democratic counterparts. The challenge is to anticipate problems before Election Day and to work together on a bipartisan basis to solve them. With only days left before the election, time is of the essence, as is good faith on both sides. The benefit of such a timely effort will be priceless: public confidence in the outcome, whatever it is.
Former Sen. Warren Rudman of New Hampshire and former Sen. John C. Danforth of Missouri are co-chairmen of the McCain-Palin 2008 Honest and Open Election Committee.
McCain's Best Foot Forward: Taxes, Economy
Thursday, September 25, 2008 9:31 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
The primaries are over. Obama's European tour is over. The conventions are over. The VP selections have been made and, incredibly, this race is right back where it has been since the spring: a narrow Obama lead.
When the financial crisis overshadowed the Palin bounce, you could almost hear the race clicking back into its former position with Obama between one and three points ahead of McCain. (Don't worry about the margin of error. With 50 polls showing the same thing, the cumulative chance of error is negligible).
Except for an Obama bulge after Hillary's withdrawal and on his return from Europe, and a McCain bounce after his convention and the Palin selection, Obama has remained slightly ahead for five months. Because the race has been in this holding pattern for so long, it will be very hard for McCain to break into the lead.
The debates present a great opportunity.
If McCain can resume the lead he had held during early September, he can set a new pattern for the race. But if he fails to break through, Obama's lead will just harden all the more.
To appreciate how McCain could surge into the lead in the debates, we need to focus on what has changed about the race in the past few months.
McCain has emerged from the exchange of convention oratory with a much more solid reputation for reliability and judgment than Obama. Remember the Fox News poll that showed voters -- by 50-34 -- turning to McCain, not to Obama, for advice when facing "the toughest decision of your life." And McCain, largely due to the selection of Palin, has recovered his maverick status and is no longer seen as a Bush clone.
But the financial crisis has given Obama a way to recover from the beating he took when McCain chose Palin and he opted for Biden. It reminds people of the mess into which they feel Bush has plunged this country and makes his message of change that much more attractive.
The debates offer McCain an opportunity to push past the recognition of the crisis and strike two themes:
(a) that, as a populist, he objects to the golden parachutes offered the Wall Street executives who mismanaged their firms and required a federal bailout, and
(b) he wants to warn voters of impending doom if Obama's proposed tax increases ever become law.
Obama is in a tough position. He entered the race with three issues: to end the war in Iraq, to change Washington, and to restore fairness to our tax system by eliminating the Bush tax cuts that favor the wealthy.
Now, the war in Iraq appears to have been won and Republicans get much higher marks than Democrats on which party would be most effective in dealing with the situation. And, with the designation of Palin, McCain has offered a credible vision of change that Obama will have a hard time disputing.
But now Obama has a new problem. His campaign is based on tax proposals that may have made sense in normal times but are distinctly dangerous now that the financial crisis is gripping America.
Even a liberal would have to concede that as we watch Wall Street each day and hope and pray that more money will flow in to keep stock prices high enough to allow companies to stay alive and keep millions employed, it is no time to raise taxes on invested capital. Such taxes now seem like a tax on water in the desert.
But Obama can hardly back off one of the main tenets of his campaign. He can't say that he didn't realize that his tax proposal would be harmful in a financial crisis.
He can, and has, scaled back the doubling of the capital gains tax that he proposed during the primaries and now wants only a 33 percent hike (from 15 percent to 20 percent). But, in his reflective moments, he must realize that this is the wrong tax at the wrong time.
But he is stuck with this lemon of a proposal and McCain can use the debates to make him pay for it -- before we have to!
Barack Obama's Ancestors Owned Slaves
Wire services carried an article a few days ago describing the relationship of the families of segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond and the Reverend Al Sharpton. Now another politician has been linked to slavery in a manner that may surprise all. It seems that Barack Obama's ancestors owned slaves.
Mr. Obama's immediate ancestry is well known. His father is a black man from Kenya, and his mother is a white woman from Kansas. William Addams Reitwiesner, who works at the Library of Congress and practices genealogy in his spare time, spent time researching Obama's ancestry and found that his mother's family owned slaves, according to census records.
According to the research, one of Obama's great-great-great-great grandfathers, George Washington Overall, owned two slaves who were recorded in the 1850 Census in Nelson County, Kentucky. The same records show that one of Obama's great-great-great-great-great-grandmothers, Mary Duvall, also owned two slaves.
You can read more in the Chicago Tribune.
Diplomas Won't Make Jihadis Go Away, Barack
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
In all the brouhaha over the New Yorker's satirical cover cartoon of Barack and Michelle Obama, a truly "tasteless and offensive" passage in the magazine's feature article got lost. The magazine piece quotes Obama's recommendations for how to stop jihad, which he had previously published in a local Chicago newspaper eight days after 9/11. It's a self-parody of blind, deaf and dumb Kumbaya liberalism:
"We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."
Is this man for real? Osama bin Laden's murderous legions are plenty able to "imagine" the "suffering of others." Go watch an al-Qaida beheading snuff video. Just Google it or surf YouTube. Imagining the suffering of infidels is covered amply in basic Jihadi Training 101.
You'll note, too, that Obama's fresh instinct in the week after the 9/11 attack was to diagnose it as a "tragedy" stemming from lack of "empathy" and "understanding" -- instead of as the deliberate, carefully planned evil act of the long-waged Islamic war on the West that it was.
As for Obama's continued delusion about the "climate of poverty and ignorance" that supposedly breeds Muslim terrorists, can American politicians ever rid themselves of this unreality-based trope? This belief is part and parcel of the same idiocy that led the State Department to embrace "spa days" for Muslims to "build bridges" with the Arab world and President Bush to open up our aviation schools to more Saudi students to "improve understanding."
John McCain also alluded to education-as-cure for Islamic terrorism at the L.A. World Affairs Council in March, when he declared, "In this struggle, scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs." Just what we need: more student visas for the jihadi-infested nation that sent us the bulk of the 9/11 hijackers.
Author and National Review Online blogger Mark Steyn's sharp rejoinder to McCain then applies to Obama now: "There's plenty of evidence out there that the most extreme 'extremists' are those who've been most exposed to the west -- and western education: from Osama bin Laden (summer school at Oxford, punting on the Thames) and Mohammed Atta (Hamburg University urban planning student) to the London School of Economics graduate responsible for the beheading of Daniel Pearl. The idea that handing out college scholarships to young Saudi males and getting them hooked on Starbucks and car-chase movies will make this stuff go away is ridiculous -- and unworthy of a serious presidential candidate."
Ayman al-Zawahiri didn't need more education or wealth to steer him away from Islamic imperialism and working toward a worldwide caliphate. He has a medical degree. So does former Hamas biggie Abdel al-Rantissi. Seven upper-middle-class jihadi doctors were implicated in the 2007 London/Glasgow bombings. Suspected al-Qaida scientist Aafia Siddiqui, still wanted by the FBI for questioning, is a Pakistani who studied microbiology at MIT and did graduate work in neurology at Brandeis.
And as I've reported before and must reiterate for the hard of hearing in Washington, lowering academic standards at American colleges helped al-Qaida mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed further the jihadi cause. In the early 1980s, he enrolled at tiny Chowan College in Murfreesboro, N.C., which had dropped its English requirements to attract -- ahem -- wealthy Middle Easterners.
At Chowan, Mohammed bonded with other Arab Muslim foreign students known as the "Mullahs" for their religious zeal. Mohammed then transferred to North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, where he earned his degree in mechanical engineering along with 30 other Muslims.
Mohammed applied his Western learning to oversee the 1993 World Trade Center bombing plot (six Americans dead), the U.S.S. Cole attack (17 American soldiers dead) and the 9/11 attacks (3,000 dead). He has also been linked to the 1998 African embassy bombings (212 dead, including 12 Americans), the plot to kill the pope, the murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl and the Bali nightclub blast that killed nearly 200 tourists, including two more Americans.
Perhaps bleeding-heart Obama thinks a master's degree in social work would have convinced poverty-stricken, helpless, ignorant, despairing Mohammed to change his mind?
Obama's Harvard Years: Questions Swirl
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:11 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size
How exactly did Barack Obama pay for his Harvard Law School education?
The way the Obama campaign has answered the question was simply hard work and student loans.
But new questions have been raised about Obama's student loans and Obama's ties to a radical Muslim activist who reportedly was raising money for Obama's Harvard studies during the years 1988 to 1991.
The allegations first surfaced in late March, when former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton told a New York cable channel that a former business partner who was "raising money" for Obama had approached him in 1988 to help Obama get into Harvard Law School.
In the interview, Sutton says he first heard of Obama about twenty years ago from Khalid Al-Mansour, a Black Muslim and Black Nationalist who was a "mentor" to the founders of the Black Panther party at the time the party was founded in the early 1960s.
Sutton described al-Mansour as advisor to "one of the world's richest men," Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal.
Prince Alwaleed catapulted to fame in the United States after the September 11 attacks, when New York mayor Rudy Guiliani refused his $10 million check to help rebuild Manhattan, because the Saudi prince hinted publicly that America's pro-Israel policies were to blame for the attacks.
Sutton knew Al-Mansour well, since the two men had been business partners and served on several corporate boards together.
As Sutton remembered, Al-Mansour was raising money for Obama's education and seeking recommendations for him to attend Harvard Law School.
"I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him," Sutton told NY1 city hall reporter Dominic Carter. "The friend's name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas."
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told Newsmax that Sutton's account was "bogus" and a "fabrication that has been retracted" by a spokesman for the Sutton family.
He referred Newsmax to a pro-Obama blog published on Politico.com by reporter Ben Smith.
In a September 3 blog entry, Smith wrote that "a spokesman for Sutton's family, Kevin Wardally" said that Sutton had been mistaken when he made those comments about Obama and Khalid Al-Mansour.
Smith suggested the retraction "put the [Obama/Al-Mansour] story to rest for good."
Wardally told Smith that the "information Mr. Percy Sutton imported [sic] on March 25 in a NY1 News interview regarding his connection to Barack Obama is inaccurate. As best as our family and the Chairman's closest friends can tell, Mr. Sutton, now 86 years of age, misspoke in describing certain details and events in that television interview."
Asked which parts of Percy Sutton's statements were a "fabrication," LaBolt said "all of it. Al Mansour doesn't know Obama. And Sutton's spokesman retracted the story. The letter [to Harvard, which Percy Sutton says he wrote on behalf of Obama], the 'payments for loans' -- all of it, not true," he added.
Newsmax contacted the Sutton family and they categorically denied Wardally's claims to Smith and the Politico.com. So there was no retraction of Sutton's original interview, during which he revealed that Khalid Al-Mansour was "raising money" for Obama and had asked Sutton to write a letter of recommendation for Obama to help him get accepted at Harvard Law School.
Sutton's personal assistant told Newsmax that neither Mr. Sutton or his family had ever heard of Kevin Wardally.
"Who is this person?" asked Sutton's assistant, Karen Malone.
When told that he portrayed himself as a "spokesman" for the family, Malone told Newsmax, "Well, he's not."
According to a 2006 New York magazine profile, Wardally is part of a "New New Guard" in Harlem politics that has been challenging the "lions" of the old guard, Charles Rangel and Percy Sutton. That makes him an unlikely candidate to speak on behalf of Sutton.
Sutton maintains an office at the Manhattan headquarters of the firm he founded, Inner City Broadcasting Corporation. ICBC owns New York radio stations WBLS and WLIB.
Sutton's son Pierre ("Pepe") runs ICBC along with his daughter, Keisha Sutton-James. Malone told Newsmax that she had consulted with Sutton's family members at the station and confirmed that no one knew Kevin Wardally or had authorized him to speak on behalf of the family.
For someone claiming to be a "spokesman" for the Sutton family, who was authorized to call Percy Sutton a liar, Wardally even got Percy Sutton's age wrong.
Sutton is not 86, as Wardally said, but close to 88. He was born on Nov. 24, 1920.
Wardally responded to a several Newsmax phone messages and emails with a terse one-line comment, maintaining his statement that Percy Sutton "misspoke" in the television interview.
"I believe the statement speaks for itself and the Sutton Family and I have nothing further to say on the topic," he wrote in an email.
Asked to explain why it was that no one at Inner City Broadcasting Corp. knew of him or accepted him as a family spokesman, Wardally responded later that he had been retained by a nephew of the elder Sutton, who "is in our office almost every week."
Wardally works for Bill Lynch Associations, a Harlem political consulting firm. The nephew, Chuck Sutton, no longer works with the elder Sutton at Inner City Broadcasting, but for a high-tech start-up called Synematics.
"Percy Sutton doesn't go out idly on television saying things he doesn't mean," a well-connected black entrepreneur who knows Sutton told Newsmax.
Ben LaBolt's claim that "Al Mansour doesn't know Obama" was contradicted by Al Mansour himself in an extended interview with Newsmax.
Comparing the revelation of his ties to Obama to the controversy surrounding Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Al Mansour said that he was determined to keep a low profile to avoid embarrassing Obama.
"In respect to Mr. Obama, I have told him, because so many people are running after him… I was determined that I was never going to be in that situation," he told Newsmax.
Al Mansour said he was deliberately avoiding any contact with the candidate. "I'm not involved in any way in celebrity sweepstakes," he said. "I wish him well, anything I can do if he lets me know, I'll let him know what I think I can do or can't. But I don't collect autographs. I wish him the best, and hope he can win the election."
He repeatedly declined to comment on the Percy Sutton allegations, either to confirm or to deny them.
"Any statement that I make would only further the activity which is not in the interest of Barack, not in the interest of Percy, not in the interest of anyone," Al Mansour said.
Sen. Obama has refused to instruct Harvard Law School to release any information about his time there as a student, or about his student loans.
Newsmax contacted the Dean of Students, the Director of Student Financial Services, the Registrar, and the Bursar of Harvard Law School. None would provide any specific information on Barack Obama's time at Harvard, except for his dates of attendance (1988-1991) or his year of graduation, 1991.
A spokesman for the law school, Michael Armini, said it was Harvard policy not to divulge information on alumni without their approval.
"There are lots of reporters nosing around the library," he acknowledged. So far, none had turned up any new information.
Law professors Lawrence Tribe and Charles Ogletree have both said publicly that they were "impressed" by Obama when he was a student.
Sources close to the Sutton family told Newsmax that Percy Sutton wrote a letter of recommendation for Obama to Ogletree at Khalid Al-Mansour's request, but Ogletree declined to answer Newsmax questions about this.
Harvard Law School spokesman Michael Armini said that Harvard was "very generous" with financial aid, but only on the basis on need.
The Obama campaign told Newsmax that Obama self-financed his three years at Harvard Law School with loans, and did not receive any scholarship from Harvard Law school.
LaBolt denied that Obama received any financial assistance from Harvard or from outside parties. "No - he paid his way through by taking out loans," he said in an email to Newsmax.
At the time, Harvard cost around $25,000 a year, or $75,000 for the three years that Obama attended. And as president of the Harvard Law Review, he received no stipend from the school, Harvard spokesman Mike Armini said.
"That is considered a volunteer position," Armini said. "There is no salary or grant associated with it."
So if the figures cited by the Obama campaign for the Senator's student loans are accurate, that means that Obama came up with more than $32,000 over three years from sources other than loans to pay for tuition, room and board.
Where did he find the money? Did it come from friends of Khalid Al Mansour? And why would a radical Muslim activist with ties to the Saudi royal family be raising money for Barack Obama?
That's the question the Obama campaign still won't answer.
Michelle Obama Speaks Out
Speaking at a campaign event in Haverford, Pa, in April of this year, Michelle Obama claimed that her husband had "just paid off his loan debt" for his Harvard Law School education.
In an appearance in Zanesville, Ohio, in February she bemoaned the fact that many American families were strapped with student loan payments for years after graduation.
"The only reason we're not in that position is that Barack wrote two best-selling books," she said. The first of those best-sellers netted the couple $1.2 million in royalties in 2005.
In response to Newsmax questions about the Obama's college loans, a campaign spokesman cited a report in The Chicago Sun claiming that Obama borrowed $42,753 to pay for Harvard Law School, and "tens of thousands" more to pay for undergraduate studies at Columbia.
The same report said that Michelle Obama borrowed $40,762 to pay for her years at Harvard Law School.
But a Newsmax review of Senator Obama's financial disclosures found no trace of any outstanding college loans, going back to 2000.
As a United States Senate candidate, Barack Obama was required to file a financial disclosure form in 2004 detailing his assets, income, consulting contracts, and liabilities.
Obama listed "zero" under liabilities in 2004 and in all subsequent U.S. Senate financial disclosure forms.
Under the Senate ethics rules, he is required to disclose any loan, including credit card debt, of $10,000 or more. The only exception to the reporting requirement is mortgage debt on a principal residence.
The Senate reports also directly contradict Michelle Obama's claim that the couple had "only just" paid off their student loans after receiving book royalties paid out in 2005 and 2006 -- well after her husband had been ensconced in the Senate.
Apparently, Michelle Obama misspoke, according to the version provided by the Obama campaign.
Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt now tells Newsmax that the loans Sen. Obama took out to pay for Harvard Law School "were repaid in full while he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate [in 2004], and under the rules, the modest outstanding balance he repaid was not reportable as a liability on his personal financial disclosure reports."
The Senator repaid the loans on "the expectation of a significant increase in family income" as a result of the paperback edition of his 1995 book, Dreams of My Father, LaBolt said.
Obama acknowledges that sales of the hard cover edition of the book were "underwhelming." But in the spring of 2004,when Obama won the Democrat U.S. Senate primary in Illinois, Rachel Klayman, an editor at Crown Publishers in New York, read an article about Obama and became interested in his memoir, only to discover that Crown now owned the rights.
She asked Obama to write a new forward, and Crown then decided to re-issue Dreams as a paperback in July 2004, just as Obama made his historic speech to the Democrat National Convention.
The paperback eventually sold over one million copies, which under the standard industry royalty for trade paperbacks of 7.5%, earned him $1.2 million. However, Obama didn't report income from the book until 2005, so it's unclear how he was able to repay his student loans in 2004.
Responding to attacks from the Hillary Clinton campaign during the primaries, Obama released seven years of tax returns on March 25 of this year.
The returns, dating back to 2000, indicate that the couple paid no interest on their student loans. The interest from such loans would have been deductible on their joint income tax returns.
For 2000 through 2004, taxpayers declared student loan interest as a deduction on line 24 of federal form 1040. After 2004, the deduction can be taken on Line 33.
But the Obamas never declared a dime of interest in student loans on their return, most likely because they simply earned too much money to be able to take the deduction under the IRS rules.
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt had no answer as to why the Obamas' failed to declare the loans, stating the obvious that "because interest on the loans was not deducted, it would not appear on the Obamas' personal return."
Tries To Flush Rush
Brent Bozell III
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
For two decades, going back to the Willie Horton ads of 1988, we've heard liberals accuse Republicans of race-baiting. Throughout this campaign, there have been endless whispers, suggestions and outright accusations that GOP could/would play the race card because Obama is half-black. Now Barack Obama has found his bizarre version of Willie Horton, and it's . Rush Limbaugh.
Obama sneakily tried to air a Spanish-language TV ad telling Latinos that Limbaugh thinks all Mexicans are stupid, Mexican immigrants should all shut up and go home, and that Limbaugh and John McCain are identical twins on immigration.
None of it is true. Now when Obama talks about reaching across the aisle and healing a divided Washington, we'll fall to the ground laughing.
How far we've come since January, when moderate McCain won in South Carolina, and the liberal media were declaring that this showed that Limbaugh and his right-wing views were politically dead. Tom Brokaw huffily declared on "Meet the Press" that McCain's win showed Americans had rejected "dogma" and were a "nomadic herd" hungering only for "solutions," something conservatives apparently can't offer.
What Obama was trying to do in this ad, obviously, was play to racial fears. "They want us to forget the insults we've put up with, the intolerance," the ad announcer proclaimed in Spanish as a picture of Rush Limbaugh appeared onscreen with quotes of him allegedly saying, "Mexicans are stupid and unqualified" and "Shut your mouth or get out." The announcer added: "They made us feel marginalized in a country we love so much."
From there, the Democrats turned to tie this phony cartoon of Limbaugh to McCain: "John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote, and another, even worse, that continues the failed policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families."
The script first broke into the national media on a Washington Post blog called The Trail. It was first corrected on an ABC News blog by political reporter Jake Tapper. The mangled "Mexicans are stupid" quote came from 1993, during debate over the NAFTA trade agreement, when Rush suggested that America shouldn't worry about losing low-skill jobs: "let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."
Tapper suggested the second quote was "totally unfair," since Limbaugh was suggesting in one of his morning radio commentaries in 2006 that the "Limbaugh Laws" of immigration would include not letting immigrants offer any criticism of the government of the president. "You're a foreigner, shut your mouth, or get out." At the end, he craftily noted that this and other laws are the immigration policy of Mexico.
But here's where it gets fascinating. The Washington Post offered no "fact check" debunking Obama's lies about Limbaugh in the news section of the paper. To her credit, liberal columnist Ruth Marcus slammed it five days later, but the news section did not. ABC News somehow allowed Tapper to blog everything that was wrong about the Obama ad, but never put him on television explaining it. ABC skipped it. So did CBS. So did NBC.
It gets worse. A day after Tapper's online fact check, "Nightline" host Terry Moran put together a real hatchet job on McCain, accusing him of not only flip-flopping on the issues, but also flip-flopping on campaign decency. "The old John McCain repeatedly promised voters a different kind of campaign. Nobler, less nasty, better. ... That was then. This is now."
Moran reported that McCain mocked Obama's vote in the Illinois Senate to allow "age-appropriate" sex education for kindergarteners. McCain was wrong to say in the ad that this vote was an "accomplishment," since the bill never passed, even though Obama's vote for this crud places him against most parents and solidly on the libertine left. And his subsequent statement that he shouldn't be tagged for that bill because he only voted for it, but didn't sponsor it, is far more disingenuous.
Moran highlighted how the site Factcheck.org declared the McCain ad "simply false," but never noticed that the same Factcheck.org also declared Obama's Limbaugh ad "doubly misleading."
Former Bush pollster Matthew Dowd completely sold out whatever soul he still possessed by singing harmony to Moran's melody: "And I think the Obama campaign wants to have this as a campaign in the clouds. I think the McCain campaign wants to have a campaign that's in the mud."
So even as ABC's website reports that Obama is gravely misleading Latinos about the alleged Mexican-hating Rush Limbaugh, El Gringo Maximo, ABC is airing ridiculous claims from its own "experts" proclaiming Obama wants to campaign "in the clouds." Which camp is abandoning fair-play principles for political gain?
JFK: Democrats' Role Model?
Thursday, September 04, 2008
The John F. Kennedy legacy came up repeatedly during the Democratic National Convention. But today, would JFK even be a Democrat?
Kennedy supported, in today's lexicon, a George W. Bush-like "belligerent" approach to fighting the Cold War, and told CBS' Walter Cronkite it would be "a great mistake" to withdraw the American presence from Vietnam. In his 1961 inaugural speech, Kennedy said, "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
How would such a man feel about fighting today's global peril -- Islamofascism?
Barack Obama likes to point to the 1961 Kennedy-Khrushchev summit to support his desire for meetings "without preconditions" with enemies such as Iran and North Korea.
But Kennedy's secretary of State, Dean Rusk, urged against such a non-conditions-based summit. And later, Kennedy called the summit meeting the "roughest thing in my life. (Khrushchev) just beat the hell out of me. I've got a terrible problem if he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts." Indeed, Khrushchev thought Kennedy a weak amateur. Following the summit, Khrushchev built the Berlin Wall and placed missiles in Cuba, an action that led the world to the brink of nuclear conflict.
Kennedy believed in cutting taxes -- deeply and dramatically. Before Kennedy's tax cuts, the top marginal tax rate stood at over 90 percent, and Kennedy -- albeit after his assassination -- got it reduced to 70 percent, a much greater percentage reduction than did Bush. Kennedy, in a 1962 speech before the Economic Club of New York said, "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy, which can bring a budget surplus."
In January 1963, Kennedy addressed Congress: "Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased -- not a reduced -- flow of revenues to the federal government." Several days later, JFK sent another message to Congress: "Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort -- thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."
In a televised national address just two months before his assassination, Kennedy broke it down: "A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."
Kennedy, unlike Obama, opposed race-based preferences. In a 1963 interview, Kennedy expected blacks to resist a call for preferential treatment: "The Negro community did not want job quotas to compensate for past discrimination. What I think they would like is to see their children well educated, so that they could hold jobs … and have themselves accepted as equal members of the community. … I don't think we can undo the past. In fact, the past is going to be with us for a good many years in uneducated men and women who lost their chance for a decent education. We have to do the best we can now. That is what we are trying to do."
Kennedy also objected to assigning positions or granting promotions based on what today's advocates call underrepresentation: "I think it is a mistake to begin to assign quotas on the basis of religion or race -- color -- nationality. … On the other hand, I do think that we ought to make an effort to give a fair chance to everyone who is qualified -- not through a quota -- but just look over our employment rolls, look over our areas where we are hiring people and at least make sure we are giving everyone a fair chance. But not hard and fast quotas. … We are too mixed, this society of ours, to begin to divide ourselves on the basis of race or color."
So when the haze disappears, what remains? A man of limited government, low taxes and strong national defense who rejected a government-led redistribution of wealth.
In other words, someone who would today fit very comfortably in the party -- the Republican Party.
Barney Frank and the politics of family values
Monday, September 15, 2008
Barney Frank isn't just another liberal. And he is much more than just an openly gay congressman. He is a powerful legislator who happens to be chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
This makes Frank a central and influential player in government's response to the current mortgage crisis that has rocked our financial markets. The decisions that Frank, a Democrat, makes can put taxpayers on the hook for not just billions, but trillions of dollars. These are decisions that effect our pocketbooks but also our freedom. They influence the size and scope of government in the lives of every American citizen.
So, yes, I care a lot about what Barney Frank thinks, and how he thinks, on any subject that I know matters to him.
It's why I paid particular attention when Frank decided to join the liberal chorus attacking conservatives on the issue of John McCain's selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.
In an op-ed in his hometown paper, the Boston Globe, Frank portrays conservatives as small-minded and intolerant folk who are willing to hypocritically look the other way, and forgive where they normally would not forgive, in order to get one of their own into a position of power.
With regard to Palin's sister's divorce, and the pregnancy of her teenage daughter, "people of the right," according to Frank, "seek to impose strict standards on others, and blame them for falling short, while making exceptions for those close to them."
This, in contrast to liberals, who for Frank are honest about and realistic in addressing life's many challenges, and ready to forgive, at the drop of a hat, those who stray off the path.
In Frank's mind, liberalism is tantamount to respect and compassion. And conservatism amounts to intolerance and self-righteousness.
My guess is that Crystal Dixon, who I wrote about earlier this year, doesn't quite see the world as Barney Frank does.
Dixon, a black Christian woman, wrote an op-ed that was published in the Toledo Free Press, as a counter point to a pro-gay opinion column that had appeared in the paper. She challenged that column and expressed her sense, as a Christian, that homosexual behavior is unacceptable. She also challenged the premise equating unwillingness to accept homosexuality to racial discrimination ("I cannot wake up tomorrow morning and not be a black woman").
Dixon was fired from the administrative position she held at the University of Toledo for writing this column and expressing her views.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for Barney Frank to write an outraged column about the abrogation of Crystal Dixon's freedom. I'm not expecting much respect and compassion from the congressman for a woman who lost her job because she is a Christian and tired of sitting by quietly and passively as others force their counter-world view on her.
Barney Frank calls James Dobson "one of the leading advocates for imposing moral choices on the rest of us."
Frank introduced last year the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 making it a federal crime for an employer to deny employment to an individual because of their sexual orientation.
Dobson talks on the radio. Frank, a congressman, wields major political power and wants to pass legislation imposing his sense of right and wrong on every employer in America, and yet he sees Dobson as the threat to freedom.
As the many Americans who quietly go to church and unobtrusively raise their families have sat by quietly and passively over the years, left-wing activists such as Frank have hijacked our nation and our culture. Now that those who care about traditional values respond, they are called intolerant.
Initiatives to constitutionally define marriage as between a man and a woman have not come out of the blue. They are in response to left-wing inspired judicial activism that, if ignored, would result in homosexual marriage becoming a formal and legal reality in America.
Of course, conservatives are thrilled by the candidacy of Sarah Palin.
And, of course, Christians understand that to err is to be human. Forgiveness is a pillar of our faith.
We even forgive Barney Frank. Our only intolerance is toward his campaign
to tear down the traditional values foundation of our country and replace them
with his culture of nihilism.
The end of race and gender politics
Monday, September 08, 2008
Who would have ever thought, when we were dozing off in the middle of John McCain's presidential campaign, that he'd reel in Sarah Barracuda and change the game overnight?
"Barracuda," of course, was what they called Gov, Sarah Palin when she was a star point guard on her high school basketball team.
I'm not fond of sweeping pronouncements suggesting that any development is "historic" or "changes things forever." But this time I'm giving in to temptation.
This presidential campaign is historic and will change things forever.
We've a black man on the Democratic ticket and a white woman on the Republican ticket, and both are out of the mold of conventional race and gender politics. The result will be, if not the end of race and gender politics, then certainly the beginning of the end.
The irony of the Obama candidacy is that it did not begin to soar until it was clear to blacks that this was not business-as-usual black politics. This was much different from electing a black candidate in a racially gerrymandered district that practically guarantees that a black is elected.
Consider the contrast between Obama and now ex-Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.
Kilpatrick has just agreed to resign his position as mayor, despite eight felony counts filed against him and overwhelming evidence that he lied to the Detroit City Council about his extramarital affair with his chief of staff, Christine Beatty.
Kilpatrick's shenanigans have cost Detroit taxpayers millions, including $8.4 million used to settle a whistleblower lawsuit filed to expose his affair.
Despite the compelling case against him, and huge costs imposed on taxpayers, Kilpatrick hung on to his mayoral job for almost nine months after the Detroit Free Press broke the story that he was lying about his affair.
It took Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm to agree, at the request of the Detroit City Council, to preside over a hearing on whether to remove him to cause him admit he lied and step down.
What fueled Kilpatrick's stubbornness in the face of obvious guilt? The sense that he could hide behind race.
Many Detroit blacks dug in with their support of Kilpatrick as white suburbanites called for his resignation.
He even pulled the gender card when he lied under oath.
"My mother is a congresswoman. There have always been strong women around me," he testified. "I think it's absurd to assert that every woman that works with a man is a whore. I think it's disrespectful, not just to Christine Beatty but to women who do the professional job that they do every single day."
This is classic race and gender politics, rooted in a core cynicism about this country and about life in general. It relegates idealism and integrity to the weak and the naive.
Obama changes all this. His candidacy, by necessity if for no other reason, transcends race. A black candidate could never succeed on the national stage if he were not a candidate who happened to be black.
And Gov. Palin? Here is a young woman who says that being governor of Alaska is a "cool job,'' calls her husband, a blue-collar worker and union member, the "first dude," and is a pro-life Christian with five children and a corruption fighting, limited government Republican.
Word is that Democrats are rolling out female surrogates to counter the surprise Palin onslaught. This to be led, of course, by Sen. Hillary Clinton.
If there is one line from Sen. Clinton's campaign that defines her, I think it would be "fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."
It's the left-wing call to arms. Only bureaucracy can produce the good.
Yet, ironically, whether we talk about the settling of America, the abolitionist movement, the women's suffrage movement, or the civil rights movement, the initiative has been from motivated, idealistic private citizens. Not bureaucrats.
Now we have a black candidate and a woman candidate on the respective national tickets that defy political cliches.
The result can only be a new excellence.
More proof of the greatness of this country and the power of freedom.
Black Politics? You mean liberal politics
Monday, August 11, 2008
A feature story in this week's New York Times Magazine asks, "Is Obama the End of Black Politics?"
This in the wake of a full week of TV talking heads asking if presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama played the "race card" in his response to John McCain's Obama "celebrity" ads. And an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by black journalist Juan Williams saying "The Race Issue Isn't Going Away."
Williams is right. The race issue isn't going away. And the New York Times feature, which profiles new young black politicians around the nation -- like Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, Newark, N.J., mayor Corey Booker, and Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter -- sheds little light on the issue in what it says.
More revealing about the Times piece is what it doesn't say.
The Times reporter never found it relevant to note that every black politician he spoke to is a Democrat. Nor did he see a need to talk to a single black conservative.
It's not like black conservatives have nothing to say here. Hoover Institution scholar Shelby Steele wrote a book about Obama. Tom Sowell has regularly written about him, as have I.
But black conservatives are not considered relevant to these discussions because race is not an issue of ethnicity but an issue of politics. Black politics means liberal politics and hence black conservatives are not black.
When I do media and speak as a conservative, I can expect emails pouring in from blacks calling me a sellout, who cannot conceive that I actually believe what I say, and for whom there is little doubt that I am a paid Republican shill.
Almost a third of blacks surveyed in a recent Wall Street Journal poll responded that race is the most important or one of the most important considerations in their vote.
But practically speaking, it makes no difference. Despite black excitement and pride in the Obama candidacy, the black vote would go for whoever headed the Democratic ticket, white or black. In 2004 John Kerry got 88 percent of the black vote.
The dynamics that the Obama candidacy has interjected is new only in form, not in content.
In the past, the liberal at the top of the heap for whom blacks overwhelmingly voted was white. Now that liberal is black. That's new.
Barack Obama, as Shelby Steele has written, departs from the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton brand of politics in that he is far more sophisticated and subtle in how to play on white guilt and how to intimidate. That's new.
But the liberal content and agenda is not new, and this blacks continue to buy en masse.
The points conservatives have been hammering home for the last 20 years have not been for naught. There is increasing awareness among blacks how family breakdown is driving the social problems of the community.
This is not lost on Obama. His speeches paying credence to the importance and relevance of personal responsibility are well received among blacks, but also play well to the whites he wishes to reach.
But the program behind the words remains comfortably lodged on the far left. Big government answers for everything, redistribution of wealth, use of law as a tool for politics, liberal abortion policies, and legitimization of the gay agenda.
The relevant question is not if Obama means the end of black politics. The issue is will black politics -- black uniform support for liberals -- ever change?
In a Pew Research Center survey of blacks done last year, almost 90 percent said that Oprah Winfrey is a "good influence," but only 50 percent said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and just 31 percent said Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas are.
In the same survey, almost 70 percent of blacks said they "almost always/frequently" face discrimination when applying for a job or when renting or buying an apartment or house.
Despite the fact that the survey showed that blacks have traditional and conservative views regarding crime and promiscuity, the sense of vulnerability defines black attitudes and politically trumps everything else. There's a lot of history driving these feelings and liberals will continue to exploit them.
Things won't change until blacks begin to see that these same liberal politics
and attitudes are at the root of their problems today.
How McCain should take on Obama's 'Trojan Horse'
Monday, September 01, 2008
Despite the careful choreography and showmanship, the Democratic Convention concluded with little in the way of news or surprises.
It's no surprise that we no longer need to refer to Sen. Obama as the "presumptive" nominee. It is no surprise that the Clintons gave rousing speeches in support of his candidacy. It is no surprise that the senator's acceptance speech, drawing on his substantial oratory skills, was socialist in substance and all things to all people in rhetoric.
It's no surprise that the video production introducing Obama made no mention of his Harvard education. And it's no surprise that, despite the intense commentary about the nomination of a black man for president, and the coincidence of this moment with the anniversary of Dr. King's famous speech, Obama barely noted this in his remarks.
Yet, despite the absence of surprises in these details, they nevertheless add up to a big picture that is enormously surprising.
This surprise is how many Americans appear willing at this point to place their bets for the nation's highest office on a candidate whom they still hardly know and who brings a resume to the job he is applying for that shows no experience in anything that he wants to get hired to do.
Moreover, in areas of policy, Sen. Obama's proposals are uniformly big government socialism that, in the past, has never delivered anything but mediocrity or failure.
Yet, despite all this, a Gallup poll of recent days showed registered voters saying they felt, by substantial margins, that Barack Obama would handle every single major domestic issue -- health care, economy, energy, taxes -- better than John McCain. It was only in foreign policy that McCain was favored.
Yes, the Obama candidacy is appealing to a lot of unhappy Americans and giving these folks hope.
Hope is a healthy and critical emotion. Without it, no one can go on.
But hope should be connected to prudence. It should accompany plans and behavior that are responsible and sensible. It should be what kicks in when we know we have done our part and then, with appropriate humility, acknowledge that everything is not up to us.
What is so unsettling about the Obama candidacy is that the hopefulness that it is eliciting does not have these characteristics. It's a kind of hope that is more accurate to call wishful thinking.
It's the kind of hope that goes along with behavior in which there is no logical connection between inputs and expected results. You just hope that what you want to happen will.
This is the "hope" that characterized so much of the subprime mortgage market that now sits in foreclosure. Folks getting loans for properties that they weren't asked to show in any meaningful way they could afford. The whole transaction was driven by the "hope" that prices will go up and up to justify the commitment that's been made.
There's a lot of speculation about why the Obama campaign has not soared. Why, when today's voter identification with the Democratic Party is 13 points higher than with the Republican Party, is the presidential race virtually tied?
I think it's because of the sense that the foundation of the whole Obama enterprise stands on emotional quicksand.
There are two ways that the Republicans can handle this.
One is the way Obama himself in his acceptance speech suggested they would: To drive a negative campaign and feed the many doubts that already plague the Democratic candidate.
The other is to reach out to the troubled hearts and minds of Americans today with a vision of substance.
Obama suggested in his speech that his lofty visions would be dismissed as a "Trojan Horse" for the abandonment of traditional values. He said this amounted to making a "big election about small things."
This was the most significant misstatement of his speech. Traditional values are not "small things." They are the biggest things. And the only terra firma that we really have in an uncertain world.
John McCain can hammer Obama into the quicksand on which he stands. Or he can point the way to the firm ground of real values on which this country was built and on which we must continue to stand.
I hope Senator McCain chooses the latter.
Mortgaging our children's future
Monday, August 04, 2008
A key feature of the housing bill that President Bush just signed into law was the federal bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
These are the two taxpayer backed "Government Sponsored Enterprises" that own or guarantee almost half of all mortgages in the country.
Of the many words written about this bailout, those in a New York Times op-ed by William Poole, former head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Saint Louis, contain one of the most relevant and powerful messages:
"Critics of the congressional housing package complain that we are now committing taxpayers to huge new outlays to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That view is wrong: Congressional inaction over the past 15 years had already committed taxpayers to the bailout."
Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal reviewed in his paper the coverage that it had been giving since 2001 to the rot inside these two entities.
Gigot also points out that, despite the rationale that we allegedly need these taxpayer-backed enterprises in order for those of modest incomes to get mortgages, in 2002, Fannie Mae "was able to pay no fewer than 21 of its executives a million dollars," and in 2003, its CEO, Franklin Raines, who was ousted for financial shenanigans at the firm, was paid $20 million. And, he left with a $25 million retirement package.
Consider, for starters, what all this tells us today about the man who promises to clean up Washington, Sen. "Change We Can Believe In" Barack Obama.
Raines is reported to be currently serving as an informal adviser to the Obama campaign on housing and mortgage issues.
Raines' predecessor, James Johnson, also the beneficiary of tens of millions in compensation running this sweet deal, where company executives share the risks with taxpayers but not the profits, was Obama's choice to head his vice president vetting team. After howling from the press, Johnson stepped aside.
During the time when the Wall Street Journal, among others, was writing about the improprieties at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both entities paid out a reported $170 million to lobbyists to keep Congress disinterested. And they succeeded.
None of this seems to present a problem for Obama. The man who campaigned through the primaries about slaying lobbyist dragons in Washington appears quite at home with those who benefited from these lobbying efforts.
Now he has given the Full Monty embrace to bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and keeping them propped up forever by us taxpayers. And, even making them more influential by raising the size of the mortgages they can guarantee.
Say what you wish about John McCain, but he's said and written that Fannie and Freddie should be sliced, diced, and privatized. This is a position held by many respected economists, including Poole, who writes in a New York Times op-ed that what they claim to need government guarantees to do, the private market can handle quite well, thank you.
Beyond the presidential campaign, consider why barely 10 percent of Americans express confidence in Congress.
Congress ignored for years the festering problems at Fannie and Freddie, despite lights shined on these problems. Now we taxpayers (you and me) are exposed to some $5 trillion of their debt.
Unfortunately, this political irresponsibility is the rule rather than the exception.
This is the same Congress that woke up one night to discover 12 million illegal immigrants in our country.
And the same Congress that continues to ignore the $50 trillion or so (whose counting?) in unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare.
The pathetic dynamics are quite clear. Being honest about problems means taking responsibility and making hard decisions. Why do that when you can ignore them, let them fester and grow, and pawn them off on the next generation when you will be long gone?
Government -- federal, state, and local -- now takes about one of every three of the dollars we produce. Estimates are that by mid-century it will be more than one of every two.
Are we going to be in rocking chairs telling our grandchildren how we remember when America was a great country?
Is Oprah a racist?
Monday, September 29, 2008
By Burt Prelutsky
For nearly my entire life, I have been aware that there's no explaining a large segment of the population. For instance, even as a kid, I found myself wondering why people would choose to drive really ugly cars, and, what's more, I'm still wondering. We all can't afford to drive Jaguars or Porsches, but we always have a choice when it comes to whether the car is red or blue or black. So how is it that Detroit would bring out pea green Fords or dismal gray Chevys and know there would be a market for them? It's not as if they were sold at a discount. I would see people drive these putrid-colored vehicles and wonder if, just possibly, they were all color blind.
That's how I've come to view people's presidential preferences. Granted, being a conservative, I favor the GOP. But how can Democratic voters look at Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich and not gag? God knows that's how I feel about Ron Paul. It confounds me that after his gaffe during the first Republican debate, he didn't simply shrivel up and disappear. The very idea that a U.S. congressman could blame the tragedy of 9/11 on American foreign policy, suggesting that if we only pulled our troops out of Iraq, we'd have peace in our time, displays such blithering idiocy, it makes John Edwards look like a deep thinker.
Long before Desert Storm, someone should remind Rep. Paul, we were having our bases bombed and our citizens taken hostage. And what does he make of Islamic terrorism in Bali, France, the Philippines, Japan, Spain and Russia, not to mention the barbaric response to newspaper cartoons and teddy bears?
If, when Ron Paul fails to win the GOP nomination, he decides to run as a third party candidate, he should not want for campaign funding. Between the Democrats, who'll want to encourage him to split the Republican vote, and Hezbollah's looking to spread their anti-Israel bilge, Paul's coffers should be filled to capacity.
It's a strange thing about third party candidates that they invariably serve the interests of those whom they allegedly oppose. In '92 and '96, Ross Perot did more to help Clinton get elected than Al Gore did. In 2000, it may well have been Ralph Nader's candidacy, not Florida, that provided George Bush with his actual margin of victory.
Oprah talks with Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, at a fundraiser for his campaign, hosted by Winfrey at her home in Montecito, Calif. / Photo courtesy Sydney Morning Herald
At this juncture, though, the wild card in the 2008 election is a woman named Oprah Winfrey. Not being a devotee of afternoon television, I've never watched her show. What I know about her, I've gleaned over the years from reading tabloid headlines while standing in checkout lines at the supermarket. So, I know she's a billionaire who has lost and gained and lost about 4,000 lbs. over the years, and I also know that she's had the world's longest engagement to someone named Stedman.
A while back, though, I read a rather astonishing item in the newspaper. It seems she had declared that the only presidential candidate who would be allowed on her show was the junior -- the very junior -- senator from Illinois. Now I could understand that, being a Democrat, she wouldn't want to put out the welcome mat for Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, McCain or Thompson. But why carry water for Obama, but not Hillary Clinton or John Edwards? From my vantage point, I can't see a scintilla of difference in their politics. They're all left-wingers, after all, who believe that raising taxes is the solution to all problems.
The only difference I could see was the only difference that I could literally see -- namely, that Barack Obama was darker complexioned than the other two. Was Obama's sperm donor, a man who'd deserted his wife and little Barack at just about the time the umbilical cord was cut, sufficient reason for Oprah to give the guy her official blessing?
If a Mormon TV talk show host refused to have any of the candidates on his show other than Mitt Romney, or if Larry King banished everyone who wasn't Jewish from his domain, I'm dead certain he'd face universal condemnation. So how is it that Oprah goes so far as to hit the hustings with Obama and nobody even says "Boo"?
Ron Paul makes his presidential pick
Republican, former Libertarian endorses candidate from neither party
By Drew Zahn
Monday, September 29, 2008
Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin
Representative Ron Paul of Texas, a former seeker of the Republican nomination for president, has endorsed Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin for president in 2008.
Ironically, Paul says he was swayed to make the endorsement by former Republican Bob Barr, who is now running for president on the Libertarian Party's ticket, the same party which nominated Paul for president in 1988.
'The Libertarian Party candidate admonished me for 'remaining neutral' in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November," Paul wrote both on his Campaign for Liberty website and as a contributor to SmallGovTimes.com. "I've thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I'm supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate."
Baldwin, a pastor, author and radio talk show host from Florida, was nominated by the Constitution Party for president in April.
The Baldwin campaign released a statement following the endorsement in which Baldwin said, "I am humbled and deeply grateful to Dr. Paul for his support. There could not be higher praise. I am committed to carrying on the Ron Paul Revolution for a return to constitutionally limited government."
Paul wrote about his hesitation in endorsing a candidate and his attempt at remaining neutral:
"It's true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I'm a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign."
"I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well," Paul wrote. "The more votes they get, the better."
Paul's announcement also contained some scathing words for Republicans, Democrats and an election system that he perceives as "a gross deception."
"(The election process) is controlled by the powerful elite to make sure that neither candidate of the two major parties will challenge the status quo," Paul wrote. "There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies. The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored."
Paul's endorsement, which comes at the end of his announcement (the full text of which can be read here: http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2008/09/a-new-alliance-ron-paul-endorses-chuck-baldwin/), is foreshadowed by his earlier words, trumpeting the call to unity among various groups seeking to overcome the two-party status quo.
"Principled people are not shy in participating with others and will defend their beliefs on their merits," he wrote.
Should be Applied to Bailout $$$
Monday, September 29, 2008
If you had an employee who was getting $160,000 a year, plus a full time staff, travel expenses, and a huge budget to work with, but never showed up for work, what would you do? Obama proudly lists on his resume that running for President is the most substantial thing he has ever accomplished. I am sure that his campaign manager must be surprised by that bit of hubris. What has he done though to earn $320,000 the past two years while he has been paid for being a Senator? It suggests that the position of senator is not that important and can be put on hold for two years to travel the country, raise money, give speeches and be adored by the liberal media.
And his response to McCain returning to DC to actually punch the time clock and have an impact on the debate about the economy is met with snide comments about being able to multi-task. That's sort of like a guy playing golf, getting a note that his wife is in the hospital saying he can multi-task by continuing to play while calling=2 0her on the phone to wish her well. The good husband rushes to her side.
If Obama cared as much about this economic crisis as he cares about winning this campaign, he would have denounced his economic advisors, Franklin Raines and James Johnson as being part of the Enron-like crisis where no mercy was spared to annihilate those involved in that scandal. And for years it continued to be a centerpiece of the trash Bush and Republican policy that the Democrats so proudly crafted. Now, the only sound that can be heard over the wringing of hands, is the cash register logging in the millions of dollars that these two and others have walked away with while leaving the regular taxpayer to hold the bag. How populist is that Obama?
Here is an easy solution to this economic crisis, and I give Planned Parenthood the credit for making it so crystal clear. They announced that because of the economic crisis they are going to give out free abortions for a while. That's right, throw those babies at the Baal worshippers hoping to appease the "god of good economy". I think the ancients who brought us child sacrifice would be proud of that very barbaric solution. But why not defund Planned Parenthood and apply that money to the crisis? Then take every single earmark that was just passed by congress and put that on the balance sheet representing less money the taxpayers have to cough up for this unbridled greed and corruption.
Don't stop there. What is HUD's budget? And what does HUD do besides make sure that the government can dictate to a property owner who they can and can't rent to. Close that useless agency and add that money to the crisis column. Convert that government building into high priced condos so that it actually serves an income pro ducing purpose.
The Department of Energy? What does it accomplish other than preventing us from drilling for oil in our own country to achieve oil independence? What really is the purpose of that agency and dozens of others like it that sit on prime real estate in the nation's capitol, devising ways to curtail liberties and impose greater restrictions and regulations on us. What does HHS do besides employ thousands of people who could be working in the private sector if the government would lower taxes, reduce regulations on small businesses and do what it was designed to do which is protect us from assault . . . foreign and domestic, providing an atmosphere of tranquility and growth.
If you took the entire budget of HHS, which is larger than many countries in the world, divide it by the number of families it claims to help with its plantation handouts, and provide an advisor fo r each one, it would not only save the taxpayers millions, but it would bring an end to a totally failed system that has institutionalized dependency and served to rob people of their dignity and freedom. Oh, and convert that building into low income housing where each family is responsible for paying rent . . . from the new jobs they will get once the restriction for them finding work has been lifted.
These government agencies have either robbed freedoms from the citizens, or they have enabled citizens to continue with irresponsible behavior, rewarding them at every turn. It's sort of like Obama saying he wants to give the UN almost a billion dollars more to help end poverty in the world, when he can't even pull out his own checkbook and help his own brother who is living on less than $10 a month in Africa.
So, if you take out all those earmarks and special interest giveaways that are in the budget and fire candidates who are on the government payroll while pursuing their own careers, close abusive and oppressive government agencies, tell the UN that you will only pay the bare minimum to be a member since you have only one vote, like a country that pays $10,000 a year to belong, allow drilling off the coast to bring the cost of gas down, and start selling a lot of the real estate that the government has acquired through the centuries . . . they wouldn't need an economic bailout or stimulus package, because all of that would solve the problem.
What is Barack Obama's solution? To insist upon a debate because the country deserves to hear his eloquence. Heh, earth to Barack . . . we have been hearing from you for two years now and it is getting old, tiresome and redundant. Other than adding a few more states to the union, you really haven't done or said anything that would have us believe that one more debate will reveal a unique thought. Give it up. It is hard to break it to a self-proclaimed messiah that there really is an issue bigger than you.
Rejecting Obama: Is It Racism,
Or Socialism, Or Something Else?
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Is racism causing some Americans to reject Barack Obama's presidential candidacy? Or is it possible that some of us who oppose Obama, simply don't like his ideas?
In recent weeks, much has been said about the notion that Senator Obama has not adequately secured his own Democratic voter base, and has not adequately made inroads with independent voters, as many analysts believe he should have done by now.
This reality began to set-in a few days after the Democratic National Convention when, even with the closing night's Super Bowl-styled nomination acceptance speech, Obama received virtually no "bump" in the tracking polls. It became even more apparent after Governor Sarah Palin's selection as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, when polling data revealed that Obama had not "closed the deal" with former Hillary Clinton supporters, (especially female Hillary supporters) and the prospect of a female Vice President on the right side of the aisle was alluring.
As of now, the Palin excitement has dissipated a bit (although she continues to energize conservative Republicans). Economic news is worsening. And the liberal "Democracy For America" political action group from Vermont is running a new video advertisement trashing Mr. McCain for having been a cancer patient, featuring photos of the Senator with surgical scars and bandages on his face, and Medical Doctor's expressing doubts about McCain's life expectancy.
And in the midst of this environment, it's still essentially a "tie score" between McCain and Obama. Those polls that seem to lean in the direction of Obama, do so only slightly, and mostly within the margin of error.
So how can this be? How is it that our nation, anxious over present conditions and disgusted with the current President, is not more fully embracing the purveyor of "hope" and "change" and everything else that is thought to be the opposite of George Bush?
About two weeks ago an orchestrated effort was attempted by liberal politicians and media pundits, to assure us that the only thing that could possibly stand in between Obama and our vote is "racism." CNN's Jack Cafferty explained that the differences between Obama and McCain could not be more pronounced (this is true); and that McCain is essentially a carbon copy of the "failed" President George W. Bush (this is not true); and, therefore, the only reason that some Americans are not supporting Obama is Obama's "race" (this is also not true).
Similarly, when asked at an Obama rally why she thought the presidential contest was so tight, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius replied "have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African-American? That may be a factor.."
And shortly thereafter, researchers at Stanford University determined that Obama may lose up to 6 percentage points on election day, simply because he's black. As Stanford Political Scientist Paul Sniderman stated it, "there's a penalty for prejudice, and it's not trivial."
It's difficult to imagine that there are NOT some voters who will reject Obama simply because he's black. Yet, it's also difficult to deny that some voters will embrace Obama simply because he's black, and some voters will reject McCain simply because he's not black.
But the fact that there is racial tension in America is not "news." And those who have been sounding the alarm about a possible "racial rejection" of Obama seem to assume that, race aside, there is nothing "unlovable" about Barack.
This is inaccurate. Many of us are appalled at the "moral equivalency" that Obama has expressed in his analysis of the democracy of Israel, and the terrorist state of Iran.
We are offended that, during his recent visit to an assembly of the United Nations in New York last week, the anti-Semitic Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was treated to a special dinner in his honor, by Obama supporter and fundraiser Penny Pritzker. And the bizarre congeniality Obama has expressed towards the Israel-hating Ahmadinejad is now costing Obama dearly among many Democrats, Jewish Democrats in particular, in New York, New Jersey, and Florida.
Similarly, many of us Obama "non-supporters" are appalled at his economic plans. He talks a good game about "tax cuts for the middleclass," yet has spent most of his 20 month campaign preaching the gospel of tax increases on corporations (as though this will create new jobs and improve productivity) and has vowed to nearly double the capital gains tax rate on all Americans. Obama running mate Joe Biden declared in stunning candor that he and Obama intend to "take money (without reference to whose money they wish to 'take') and put it in the pockets of the middle class people.." It is economic re-distribution - - "socialism" - - that Obama is peddling, and many of us aren't buying it.
This election will be historic on many fronts. It's a shame that the candidacy of America's first, black, major party presidential candidate is tainted with such horribly flawed and destructive ideas.
McCain's Solomon Moment
David R. Stokes
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Last week was certainly one to remember. It began with markets going bipolar in moment-by-moment reaction to a potentially cascading financial crisis, helped little by our government's on-again off-again white knight rescue talk. It ended with the first toe-to-toe presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama.
The campaigns are now going over the video of debate number one with fine-tooth combs. They are looking for subtle, and not-so-subtle, moments when points were scored and punches ducked. Absent the black and white of a clear knock out, great attention is being paid to the bobbing and weaving seen in shadows of gray.
But many Americans know that the key moment of the week had already happened days before McCain and Obama shook hands on that Mississippi stage.
For much of the 20th century, the Blackstone Hotel, located at the corner of Michigan Avenue and Balboa Street in Chicago, was known as the "hotel of the presidents." The 21-story facility, recently renovated by the Marriott people with a price tag of 128 million dollars, has long been listed on local and national registers of historic places.
The Blackstone was where the legendary political phrase "smoke-filled room" entered the American vocabulary. It was a description of where and how Warren Harding's Republican presidential nomination was decided in 1920. Harry Truman was staying there when he was picked to be the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 1944, as was Dwight D. Eisenhower when he was notified that the GOP had nominated him on the first ballot in 1952.
The most dramatic Blackstone presidential moment, however, took place on the morning of Saturday, October 20, 1962. Hours before, after a long day on the campaign trail for local politicos, President John F. Kennedy sipped clam chowder in his suite and decided to return to the White House rather than continue his tour. Having made a speech in Chicago, he was scheduled to go to Milwaukee - then out to the west coast to work on behalf of several Democratic candidates.
The fact that the Soviets were installing offensive missiles in Cuba, which had been kept pretty much below media radar for several days, was about to become a very public national crisis. Things were reaching critical mass.
By breakfast time, Secret Service agents were sweeping the lobby, along with every nook and cranny in the common areas of the historic hotel. At mid-morning, Mr. Kennedy emerged from an elevator, adorned with an overcoat and rarely worn hat, and walked briskly though the lobby toward the main door and his limousine.
Less than 24 hours before, he had entered the hotel through the same door after seeing a protest sign calling for, "Less Profile " More Courage." There were no such signs this morning though, few even knew that Lancer would be on the move " not even the press. Reporters, many of whom were already on busses ready to go to Milwaukee, were informed that the president had a cold and a slight fever and was heading back to Washington on the advice of his doctor.
The collective response of the press was, "yeah right."
This mysterious malady was apparently quite contagious, even leaping several time zones, because Vice President Lyndon Johnson was similarly afflicted and also leaving the campaign trail. He flew that day from Honolulu back to the nation's capital.
JFK and LBJ knew a thing or two about politics and governing. They understood with Solomon-like wisdom that, "there is a time to campaign, and a time to break off campaigning."
It's a leadership thing.
John McCain was right to do what he did recently when he announced the temporary suspension of his presidential campaign and returned to Washington. Barack Obama was caught flat-footed and, one suspects, a little upset that he didn't think of it first. Both men are sitting U.S. Senators. In a campaign famous for chronic discussions about experience and preparation for the job they seek, one way to size these men up is to watch how they actually do the jobs they already have.
Mr. Obama has suggested that John McCain's decision indicates an inability to multi-task. But that dog won't hunt. The issue is not whether or not a person can do two or more things at once " as both men clearly can. The real question is " are there circumstances that loom so large, that become so compelling, that transcend the times in such a way as to call for unusual, even unprecedented, attention and action?
Of course, the answer is yes.
This is clearly a time for such action and leadership. What is more presidential " making a stump speech, participating in a debate, or actually taking some time away from center stage to do a job one has already been elected to do?
John McCain instinctively gets that. Barack Obama does not.
If President Bush were at his ranch in Crawford, or on some foreign farewell tour, or doing some other ceremonial president-stuff, both candidates would be rightly calling for his return to Washington to deal with the crisis at hand.
On September 11, 2001, the local election campaign in New York City stopped. It became instantly insignificant in light of the horrific developments of that day. Politics went away " leadership kicked in. We need that kind of gut-level "work the problem" approach from both of the men running for president this year.
Frankly, we can learn more about a potential president by the response to real problems, than we can by the response to a question in a debate. McCain and Obama are already elected officials. One way to demonstrate that you can do a bigger job is to be faithful and diligent in your current assignment.
Barack Obama needs to move beyond trying to one-up John McCain, who is clearly skilled at keeping an opponent off-balance by not telegraphing his punches. He may need to ask himself what his hero, JFK, would do. Kennedy understood that sometimes a campaign has to take a back seat to a crisis.
It might also be good for Mr. Obama to figure out that a wise leader not only comes up with good ideas, but is also capable of recognizing value in those developed by others - even political opponents.
There are basically two kinds of people who seek leadership positions, whether in organizations, corporations, or on the political stage. There are those who want to be something. For them, it is about personality, charisma, celebrity, and ceremony.
Then there are those leaders, admittedly a minority, who actually want to do something.
Do something leaders tend to work outside of familiar boxes. They can color outside the lines to make important and constructive things happen.
The McCain campaign has now, of course, resumed - debate and all - and we are moving back to business-as-usual. It is important to note, though, that there was a brief and shining moment recently when we saw the difference between a leader and a wannabe.
Conservative Cash and the Culture Clash
Saturday, September 27, 2008
If you're a conservative then more than likely you're sweating over the direction our nation is headed. I'm talking about a level of concern similar to what a father feels at 2 am after it dawns on him that he actually okayed his cute 16 year-old daughter to go to a Tommy Lee keg party earlier in the evening.
You're freakin', aren't you conservative?
And you should be because it appears that conservative values are vanishing from our culture faster than an uncooked cow brain burrito slathered in habanero sauce would blow through Larry the Cable Guy's backside.
This is not the America you grew up in, nor is it the one you want your kids to inherit.
What am I referring to? Well, it's stuff like . . .
• Christians throwing banquets in honor of Ahmadinejad this week. This is progress? No, it is weak Christianity at its ugliest. What's next, a tickle fight with Satan? WTH Quakers and Mennonites?
• Our nation ogling a presidential candidate who, growing up, suckled on commie milk, is chummy with terrorists and race baiters, has been endorsed by Hamas and who intends to tax us all financially more than watching Rosie O'Donnell river dance in a thong would mentally.
• The looming threat of Islamo-facsists with the general opinion being that we asked for their animosity and should therefore come hat in hand to these killers who are nuttier than a squirrel's turd.
• We have to suffer at the gas pump because greenies love humping trees and ferns.
• Our right to keep and bear arms is constantly under assault
• The big brothering of the private sector
• True Christianity being trashed.
• The slutification, wussification and secularization of our kids before they hit 2nd grade
• The majority of our college campuses are now left of Beelzebub
• 13 year-old girls being given birth control, or assisted in an abortion, without parents knowing diddly squat
• Second graders being told that Clay Aiken and Lance Bass are a viable alternative to mom and dad
• Press one for English
• The spirit of irresponsibility and entitlement that has saddled our nation from Wall Street to Main Street
As a concerned conservative who doesn't have it in me to curl up on the floor in the fetal position and get stepped on, I decided to start directing my pen and my radio show post 9/11 toward the things which I know are derailing our nation into an uber-liberal ditch.
Since that decision not to be a beholden and silent cow to ripe and foul secular folly, I've had the fun and good fortune to carry out my mission on TV, radio and right here on Townhall.com. God bless righteous outrage.
However, not everyone can or wants to write columns or do talk radio, but that doesn't mean you can't kick maximum backside for God and country.
One major way of waling on the liberal wonks is via giving a slice of your hard-earned dollar to stellar conservative organizations. I know reading a column about giving during this economic crunch is about as appealing as a turkey watching Rachel Ray's Thanksgiving Special. That said, the conservative movement still needs the drachmas to dramatically diminish liberalism everywhere it raises its screeching secular head.
Traditionalist can cripple cultural coarsening critters with their cash. Our nation is embroiled in a culture war of enormous consequences, and giving during this clash is . . . uh . . . kinda important.
Matter of fact, in the new book, Funding Fathers: The Unsung Heroes of the Conservative Movement Ron Robinson and Nicole Hoplin of Young Americas Foundation fame tell the untold stories of the men, women and families who gave financial gifts small and large to make the conservative movement a force to be reckoned with. Yep, behind every Ronald Reagan there are folks who put their money where their mouth is and give the "Ronalds" the wherewithal to rock-n-roll.
Check this out from Regnery's press release regarding Funding Fathers:
"Without the contributions made by the men profiled in this book, conservatives would not have The Heritage Foundation or Young America's Foundation to help propagate conservative ideas, they would not have Townhall.com, Human Events or National Review to communicate the conservative point-of-view, and Ronald Reagan may never have become president.
"It is important to us to honor the contributions of these men. They made the Conservative Movement a force to be reckoned with," says Robinson. "Hopefully this book will inspire others to get involved in causes they believe in, to support them financially, and to contribute their time and energy to organizations dedicated to improving America's future."
In Funding Fathers, readers will learn:
• Conservative families give more money to charity than liberal families . . . even though liberals earn more
• How the mainstream media discourages conservative philanthropy, either by ignoring substantial gifts, or demonizing conservative donors
• How an exiled Russian prince became an American inventor and entrepreneur and helped save the Reagan Ranch for generations of young conservatives
"There are so many interesting people profiled in this book," says co-author Nicole Hoplin. "They were passionate, committed to their ideals, fiercely intellectual, and wonderfully generous. I'm proud that their contributions will finally be recognized."
Culture wars"like real wars with guns"take cash. Lots of cash. One reason why conservatives are schvitzing right now is the way Obama has been bank rolled by Soros and the like. If Barack didn't have that kind of mad money behind him right now, he probably wouldn't be contending for the Presidency but rather Seacrest's job on Idol. But money, contrary to what The Beatle's sang, bought him love.
The Funding Fathers will show you, the conservative warrior, in dramatic fashion how the movement came into being and how you and I can skillfully make it thrive via our strategic financial giving both now and for the next generation.
Article from Investors Business Daily
Do not brush it off as just some anti Obama rant -- it is very revealing on where we may very well be headed. Some may be fine with this. If you are, just make sure you are an informed voter.
No matter whether you consider your personal political
brand as liberal, moderate or conservative you probably
won't want to hear what this article has to say, but you need to. It's from Investors Business Daily, not some
right wing publication or McCain's political camp, and it is a very revealing view of Democrat presidential
Obama's Stealth Socialism
July 29, 2008
Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.
IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism
During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.
And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.
It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.
"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.
In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.
In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).
Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.
It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.
Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.
Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.
Among his proposed "investments":
• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.
• "Free" college tuition.
• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).
• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").
• "Free" job training (even for criminals).
• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).
• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.
• More subsidized public housing.
• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."
• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.
His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.
That's just for starters — first-term stuff.
Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.
You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress.
But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?
Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion.
The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.
A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."
As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.
"They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."
After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.
His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America.
The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.
After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale.
While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics.
(A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" — terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.)
Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father's communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa.
As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses "owned by Asians and Europeans."
His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn't stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to "redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all."
"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed," Obama Sr. wrote. "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."
Taxes and "investment" . . . the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine.
(Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.)
In Kenya's recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.
With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called "black liberation theology" and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere.
Obama joined Wright's militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of "black values" that demonizes white "middle classness" and other mainstream pursuits.
(Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values "sensible." There's no mention of them in his new book.)
With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for "change" more effectively. "As an elected official," he said, "I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer."
He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud.
Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for "economic justice."
He's been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.
Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist.
Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington.
The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded "r" word.
But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.
Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them — at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.
Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.
Biden Tells 14 Lies During VP Debate
Friday, October 03, 2008
Senator Joe Biden lied at least 14 times during the vice presidential debate according to those counting at John McCain’s presidential headquarters.
Tucker Bounds, a spokesman from GOP presidential candidate John McCain’s campaign said in a statement, “Joe Biden graduated from his trademark verbal gaffe to outright lie in tonight’s debate.”
McCain’s blogger-in-chief Michael Goldfarb chronicled the 14 lies HERE.
On the foreign policy front, Biden challenged Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin when she said Barack Obama’s pledge to meet with any foreign leaders, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without precondition “goes beyond naivete and goes beyond poor judgment.”
Biden lectured Palin, “That's just simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad.” During the YouTube Democratic primary debate last July Obama was asked if he would meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea without “precondition” during his first year in office.
“I would,” he replied.
Biden appeared to attack Obama for making that very statement in August 2007. While Biden was challenging Obama for the Democratic nomination for president Biden said he would not support such a pledge. “Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president?” he said in an appearance at the National Press Club. “Absolutely positively no."
Five of the lies Biden told were related to tax and energy votes. During the debate Biden adamantly claimed McCain voted the same way as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama did on a vote to raise taxes on those making $42,000 a year. The legislative record shows McCain was not present in the Senate for either of those votes and is recorded as “not voting.”
The RNC also takes issue with Biden’s assessment Palin supports a “windfall profits tax” and Biden’s claim McCain voted against alternative energy 23 times. The independent Factcheck.org has previously stated when Obama and other Democrats made similar charges about the 23 votes “they’re overstating the case.”
The other lies detailed by Goldfarb were related to Biden’s characterization
of McCain’s healthcare plan, stances on bank deregulation and the $700
billion financial bailout that recently passed the Senate.
Posted at 10:59 PM on 10/2/2008 by Debate Facts
Joe Biden's 14 Lies
1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.
2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.
3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”
4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.
5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.
6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.
7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false
8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.
9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.
10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.
11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.
12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.
13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”
14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.
The Death of
Common Sense in America
Friday, October 03, 2008
"The charge is often made against the intelligentsia and other members
of the anointed that their theories and the policies based on them lack common
sense. But the very commonness of common sense makes it unlikely to have any
appeal to the anointed. How can they be wiser and nobler than everyone else
while agreeing with everyone else?" -- Thomas Sowell
There are a number of great challenges that this country faces, but perhaps none is so large as the death of basic, common sense. By that, I mean that large portions of our country, including many of our representatives in Congress, have lost sight of conclusions so skull splittingly obvious that fifty years ago, Americans of both political parties would have agreed upon them almost unanimously.
Just to name a few examples, when you borrow money, it does eventually have to be paid back. You shouldn't buy a house you can't afford. Nobody owes you a living. It's not justice when the rulings of judges depend on ideology and personal preferences, not the Constitution. If we set up a tax system that puts all the taxes on the people at the top, they'll eventually, one way or the other, find a way to stop paying the check -- whether it be through loopholes, deliberately earning less money, or just leaving the country. Families are the building block of our society and the government should be extremely careful when it passes legislation that could negatively impact the family structure. People come before animals. You reap what you sow. It's good for America to have a patriotic populace. Many other countries aren't "nice" and don't "wish us well." There is no such thing as a "free" lunch. People who do a bad job shouldn't be rewarded for it. When you deliberately lie, your credibility should suffer for it. You don't have a "right" to other people's property. You are the person primarily responsible for taking care of yourself.
Truisms of this sort shouldn't have much to do with politics or ideological leanings. They're the sort of thing most people should learn from their parents, in church, or in elementary school. They're that basic, that simple. Yet, you can point to people at every level of American society, including most significantly, large portions of Congress, that act as if these rules don't apply.
We run a large deficit every year. Congress has knowingly pushed banks to give loans for homes to people who couldn't afford them. We have large numbers of people who expect the government to take care of them if they choose not to work. Liberals openly say they believe in a "living constitution," which is little better than believing in no Constitution at all. Large portions of the American public pay no income tax while politicians claim the people who are paying 86% of the income tax we collect aren't "paying their fair share." The left is pushing gay marriage and legalized polygamy won't be far behind. The interests of animals, from caribou to endangered species, are often given preference over those of human beings. People who make terrible decisions, like buying houses they can't afford, coming to this country illegally, or running banks into the ground, have countless defenders in government who don't believe they should suffer for their mistakes. The Democratic candidate for President made a big deal publicly of not wearing a flag pin anymore and only relented when there were cacophonous public complaints. There's a foolish belief many people have that any problem we have with another nation can be fixed simply by discussing it with them. Many Americans want rebate checks paid for by our government with loaned money, "free" health care, and "free" government services, all paid for by other people. Men like Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and William Jefferson have been reelected by their constituents despite committing offenses so egregious and widely known that I don't even have to mention them here. Politicians, including both of our presidential candidates regularly lie to the public. We have politicians and activists speaking of things like "housing" and "medical care" as rights, despite the fact that other people have to pay for those "rights." We regularly hear people bemoaning the fact that "the government doesn't care about them," blaming other people, blaming society, and blaming various "isms" for their state of their lives.
For a season, we have been able to get away with the sort of foolishness that only a prosperous people living off the national wealth delivered by the blood and sweat of others can be deluded enough to believe in. However, the lifestyle Americans are living today is absolutely unsustainable economically, culturally, and socially over the long-haul. That doesn't necessarily mean we're doomed, but what it does mean is that we can be sure that there is rather sharp correction coming to this country because history doesn't suffer fools gladly.
What McCain Should Have Said
Friday, October 03, 2008
I didn’t think McCain did badly in the first debate, but I thought he could have done better. For instance, the idea that Obama or any Democrat could be trusted to handle the economy is laughable. When I think about liberals being in charge of America’s wallet, drunken sailors on a binge is the image that comes to mind.
A recent list of the ten U.S. cities with the highest poverty rates shows that these major municipalities have one thing in common. And just what is that one thing that connects them? It’s Democratic leadership, my friends. Cleveland hasn’t had a Republican mayor since 1989, Cincinnati hasn’t had one since 1984, Detroit since 1961, Buffalo since ’54, Philadelphia since ’52 and St. Louis since ‘49. It’s been over a hundred years for Newark and Milwaukee. Miami and El Paso have never elected a Republican mayor. Is it merely an odd coincidence? I don’t think so.
But it’s when Obama tried to blame the current financial crisis on George Bush and the GOP that McCain should have held his feet to the fire. For one thing, it’s the liberals in Congress who forced the banks and mortgage lenders to put prudence and commonsense aside in favor of political pandering by extending home loans to people who never should have received them, not because of race, but because they were bad credit risks. People like Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Boxer, Barney Frank and Barack Obama, wouldn’t in a million years lend any of those people ten bucks, but they saddled the rest of us with billions in bad loans.
This isn’t to suggest that the lenders were entirely blameless or greedless, but they never would have made sub-prime loans in the first place if the federal government hadn’t forced them to do it. The fact is, when it comes to strong-arm tactics, liberals don’t take a backseat to anyone, including Al Capone and Lucky Luciano.
The other thing that McCain could have brought up is the fact that two of the people who helped get Fannie Mae into its present pickle are a couple of ne’er-do-wells with close ties to Obama; namely, former Fannie Mae CEOs Franklin Delano Raines and James Johnson. Raines has been accused of pocketing over $14 million in bonuses based on fraudulent accounting practices, while Johnson, who was initially named to head up Obama’s V.P. search committee, was forced to step down when it was discovered that he had accepted a tasty little conflict-of-interest home loan from Countrywide, a loan which in less polite circles would be called a bribe.
If I were McCain, I would also have pointed out how similar Johnson’s home loan was to the one the Obamas received through the kindness of convicted Chicago fixer Tony Rezko.
If I had been Sen. McCain, I would have taken the opportunity to remind everyone that Obama, the man who would be commander-in-chief, pooh-poohed Iran as a small country that posed no real danger. It’s one thing, after all, for the MSM to treat Sen. Obama as if he were treated with Teflon and quite another for his opponent to do the same.
Still, I would have closed on a positive note. I would have praised Barack Obama for not suggesting, as Joe Biden did, that George Bush should have dealt with the current financial crisis by going on TV as FDR had in order to reassure the country during the bad days of the Great Depression.
What is it with these guys? Obama told us there were 57 states and that Kennedy ended the Cuban missile crisis by sitting down across the table from Khrushchev, and Biden is convinced we all had TV sets in the 1930s. All I can say is that it’s a good thing that these two shmoes can make a living in politics because they sure couldn’t cut it as junior high civics teachers.
Election-Altering Media Bias
Friday, October 03, 2008
It would be foolish of me to deny the obvious truth in a recent e-mail message I received pointing out how different the presidential polls would be today if the mainstream media were not so liberal.
Quit complaining, you say; there's an alternative media led by your brother, you whiner. Quit calling me a whiner, especially about the current plight of Republicans. It's my party, and I'll whine if I want to.
Unlike the MSM, the alternative media are honest that they are in the opinion business and freely admit their ideological leanings. They don't pretend to exemplify objective journalism. But unlike the MSM, their ethical commitment to truth is not routinely compromised by their mind-altering bias, as with that disgraceful episode known as Rathergate.
The MSM are a case study in psychological anomalies. They don't just deny their biases to us; they deny them to themselves, all while conspiring to affect the outcome of the election.
How do you reconcile their sincere self-denial of bias with their simultaneous demonstrations of bias? An epidemic of liberal insanity, with one side of the liberal brain forgetting to inform the other of what it's up to?
No, I think their closed culture teaches them that liberalism is so manifestly correct that its proponents embody objectivity. Bias is defined as any deviation from the only correct worldview: liberalism.
Their bizarre logic tells them that liberals care about people and are intrinsically altruistic. Only someone driven by greed and bereft of compassion could harbor a conservative worldview. Someone such as Sarah Palin, a former journalist who is unashamed of her pro-life position, to the utter astonishment of "objective" journalist Katie Couric.
Liberals seem to believe that because they hold enlightened positions, they possess an ideological holiness that prevents them from committing certain sins. How else do you explain the unmerited immunity liberals conferred on Joe Biden for his obviously racially demeaning remarks about Barack Obama's cleanliness and articulateness or his references to Indian workers at Dunkin' Donuts?
It's not just that they want Biden to win; it's that they believe that as a fellow liberal, he couldn't possibly make a prejudiced statement. But he did, and we all know it. For normal people, it's "live by the sword, die by the sword." For anointed liberals, it's "live by the sword; long live the sword wielder."
This same mindset drives Chris Matthews to incredulity over charges that the MSM are trying to destroy Sarah Palin. We Neanderthals must learn to ignore our lying eyes.
The MSM's jaw-dropping denial of presidential debate moderator Gwen Ifill's flagrant and undisclosed conflict of interest is another example. But understand that it's not just that she stands to make a profit from her book if Obama wins. It's also that the very theme of her book screams her Obama-favoring bias.
The response of the MSM further proves the point. They don't challenge her conflict of interest but instead imply that because of her journalistic integrity (read: proven track record of liberal journalism), she's above charges of bias.
The Ifill affair is a minor example of MSM bias, however, when compared with their potentially election-determining coverage of the current financial crisis. I knew as this drama was unfolding that Democrats, though demonstrably responsible for the government actions that made this meltdown inevitable, would succeed in pinning it on Republicans -- right before the election, no less.
Sure enough, though McCain was edging past Obama as this mess began, Obama has now taken a significant lead, and it's largely because the MSM are promoting the Democratic template that capitalism and corporate, Republican greed caused it, not bleeding-heart, social-planning liberalism. (Isn't it ironic that liberals continue mouthing the absurd argument that the crisis is being caused by federal deficit spending born of Bush tax cuts yet this bailout plan involves enormous increases in the federal deficit?)
And if the MSM were scrutinizing and reporting on Obama's truly scandalous record with one-tenth the intensity they are investigating the Palin non-scandals, the American public would be irreversibly horrified at the prospect of an Obama presidency.
All of this said, this election is far from over. And the alternative media are doing a valiant job busting MSM myths and countering their denied biases.
But it's hard to help those who are disinclined to help themselves. John McCain certainly has plenty of fight left in him. But it's time he finally got a divorce from the adulterous MSM, who just pretended to love him when it suited their ends.
It's time he quits giving Dems a pass (especially for this crisis they caused), unleashes Sarah Palin from her constraints, and re-energizes the base to deliver him a victory. Give us some red meat, senator -- please.
Can the MARs Save McCain?
Patrick J. Buchanan
Friday, October 03, 2008
John McCain may have just let slip his last best chance to be president of the United States.
When he flew back to Washington to address the banking crisis, McCain could have seized the hottest issue in America by taking the side of his countrymen who were enraged by the Paulson Plan to bail out a power elite whose greed and stupidity had caused a financial disaster unequaled since the Crash of '29.
But rather than denounce the Bush-Paulson-Pelosi-Barney Frank plan as a rip-off of taxpayers, lacerate Obama and Co. for bedding down with the kleptocrats of Fannie Mae, and advancing his own McCain plan, McCain played the establishment man. He sought modest concessions for the Republican view, urged swift passage and left town.
Then the House, in an astounding act of defiance, voted to kill the bill, triggering a trillion-dollar run on Wall Street.
Working with Democrats rather than battling the establishment has ever been McCain's way. And, undeniably, his deserved reputation for bipartisanship helped him to get where he is.
He campaigns proudly on his capacity to work with liberals and has McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman and McCain-Kennedy to prove it. But as George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford discovered, the politics of compromise and consensus does not always produce the best result.
The tax hike of 1990 may have destroyed Bush I's presidency, and Ford's choice of John Paul Stevens for the Supreme Court, who was approved unanimously, helped propel the Ronald Reagan challenge.
Philosophically and culturally, we are a divided people. Across the spectrum there are us-versus-them folks who see politics as a zero-sum game between Middle America and a global elite. Below the upper-income brackets and along the center-right are the folks the late columnist Sam Francis, citing sociologist Donald Warren's 1976 study, called Middle American Radicals.
Nixon brought the "MARs" to national attention when, as David Broder then wrote, the "breaking of the president" was underway in October 1969. Nixon went on television and called for the Great Silent Majority to stand with him against antiwar demonstrators and rioters in the streets, and for "peace with honor" in Vietnam.
When TV anchors trashed Nixon's speech, he unleashed Spiro Agnew on the establishment media.
No White House had ever before attacked the networks or national press for ideological and political bias.
In a month, Nixon hit 68 percent approval, the apogee of his presidency, and Agnew was the third most admired man in America.
Reagan, by opposing the surrender of the Panama Canal to a leftist dictator, also rallied the MARs. He lost that battle, but his consolation prize was the GOP nomination and the presidency.
In recent years, we have seen the MARs rise again and again in roaring rebellion. But, invariably, when these rebellions occur, John McCain may be found inside the castle walls.
In 2007, McCain rushed to Washington to support George Bush, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post in the drive to grant amnesty to 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens. A national firestorm killed the bill and almost killed McCain's campaign.
A year earlier, a MARs uprising killed the Dubai ports deal.
The power elite was stunned by the explosion of outrage over the leasing of six U.S. ports to Arab sheiks. Nationalism remains a more potent force than globalism, and not only in America.
In Clinton's first term, McCain stood with the establishment for NAFTA, GATT, the WTO and the Mexican bailout. Middle America opposed them all.
In the past decade, the MARs have opposed free-trade deals, and lost, but won virtually every referendum on gay marriage, affirmative action or welfare for illegal aliens. Invariably, the MARs are portrayed as bigots, nativists, xenophobes, protectionists and isolationists, and their leaders as demagogues. In McCain's words from 2000, they are "agents of intolerance."
This is fine if you wish to be beloved in this city, but it may be a fatal impediment if you want to be president.
McCain's problem is that, in 2008, when his old press idolaters have found a new favorite, these are the people who hold his key to the presidency. They are the Democrats who voted against Barack Obama by wide margins in Pennsylvania and Ohio and landslide margins in West Virginia and Kentucky.
These Democrats can still win this race for John McCain. Many admire his war record. But not only is he not one of them, he has taken pride and pleasure in having been their great antagonist.
Could McCain win them back in five weeks? Perhaps. Is he willing to do what is necessary to win them back? Probably not. It would go against his instincts and his image of himself.
The issues that move these folks are not just the $700 billion bailout of
Gordon Gekko's comrades, but the invasion of America from Mexico, the export
of their jobs, factories and future to Asia, and the gnawing fear that the
country they grew up in is being sacrificed for the benefit of an internationalist
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.
Do You Know the Real Barack Obama?
Carol Platt Liebau
Monday, October 06, 2008
As the 2008 presidential campaign hurtles into its final days, John McCain confronts a choice: He can either start telling the public about the real Barack Obama, or he can lose.
For much of his career, McCain has been a media darling. He could count on the press to carry his water as long as he was a “maverick” Republican, driving more conservative members of his party crazy. But as he surely knows by now, when it comes to Barack Obama and the press, all bets are off. In covering Obama, the press has adopted a “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy designed to boost the least-vetted, least-known candidate ever to seek the presidency. It isn’t by accident that the media has denied all less-than-glowing stories about Obama the kind of consistent, sustained coverage that allows them to penetrate public consciousness.
If McCain is going to have a chance at winning, he must make sure that the public becomes thoroughly acquainted with the real Barack Obama – the most radical presidential nominee ever. And because the press evidently intends to abdicate its responsibility to acquaint voters with the less-popular parts of Obama’s record, he’ll have to rely on paid advertising to do it.
For starters, McCain should consider running a series of “Did You Know” ads about Barack Obama. He should ask voters, “Did you know that:
Barack Obama has multiple ties to those responsible for the present economic crisis?:
Franklin Raines, the immediate past CEO of Fannie Mae – who has collected a $90 million golden parachute while driving Fannie into the ground – has advised Obama on housing issues.
Jim Johnson, yet another former Fannie Mae CEO, resigned from Obama’s vice presidential search team when it was revealed he had received a sweetheart home mortgage deal.
Despite serving in the Senate for only four years, Obama himself has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac largesse in the entire Congress, ahead even of former presidential candidate John Kerry, who’s spent two decades in the Senate?
Obama’s long-time political ally, radical group ACORN, played a key role in pressuring banks to offer loans to those who were unlikely to be able to pay them back. ACORN has taken credit for pressuring banks to accept undocumented income as a basis for offering loans, for offering loans without using credit scores, and for making 100% financed loans available to low-income people.
There is more, of course. Do voters know:
That, in apparent defiance of federal election law, the Obama campaign refuses to identify individual donors who have provided almost half the funds for his campaign, including obvious fakes like “Mr. Good Will” and “Mr. Doodad Pro”? And that 11,500 donations to his campaign – totaling almost $34 million – may have come from overseas? Or that two Palestinians living in a Hamas-controlled refugee camp spent $31,300 in Obama’s online store? Who are all these people, and why won’t the Obama campaign obey the law and identify them?
That Jeremiah Wright wasn’t Obama’s first radical mentor? As a young man in Hawaii, Obama had a quasi-filial relationship with radical Frank Marshall Davis – an avowed member of the Communist Party of the USA. In fact, in his memoirs, Obama concedes that he attended “socialist conferences” and encountered Marxist literature. (Now imagine the outcry if a Republican presidential candidate had such ties to a Nazi).
That the People's Weekly World – the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the USA – has rhapsodized about Obama’s presidential campaign, calling it a "transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term"? (Think about how the press would react if a fascist newspaper heaped such praise on McCain.)
That Obama has routinely tried to intimidate his critics into silence? His political organization spearheaded a massive campaign against a Chicago radio show that invited one of his critics to appear – even after being asked (and refusing) to send a representative to balance the program, hosted by a non-partisan University of Chicago psychology professor. Worse, his campaign sought to chill free speech by establishing a “truth squad” of Missouri prosecutors and sheriffs, which threatened a “vigorous response” to any ad presenting information about Obama that they deemed to be “inaccurate.” And there are other examples.
That even as America struggles to “bail out” our own struggling economy, Obama backs a global bailout? His Global Poverty Initiative would assess $2500 per taxpayer, according to Investor’s Business Daily, to fund a global war on poverty administered by the UN and its agencies.
That despite touting his academic credentials as a rationale for initiating a campaign for president just two years after leaving the Illinois state legislature, Obama refuses to release either his college or his law school transcripts – just as he sought to keep records of his working relationship with former terrorist Bill Ayers on The Annenberg Challenge (a left-wing educational foundation) safely under wraps? What is it that he doesn’t want voters to know?
Repeatedly, we’ve heard the media denounce the “rumors” about Barack Obama that are, supposedly, circulated on the internet exclusively by the bigoted and the ignorant. But Americans sense that there is more to Barack Obama than they’ve been told. Having witnessed the media’s own bias and favoritism, they’ve come to suspect – reasonably – that even if any of the rumors were true, the press might choose to conceal them until the election is safely over. What’s more, they wonder: What else is the press not telling us?
Certainly, it would be terribly wrong for John McCain to traffic in rumors.
But he doesn’t need to. The truth is more than enough. There are facts
that the American people deserve to know – and which the press isn’t
telling them. By filling in the gaps that the media has left unmentioned, John
McCain isn’t just doing himself a service. He’s doing journalists’ job
for them, and allowing Americans to make an informed decision when they head
to the polls next month.
Welfare state failures are at bottom of the crisis
Monday, October 06, 2008
As our financial markets totter, as homes go into foreclosure, as Wall Street executives lose millions, as Americans have more and more difficulty getting loans, can anyone be happy?
Certainly. Those on the left who now, with unbounded glee, pen obituaries for the free market.
One can sense their joy as they have, they think, the last laugh.
Bernie Sanders, the far left senator from Vermont, was almost giddy on Larry Kudlow's TV show recently to hear free-marketer Kudlow endorse the bailout and tell Kudlow that he is glad to see he has become a socialist.
The Washington Post's Harold Meyerson writes, "The old order -- the Reagan-age institutions built on the premise that the market can do no wrong and the government no right -- is dying."
And, of course, there's the thrill in seeing greedy Wall Street capitalists laid bare for the heartless, exploitive monsters they are and see justice done as they fall by the free market sword by which they lived!
But, in fact, what we are watching is not a failure of markets, but the latest failure of the welfare state. The sad part is how few who wield political power seem to understand, or want to understand, that this is what's happened.
As the details behind the current debacle are unraveled, we see how government created one more entitlement -- the right to own a house -- and then devised an array of programs to subsidize in various ways "affordable housing." Like all welfare programs, the subsidies succeeded in influencing behavior, but the wrong behavior.
The greedy part, or, if one wishes to be forgiving, the confused part, of the Wall Street guys is their willingness to play ball with politicians over these years in turning our free country into a welfare state. Wall Street has regularly been a generous contributor to politicians who love to grow government and use it as a tool for social policy.
These smart investment bankers, commercial bankers, and traders could have gotten plenty rich, and stayed that way, by encouraging solid institutions to build our country properly. If anyone should appreciate the power of freedom and markets and want to encourage the proper role of government, the integrity of private property, and the care and nurturing of American families, you'd think it would be our financiers.
But instead of recognizing basics -- the principles of limited government and traditional values -- and fighting political pressures to undermine these basics, our financiers were happy to support the welfare state model.
They should have appreciated, as we must appreciate today, that the problem is not a failure of freedom and markets but of eroding the pillars and principles that make them possible and functional.
The best housing program this nation could have is for the government to stay out, let the price of real estate and credit reflect true realities of supply, demand, and risk, and let private people decide for themselves what they need to do and how hard they need to work to acquire what they want.
As the institution of government grows, we sadly watch the collapse of the institutions that really sustain growth of home ownership: American marriage and families.
According to the Census Bureau, the single largest incidence of homeownership, 86.3 percent, is among married-couple families. Yet, traditional families now amount to barely more than a quarter of our households.
And, sadly and ironically, the problem of family structure is most severe in low- income communities where government housing policy has been most targeted.
Social and economic policy are not separate universes but part of one fabric of institutions and laws that sustain freedom and prosperity.
Those who want to use the current crisis as an excuse to expand government
and welfare state policies contribute to laying the foundation for our next
Obama-ACORN Root Causes of Mortgage Crisis?
FBI Investigates U.S. Financial Crisis - Where Did $1 Trillion Go?
The high-risk subprime mortgage social engineering community service experiment by left-wing ACORN and Obama has created the largest financial crisis since The Great Depression. The full reach of the corruption and scandal may never be known but those who created it must not be rewarded. The architects, primarily left-wing Democrats, created laws, took donations, looked the other way and instead were too busy overseeing donations to their own presidential campaigns and robbing main street blind. Now these same left-wing Democrats blame everyone else and get up on their high horses and say, "we are here to save you" from the crises they created.
Yes, Mr. Obama knows a great deal about the mess. He is a central figure in the left-wing ACORN exploitation of financial institutions and pressuring them to make high risk loans. The very same left-wing ACORN was guilty of voter fraud in the last presidential election.
Now these same Democrats want to do another high risk "community service," social engineering experiment. They want to elect a high-risk, low experience, socialist one of the same community organizers that created the mess to be our next president. We cannot experiment with the office of president and learn as we go. Barack Obama is not qualified and has no history of success as a leader in government or business.
The FBI investigation
An FBI investigation is under way at Lehman Brothers and three other contributors to America's financial crisis to determine whether they put pressure on ratings agencies to award top ratings to securities they issued.
Concerns that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG or Lehman may have sought to encourage agencies to inflate their ratings - by offering higher fees or the promise of more work - form part of a broad inquiry by the bureau.
The agencies are widely regarded as having failed debt holders by attributing the top ratings to many securities that turned out to be extremely risky and have lost investors hundreds of billions of dollars.
The FBI, which is also investigating whether any of the four institutions deliberately misled investors about the true health of their assets, is expected to demand that they "hold all papers and e-mails under lock and key" as it sifts through the evidence, a source said.
How did we get here?
FOLLOW THE MONEY AND CORRUPTION! A Lending Policy created by democrats for democrats run by democrats monitored by democrats enforced by community organizer democrats and profited from by democrats.
The following information is condensed from an article by Stanley Kurtz. O's Dangerous Pals.
Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster. ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.
Obama Trains ACORN Staff in Shakedown Tactics
It would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama.
When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff.
He returned to Chicago in the early '90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks. In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks.
Obama Funds ACORN
More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago's Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation's board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers - and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift.
That committee's report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama's organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott's ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted.
More, the Obama-supervised Woods Fund report acknowledges the problem of getting donors and foundations to contribute to radical groups like ACORN - whose confrontational tactics often scare off even liberal donors and foundations.
Indeed, the report brags about pulling the wool over the public's eye. The Woods Fund's claim to be "nonideological," it says, has "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship."
Obama Aware of Intimidation Tactics
The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.
And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbott's way - ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN's overall efforts.
In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama's first campaign for state Senate, saying, "We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer."
In short, to understand the roots of the subprime mortgage crisis, look to ACORN's Madeline Talbott. And to see how Talbott was able to work her mischief, look to Barack Obama.
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of faxes are needed to be delivered to EACH AND EVERY Congressman right away. Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who wants to help FORCE our government to STOP the EXCUSES and Save Main Street Not Wall Street!
Tell the Congress to Stop the Wall Street Bailout and Prosecute!
FAX All Congressmen - Tell Them No Bailout - Prosecute Offenders!
Keep calling your Congressmen today, toll free numbers include 1.877.851.6437 and 1.866.220.0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121
DO NOT BE SILENCED - MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!
Together, we can preserve the Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers intended our people to have forever.
Since 1980, AmeriPAC has helped fund and elect a large number of candidates to public office. In addition to direct financial support of candidates, AmeriPAC also makes independent expenditures, funding proven campaign techniques such as media appearances, press releases, newspaper and magazine advertisements, direct mail, yard signs, television and radio commercials, bumper stickers, and billboards. Scores of candidates from coast-to-coast have received direct and indirect support through AmeriPAC.
Tell us you agree that our nation would be jeopardized by the radical changes being advocated by Barack Obama and his far left friends. Send your contribution to help defeat Barack Obama and restore the Republican majority in Congress in the upcoming November election.
It is time to say we the American people will pick our president.
Your voice can be heard - we need your urgent help at AmeriPAC. For more information, visit ameripac.org
Obama spreads wealth -- to non-taxpayers
Author rips senator's universal mortgage credit as socialist 'welfare'
By Chelsea Schilling
Friday, December 12, 2008
After John McCain ripped his opponent's universal mortgage credit as "welfare" because it would give funds to non-taxpaying citizens, Barack Obama's campaign announced a work requirement for the proposal -- but "The Audacity of Deceit" author Brad O'Leary said the plan remains a form of socialist wealth redistribution.
"No matter how Barack Obama tries to dress-up his tax welfare plan, it is still a welfare plan," O'Leary said in a statement. "Under Obama's massive plan for wealth redistribution, 44 percent of Americans will never pay federal income taxes, and many of these folks will also receive bonus, or 'welfare,' checks from the government."
According to ABC News, Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee said a work requirement was added to silence critics such as O'Leary who claim the plan takes money from working citizens and redistributes it to people who do not pay taxes.
"They started saying this was welfare," Goolsbee said. "So, just so they would absolutely not be able to say that, we decided that for the last two percent we'll simply add a work requirement."
The Obama campaign claims its tax proposal will give an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners making less than $50,000 per year, ABC News reported. The campaign says the mortgage credit is meant to provide money to taxpayers who don't itemize.
Goolsbee and McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin discussed Obama's 10 percent mortgage credit plan Tuesday at a Council on Foreign Relations debate. Goolsbee said each of the working recipients of the mortgage credit will have paid Social Security and Medicare contributions through required payroll taxes, even though some don't pay actual income taxes.
Get Brad O'Leary's authoritative blockbuster, "The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values."
"All of the people that are receiving this credit are paying payroll taxes under Obama's program," Goolsbee said. "So it's completely not true that they aren't paying taxes. They aren't paying income taxes, but they are paying payroll taxes. To say that it's welfare, as John McCain has said when John McCain's own health-care credit of $5,000 is completely refundable and going to every single one of the people that they're saying is on welfare, is almost unbelievable. It makes my head want to explode."
Goolsbee said the work requirement was added to the proposal two weeks ago, though it had not been publicly announced. However, Holtz-Eakin suggested the camp simply came up with the idea for the debate.
"I think they just made it up," Holtz-Eakin told ABC News. "They will say anything in the moment. This is like trying to pin Jello to the wall."
Holtz-Eakin argued Obama's tax plan isn't consistent with his record. He said Obama voted 94 times for higher taxes in the Senate and promised trillions of dollars in new spending, despite the fact that 44 percent of Americans don't pay income taxes.
"How do you sustain those three fundamental contradictions for any length of time?" he asked. "Well, he's very good. He's verbally one of the most talented people we've ever seen. And he did it for a long time until he walked into some plumber's driveway. That was his mistake."
In a widely publicized moment, Obama explained his economic policy to an Ohio plumber Oct. 12 saying, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
However, O'Leary, author of "The Audacity of Deceit" and president of ATI News, condemned Obama's tax proposal, saying it threatens the fiscal wellbeing of the country.
"Obama's economic plan is clear," he said. "He wants to achieve his brand of social justice through wealth redistribution, while completely ignoring economic growth. When you combine his socialist redistribution plan and his plan to raise barriers to free trade, you have toxic mix that could drive the American economy deep into depression."
O'Leary referenced an Oct. 17-20 ATI-News/Zogby poll that shows a majority of undecided voters disagree with plans to "spread the wealth around."
"Our poll results show that undecided voters overwhelmingly reject Obama's economic plan to redistribute wealth," he said.
The poll surveyed 1,214 likely voters who were asked the following question: "John McCain and other critics say Barack Obama is heavily influenced by people and organizations which seek social justice through redistribution of wealth in America. Do you agree or disagree with efforts to bring social justice by the redistribution of wealth?"
A total of 57 percent of undecided voters said they disagreed with efforts to redistribute wealth, while only 24 percent agreed (19 percent said they are not sure).
"In his candid conversation with 'Joe the plumber,' Obama made clear that his main economic goal is to redistribute wealth, not strengthen and grow our economy," O'Leary said. "This is pure socialism, albeit thinly veiled, and it does not resonate with hard-working Americans who would rather keep their money than have Obama redistribute it to his favorite constituencies."
O'Leary said Obama is less like the young and inexperienced John F. Kennedy, as many of his supporters declare, and more reminiscent of another former U.S. leader who failed to end America's downward spiral into deep depression.
"Obama isn't the second coming of JFK," he said. "He's the
reincarnation of Herbert Hoover."
'Natural-born' requirement called 'stupidest provision'
Also 'discriminates, outdated, undemocratic and assumes birthplace a proxy for loyalty'
December 03, 2008
By Bob Unruh
An associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance
committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama has advocated for the elimination of the
U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen,
calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates,
is outdated and undemocratic.
Barack Obama and Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga
The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.
The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University.
The issue is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.
There have been accusations that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as his campaign has stated. His paternal grandmother has stated she was in attendance at his birth in Mombasa. While Hawaii officials say they have seen his birth certificate, they have declined to release information from it.
Join more than 158,000 others in signing WND's online petition calling for release of Barack Obama's birth certificate and verifying beyond any shadow of a doubt his constitutional eligibility for office.
The Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii that the Obama campaign posted on the Internet isn't considered by critics to resolve the issue, since during the 1960s when Obama was born, the new state issued the document to infants not necessarily born in Hawaii.
There also remain unanswered questions about his youth, when he lived and attended school in Indonesia and later when he traveled to Pakistan. The questions include whether he gave up a U.S. citizenship to attend school or traveled on another nation's passport to Pakistan at a time when U.S. passports were unwelcome there.
Answers to those issues could determine whether Obama meets the Constitution's demand for a "natural-born" citizen.
Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.
"The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, "undecidedly un-American," "blatantly discriminatory," and the "Constitution's worst provision," Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."
She concludes that the "emotional" reasons to oppose changing the Constitution will prevail over the "rational" reasons demanding a change.
"The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization, Herlihy wrote.
"Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans' subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement.
"Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts," she wrote.
Read all the evidence about Obama's birthplace in Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation."
She blamed support for the constitutional provision on "fear, racism, religious intolerance, or blind faith in the decisions of the Founding Fathers."
WND called Herlihy's number listed on the law firm website, and a woman answered with, "Sarah Herlihy." But when WND identified itself as a news agency, the woman said she didn't think "Sarah Herlihy" was in, but would take a message. There was no return call.
In the body of her argument, Herlihy said the constitutional provision simply is outdated.
"Considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a 'foreigner' coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland," she wrote.
"The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty," she wrote.
Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, "are based primarily on emotion."
A web blogger suggested, "So it sure looks like Obama's people have looked
into the matter of 'natural born' as far back as early 2006. What is even more
disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of:
'If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!"
Obama's own Cabinet member: He's 'an immigrant'
Exclusive: Janet Porter puts pressure on Fox News for rejecting eligibility ad
By Janet Porter
Friday, December 12, 2008
Don't believe Barack Obama's grandmother? Don't believe the ambassador to Kenya? How about Barack Obama's own Cabinet member?
That's right – former presidential candidate and Obama's choice for secretary of commerce, Gov. Bill Richardson, slipped up. In an effort to reach out to the Hispanic community, he admitted what Barack Obama has been trying to hide all these months: "Barack Obama is an immigrant." See it for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5OUdj_YIpo&eurl=&feature=player_embedded
YouTube - Kenyan Ambassador admits Obama born in Kenya
You don't need a translator to understand what Richardson admitted: Barack Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. That means we have a guy who's planning to take over the White House who is in direct violation of the Constitution. And his own Cabinet member says so. That's pretty big news, one would think. But the media has refused to cover it with anything more than a blurb laced with a "this is ridiculous" tone. It is ridiculous – ridiculous that the Constitution means so little that we can't even ensure that it's being followed. It's ridiculous that the story of the century is being ignored by those whose job it is to report it.
But now there's something even more ridiculous: Not only will Fox not report the news regarding Obama's citizenship, now we can't even buy an ad on Fox to allow others to hear about the constitutional crisis we're facing.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign WND's petition demanding the release of his birth certificate: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550
CNN is still considering it. Here's the ad text and, as they requested, the information to back up each line:
Heard the rumors about Barack Obama's citizenship?
These are the facts:
The Constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen.
Text of Article II, Section 1: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/
Obama's grandmother said she was there when Barack was born in Kenya.
Two tapes of Obama's paternal grandmother:
1. "Native of this village" in Kenya: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1906870/barack_obama_born_in_kenya_ii/
2. Phone conversation about visiting birthplace: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlFc4wCpvSo
Affidavit of Rev. Kweli Shuhubia: http://caosblog.com/9322
Obama refuses to release his original birth certificate.
Obama's birth certificate sealed ... – Article by Dr. Jerome Corsi, Oct. 26: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174
Instead of a birth certificate, Obama's campaign posted a certification given to those born abroad.
The alleged "Certification of Live Birth": http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
A document on Hawaii's official website stating "Certificate of Live Birth" is better than the "Certification" for native Hawaiians to obtain certain benefits: http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%20Ka%20Aina%20Hoopulapula.pdf
Experts have called even that document an "obvious forgery."
Detailed Report by "Dr. Ron Polarik": http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/
Obama attended school in Indonesia as Barry Soetoro, when only Indonesian citizens were permitted to attend.
Obama's school records list his father as Lolo Soetoro and Obama's citizenship as Indonesian.
For both of the above statements:
Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 when it was illegal to enter as a U.S. citizen.
Sixteen lawsuits in 12 states and two cases before the Supreme Court now challenge Obama's citizenship.
Tulsa Today article listing many of the individuals and organizations who are challenging Obama's eligibility: http://www.tulsatoday.com/newsdesk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1799&Itemid=2
Fact: Our Constitution still matters: http://www.obamaforgery.com/
Help us get this ad on television: Go to http://www.f2a.org/ and every dollar of your donation will go to airtime from now until Dec. 15 (when the Electoral College voters cast their ballots).
Then let Fox know what you think about the censorship of this ad: 212-301-3000. You can also call CNN and encourage them to take the ad and cover the critical citizenship story: 404-827-1500.
You can see the television ad and two more full-page ads that are running this week in the weekly edition of the Washington Times and Human Events at: http://www.obamaforgery.com/.
Yes, the Supreme Court said no to the New Jersey citizenship case. But they still have the Pennsylvania and Connecticut cases before them. And there are more than a dozen others that are making their way up to the Supreme Court. I, for one, will not stop asking the critical questions until we have the answers the Constitution demands.
And with all those legal challenges, Grandma, the Kenyan ambassador and now Obama's own Cabinet member all saying that Obama is not qualified to serve as president, rest assured, this issue is not going to go away time soon.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign WND's petition demanding the release of his birth certificate: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550
Also sign the petition at: http://rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/