|HOME||September-October 2008 Special Edition||Background Information||News On The Web|
A THINK-ISRAEL Editorial
The luck of the Irish! Just as Obama's gaffes and flipflops were beginning to take their toll, the economy took a nose dive. Barack Obama's has been able to convince people it's all the fault of the Republicans and he would change things.
How do you change an economy that is spiraling downward?
[1.] You can try to put a temporary clamp on where it is -- so it doesn't fall further. These tactics are similar to those used by socialist governments all the time. They don't start a rise. They create a pseudo-stable society, that slowly loses momentum -- and goes nowhere. In the short run, the money shift encourages a feel-good state of mind, because a lot of people seem to be doing better. But if you take money from one pocket and put it into another but you don't keep adding new money to the source, eventually, you'll have nothing in anyone's pocket.
[2.] You can try to stimulate the economy. The economy might act like a drunken driver for a few months, but then it starts a steady upward slope, as individual producers apply their own unique, erratic solutions. This admits that our understanding of economics is still primitive. Trying to control such a complex organism is almost impossible. The government can encourage/discourage trends by tax incentives and/or punitive taxes; it can encourage new directions. It can call a halt when things get out of hand. But it's still a crap game.
Many people believe it's the 1929 depression again and we need a New Deal to deal with the economy. They see Roosevelt's new deal as the paradigm. The New Deal of the 1930's did indeed stop the downward spiral of an economy that had no banking regulations and a very thin welfare support system. But, and this is important, the economy didn't start to recover until stimulated by the second world war.
"Obama's New New Deal No Better Than the Old One"
Jewish World Review
Michael Barone is a columnist at U.S. News & World Report. This is some of his insightful article. It is of more than historic interest.
With victory in sight, Barack Obama's supporters are predicting that he will give us a new New Deal. To see what that might mean, let's look back on the original New Deal.
The purpose of New Deal legislation was not, as commonly thought, to restore economic growth but rather to freeze the economy in place at a time when it seemed locked in a downward spiral. Its central program, the National Recovery Administration (NRA), created 700 industry councils for firms and unions to set minimum prices and wages. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), the ancestor of our farm bills, limited production to hold up prices. Unionization, encouraged by NRA and the 1935 Wagner Act, was meant to keep workers in jobs that the unemployed would have taken at lower pay.
These policies did break the downward spiral. But, as Amity Shlaes points out in "The Forgotten Man," they failed to restore growth. Double-digit unemployment continued throughout the 1930s; despite population growth, the economy failed to rebound to 1920s production levels. High taxes on high earners (a Herbert Hoover as well as Franklin Roosevelt policy) financed welfare payments ("spread the wealth around") but reduced investment and growth.
Roosevelt had thought that economic expansion was a thing of the past. But World War II stimulated huge growth in the American economy. New Deal welfare programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) arts program were terminated. Wartime domestic policies were growth stimulators. Veterans Administration home mortgage loans, building on the FHA mortgage program, encouraged home-buying and after the war converted a nation of renters to a nation of homeowners. The G.I. Bill of Rights subsidized higher education for millions of veterans. These programs stimulated growth partly because they required real effort down payments, military service from beneficiaries before they received aid.
OBAMA SEEMS DETERMINED TO FOLLOW POLICIES BETTER SUITED TO FREEZING THE ECONOMY IN PLACE THAN TO PROMOTING ECONOMIC GROWTH. Higher taxes on high earners, for one. He told Charlie Gibson he would raise capital gains taxes even if that reduced revenue: less wealth to spread around, but at least the rich wouldn't have it reminiscent of the Puritan sumptuary laws that prohibited the wearing of silk. Moves toward protectionism like Hoover's (Roosevelt had the good sense to promote free trade). National health insurance that threatens to lead to rationing and to stifle innovation. Promoting unionization by abolishing secret ballot union elections.
The impulse to social engineering is unmistakable. Government officials will allocate resources, redistribute income, and ration good and services. Use government stakes in banks, insurance companies and Detroit auto manufacturers to maintain the position of those already in place, at the cost of preventing the emergence of new enterprises that might have been spawned by the capital being allocated.
Social engineering of course is far easier when you are dealing with an economy that is frozen in place. It's harder when you have to deal with the creative destruction, the emergence of new firms and businesses, and the decline of old ones, which as Joseph Schumpeter taught is the inevitable consequence of economic growth.
When financial crisis looms, there is an impulse to freeze everything in place and accept what is as the best there can ever be: Barack Obama's new New Deal. The history of the old New Deal suggests this is not a sustainable approach in the long run.
by Kimberley Strassel
October 10, 2008
OpinionJournal.com from the Wall Street Journal
It's hard not to do a LOL when discussing the internal contradictions of Obama's grandiose plan to deal with the economy, even if it is uttered with great sincerity and not often challenged by the media. Perhaps the best way to treat it is how Kimberley Strassel does. She is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. It's magic! It just won't work in the real world. Pity we might be discovering the impossibilities the hard way.
And now, America, we introduce the Great Obama! The world's most gifted political magician! A thing of wonder. A thing of awe. Just watch him defy politics, economics, even gravity! (And hold your applause until the end, please.)
To kick off our show tonight, Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he "cut" zero? Abracadabra! It's called a "refundable tax credit." It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't. Yes, yes, in the real world this is known as "welfare," but please try not to ruin the show.
Obama's Magic Tricks (Ken Fallin)
For his next trick, the Great Obama will jumpstart the economy, and he'll do it by raising taxes on the very businesses that are today adrift in a financial tsunami! That will include all those among the top 1% of taxpayers who are in fact small-business owners, and the nation's biggest employers who currently pay some of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. Mr. Obama will, with a flick of his fingers, show them how to create more jobs with less money. It's simple, really. He has a wand.
Next up, Mr. Obama will re-regulate the economy, with no ill effects whatsoever! You may have heard that for the past 40 years most politicians believed deregulation was good for the U.S. economy. You might have even heard that much of today's financial mess tracks to loose money policy, or Fannie and Freddie excesses. Our magician will show the fault was instead with our failure to clamp down on innovation and risk-taking, and will fix this with new, all-encompassing rules. Presto!
Did someone in the audience just shout "Sarbanes Oxley?" Usher, can you remove that man? Thank you. Mr. Obama will now demonstrate how he gives Americans the "choice" of a "voluntary" government health plan, designed in such a way as to crowd out the private market and eliminate all other choice! Don't worry people: You won't have to join, until you do. Mr. Obama will follow this with a demonstration of how his plan will differ from our failing Medicare program. Oops, sorry, folks. The Great Obama just reminded me it is time for an intermission. Maybe we'll get to that marvel later.
We're back now. And just watch the Great Obama perform a feat never yet managed in all history. He will create that enormous new government health program, spend billions to transform our energy economy, provide financial assistance to former Soviet satellites, invest in infrastructure, increase education spending, provide job training assistance, and give 95% of Americans a tax (ahem) cut -- all without raising the deficit a single penny! And he'll do it in the middle of a financial crisis. And with falling tax revenues! Voila!
Moving along to a little ventriloquism. Study his mouth carefully, folks: It looks like he's saying "I'll stop the special interests," when in fact the words coming out are "Welcome to Washington, friends!" Wind and solar companies, ethanol makers, tort lawyers, unions, community organizers -- all are welcome to feed at the public trough and to request special favors. From now on "special interests" will only refer to universally despised, if utterly crucial, economic players. Say, oil companies. Hocus Pocus!
And for tonight's finale, the Great Obama will uphold America's "moral" obligation to "stop genocide" by abandoning Iraq! While teleported to the region, he will simultaneously convince Iranian leaders to peacefully abandon their nuclear pursuits (even as he does not sit down with them), fix Afghanistan with a strategy that does not resemble the Iraqi surge, and (drumroll!) pull Osama bin Laden out of his hat!
You can clap now. (Applause. Cheers.) We'd like to thank a few people in the audience. Namely, Republican presidential nominee John McCain, who has so admirably restrained himself from running up on stage to debunk any of these illusions and spoil everyone's fun.
We know he's in a bit of a box, having initially blamed today's financial crisis on corporate "greed," and thus made it that much harder to call for a corporate tax cut, or warn against excessive regulation. Still, there were some pretty big openings up here this evening, and he let them alone! We'd also like to thank Mr. McCain for keeping all the focus on himself these past weeks. It has helped the Great Obama to just get on with the show.
As for that show, we'd love to invite you all back for next week's performance, when the Great Obama will thrill with new, amazing exploits. He will respect your Second Amendment rights even as he regulates firearms! He will renegotiate Nafta, even as he supports free trade! He will.
This cartoon serves as a 30-second instruction manual for
understanding Obama's economic plans.
For the details, there is an excellent summary of Obama's real
positions on the economy and other important issues, as well as
resumes of some of his closest friends and important tax charts at the
end of this essay.
Click here to go to Appendix 1.
We end with a salute to Joe the Plumber, the man who threw a wrench into a slick sell of stale goodies. He gave us a handle on what Obama's plan is. It isn't the American Dream. It's more like the Soviet disaster.
"Obama - 'Spread The Wealth Around' Reveals Socialist Plan
Interview with Joe Wurzelbacher
by Editors of Family Security Matters (FSM)
October 15, 2008
At a recent campaign appearance in Ohio, Sen. Obama was approached by plumber Joe Wurzelbacher, who has concerns about Obama's proposed tax policies. FamilySecurityMatters.org's Pam Meister had a candid conversation with him about his experience.
PAM MEISTER: You recently met Sen. Obama on the campaign trail in Ohio, and you asked him a question about his tax policies. What exactly was your question for him?
JOE WURZELBACHER: Initially, I started off asking him if he believed in the American Dream and he said yes, he does and then I proceeded to ask him then why he's penalizing me for trying to fulfill it. He asked, "what do you mean," and I explained to him that I'm planning on purchasing this company it's not something I'm gonna purchase outright, it's something I'm going to have to make payments on for years but essentially I'm going to buy this company, and the profits generated by that could possibly put me in that tax bracket he's talking about and that bothers me. It's not like I would be rich; I would still just be a working plumber. I work hard for my money, and the fact that he thinks I make a little too much that he just wants to redistribute it to other people. Some of them might need it, but at the same time, it's not their discretion to do it it's mine.
PM: You're a plumber, and you're looking to buy your own plumbing business?
PM: Would that plumbing business employ other people or would it just employ you?
JW: Eventually it would employ other people. Right now it's a two man shop and it's got a very good footprint and a very good reputation, so eventually I would want to put other people out there. I don't want to get huge because if you get too big your quality goes, but I definitely wouldn't mind having two good plumbers out there with me working.
PM: So a potential tax increase how do you see that affecting your ability to hire more people to work with you at your company?
JW: Obviously these are hypothetical questions to a degree because I don't know what the economy is going to do...
PM: Of course.
JW: Essentially what that would do is, I'd have to see how much money is available after everything else is paid, to see if I can one, afford a new vehicle, two, outfit it, and then three, pay a good salary. And if I'm being taxed too much, one of those three things is going to get shorted. One, I won't be able to buy as good a good vehicle or I won't stock it as well, or the guy I hire if I'm able to hire somebody is not going to make as much as he should.
PM: Obama gave you quite a long answer, I see, on Jake Tapper's blog on ABC News. He did give you quite an extensive answer to your question talking about a 50% tax credit for healthcare costs, that sort of thing, and he talked about the reason he's doing this saying 95% of small businesses make less than $250,000 a year. He talked about your time as a plumber you said you've been a plumber for 15 years?
PM: Okay, and then he talked about 10, 15 years ago maybe you weren't making that sort of money, how would you feel if you were just starting out, or maybe looking back the kind of tax cut that he's promising for other people, does that still make you think that that's a great idea?
JW: No. See, I believe in working for what I get. I don't want to say it's a handout, but essentially that's what it comes down to. You're going to tax someone else more that's been working hard to fulfill the American Dream and you're gonna give it to other people who I'm not saying they don't work as hard, but I'm sure some of them don't and I don't think it's right just to give it to them or reduce taxes on their part and hike it up on my part like a teeter totter to bring it back even. So no, that wouldn't well, let me rephrase that. It would appeal to me because back then I was struggling. That kind of thing appeals to me anybody wants to cut my taxes, I look at it very seriously, it's like, it sounds great. But you gotta see what the other hand is doing too.
PM: Still, in that vein, Obama says he doesn't want to "punish" you, but he wants to let me see if I can see what his exact quote was...
JW: Redistribute the wealth.
PM: ...taxing small businesses making $250,000 and above is going to help the people "behind you." And yes, "spreading the wealth around." How did you feel about that?
JW: As soon as he said it, he contradicted himself. He doesn't want to "punish" me, but when you use the word "but," you pretty much negate everything you just said prior to that. So he does want to punish me, he does want to punish me for working harder to you know, my big thing is the American Dream. I work hard. You know, I was poor; my mom raised me and my brother by herself for a very long time until my dad came along. So I know what it's like to suffer. It's not like I was born with a silver spoon. Usually it was a wooden spoon and it was on my butt. It was just a contradiction of terms, what he said: he doesn't want to punish me but he wants to redistribute my wealth. And what I mean when I say my wealth, I mean the collective. Eventually I mean, just to sound a little silly here, but you need rich people. I mean, who are you going to work for?
PM: Do you fear this is the possibility of America turning more down the socialist road if Obama does become elected and if he is able to implement these policies?
JW: Very much so. You start giving people stuff, and then they start expecting it and that scares me. A lot of people expect it now. They get upset when their check's late, they get upset when they don't get as many benefits as they used to, or when different government agencies are cut or spending is cut here and there for whatever reason people get upset at that. And that's because they're used to getting it and they want more. I mean, everyone's always gonna want more. People work the system left and right to get more out of welfare, to get more out of state assistance, federal assistance. And if government's there for them, they're gonna keep on trying to manipulate it to get more out of it. You got people that come along and say, "Hey, I wanna help you people," I mean, they're all ears! They're like, "Hey, you can help me more, I don't have to work as hard, I don't have to do as much, and you're gonna give me this? Man, that's great, you're a good guy."
So yeah, it goes down the socialist His healthcare plan scares me. You know, I don't like people going without healthcare, but it's not my job to pay for everyone else's healthcare. It's hard enough paying for my own. I like the idea of deregulation as far as nationally, you know, you only get insurance companies that can work in this state if you deregulate that then you have more people competing and then the prices would go lower. It seems pretty simple to me. It probably isn't that simple but you flood the market with more products, usually they go down cheaper.
PM: In a recent survey of America's chief executive officers, a full 69% of them said they were worried about an Obama presidency. Some even say he could plunge us into a depression or even bankruptcy in about three years. If you are to buy this business, you yourself would be a CEO, essentially, of a smaller business. Do you agree with those CEOs and if so, how might that change whether you take the risk of buying your business should Obama become elected?
JW: You know, I don't know enough about that to give you a real intelligent answer. It does concern me. I've listened lately and I've heard he's proposed more spending. You spend more, you gotta get it from somewhere. I don't think he's gonna cut any of the government down, in fact I think he wants to make it bigger. And eventually, you get it too big, it's gonna topple. In essence, I suppose I do agree for a little bit, but I just don't know enough as far as the grand scheme like that. In three years...I wouldn't feel comfortable stating something like that.
PM: That's fair enough. Could it be that people won't be as productive? If you're going to be paying more taxes, why should you be more productive when you could possibly take home the same amount without being as productive? Do you agree with that?
JW: That's the catch right there. Some people will agree with that. Some people will say, "Well, I'm not gonna work for the stars or shoot for 'em because if I do, I'm gonna be punished, or I'm gonna be subjugated to more taxes," or for whatever they wanna do. So yeah, I would agree to that to a point. Some people will say, "Well you know, I still want this, I'm still gonna work hard and try to make that happen for myself" And then other people are gonna sit back and then you look at mediocrity for the country, and I don't like that idea.
PM: What do you think that Obama's tax plan will do to entrepreneurship in general in this country?
JW: It'll definitely make people think twice about it. It's not something that they're gonna just rush into. It's a tax increase, but it's not a 50% tax increase. It's not gonna keep everybody from doing it some people might decide not to, but I don't think it would keep everybody from doing it.
PM: Now did Obama tell you that you would receive some sort of tax cut?
JW: He talked about suspending capital gains to a certain amount... To be honest with you, I don't want to say I tuned him out because as he started, he pretty much regurgitated what he said in his debate, first one, second one, and a lot of his rallies. What he said to me was pretty much word for word what he's been saying for the last couple months. So when he started down that path, it's like, "Okay, I've already heard this, Obama, give me something different."
PM: There was nothing new in his answer?
JW: No, there was nothing new. You know, I didn't appreciate that, actually.
PM: There's a clip of you that's been shown on television, and it's all over the Internet on YouTube as well. It's a very short clip. Do you think it accurately portrays the exchange that you had with Sen. Obama? Obviously there was more to it.
JW: I haven't seen too much of it to be honest with you I've been working yesterday and today, and the evenings spent with my boy or with my family. So I haven't spent too much time looking at it. I did notice I wish the newspaper people, talk shows, I wish they would start off with the very beginning: "Do you believe the American dream?" That was essentially what it came down to for me was do you believe in the American Dream, you're not going to punish people for going for it?
PM: To you, what exactly is the American Dream? Can you explain that?
JW: Me personally?
PM: Yeah, you personally.
JW: Me personally, my American Dream was to have a house, a dog, a couple rifles, a bass boat. I believe in living life easy and simple. I don't have grand designs. I don't want much. I just wanna be able to take care of my family and do things with them outdoors and that's about it, really. I don't have a "grand scheme" thing. My American Dream is just more personal to me as far as working, making a good living and being able to provide for my family, college for my son. Things like that simple things in life, that's really what it comes down to for me. That's my dream.
PM: Do you think your question surprised Obama, caught him off guard at all?
JW: Well that was actually my intent. Most people, you ask them "do you believe in the American Dream?" Nine times out of ten they'll sit there and go, "Yeah, of course!" That's where he messed up, because as soon as I asked him that, his answer shows that he doesn't believe in the American Dream. You know, like the question you asked before he pretty much contradicted himself. "I don't want to punish you but " Well, you're going to anyways.
PM: Has there been a lot of media interest in your story? Have you been getting a lot of calls from the media asking you to talk about this?
JW: Neil Cavuto, I was on his show earlier today, just a phone interview for about five minutes. He asked a couple of questions. Then a talk show Trey Ware he has a conservative talk show down in San Antonio, Texas he picked up on it. I've had friends call me from all over the nation, saying they heard Rush Limbaugh quote something from me or they've heard Hannity quote something. I guess it's getting quite a bit of play.
PM: What kind of feedback are you getting from friends and family, other than the fact they have heard you being quoted on some very popular talk shows?
JW: Well, my son thinks it's absolutely the most incredible thing in the world. He loves I always teach him to speak his mind and to know what he's talking about before he speaks his mind because usually there's always someone in the room who will know what you're talking about. So he just thinks it's really neat. My friends well, a lot of them will come to me and ask me political questions just because I think it's important to know about it and so they know they'll get a straight answer from me, even if I don't like they guy or I do like the guy, you know, I'll give them the pros and cons of it and let them make their own decisions on it. But some, they know it's pretty important to me. I was kind of actually nervous about doing any of this, you know, answering calls and going on that show. But they all, you know, said that I always answer them good and so they just said go for it, so they've been very supportive.
PM: Do you hope Sen. McCain will talk more about this issue during Wednesday's debate, you know, taxes for small businesses?
JW: There's a lot of things I wish McCain would say. As far as this, yes, I would like him to speak. Not so much about small businesses, but just people in general that make this money. It's not up to them to help America, I mean let me rephrase that. It's not they shouldn't be taxed more because they've succeeded. That's envy and jealousy. Get off your butt and go work. Don't sit there and expect the government to give it to you. So I wouldn't mind him speaking on it like that. I know he couldn't say it probably like that because that'd turn a lot of people off. But it just yeah, I guess I would like him to speak about that and a bunch of other things. I'd like to hear him talk about immigration and what he plans on doing about that and with our borders. I mean, there's a lot of things that haven't even been addressed in the last two debates.
PM: You're right about that. I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to me.
JW: Thank you so much.
THE OBAMA REPORT
by Steve Baldwin
October 5, 2008.
In his cover letter, Baldwin wrote:
There is no doubt Washington DC is in dire need of reform but, when Obama speaks of reform, he's not talking about the kind of reform we all want. He's talking about centralizing power with special interest groups, job-killing tax hikes, removing choices from individuals, transferring our wealth overseas, spending and taxing so heavily, that the possibility of America being converted into a semi-socialized country is real for the first time in American history. I am not exaggerating. His campaign is the biggest con job I have ever witnessed.
Much of the information is based upon my own research and my observations of Obama and the policies he has pursued, but I've also added websites for further reading on the issues I bring up. The vast majority of this information has NOT been covered in the mainstream media or by the big networks. However, please be aware that as the campaign becomes tighter, Obama will change his tune on many issues for strategic reasons. Don't be fooled. The most accurate portrayal of his philosophy are the statements he made while he was in the lead and during the Democrat primary; after all, if he wins, his party will likely increase their control of both houses and therefore nothing will restrain him from pursuing his radical agenda. Any last minute position changes are purely a strategy meant to attract independents but will not reflect any true change of heart.
Steve Baldwin is executive director of the Council for National Policy. He has been lambasted for being an extreme rightist by extremist leftists, including MNBC, etc.
He writes of his political experience:"I have spent over 30 years in politics and know all the games played by politicians. I am very familiar with all aspects of politics. I served in the California Legislature for six years where I chaired the Education Committee and served for a time as the Minority Whip. I managed numerous campaigns for a number of years, from school board races to the U.S. Senate. I authored two policy- oriented books, one on education and one on how our enemies use the media to manipulate public opinion. I have lobbied for legislation and I've done opposition research; I've advised Congressmen on policy and even worked with the former House leader Congressmen Newt Gingrich for a stint. I detest corruption regardless of political party and I believe in the American dream in which anyone can become successful if they work hard. But this dream is being threatened by the Obama agenda."
Doesn't Obama Stand for Change?
While repeating the words "Hope" and "Change" in campaign speeches might be an nice rhetorical trick, one needs to examine what it really means. Hitler and Lenin where both dynamic speakers and spoke of change in their speeches, but the 60 million people who died due to their utopistic dreams probably would not agree that "change" was a good thing. World history is replete with utopians who promised "change" and instead brought us great misery. Using words like Change and Hope and being a good orator has nothing to do with a person's actual track record; all voters need to put aside their emotions and find out what a candidate's actual track record is.
The arrogance shown by Obama should give one pause. Anytime one believes they're the "anointed one" and indeed, "God-like," be forewarned. All the great despots in history shared this arrogance. When talk show host Chris Matthews referred to the Obama effort as something that should be part of the "New Testament," and that he was "delivered to us," and Jesse Jackson Jr. says "another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance," its time to become alarmed. Obama himself clearly believes he is something divine-like. Here's one such statement:
"We are the ones we've been waiting for; We are the change that we seek."
Or how about this incredibly arrogant statement:A light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama.This is the "2nd coming of the Messiah" attitude which has led so many leaders throughout history to think they know what's best for the unwashed masses and which encouraged them to embark on authoritarianism. It is this Messiah complex that will lead a President Obama to radically transform our culture and government in order to fulfill some preconceived utopian "vision" that will no doubt lead to a trampling of our constitutional rights.
His campaign even had the audacity to alter the great seal one sees on our currency and transform it into a campaign seal, minus the American flag, AS IF HE IS WHAT AMERICA IS ALL ABOUT. Indeed, a whole website has been created to catalog the Messiah-like statements of the Obama campaign.
Go to: http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/
But isn't Obama a reformer like he says he is?
It's a nice rhetorical trick, but his legislative record really doesn't reflect the record of a "reformer." Far from it. He was a standard hard-left Democrat both as a State Senator and a US Senator. He spent all his time on legislation that would create massive new programs, raise taxes, and create new "rights" for criminals, illegal aliens, and union leaders, always at the expense of ordinary Americans. He was a solid vote for every hard-left special interest group and followed the same old big government agenda that leftists have always followed. There's nothing new here.
Until the media elevated him to Messiah status, he was regarding by his colleagues as a far-left, fairly isolated extremist that believed in wild-eyed racial conspiracy theories and advocated looney things like racial reparations. No one took him seriously.
Capitol Hill's leading non-partisan vote tracking publication, National Journal, has rated Obama the most Liberal member of the United States Senate, even more liberal than self-declared socialist Senator Bernie Saunders.
See here: http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/voteratings
To be a reformer, one needs to be someone who works both sides of the aisles; far-left extremists are never reformers. Indeed, the Washington Times has studied the legislative record of both candidates and found that Obama's bills had Republican co-sponsors only 13% of the time while McCain had Democrat co-sponsors 55% of the time. In other words, McCain crossed the aisle more then four times more often than did Obama. Contrary to his rhetoric, Obama is an isolated, far-left member of the US Senate.
Even the platform the Democrats passed at their recent convention crafted by Obama operatives called for government takeover of all health care, tons of new programs replicating existing government programs (For example, there are over 150 federal job training programs but Obama is calling for more), attacks the idea that we need to drill for oil (get your bikes out), and promotes all the usual big government solutions but there's nothing new or "reform" minded in the platform.
But Wasn't Obama a reformer in the Illinois State Senate?
Hardly. He was part of the Chicago democratic machine, one of the most corrupt political machines in the country. The big media will tell you every detail about Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter but they won't tell you anything about this part of his career. After reviewing Obama's State Senate career, US News and World Report writer Michael Barone asked, "What basis is there in his career to see Obama as a reformer?" Author David Freddoso spent a great deal of time analyzing Obama's State Senate career and reported this:The main lesson is that Barack Obama's record, throughout his career, demonstrates conclusively that he has never been a reformer, That this image of 'change and hope' that he projects is really a great lie. In fact there's never been a single time in Senator Obama's political Career where he did something that was difficult and would cost him politically for the sake of needed reforms and change....reformers don't vote for the bridge to nowhere...they don't consistently support corrupt systemic arrangement in every public office they've ever held. . .The "political machine" is all about using the apparatus of the government treasury, using the taxpayer's money to keep yourself in power permanently. You put your political cronies on the payroll to help yourself get elected and re-elected and then when you're in power you get to do things like steer pension funds and investment to benefit your pals. All of this stuff was going on.
Liberals and conservatives had come together and had the Cook County, Illinois machine on the ropes but Sen. Obama did not help them. In fact, he ended up endorsing the machine candidate that year in the competitive general election and called him a good progressive Democrat. In this case he didn't support the reformer, because to support the reformer in that election, he would have upset all the allies of the machine politician. That would have been against the interests of now-convicted developer Tony Rezko, who was tied closely to the Stroger family. He would have upset Mayor Daley, he would have to upset Emil Jones.
So he played along like a good machine politician.
All of this has been documented for years in the Chicago newspapers which is why Chicago natives are shocked that anyone would consider Obama a reformer.
Not only that, but his focus was on the bizarre. He spent a great amount of time trying to prove that all police were racists because a disproportionate number of people arrested were minorities. But in neighborhoods with heavy minorities, what would you expect? Duh. He voted against anti-crime bills because he thought they disproportionately affected minorities and were therefore racist. He voted for massive welfare programs because he believed we owed it to minorities (never mind how such programs created more dependency). He supported racial quotas whenever possible.
Indeed, Illinois ended up with a fiscal crisis on its hands "precisely because of his [Obama] penchant for spending" according to Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The Journal of Black Studies actually studied all of Obama's legislation and found that outside of welfare bills, "Obama devoted very little time to other policy areas."
If the issue didn't concern race or welfare, he often would just vote "Present" which means he's sitting in his chair but won't vote yes or no. He did this 130 times. On 36 occasions, he was the only legislator to vote "present." Many of these bills he refused to vote on concerned important issues such as abortion, gun control, sexual abuse, etc. This is leadership?
To read more about his bizarre career in the Illinois State Senate, go here:
But Isn't His Running Mate Joe Biden a Reformer?
Not at all. Biden is part of the "old boys" Senate network and has been in office for over three decades. He has a history of plagiarizing which forced him out of one presidential campaign and fabricating anecdotes. When grilling Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for his Senate confirmation hearings, he fabricated a quote he attributed to Thomas in an effort to sabotage his confirmation. National Journal rated Biden the 3rd most liberal member of the Senate. Biden's son is a lobbyist who has used his father to get pork money out of Obama. Here's the Washington Post:Sen. Barack Obama sought more than $3.4 million in Congressional earmarks for clients of the lobbyist son of his Democratic running mate, Sen. Joseph Biden Jr. of Delaware, records show. Obama succeeded in getting $192,000 for one of the clients, St. Xavier University in suburban Chicago.
Biden has never been identified with reform but rather he has carried the water for decades for all the special interest groups. He is one of the biggest spending liberals in DC. As the nation's leading fiscal conservative watchdog group, Club for Growth, writes:
Over his thirty-five years in Washington, Senator Biden has been a reflexive liberal on every single economic issue," said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey, "Whether the issue is taxes, spending, regulation, or school choice, Senator Biden has voted consistently for more taxes, more spending, more government, and less freedom and choice. Taxpayers can expect more of the same from the Obama-Biden ticket more government, less prosperity."
But Doesn't Obama Refuse Money from Special Interest Groups?
This is just not the case. Obama has taken more money than McCain has from just about every special interest group: unions, trial lawyers, homosexual groups, big oil, you name it.
The Center for Responsive Politics an ethics watchdog group is reporting that Obama has received more money from Exxon, Chevron, and BP than McCain has and yet Obama is hypocritically running radio spots accusing McCain of being "in the pocket of big oil."
In order to avoid the appearance of taking PAC money, Obama had industry leaders "bundle" money, which means these individuals go out and collect large donations from other industry leaders. $63 million has been raised by Obama this way. The largest sector raising money for Obama is the trial lawyers, which means that no serious health care reform will occur in an Obama administration. Moreover, Federal campaign records show that he took PAC money for his House and Senate races and only stopped taking money in PAC form when he launched his presidential campaign.
Unfortunately, you can't run a presidential campaign today without raising money from all sources, but for Obama to now act like he doesn't take money from special interest groups is just hypocritical. www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php?id=N00009638
But Wasn't Obama a Community Organizer Who Fought for Reform?
Obama constantly reminds everyone that he was a community organizer. Really? That's a big stretch since what he's referring to is his work for a group called ACORN [Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now: which has been tainted by massive voter fraud accusations all across America]. It would be more accurate to describe ACORN as an underground anti-democratic guerilla group than a "community" group. Let me make clear here that ACORN is a nut job group. The reality is that ACORN has been involved with illegal activities for decades.
They have been investigated repeatedly by the authorities for their efforts to illegally effect elections. They've engaged in illegal efforts to register illegal aliens and felons and have been involved in bogus voter registration schemes in key states. They have forged thousand of signatures in order to quality initiatives. ACORN even opposes all voter ID laws, because, obviously, any requirement that one must show an ID at the polling booth would block illegal voters from voting. ACORN calls such laws "racist" but ballot integrity is critical to a free society and is one of the things that separates us from third world countries.
When I was a California legislator, ACORN was deeply involved in shady activities in that state. The California Republican Party sued them after they invaded its offices and defaced and destroyed property. ACORN is been implicated in voter fraud schemes in at least 12 states. And who served as an organizer and performed legal work for them? Barack Obama. His association with this law-breaking group should alone disqualify him from being a candidate for president.
ACORN is also a socialist group that rants and raves about "Capitalism" and "free enterprise," and even opposes all efforts to secure our borders. It was founded by Saul Alinsky, a well known Marxist organizer who detested everything about America but also happens to be one of Obama's heroes.
Even liberal writers have attacked ACORN's wacky agenda, but the scary thing is, Obama's agenda reflects ACORN's agenda. To read more about this nutty group including some explosive reports by the Consumer Rights League about how ACORN worked to obtain mortgages for illegal aliens, go here:
If John McCain ever worked for a group that constantly sought ways to rig elections, don't you think that would be on the front page of every newspaper over and over? Of course it would.
Obama's Disturbing Relationships
The media has told us every detail of Sarah Palin's life but refuses to investigate Obama's life. And there's good reason for this. Obama's friends and mentors from boyhood through college, and even through adulthood, tell us something about Obama that the media would rather us not know. Obama has surrounded himself with so many extremists, socialists, communists, radical Islamic wackos, anti-American hate mongers, bombers, liberation theologians, and just flat out thugs that, if he were applying for a government job today, he would NOT make it through the security clearance.
The Obama campaign has tried to play these relationships down and has even lied about some of them, but even the scantiest of research reveal Obama's long-standing ties with these characters. These associations tell us a lot about the man and his ideology. If McCain hung out with white supremacists, KKK groups, and Nazi Party leaders all through-out his life, do you think the media would cover it? Of course, it would be in the news everyday. And everyone would rightfully assume that McCain held racist or anti-Semitic views.
Let's review this Rogues' Gallery the media is desperately trying to keep under wraps:
Bill Ayers & Bernadine Dohrn
In the 70's Bill Ayers and wife Bernadine Dohrn were members of a Marxist terrorist group called the Weather Underground which bombed 40 targets within the USA between 1969 and 1975 -- including the U.S. Capital, the State Department, military bases, the Pentagon, and the NYPD -- as part of their "revolution" against the US Government. Ayers called himself a "revolutionary Communist."
An FBI agent who infiltrated the group reported that Dohrn herself was responsible for bombing a San Francisco police station that killed one officer and injured two others. He also said Ayers was personally involved in constructing bombs and wanted to kill as many people as possible. When Dohrn was told about the Manson family killing of Sharon Tate, she responded, "Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach! Wild!"
The Weather Underground even cheered on the Vietnamese communists when they killed American boys and both Ayers and Dohrn received rings from the Vietnamese made of metal from downed American aircraft. After being on the run from the authorities for many years, Ayers and Dohrn surfaced in 1980 and got all charges against them dropped on a technicality. He is unrepentant, however, and told the NY Times in 2001, "I don't regret setting bombs....I feel we didn't do enough."
The media has actually mentioned Ayers but keeps repeated Obama's statement that Ayers was just "a guy in my neighborhood...He's not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." In fact, this is a lie as Obama was very close to Ayers for many years and served with him on various boards up until 2001. Ayers founded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) and named Obama as its first chairman. The CAC gave funds to extremist groups such as the Arab American Action Network, a group headed by Rashid Khalidi, an anti-Israel professor and former PLO spokesman. For four years, Obama and Ayers doled out money to radical nutcase groups. The two also served together on the board of a foundation called the Woods Charitable Fund, another group that funded "progressive" or leftist causes.
But the two go back even further as Ayers and Dohrn actually hosted at their home the initial organizing meeting for Obama's first State Senate campaign in 1995. Clearly, Ayers was not just a "neighbor" but rather a ideological soul mate. Hard-core extremists such as Ayers and Dohrn do NOT back mainstream candidates for office.
An independent group that tried to get this info to the public about the Ayers connection is now being harassed by Obama's attorneys. And no, Ayers and Dohrn have never "moderated" like some in the media claim. At a 2007 reunion of radicals, Ayers called America a place of authoritarianism and Dohrn called America a "beast" and said that "America is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world."
Khalidi is a Palestinian-American and former spokesman for the PLO's press agency, WAFA, from 1976-1982. At the time, the PLO was designated a terrorist group by the US Government and they were, and still are, dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Not surprisingly, he is a professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University. The Los Angeles Times has reported that Obama is a "friend and frequent dinner companion" of Khalidi.
Indeed, Khalidi held a fundraiser for Obama's ill-fated congressional bid in 2000 where Obama made statements in support of the Palestinian cause. As a board member of the radical Woods Foundation, Obama also gave funding to the Khalidi's organization, the Arab American Action Network, an allegedly "community service" group that holds extremist views on Israel. We also know that Obama, along with Ayers and Dohrn, attending a good bye party for Khalidi and that Khalidi told the mostly Palestinian-American crowd, "You will not have a better senator under any circumstance."
Mr. Asbahi was the Muslim outreach coordinator for the Obama campaign. However, he resigned after only two weeks due to revelations that he was associated with extremist individuals and groups.
He was involved with a fund called the "Allied Assets Advisor Fund," whose board included nut cases such as Jamal Said, an Imam at an extremist Islamic Mosque in Illinois. Allied Assets is a subsidiary of the "North American Islamic Trust" (NAIT), founded by Muslim Brotherhood members, the group that many AL Qaeda members came out of. A 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document lists NAIT as among the groups who are working together to "eliminating and destroying the Western Civilization from within...." Imam Said is also a Muslim Brotherhood member. But the Obama campaign knew all about this beforehand they just don't view radicalism in the same way normal Americans do. http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/744
Axelrod is one of Obama's "image makers" who has done much to make Obama look like someone he isn't, but that's par for course for Axelrod who has a history of representing far-left clients. Ironically, while Axelrod's strategy is to ignore any Media inquiries into Obama's radical associations (and if the media does, by a miracle, do a story on this topic, then Obama denounces the person), he himself came out of the same radical environment that spawned Obama. His Mother was a writer for PM, a newspaper whose staff was full of communists and had at least one writer on the payroll of the Soviet intelligence agency. Axelrod is also an advisor to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, the head of the notoriously corrupt Chicago Democrat machine.
Obama was selected by State Senator Alice Palmer to replace her when she ran for a congressional seat. Apparently Palmer introduced Obama to the Chicago hard left, so one can say that Palmer launched Obama's political career. As for Palmer, she was a pro-Soviet apologist at the peak of the Cold War. She actually served on the board of the US Peace Council, a group identified by the FBI as a Communist Party front group, and she attended the 1983 World Peace Council meeting in Prague that was organized by Soviet intelligence in order to launch the infamous "nuclear freeze" movement in America. Of course, this nuclear freeze would have only affected American weapons and thus would have guaranteed Soviet nuclear superiority. She even wrote an article for the Communist Party newspaper and boasted about the "Soviet plan to provide people with higher wages and better education." And this Soviet propagandist selected Obama to be her successor!
Klonski was a Communist comrade of Ayers and Dohrn but while the later two became violent Marxists, Klonsky became a Maoist (as if Mao didn't kill millions!). Klonsky was hired by one of the radical groups Ayers operated and then he surfaces as the official blogger for the Obama campaign. As soon as it got out to the media that Klonsky was yet another Communist wacko friend of Obamas, the campaign shut down the blog.
Frank Marshall Davis
Davis was Obama's mentor when he was a teenager living in Hawaii. In fact, Obama refers to him in his book, "Dreams From My Father", as simply "Frank." Apparently, he had hoped no one would figure out who "Frank" was; well, fortunately, Communist intellectuals familiar with Obama's career have filled in the blanks for us and identified the mentor as Frank Marshall Davis, a hard-core Soviet apologist and legendary Communist Party activist in Hawaii. Davis was a complete nut who even wrote poetry praising the Soviet military (like this line:"Smash on, victory-eating Red Army").
Davis was investigated by both the FBI and Congress for his pro-Soviet activities and even appeared before Senate Internal Security Subcommittee where he refused to deny his Communist Party membership. You can read part of his FBI file in the link below. Davis attacked Christianity, America, Capitalism, the free enterprise system, and basically everything America stands for. Davis was NOT a casual acquaintance but rather someone who spent considerable time with Obama. Obama's grandfather considered Davis "a strong black male figure" and a "positive" influence so he introduced Davis to Obama in order to encourage a role model relationship. And a Marxist mentor he was. I'm sure Obama got to hear all about the glories of the Bolshevik revolution.
Saul Alinsky was a Marxist who taught advance organizing techniques to far-left activists. He founded a foundation called Industrial Areas Foundation in 1940 and its graduates in turn trained Obama to be a "community organizer," a term most Americans think has to do with charity, such as feeding the poor, but in the Alinsky world, it means using agitation to harass community schools, banks, and institutions which, in the mind of Alinsky followers, are all part of the evil free enterprise system. Obama also worked for ACORN, another group founded upon Alinsky principles. Alinsky is regarded by Obama as one of his heroes. To understand Obama's socialist worldview, one needs to understand Alinsky's hostility to corporations, as when he stated, America's corporations are a spiritual slum....and their arrogance is the major threat to our future as a free society.' Alinsky, an atheist, dedicated his book, "Rules for Radicals", to 'the very first radical...who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom Lucifer.'
A charter member of the Chicago Democrat political machine, Tony Rezko is a Syrian by birth who was convicted last June of 16 counts of corruption for trading on his clout as a top advisor and fundraiser to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. He also happens to be one of Obama's closest friends and a fundraiser for his campaigns. Indeed, Obama purchased a $1.95 million dollar house for $300,000 less than its asking price because Rezko purchased the adjoining lot for $625,000. Rezko then turned around and sold part of the adjoining lot to Obama for $104,500. All and all, Obama saved probably around $400,000. While no laws were broken with this real estate deal, it was clear this was payback for all the favors Obama had done for Rezko.
For example, Obama helped Rezko get $14 million in government funds for his housing projects inside Obama's district. Using a government position to engage in such quid pro quo activity is illegal and Obama should have been investigated. This is a perfect example of everything that is wrong in government today but Obama is certainly NOT the one to clean it up. Obama then lied and said "I've never done any favors for him" but the letters Obama wrote to government officials on behalf of Rezko have been found and the Sun Times link below exposes this lie. Aside from the sweetheart real estate deal, Obama also received $168,000 in campaign contributions from Rezko. Adding to that what he save from the real estate deal, Obama has received almost $600,000 dollars from Rezko. This is a reformer?.
Obama was so surrounded by Communists and Socialists much of his life that it appears that he didn't really think such people were that controversial, even though they advocated abolishment of capitalism, private property rights, and even in some cases, Democracy. It says a lot about Obama's worldview. In 1998, Obama openly spoke at the funeral service for Saul Mendelson, a leader of the Chicago Socialist community. Mendelson was a member of various Trotskyite groups before settling on a slightly less radical socialist party. In 1958 Mendelson founded an event called the Debs Dinner, which was the high point of the Chicago Socialist calendar. He became a leader of the main Chicago Socialist group, the Democratic Socialists of America, whose newsletters constantly wrote favorable things about Obama, even telling its socialist readers that Obama's views were "well within the mainstream of European social democracy." No wonder Obama was cheered when he delivered the speech in Germany. http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-socialist-relationships.html
Dr. Khalid al-Mansour
Dr. al-Mansour is an African-American Muslim who serves as an advisor to a Saudi billionaire and who mentored the founding members of the Black Panthers. In a recent article, it was revealed that al-Mansour had asked the Manhattan borough president to write a letter of support to Harvard in order to get Obama admitted. Dr. al-Mansour is a radical black nationalist and an outspoken enemy of Israel. His books and articles are full on anti-American and anti-Semitic rhetoric and he even posits wild conspiracy theories such as how America is plotting genocide against black Americans. He says the Jews stole Israel "the same way the Christians stole the land from the Indians in America."
Dr. al-Mansour has represented Saudi interests in the US for decades and is close to Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, even sitting on the board of Talal's investment vehicle, Kingdom Holdings. Alwaleed is the nephew of King Abdallah, the King of Saudi Arabia, and is ranked by Forbes as the 19th wealthiest person on the planet. The Prince's Kingdom Foundation has contributed money to Muslim "charities" who are led by individuals who have been indicted on terrorism-related charges.
What is interesting about this relationship is that al-Mansour was also raising funds to underwrite Obama's education, according to a friend who has confided this to a reporter (see video below) What's more, is that at the time al-Mansour was raising money for Obama, he was representing top members of the Saudi Royal family seeking to do business in the US. Why would a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia be raising money for Obama? Did the Saudis have an interest in advancing Obama's career? We don't know the answer. Obama won't talk about it.
Rob Malley was a foreign policy advisor to the Obama campaign until he was fired after revelations that he had meetings with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. (if you're a Jewish supporter of Obama, you need to know the extent of this con job) But the Obama camp must of know of his views long before this; they just hoped no one would notice. Malley has a long history of anti-Israel writings and he heads a Middle East think-tank funded in part by anti-Israel billionaire activist George Soros. Moreover, he comes from a family of extremists. His father, Simon Malley, was a founder of the Egyptian Communist party, was a close friend PLO leader Yasser Arafat and clearly a supporter of the terrorist group, PLO, at the peak of it terrorism directed toward the West. He was even kicked out of France for his pro-terrorist activities.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright
This is one of the few shady individuals the media has talked about and then only did so because clips of Wright spewing out his hatred started to appear on YouTube. Obama distanced himself from Wright but understand that he attended Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years 1000 Sundays and thus had to have heard virulent anti-white and anti-American sermons long before his phony denials that he never heard Wright say such things.
Surely, this move was only a public relations move since Wright married Obama and his wife, baptized his children, and according to Obama, "strengthened my faith." But in what way?
It is questionable as to whether or not the United Church of Christ can even be considered a Christian denomination today. After all, there are certain tenets Christian theologians agree on that are basic to the Christian faith but the United Church of Christ has thrown some of those tenets out the window. The traditional family unit, for example, is considered a sacred arrangement given to us by God and yet this denomination supports homosexual marriages, trans-genderism, gay clergy, you name it. It even supports partial birth abortion.
On economic issues, the church mirrors the Socialist party in its positions, and during the Cold War, they supported the "Nuclear Freeze" movement initiated by Soviet intelligence to stop Reagan's arms build-up, which of course led to the end of the Cold War.
This denomination can more accurately be described as embracing a humanist or secular faith than a Christian faith. But as radical as the United Church of Christ is, Obama's particular church in Chicago is even further to the left. It is a believer in "Black Liberation Theology" a bizarre heretical belief system that has little in common with Christianity.
Most people saw footage of Rev. Wright on television saying "Not God bless America, but God damn America," but this is only the tip of the iceberg. Wright also teaches that "Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich white people." He refers to America as the "US of KKKA" and says that "America is still the No. 1 killer in the world." He even preaches that the AIDS virus was manufactured by the US Government on purpose in order to kill black people. He's anti-Semitic and says the America was attacked on 9/11 because of its "racist" policies.
Trinity's website before it was sanitized stated that "the vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone's book 'Black Power and Black Theology'." Dr. Cone is one of America's leading Liberation theology pastors and an out and out racist. Cone says that "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community." This theology also challenges the basic Christian doctrine that Jesus died on the cross to redeem humankind from sin. This doctrine is so basic to the Christian faith that churches who embrace this cannot be defined as a Christian church.
Here's a nugget of Cone's theology: "If God is not for us, and against White people, then he is a murderer, and we have better kill him." Or this one: "The goal of Black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods."
To hear Rev. Wright defend Cone and Black Liberation Theology, listen to the clip below. It is clear that Wright and Cone are hate mongers and racists who long ago abandoned real Christian theology. And Wright is the crackpot who "strengthened" Obama's faith? The only thing he could have strengthened is Obama's obsession with race that seems to have dominated his political career. One thing is for sure, If John Mccain attended a White Supremacist Church for twenty years, would he even be able to run for office? I doubt it.. Even Wright knows that Obama has to pretend like he's distancing himself from him; indeed, with surprising candor, Wright stated recently that once Obama's enemies find out about his trip to Libya with racist black leader Louis Farrakhan, "a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell." Wright even admitted that Obama told him that he needs to keep out of public for awhile.
Evans is a leader of Code Pink, a far-left anti-war woman's group and a "bundler" for Obama which means she raises money for him. At last report, she raised $50,000 for Obama.
She has visited Venezuela where she met with Socialist leader Hugo Chavez to show her support for his dictatorial regime. Code Pink is most famous for harassing wounded US soldiers at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center with signs outside the hospital that said things like: "Maimed for a Lie."
Far from being normal housewives, as the media portrays them, Code Pink is full of long time committed Marxists and Socialists. Most of the leaders of Code Pink earned their Marxist spurs working for groups in the 1980's that were supporting the oppressive Nicaraguan Communist regime.
Code Pink's founder is Medea Benjamin, who told the San Francisco Chronicle about how she felt on her first pilgrimage to Cuba in the early 1980s: "[compared to the USA) it seemed like I died and went to heaven."
What Do We Make Of This Rogue's Gallery?
This list of 14 people is only a small sampling of Obama's extremist friends and supporters. It could easily be three times longer because Obama surrounded himself with extremists. Why? Well, he is one of them. The media even Fox News keeps portraying these associations as isolated and random relationships and then when Obama issues his perfunctory statement distancing himself from them, the story is dropped. But these are not random people; these are Obama's mentors, supporters, campaign workers, enablers, funders; these are the people who advanced Obama's political career. Obama spoke at extremist functions, attended their dinners, worked with extremist groups, gave funds to extremist groups this is HIS NETWORK.
It should be disturbing to most Americans that a person running for the presidency comes from a militant segment of the American political spectrum that detests everything we stand for: private property rights, America's Judeo-Christian heritage, the free enterprise system, etc.
But, we shouldn't be surprised Obama was raised to be a radical. His father was an unrepentant Socialist who tried to push the Kenyan government far to the left:
As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. advised the pro-Western Kenyan Government there to 'redistribute' income through higher taxes. He also demonized corporations and called for massive government 'investment' in social programs...."theoretically," he wrote, "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." mother, Ann Dunham, was a leftist as well and an atheist. Obama claims his mother came from a conservative Methodist or Baptist family in Kansas but, this appears to be yet another attempt by Obama to show some connection to ordinary Americans. The reality is that the church his mother was raised in was a leftist Unitarian church in Bellevue, WA that was nicknamed "the little red church" due to its Marxist leanings. Even Dunham's friends described her as a "fellow traveler," meaning that while she wasn't a member of the Communist Party, she identified with their views.
Dunham first husband's, Barack Obama, Sr. was a Muslim, as was her second husband, but her God was the God of Socialists: Big government.
Of course, we can't forget that Ann's father was close to Hawaiian Communist leader Frank Marshall Davis and he introduced Davis to his grandson as he felt Obama needed a mentor.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
LET'S LOOK AT OBAMA'S RECORD ON THE KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY
PORK BARRELING & EARMARKS
Obama keeps saying he's for change and claims "McCain wants more of the same," but the record tells a different story when it comes to spending federal dollars in a way many constitutional scholars regard as illegal.
Earmarking is when a legislator takes federal funds for a project in his district that the federal government has no interest in and which should be funded by the local government or the private sector. The act of earmarking is simply marking off a section of the federal budget for your pet project. Over the years, this abuse of federal money has cost taxpayers billions of dollars. McCain doesn't do earmarking at all, period.
Obama, on the other hand, is one of the worst offenders of this practice. Moreover, Obama has procured federal funding for people who have in turn contributed to his campaigns. This is illegal but some strange reason, the media refuses to cover this story. This is what sent Congressman Randy Cunningham to prison.
One example of this abuse is the Adler Planetarium whose chairman is Frank Clark, a major Obama supporter who has raised in excess of $200,000 for Obama's campaign. A short time later Obama earmarked $3,000,000 for the Planetarium. Furthermore, two other Planetarium board members, Brian Cressey and Peter Thompson were also Obama donors. What makes this even more troubling is that Mr. Cressey had never given to Sen. 0bama before the Adler Planetarium received federal funds. This is an illegal 'quid pro quo' arrangement.
Another example is when Obama earmarked a million dollars for the hospital where his wife works. Around this same time period, this hospital gave Michele Obama a massive raise they more than doubled her salary.
In another example, Obama earmarked $8 million for a defense contractor linked to General Dynamics, upon whose board of directors sits Jim Crown, Obama's Illinois finance chairman.
Even after all the public controversies about earmarks, Obama arrogantly announced on his own website the 108 earmarks for 2008 which total over 300 million dollars. His earmark request the previous year topped $100 million. Joe Biden's earmarks totaled $90 million this year. Obama and Biden are spending OUR hard earned tax dollars for pork projects, as if they're entitled to it. Indeed, both even voted for the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska, a pork project that despite what the media says, was killed by Gov. Sarah Palin.
Anti-pork reformers introduced 15 different amendments this year in Congress to limit pork and earmarks. Obama managed to conveniently ditch out on 9 of these votes. On the six anti-pork votes he was present for, he voted correctly on only two of them. The Club for Growth has released a report card on anti-pork votes. Obama's rating was 33%. McCain rating was a perfect 100%. You can't be considered a reformer when you are grossly abusing the trust and the money of the American taxpayer.
Citizens against Government Waste is a leading taxpayer group that monitors wasteful spending and in its most recent ratings Obama was rated at 10% while McCain was rated 100%.
Another fiscal watchdog group, The Club for Growth, said this about Obama's spending record: As Senators, it often seemed like Edwards, Clinton and Obama were congenitally incapable of saying no to government spending...Clinton and Obama voted to keep the $223 million boon- doggle known as the 'Bridge to Nowhere,' for the expansive 2005 highway bill, and for corporate welfare."
Once again, there is no comparison between the two candidates. In addition to all the pork spending, Obama has voted for every wild-eyed federal spending program that came before him, all increasing federal government involvement in areas that our founding fathers never envisioned. They are too numerous to list here.
This reckless spending is also evident in his campaign proposals. The best way to summarize these proposals is to turn to Investors Business Daily in an article titled, Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism:
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 kow-tow to unions, and sticks for "non-patriotic" 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-micro-engineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.
These proposals alone will bankrupt the nation. Lastly, we need not forget about one of the most irresponsible spending bills ever introduced in American history. It's Obama's utopian foreign aid proposal called the Global Poverty Act. It has already passed the house and a key Senate committee and will surely be implemented if Obama becomes president.
It calls for the US to turn over $845 Billion of our tax dollars to some UN agency to distribute to third world countries to end poverty. I'm not kidding. Yes, these are the same Third World countries which currently receive $300 billion in aid from America and basically waste it thanks to corruption and Socialism.
The Obama campaign is refusing to comment on many of the details of the plan, but it will cost every American taxpayer around $2,500 each. Furthermore, the agency set up by the UN to implement the anti-poverty effort would have the power to tax nations, so Obama's bill will unconstitutionally give the power to tax American taxpayers to a foreign entity. American taxes are bad enough but Obama apparently now wants "global taxes."
There is really no other way to describe Obama's philosophy of government than Socialism. Is this what he means by "reform?"
The chart below was assembled by Americans for Tax Reform, perhaps America's leading tax watchdog group and is based upon the actual statements of McCain and Obama. If you still don't know who to vote for by now, you better show this to your accountant and figure how much more in taxes you will pay if Obama is elected.
Top Personal Rate
Capital Gains Rate
0% by 2010
Up To 54.8%
Corporate Income Tax(8)
Tax On Energy
(1) This would give the U.S. a higher national top marginal tax rate than Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, South Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey (Source: OECD Tax Database)
(2) CNBC Closing Bell. March 27, 2008
(3) The first $5 million ($10 million for a surviving spouse) of an estate would be death tax-exempt (Source: johnmccain.com)
(4) The first $3.5 million ($7 million for a surviving spouse) of an estate would be death tax-exempt (Source: barackobama.com)
(5) The "alternative minimum tax" (AMT) requires taxpayers to calculate their taxes two ways, and pay whichever method results in a higher tax owed
(6) Self-employed taxpayers pay both ordinary income tax and self-employment tax (Social Security and Medicare). According to the NFIB, most small business employers make at least $250,000 per year (Source: nfib.org)
(7) Barack Obama has said he would raise taxes on married couples making $250,000 and individuals making $200,000 per year (Source: barackobama.com)
(8) The U.S. corporate income tax is currently the second-highest in the developed world. The average European corporate income tax rate is about 25%
(9) It takes larger businesses several years to deduct machinery and equipment, even though they purchase the business asset in year one (e.g. a computer must be slowly-deducted over six calendar years)
(10) Above and beyond the current 35% corporate income tax rate on energy companies
Yes, you've probably heard Obama claim he will cut taxes for the middle class, but it turns out his proposal is really a clever campaign trick. Here's what the Investor's Business Daily says:
But what's touted as tax-cutting hides tax increases for the middle class. According to the American Enterprise Institute's Alex Brill and Alan Viard, Senator Obama's proposed tax cuts for the middle class are actually marginal rate hikes in disguise. The reason: Obama's plan rescinds tax breaks as some taxpayers' incomes rise, reducing their incentives to earn more....the increase happens because Obama phases out the child and dependent-care credit for one-child families in the $30,000 to $58,000 range.
The Wall Street Journal also attacked Obama's tax plan:He proposes to raise marginal rates for just about every federal tax. He also proposes a raft of tax credits that taxpayers can receive if they engage in various government-specified activities. Moreover, the tax credits would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes....such credits are not tax cuts. Indeed, they should be called The New Tax Welfare. In effect, Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand a slew of government spending programs that are disguised as tax credits.
And his record as a US Senator confirms his pro-tax record. The Club for Growth published a paper analyzing Obama's tax record in the U.S. Senate: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have very similar voting records and policy proposals on the issue of taxes, sharing a strident antagonism toward lower tax rates and economic freedom... Barack Obama joined Clinton in opposing the extension of the Bush tax cuts; in opposing the extension of decreased tax rates for capital gains and dividends.
And the ratings published this year by the taxpayers watchdog group, Americans for Tax Reform, also confirm Obama's recklessness. He received a rating of 15% (100 being the best) while McCain received an 80%. Another taxpayer group, National Taxpayers Union, rated McCain as an 88% or an "A" and Obama as 16% or "F".
Obama's record in the Illinois State Senate is also horrific. Here's CBS News:Obama occasionally supported higher taxes, joining other Democrats in pushing to raise more than 300 taxes and fees on businesses in 2004 to help solve a budget deficit.
I guess CBS considers 300 tax hikes as "occasional," but you gotta hand it to them; they're putting the most positive spin than can on Obama's anti-business history. Unbelievable.
Obama's tax proposals are a recipe for disaster but they illustrate something alarming: this is a man who doesn't seem to understand the impact escalating taxes have upon ordinary Americans, particularly small businesses. His desire for new taxes is driven by his utopian desire to remake society with all his new programs that need funding. This elitist attitude will not "reform" government, it will make it more onerous and more under the control of various special interest groups.
Over and over again, Obama has lied to Americans about how "the rich" don't pay enough taxes; indeed, he is so steeped in his hard left ideology he has never bothered to check the stats produced each year by the IRS. Here they are:
Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What
For Tax Year 2006
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
As one can see, the top 10% of all taxpayers the "rich" is paying over 70%; in other words the "rich" pay disproportionately more than their share. Any more taxes on this class as Obama proposes will only stifle job creation and chase jobs overseas. The bottom 50% pay only 2.99% of all taxes.
Education Reform & Sex Education for Five Year Olds
Obama often speaks of reforming schools by massively increasing Federal spending on education and has proposed dozens of new Federal education programs; yet there is no evidence increased federal involvement will improve academic performance. Indeed, the federal role in education began only in 1979 and ever since then, the performance of our public schools has declined. Indeed, the TMSS international test compares American students to the rest of the industrialized world, and we are near the bottom.
Obama has received support, endorsements and funding from the teacher unions and as a result he will never vote contrary to their wishes. Indeed, in the eight years he served as a state senator and the two years as a US senator, there is no record of him ever breaking ranks with the teachers union. Even his hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, called Obama "a staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly."
How can the world's wealthiest country fail to adequately educate our children? Simple. In nearly all of Europe, the money appropriated for education follows the student regardless if the student attends a public or private school, thereby sitting up a healthy competition between the two systems. Called "vouchers" here in America, we have initiated this only in very small experiments such as in Milwaukee and Cleveland but nowhere have we done this statewide, due to the money, power and influence of the teacher's unions. Private schools do not require its teachers to join a union, so the union views any proposal that directs students away from public schools as a threat to their flow of union dues.
In a strange twist, Obama says he opposes vouchers because "what you're going to do is leave a lot of kids at the bottom." Huh? That's where the kids are now. While the status quo leaves poor kids trapped in failing schools because they can't afford to go elsewhere, Obama's kids don't have to worry about this. His daughters attend the very expensive private University of Chicago laboratory schools where tuition is at least $15,000 a year. So Obama defends the public school monopoly but he himself won't place his kids there. This is hypocritical and reflects the hoax of his "change and hope" rhetoric. McCain is the only one advocating educational choice; he says that "no entrenched bureaucracy or union should deny parents that choice and children that opportunity."
Obama's refusal to break from the tired old approaches to education is why the union will be mobilizing thousands of teachers to work on his campaign. As long as the current education monopoly exists there will never be any serious reform of our public schools. Like anything else in the market place; if there's no competition, there's no incentive to improve the service.
Regarding sex education for Kindergartners, despite the media denials that Obama supports this, he voted for a bill as a State Senator that would extend sex education to five year olds and he defends it here in this YouTube video: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr8GW7bCyMQ
Today, Obama is trying to claim the bill was all about teaching kids how to prevent being sexually molested, but this is only one small part of the bill; it is mostly about teaching about how to prevent sexual diseases like HIV! That would mean teaching five year olds about condoms! Our kids can't read but they'll learn all about condoms! Obama claims the curriculum would be "age appropriate" but liberals have used this term all over the country to sneak highly offensive sex ed curriculum into our schools. It means whatever they want it to mean. That term is NOT defined in the law or in Obama's bill.
But we do know how Obama defines "age appropriate." In the Democrat primary, Obama was asked if he would be comfortable having the book, King & King, read to 2nd graders. This animated book is about two homosexual kings who fall in love with each other, complete with a picture of them kissing. Here's Obama:
Moderator Tim Russert asked John Edwards, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton whether they'd be comfortable having the story called "King & King" read to their children in school. Edwards gave the first and most definitive answer a resounding and instant "yes, absolutely" although he added that it "might be a little tough" for second-graders. Obama agreed with Edwards and revealed that his wife has already spoken to his 6- and 9-year-old daughters about same-sex marriage.
This is sick, as any normal child psychologist will testify, exposing young children to such behavior can create confusion and emotional issues down the road. But Obama seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that such a book would violate the values many families have. This is all about the government trampling on the rights of parents. This is NOT reform.
The real issue regarding our soaring gas prices is the coalition formed between the Democrats and radical environmentalists to prevent oil drilling and to stop the construction of oil refineries and nuclear energy plants. This is gone on for decades and now the Democrats are blaming the Republicans for the energy crises? What am I missing here?
Instead of calling for drilling, Obama wants a "windfall profit" tax on the oil companies. That term implies that oil companies don't pay enough taxes as it is. In fact, the average profit margin for oil companies this year was 8.3%, which is a lower profit margin than many industries. Furthermore, it's not some fat cats sitting on this profit; its millions of stockholders who benefit. Indeed, many Americans are invested in oil companies by virtue of their pension funds investing in oil. The reality is that the oil companies pay three times more in taxes than they've made in profits. Mobile alone paid $61.7 billion in taxes this year, which is more than all the taxes paid by the bottom 50% of all taxpayers. Any new taxes would simply be passed on to the consumer. Doesn't Obama understand this? How does adding more taxes increase our energy supply?
In 2005, when the Senate filibustered on a measure that would open up drilling in Alaska, Obama voted to continue the filibuster (keep drilling banned) and McCain voted to end it. In other words, we are now missing out on 10 Billion barrels of oil in the marketplace. Indeed, the US Geological Survey issued a report estimating 90 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic, but without the law being changed oil companies will not invest money to drill.
When house speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked all efforts to allow drilling this summer, she guaranteed that the oil crises would continue for years. If the law was changed and drilling allowed, even this announcement would send oil prices tumbling as markets respond to new investments, but instead Obama seems to think this is an energy plan:
"Making sure your tires are inflated.... And getting regular tune ups"
You can see this incredibly stupid remark on video here:
This alone should disqualify Obama for president
From an environmental perspective, drilling is very safe; the latest technology has made it safer, which is why the oil derricks off the coast of Louisiana took a direct hit from Katrina and didn't leak a drop. The vast majority of oil spills come from ships so the more oil we import, the more oil spills we will have. But Obama dismissively referred to drilling as "the latest scheme."
It will be decades before alternative energy wind, solar, etc. will provide us enough energy to meet our needs, as the technology is simply not where it needs to be yet. In the meantime, we can dramatically expand our oil supply within three years if drilling is allowed.
Nuclear energy is also a clean, abundant source of energy and indeed, most of Europe derives a large amount of their energy from nuclear energy. France, for example, gets over a third of their energy from nuclear plants. But we must remember that Obama has deep connections to 60's style wacky anti-nuke groups, so logic does not come into play here. Here's what he says on nuclear energy: I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. I am not a nuclear energy proponent.
In conclusion, Obama opposes oil drilling, opposes nuclear energy, and wants us to fill our tires up. What a plan. Since alternative energy will not even come close to meeting our needs for decades, his energy plan or lack thereof -- will have disastrous effects on our economy. This is not leadership; this is plain stupidity. Once again, he is making his extreme environmentalists friends happy at the expense of America.
While there are divisions among Americans on this hot-button social issue, Obama's position on abortion is so far off the charts, that I can't find anyone who agrees with him.
Obama supports abortion at any time during the pregnancy, for any reason at all, and wants to make taxpayers pay for it. You can't get any more extreme than that. Whoops, you actually can. You can support the killing of the baby AFTER birth.
In 2001, a bill was brought up in the Illinois state senate that basically said if a baby is born alive after a botched abortion, another doctor must be called in to try to save it. The bill was introduced because of a number of cases where it was discovered that babies were being born alive during late term abortions and then placed in a bucket of blood off to the side where they would cry until they slowly died. You can read all about an actual survivor in the Wall Street Journal:
Called the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act, Obama voted against it in committee twice and indeed, was the only legislator to argue against it claiming, unbelievably, that:
Adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman ...
This is shocking. It's too burdensome to save the baby, so let the baby die. You can listen to an audio of Obama making this "burdensome" argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypDwNpgIUQc&feature=related Hitler used a similar argument when he justified the Holocaust on grounds that Jews were a burden on German society.
This is the most inhumane thing I think I've ever heard a politician utter but its part of a pattern here. An identical Federal version of the bill passed both houses of Congress with even Clinton and Kennedy supporting it.
But that's not all. As an Illinois State Senator, Obama voted to keep partial birth abortion legal. This is the procedure by which a third-term, fully formed, fully alive baby is pulled halfway out of the uterus, has his brain crushed, and then extracted and disposed of. Michelle Obama is likewise so extreme on this issue that she denounced the federal ban on partial birth abortion claiming, "this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional." Well, so much for Michelle's knowledge of the constitution; the Supreme Court later upheld the constitutionality of the law.
Obama even voted in the US Senate against the "Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act", a bill designed to prevent minors from being taken across state line to have an abortion without the consent of parents. This bill was motivated in large part by those committing incest or molestation of minors but wanted to terminate the pregnancy somewhere out of their area. But Obama doesn't care about that.
Finally, Obama announced on his website that he "will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as President." This is federal legislation that will nullify any and all state restrictions on abortion, such as bans on third trimester abortion, parental consent laws, etc. Once again, Obama sides with a special interest group the abortion industry over the right of the people to place reasonable restrictions on abortion.
As always, Obama's positions on these issues are way to the left of the average American and this poses a problem for his campaign as they know the vast majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage. As such, Obama has started to claimed only recently on the campaign trail that he, "Believes marriage is between a man and a woman."
But, once again, Obama is being deceptive in order to win over the independent voters. To find his real views, we need to go to a transcript of a letter he sent to his radical homosexual activist supporters:
I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy.....And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U. S. Constitution or those of other sates.
But repealing DOMA and opposing all state measures to preserve traditional marriage has the same effect as legalizing marriage nationwide. The DOMA law means that if one state legalized homosexual marriage, other states would NOT be obligated to recognize the gay couples. Repealing DOMA means all states will be forced to recognize gay couples married, for example, in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is already legal.
Just how stupid does he think the voters are? He says one thing on the campaign trail but in reality he will work behind the backs of the people to make sure that every state in America will be forced, if need be, to recognize gay marriage. Once again, the special interests win and the American people lose.
Obama's views are so radical on this issue that even his Harvard Law education takes a back seat to his extremist ideology. He told Pastor Rick Warren he opposed amending the US Constitution to preserve male/female marriage,
Because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution
That's his argument? Well, slavery wasn't defined in our Constitution either but we banned it with the 13th Amendment. Under Obama's logic, we shouldn't have passed the 13th amendment because historically, the Constitution did not mention slavery. How stupid does Obama think we are?
However, please notice that the homosexual groups aren't attacking Obama for his pro-traditional marriage statement. They know the game and they know what he has to say to get elected. The gay newspaper, The Advocate even mentions this deceptive strategy:
Why Now? Why is Obama now saying marriage is between a man and a woman]. Welcome to the general election say the pundits. One Democrat strategist and TV pundit who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity said the language in intended to send a signal to swing state voters that Sen. Obama isn't the crazy liberal they've been told he is. 'that's language that's required,' he said.
So the con is on; Obama will portray himself to be a "moderate" on the hot button issues to the average Joe six pack but once elected, he will do the bidding of this very powerful special interest group.
Obama has also promised the homosexual groups he will use the White House as a bully pulpit to "urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws" despite reams of social science research showing that this is not emotionally healthy for the children.
He even had the audacity to cite Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount to support gay marriage even though the Bible in 19 locations both Old and New Testaments - make explicitly clear that this is not normal behavior.
While Obama tries to convince Americans how mainstream his views are, he uses his wife to assure the hard left special interest groups to ignore the public statements and that Obama is still one of "them." For example, right after speaking to the Democratic convention where she was portrayed as the All-American woman, she quietly spoke to a gathering of nearly 300 homosexual Democrat delegates (the Democrat party uses homosexual quotas for delegate selection) and told them that her husband's administration will:not stand in the way of states that want to decide for themselves how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union or a civil marriage.
This statement is not consistent with Obama's statement above but this is his pattern; say one thing to the left-wing activists and tell ordinary Americans something else. Obama is also hoping no one in the media pays attending to his other radical stances on homosexual rights such as forcing states to enact laws allowing homosexuals to adopt children, promoting pro-homosexual literature in the schools to children as young as six and supporting laws that would make it illegal for:A private Christian school to refuse to hire a homosexual teacher
A private adoption agency to only work with traditional couples
A private university to allow only traditional couples to live in its married couple facilities
A private doctor to refuse to engage in "transgendered" surgery
A private photographer to decline to shoot a gay marriage ceremony
A private church to refuse to rent its facility for use for a gay marriage ceremony
These are all REAL situations in the courts TODAY but Obama's proposed legislation will make it even easier for homosexual legal groups to win these cases, much to the detriment of our freedom of religion rights supposedly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, liberal judges are now interpreting our freedom of religion rights to mean something other than what our founding fathers wrote. They're ruling now that religious freedom rights should be "trumped" by the "rights" of homosexual activists. Our founder fathers are rolling in their graves. Once again, Obama is siding with the interests of the well-funded homosexual lobby over the interests of ordinary Americans. www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid56331.asp
One of Obama's main campaign issues is what he calls "universal health care," but what this means is he wants the government to take over all health care. He is more candid when he says, "I'm going to give health insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without coverage." But what he doesn't say, is that this number includes at least 12 million illegal aliens.
In others words, Americans would be required to pay for the health care of those here illegally. Another 15 million of the uninsured are eligible for Medicaid but they haven't signed up. Another chunk of this number are people simply in between jobs and temporally without health insurance. Lastly, of the remaining uninsured, all their children are covered by the State Children Health Insurance Program.
So for a few million uninsured people, Obama wants to abolish all private health care and have the government take over 20% of the US economy! This is what Europe and Canada have done but bear in mind that America creates more jobs in one year than all the European countries combined. Obama's plan is a huge step toward becoming a socialist country. Under of government controlled system, the quality of health care will decline, which is why our Northern hospitals are full of Canadians who have fled south for surgery as opposed to waiting in line in Canada for six months.
A Government takeover over also scares doctors away from the profession, crowds out private investment in new hospitals and drains investment away from new drug research. The reason why America is by far the world leader in the creation of new drugs is due to our private system. There is hardly any medical innovation going on elsewhere.
The biggest reform needed is the limiting of the relentless lawsuits directed at doctor, providers, and hospitals, but the trial lawyers have blocked all efforts to reform this and they are lining up full force behind Obama. Indeed, Obama is the TOP recipient of funds from lawyers, having raised over $20 million from them. There are also plenty of free market reforms that will make our health care system better and cheaper, but Obama seems oblivious to such solutions. See the link below.
But once again, what Obama says publicly does not match what his family does privately. When his wife was an executive with the University of Chicago Medical Center, she developed a program called the Urban Health Initiative, which was an effort to refer patients without private insurance to other health-care facilities in the area. These people were typically poor minorities. Ironically, Michelle Obama hired out David Axelrod Obama's campaign advisor to sell the program. With his plan, Obama doesn't mind overwhelming our hospitals with millions of illegal aliens but he wife certainly won't stand for that!
Once again, the deal has been cut. Obama has created a crisis which then needs a government solution. When the Democrats and Obama in particular refuse to support tort reform, the cost of health care rises, leading the Democrats to then call for a government takeover. This is a very clever tactic but it is not is the best interest of America, its taxpayers, or our health care system. And it is certainly NOT reform.
The number issue for organized labor is legislation referred to as "Card Check." This legislation is supported by Obama and would abolish the secret ballot, which is fundamental to any and all democratic systems. Then means that when employees vote on whether on not to allow a union to unionize a workplace, they have to indicate their support or opposition to the issue in front of union organizers. Obviously, the unions will be able to use this to intimate dissenters. This is an outrageous assault on democratic principles. If would be like if you were a Democrat and your boss was a Republican but he got to watch how you voted.
Even former liberal U.S. Senator George McGovern has denounced this legislation as "a disturbing and undemocratic overreach" and that it "runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the Labor movement."
Experts predict this intrusive legislation will allow the unions to organize many work places that didn't previously want to be unionized, and thus it will deliver millions of dollars in new union dues, which, of course, will flood into the coffers of the Democrat Party.
Once again, this is NOT reform. Obama is supporting the interests of special interest groups over what's best for the average American. Now you know why the unions are spending $300 million dollars to get people out to vote for Obama.
Most people do not know what this is, but the "Fairness Doctrine" is legislation that would require all radio and TV stations to present all political viewpoints equally. The problem with this aside from what I believe is unconstitutional intrusion into the marketplace is that many radio stations, for example, have found a market for conservative talk shows and once they're required to air an equal number of liberal talk shows, they will have financial problems since the market for liberal talk shows is far smaller. In order to survive financially, the radio stations will have to abolish all talk shows and focus on music, humor and other non-political formats.
This is not a joke and in fact this was the law until it was abolished by Ronald Reagan's FCC for being an infringement on the First Amendment. The Democrats want to bring it back because it shuts up opposition to their plans to grow government, raise taxes, and implement new regulations. Indeed, House leader Nancy Pelosi has already announced she will support this. When questioned about his position on the Fairness Doctrine, Obama's campaign refused to answer clearly:
Obama considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible...that is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increased minority ownership of broadcast and print outlets.
I'm not sure what is more disturbing, his evasive answer or the shocking new government intrusions into the communication marketplace that he is calling for. However, it is clear that his reference to "opening up the airwaves...to as many diverse views as possible" is mumble jumble for supporting the Fairness Doctrine.
As always, Obama's agenda is about MORE POWER to big government (with his party in charge) and shutting down any public criticism of this agenda. He will not let freedom of speech get in the way. Needless to say, silencing free speech is NOT reform; it's fascism.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2049374/postsEndorsements and Praise for Obama by Extremist Publications and Leaders
This is a history-making process....and we will be missing it if we don't do all we can to elect Barack Obama president. Pepe Lozana, People's Weekly World (official newspaper, US Communist Party)
Obama's transformative candidacy .... would advance progressive politics for the long term People's Weekly World Editorial (Official newspaper, US Communist Party)
Obama comes around just once in a lifetime. I hope for all progressives each of us (to) get involved. Don't stand on the sidelines. Be active. Don't let history pass you by Political Affairs editor Terri Albano (U.S. Communist Party Publication)
"Obama is the most progressive candidate for the U.S. Presidency" Fidel Castro Communist Dictator of Cuba
Obama is an attractive, articulate and talented politician [whose] campaign has sparked a powerful surge. Mark Soloman, National co-Chair, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism
Obama is the choice for change and renewal. He gives hope to millions of Americans and Europeans for a fairer world....Progressive Europeans are united in hope that Barack Obama will be the new president following the U.S. election. Poul Nyrup, President, Party of European Socialists
A broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama's 'Hope, Change and Unity' campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move the nation forward with a progressive movement....People's Weekly World Editorial
Obama's victory was more than a progressive move...it was a dialectical leap ushering in a new era of struggle. Marx once compared (the) revolutionary new era of struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves not race of his movement on the surface." Frank Chapman, Executive Committee, US Peace Council (US Communist Party Front group)
This young man is the hope of the entire world that American will change and be made better. Rev. Louis Farrakhan
Obama's campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change. Statement by the U. S. Communist Party
The evidence is overwhelming. It is clear Obama is:
Not a reformer; he's indebted to all the liberal special interest groups the homosexual lobby, the union bosses, the trial lawyers, etc.
He's has little history of working with the other party to address important issues
His policy stances are not conducive to reforming anything. There are all the same old big government solutions. Indeed, his record is been considered one of the worst by every fiscal conservative watchdog group.
His radical background and connections have deeply affected his worldview, making it almost impossible for him to find middle ground on any issue. Socialism is so much a part of his ideology that he is incapable of finding free market solutions to any of our problems. Private sector solutions don't even enter his thinking.
The policy areas that we need reforms the most: heath care, education, energy, and the financial markets, Obama is either an obstacle or he is proposing more government; it is certainly not a reform agenda.
Obama is intent at shutting down all dissent. Whether its Card Check or radio talk show, he clearly is NOT tolerant of dissenting viewpoints.
However, due to a lazy or biased media, voters have been led to form opinions of the candidates based on situations which have little to do with reality. For example, most voters do not realize the Democrats have been in control of both houses of Congress since 2006. They control the purse and the policies. President Bush has essentially been a lame duck with little power to control anything.
And yet, the media has given voters the impression the Republicans are in charge because Bush occupies the White House. They have diverted everyone's attention away from the Democrat-Congress and what they did or didn't do. Indeed, since the Democrats took control two years ago, every economic indicator declined unemployment, inflation, job creation, etc. The last time Bush was in charge, the economy was fairly solid. Here are the most common myths perpetrated by the media and echoed by the Democrats.
The oil crises was caused by the Republicans. Actually, it has been the Republicans who for decades have tried to increase the supply of oil and free up the nuclear power industry. For over twenty years the Democrats blocked these efforts. This is Obama's position as well. If a person is voting for Obama due to high gas prices, then he's voting for the same party which created this crisis.
The Republicans are responsible for the mortgage crises. Again, the Democrats have blocked every effort by Republicans to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 1992, 2000, 2004 and 2005 there were concerted efforts by Bush, Treasury Dept officials and Republican congressmen to reform these two agencies but such efforts were killed by the Democrats every time. The main target of these reform efforts was Fannie and Freddie's risky investment portfolios. The Democrats were rewarded for not cooperating with the Republicans: the three top three recipients of PAC funds from these two agencies are Democrats, with Obama being the 2nd top recipient.
In May of 2006, Sen. McCain actually warned that "if Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole." McCain predicted the crises but could not get any Democrats to listen.
The Democrats, however, for nearly a decade, have pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to guarantee more "affordable" mortgages, thus, as the Wall Street Journal notes, "abetting their disastrous plunge into subprime and Alt-A loans." In particular, Franklin Raines, the Clinton-appointed former head of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2004, made it his top priority to make mortgages easier to get for people with poor credit, few assets and too small of a down payment. Raines is now an advisor to Obama's campaign. Using the Community Reinvestment Act, the Democrats politicized lending practices by forcing banks to make loans to people they wouldn't have normally made loans to.
The Democrats, race conscious as always, felt that existing lending practices discriminated against Minorities but the fact is that lenders are color blind. They make decisions based on a person's credit. When the Democrats interfered with this process and started forcing lenders to make risky loans, this was the beginning of the crises. After a decade of risky loans, we are now paying the price. But again, this was the doing of the Democrats, not the Republicans.
The Republicans are responsible for the abuse of earmarks. Both parties have allowed this issue to simmer for years but the most serious effort to eliminate this abuse occurred in the last two years. Once again, the Democrats blocked the reforms.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: See also "Obama's Friends: A History of Radicalism." This is a set of six clips as a single interview. To view the set, click here.
They are also available on You Tube, the first is at
HOME September-October 2008 Special Edition Background Information News On The Web