President-elect Barack Obama proposes economic suicide for US

If the holder of the most powerful office in the world proposed a policy guaranteed to inflict untold damage on his own country and many others, on the basis of claims so demonstrably fallacious that they amount to a string of self-deluding lies, we might well be concerned. The relevance of this is not to President Bush, as some might imagine, but to a recent policy statement by President-elect Obama.

	The 10,000 turbines in the US generate less power than a single coal-fired plant

Tomorrow, delegates from 190 countries will meet in Poznan, Poland, to pave the way for next year's UN conference in Copenhagen at which the world will agree a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. They will see a video of Mr Obama, in only his second major policy commitment, pledging that America is now about to play the leading role in the fight to "save the planet" from global warming.

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Obama and top fundraiser Tony Rezko, a business partner and close friend of Auchi

NEW YORK – Birthplace, religion, black liberation theology, passport, Pakistan, school expenses and records, house deal, friends, mentors and clients.

These are among the questions that despite months of campaigning for the presidency of the United States, thousands of hours in front of reporters and cameras, and hundreds of members of a massive campaign staff, the public still doesn't have fully answered about Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

Just four years ago, Obama essentially was an unknown state legislator who with the help of the Chicago political system took over a seat in the U.S. Senate. He stated then he was unqualified for national office, but within about two years launched his bid for the White House, knocking off one of the powerhouses of Democratic politics, Sen. Hillary Clinton, in the primaries.

The questions, then, abound as he's proposed giving the United Nations hundreds of billions of dollars, promised 95 percent of Americans a tax cut and pledged to pursue environmental campaigns even if coal companies go bankrupt because of that.

He's also stated the U.S. Supreme Court should have stepped beyond the Constitution and ventured into plans for wealth redistribution, he's told a plumber his goal is just to "spread the wealth," and his wife has said people will need to give up their piece of the pie so that others can have more.

All without answers to key questions.

Among those issues remaining to be explained fully are his acquaintances in his Chicago political career, who  include:

• Antoin "Tony" Rezko, an associate of Arab-Syrian descent who was a campaign fundraiser for Obama. Obama returned an estimated $225,000 in Rezko-generated campaign contributions since Obama first ran for Illinois state senate in 1995 but Rezko also assisted when Obama bought a $4 million dream property in Hyde Park. Currently Rezko's a convicted federal felon.
  
• Professor Edward Said, a Muslim professor at the University of Chicago who was strongly pro-Palestinian and pro-Arab. He promoted Barack and Michelle Obama in the Chicago Arab community. He's deceased.
  
• Rashid Khalidi, a Muslim professor at the University of Chicago and Columbia who was funded by the Woods Fund grants approved by Obama and unrepentant terrorist William Ayers. Khalidi founded the Arab-American Action Network and is the author of several strongly pro-Paliestinian, anti-Israel books.
  
• Ali Abunimah, a Palestian-American Muslim journalist who promoted Obama in his writings and was editor of "The Electronic Intifada" of the Arab American Action Network. He claims Obama has modified his pro-Palestinian position.
  
• Nadhmi Auchi, a Muslim Iraqi billionaire who is the cousin of Saddam Hussein. He wired more than $3 million as a "loan" to Mrs. Rezko when the Obamas purchased their dream property. He's the largest private shareholder of Bank BPH in Paris and was the reputed bagman for Saddam Huseein in the "oil for fuel" United Nations scandal. He was fined $3 million and given a 15-month prison term in France for his involvement in $100 million in illegal commissions in a scandal involving French oil giant Elf Aquitane.
  
• Aihm Alsammarae, a Muslim Iraqi who is the former Iraqi minister of electricity. He contributed $2,500 to the Obama 2008 campaign and is a close friend of Rezko. He ran a scheme to corner the Iraqi cellular phone market and was sprung from an Iraqi prison in 2006 by a mysterious group of masked and heavily armed men who broke him out of prison. He fled to Chicago.
  
• Jabir Herert Huhammad, son of Nation of Islam founder Elijah Muhammad, now deceased. Federal prosecutors alleged that Huhammad participated with Abdelhamid Chaib and Rezko in a scheme to use money borrowed from Mutual Bank of Harvey for allegedly fraudulent real estate deals. The bank is owned by Amrish Mahajan, an Indian and CEO of the bank, which lent $3.4 million to Rezko.
  
• Abdelhamid "Ali" Chaib, a Muslim who is a long-time Rezko associate who ran Crucial Concessions Food Business set up by Jabir Muhammad, and allegedly was involved in a $1.32 million partner scheme to securitize loans, in part to assist Jabir Herert Huhammad purchase a  pizza franchise that questionably added to the Rezko-Jabir Muhammad food concessions business. Obama returned to Chaib in 2004 a $5,000 campaign contribution made in 2003 to Obama's 2004 U.S. Senate campaign after Chaib's indictment in the alleged Crucial Concessions Food fraud scheme was announced.
  
• Davis Miner Branhill & Galland. This was the law firm for which Obama worked starting in 1993. While here he represented "Rezmar," a community development firm owned by Tony Rezko and Dan Mahru that bilked low-income community housing projects that borrowed billions for property developments allegedly made fraudently. Eleven of the 30 alleged failed Rezmar properties were in Obama's state senate district.

Then also there are the influences on Obama's career, from the one-time writer of a sex novel, Frank Marshall Davis, to unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, with whom Obama served on boards.

This is significant since voters have only a few years of Obama's U.S. Senate record on which to judge him, and while a state legislator he voted dozens of times "present" in moves that would not reveal support for or opposition to an issue or position.

Among the subjects of those questions are:

• Frank Marshall Davis, a communist poet and journalist from Chicago who moved to Hawaii. He ghost-wrote a pornographic novel titled "Sexual Rebel: Black (Memoirs of a Gash Gourmet)." He also sold drugs from a Chicago-style hot dog stand while Obama and Obama's grandfather were present, according to allegations made by WND private investigator hired in Hawaii. According to Obama's autobiography, "Dreams from My Father," Davis was a close confident to Obama, influencing Obama's ideas on radical racial relations. He is deceased.
  
• Malcom X, Stokely Carmichael and Frantz Fanon were three radical, anti-white black rage authors Obama tells readers influenced him as a youth. Black-rage attitudes developed by reading these authors influenced both Obama's decision to become a radical community organizer in Chicago and to join Rev. Jeremiah Wright's black liberation theology Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
  
• Saul Alinksy. Obama's first job in Chicago was to head the Alinsky-influenced Developing Community Project, Inc. Obama also participated in teaching Alinsky-methods of radical income redistribution in classroom settings. Obama's current policies of "distributing wealth" stem from anti-capitalist attitudes developed in studying Alinsky's radical works, such as his seminal book entitled "Rules for Radicals."
  
• Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Pastor for 20 years while Obama was a practicing member of black liberation theology at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Obama heard anti-white, black-rage theology from Wright. First indication Obama was Christian was when he was baptized in his 30s as a member of United Church of Christ. Obama separated from congregation at Trinity United Church of Christ after Rev. Wright came under criticism, although Obama has yet to reject black liberation theology.
  
• William Ayers and Bernardine Dorhn. Members of the SDS-affiliated radical Weather Underground in the 1960s and 1970s. Obama began his political career at Ayers' home in 1995 when running for the Illinois state senate. Obama served with Ayers on two Chicago foundations, the Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund, giving millions in grants to radicalized programs in Chicago's schools. Obama now claims to disavow Ayers' radical politicals.
  
• Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga. He's a Luo tribesman affiliated with Obama's father when Odinga's communist father was Kenya's first vice president after Kenyan independence and Obama's father was a Harvard-educated economist working in the Jomo Kenyatta government. Obama campaigned openly for Odinga for president in 2006 when Obama was in Kenya on a U.S. Senate "fact-finding" mission. Kenya's president Kibaki asked Obama to stop interfering with Kenyan presidential politics. Obama raised an alleged $1 million for Odinga to run for president in Kenya in Dec. 2007, adding to the $1 million raised for Odinga's 2007 presidential campaign by Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. When Odinga lost the Dec. 2007 presidential election by approximately 233,000 votes, Odinga called for protests which led his Luo tribesmen to murder approximately 1,000 Kikuyu tribesman, displace another 350,000 Kikuyu tribesmen, and destroy 800 churches, while not a single mosque was destroyed. Obama helped negotiate a settlement in which Odinga was appointed co-head-of-state and appointed prime minister to end the violence, even after it became publicly disclosed Odinga signed a letter of understanding with radical Muslims in Kenya in return for their votes.

Finally, these are the top questions about Obama that remain unanswered:

1. Why won’t Obama allow the public to see the doctor-generated, hospital releseased birth certificate?
   
2. Was Obama born in Kenya or Hawaii, as his campaign continues to maintain?
   
3. Was Obama officially adopted by his Muslim stepfather when he lived in Indonesia with his mother and stepfather, from the ages of approximately 6 to 10 years old?
   
4. Did Obama ever renounce his U.S. passport? Has Obama ever traveled internationally on a passport other than a U.S. State Department-issued passport?
   
5. Did Obama travel to Pakistan as a student on a U.S. passport, or on an Indonesian passport? Why did Obama travel to Pakistan, who did he visit there and what was the purpose of the trip?
   
6. How did Obama pay his tuition at the exclusive high school preparatory Punahou Academy he attended in Hawaii, as well as his college tuition at Occidental in California and at Columbia at New York?
   
7. How did Obama pay his tuition at Harvard Law School?
   
8. Why will Obama release none of the school records at any of the schools he attended?
   
9. Obama’s school records in Indonesia show that at both the Catholic and public school he attended there he was registered as a “Muslim” and an “Indonesian Citizen.” Was Obama ever officially instructed in Islam, even in elementary school?
   
10. Why has Obama refused to discuss the clients he served when he worked for the law firm of Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland in Chicago?
    
11. Was Obama ever compensated by Tony Rezko on the millions Rezko borrowed to redevelop the low-income housing projects in Chicago that Rezko evidently defrauded of the improvements contracted by Obama's firm to be made in the low-income projects involved?
    
12. Has Obama’s campaign instituted sufficient fiscal controls to determine if any credit card contributions made to his 2008 presidential campaign have come illegally from foreign sources? Have any such foreign contributions been reported to Federal Election Commission authorities and returned, as required by federal law?
    
13. Has Obama ever renounced Black Liberation Theology as espoused by chief Black Liberation Theologist Dr. James Cone?
    
14. Has Obama ever renounced Islam?
    
15. Why have the detailed minutes and funding activities of the Woods Fund and the Annenberg Challenge documents in which William Ayers and Barack Obama participated never been completely released to the public?

While no campaign probably ever will put to rest every question voters may have, these are significant in that the next occupant of the White House will be making decisions on the security of the nation and the life and death issues of society, decisions that in all likelihood will be influenced by the beliefs and positions of the president.

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth man would pay $1. The sixth man would pay $3. The seventh man would pay $7. The eighth man would pay $12. The ninth man would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80 instead of $100

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. The poorest four would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man currently paying $1 and the sixth man currently paying $3 would each end up being PAID to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I got’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something. They didn’t have enough money between all 9 of them for even Half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works!! (And this is BEFORE Obama raises the job creating so called “Wealthy” even more!!)

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. (DUH) Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. And this in turn will take money away from America, away from job creation, away from everything that makes America great! Given the facts without fancy words, would you vote for Obama?

Spreading Around the Wealth
October 30, 2008

With only days before the most crucial election in American history, all indicators lean toward a massive democrat victory on November 4th. Not only will the United States most likely elect the first African-American to our nation’s highest office; we will also elect a radical socialist to the presidency. A man who despises our nation as it is and will seek to reform and alter the very fabric of our Republic.

If the democrats manage to obtain an overwhelming majority in both houses of congress, and fill the White House with Obama and Biden, our nation will rapidly begin a downward spiral from which we may never recover. So, just what can happen if Obama wins and the democrats have a filibuster proof majority?

Simply put, Socialism doesn’t work. It’s been tried in numerous nations around the globe and has failed in every country that was reckless enough to implement the idiocy and fallacies of such a flawed system. There are only two examples I can think of, where Socialism almost worked. Both were in Germany. The German Democratic Republic, or the GDR as it was once known embarked on socialism under the guise of a Communist form of government imposed on it by victorious Soviet forces following World War II.

While Socialism in the Soviet Union failed to produce a worker’s paradise as espoused by Marx, Lenin and Stalin, the industrious and loyal Germans almost made it work. I said almost made it work. Even the Germans failed to make an unworkable system work.

Earlier, the Germans once again, voted in National Socialism for their nation. Adolf Hitler and his Nazis won the 1932 elections in Germany, promising change and security for the German nation. The Nazis rapidly enacted laws and regulation designed to fully integrate the German people into a National Socialist system. Whatever you might think about the Nazis and their policies, the cold fact remains that Nazism was and remains a form of SOCIALISM.

It was also well thought of by American Liberals and Socialists. National Socialism WORKED and for the first time, Liberals thought they had the real deal! The Nazis used public work projects to put the German worker back to work, initiated massive construction projects such as the Autobahn system as well as numerous government construction goals in order to stimulate the economy and bring prosperity back to Germany. They inserted party hacks in German boardrooms and supervised every aspect of business and industry. They set limits on salaries and benefits and established official prices for everything from bread to brassieres.

Adolf Hitler was thought of as a great leader, not only in Germany but also in many parts of the world to include the United States. Despite a Liberal re-write of history, following the German defeat in 1945, the fact remains that many Americans thought that the National Socialists had the right idea regarding intrusive big government.

National Socialism had a number of flaws however and it along with other forms of Socialism failed to work past the initial successes and early triumphs. The gains of the early 1930’s could only be sustained through a massive military build-up, the expenditure of billions of Reichsmarks. Incidentally, the Reichsmark was a fiat currency, which was the creation of the National Socialist regime. It was backed by nothing, much like our US Dollar, also a fiat currency, today. Hitler took Germany off of the Gold Standard. Roosevelt followed his lead and took the USA off of the Gold Standard.

The most serious flaw with National Socialism was the only way it could be sustained was through war! Had the Germans not waged war the system would have collapsed as it too, along with other Socialist systems would have proved impossible to continue for the long run. Without war, the Nazi dictatorship in Germany might have continued for a few more years, yet it would have been forced to evolve into a more Capitalistic government, much as the communist government in China, Vietnam and other such countries. Communist Cuba has failed to move toward the reinstatement of Capitalism and continues to be the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Only Haiti exceeds the oppressed Cubans in poverty and despair.

The American people should know better than to elect Obama and a Liberal-Socialist congress, but we haven’t apparently learned anything from history or the reality of our world. Our education system, thoroughly Liberal-Socialist and rotten to the core has produced a nation of near illiterates who blindly follow the Liberal agenda at every turn. Liberal teachers have so corrupted the minds of a generation of Americans and instilled in them the stench of class warfare to the point where we will soon, blindly turn down the road of Socialism.

Not that George W. Bush has done our nation many favors. Bush put his “legacy” above the good of the nation in signing legislation, which essentially nationalized our banking system. He might have good intentions that this is only a temporary step, but with Obama and a Liberal-Socialism congress, the banking system will be a nationalized system once and for good.

Congress has now enacted legislation, which is in contravention of the US Constitution. They will continue to do so at every turn, with Obama in the Oval Office, ready and willing to sign and enact more and more Socialist laws, regulations and policies.

Already, Senator Edward “Teddy” Kennedy (D-MA) is crafting his National Healthcare Act, which will nationalize our health and medical system. It’s coming at us like a runaway freight train with no headlight. Obama will gladly sign the bill into law once he has a filibuster proof majority in both houses of congress.

The House Democrats are now, as I write, contemplating the takeover of all private pension funds, IRAs Keoghs and 401(k) funds. The Social Security Administration would then be the sole proprietor of all retirement systems in the United States!

Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) has already, publicly proposing a whopping 25% reduction in defense spending. With Obama in the White House, it will likely become reality. Actually, I foresee even deeper cuts in defense than Frank’s proposal. After all, Liberal-Socialists despise the military.

What about taxes? Obama promises tax cuts for “95% of all Americans.” This is an unmitigated crock of horse dung! Under Obama, your taxes will increase to the point that they are “higher than the Supreme Court,” and that is about as high as you can get!

A President Obama will pack the Supreme Court with the most Liberal-Socialist justices he can find. No doubt the more Liberal justices such as Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, Paul Stevens will retire so that much younger Liberal-Socialists can be added to the Court. David Souter only 68 years old, a “flaming lib” has stated his desire to return to his home and retire. On the conservative side, both Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas aren’t exactly kids. They may have to be replaced as well. With a filibuster proof Senate, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) will ramrod through any and all nominations to the nations’ highest court. There will be no public spectacle as has been the case where conservatives were nominated and publicly interrogated by such luminaries as Joe Biden (D-CT) and other Liberal activist Senators. The congress may well allow President Obama to add justices to the court in order to insure a Liberal-Socialist majority for many years to come.

A radical Socialist America is in the making. Our partisan media in cahoots with the dark forces of Liberal-Socialism is in the process of dismantling our American system and initiating a SOCIALIST WELFARE STATE. The ramifications of electing Obama and majority democrat congress will spell the end of our nation, as we know it. And, our enemies are already savoring the final decline of America. They relish the thought of an Obama presidency as they know that the time has come for our demise. Without the United States to put the check on rogue nations such as Iran, Syria, North Korea and now to a lesser extent, Russia, not only is the United States in for a rough ride, but so is the entire world!

We are soon to be plunged into the darkest period our nation has ever seen. Economic disasters ALWAYS bring about changes in governments. The worldwide Great Depression of the 1930’s ushered in both German and Japanese militarism. War resulted and 56-millions died! We in the USA got Roosevelt’s “New Deal” which was really a RAW DEAL. Our undoing as a nation really began with Roosevelt. It will likely end with Obama. We have many enemies in the world and they won’t be placated by Obama’s willingness to sit down without preconditions and sing kumbaya!

Our old friend John F. Kerry (did you know he served in Vietnam) has openly called for a NEW New Deal. That’s right. Kerry, the wealthiest Senator in history wants to spread your money around too. I doubt he will donate any of HIS billions, but he’ll be more than happy to take yours!

Barack Obama revealed his true intentions when he answered “Joe the Plumber’s” question and revealed his intention to “spread the wealth.” Unfortunately, Obama and his Democrat Party have embraced the Fidel Castro and Ernesto “Che” Guevara approach to a national economy.

In 1959, shortly after seizing power in Cuba, both Fidel and “Che” realized that they would never be able to raise Cuba’s uneducated, poor, and disgruntled to the level of prosperity enjoyed by most Cubans under the Batista government.

Accordingly, the decision was made to make things “fair” by destroying the upper and middle classes and lowering everyone to poverty. Thus, Cuba today has only two classes of citizens. The vast majority of Cubans are as poor as dirt. They have no running water. Electricity is iffy and available for only a few hours per day, if at all. Cubans haven’t seen toilet paper for years, unless they are fortunate enough to obtain employment in one of Castro’s luxury tourist hotels. Eggs? What are eggs?

Then, there is the communist elite; essentially a “royal family” of selected party hacks and officials who oversee the destitute Cuban people. When the United States is impoverished by our elected Liberal-Socialists, you can bet there will be an “elite” such as the Obamas Kennedys, Kerrys, Clintons, Reids, Pelosis etc. Socialists such as Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Bernardine Dohrn et al. will be heroes in the new Socialist States of America. They will be entitled to all the luxury items and foodstuffs they desire. After all, they will be looking out for the people!

Like Father, Like Son

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Barack Obama's economic blueprint sounds like one his communist father tried to foist on Kenya 40 years ago, with massive taxes and succor shrouded as "investments."

IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism

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.

Barack Obama Sr., who died in 1982 at age 46 in a Kenya car crash.

Writing in a 1965 scholarly paper, Obama's late father slammed the administration of then-President Jomo Kenyatta for moving the Third World country away from socialism toward capitalism. He chafed at the idea of relying on private investors — who earn "dividends" on their venture capital — to develop the country's fledgling economy.

"What is more important is to find means by which we can redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all," said the senior Obama, a Harvard-educated economist. "This is the government's obligation." The "means" he had in mind were confiscatory taxes on a scale that redefines the term "progressive taxation."

"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."

Therefore, he added, "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."

As Obama's father saw it, taxes couldn't be high enough, so long as the collective benefited. "Certainly there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay," he said. "It is a fallacy to say that there is this limit, and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings."

His son is also pushing massive taxes and "investments" in social programs — at the expense of free enterprise. Sen. Obama wants to raise the top marginal income-tax rate to at least 39%, while increasing Social Security taxes on those with higher incomes by completely removing the payroll cap. That means many entrepreneurs would be paying 12.4% (6.2% on employer and 6.2% on employee) on Social Security payroll taxes alone, plus the 2.9% on Medicare taxes, for a total federal tax rate of 54%.

In addition, Obama wants to jack up the capital-gains tax rate and reinstate the death tax.

Echoing his father, he argues that the government should impose "tax laws that restore some balance to the distribution of the nation's wealth."

And likewise, he asserts that the nation's wealth ought to be rechanneled by government into "investments" in the economy and welfare programs that create "a new American social compact."

"We can only compete if our government makes the investments that give us a fighting chance" in the global economy, the Democrat presidential hopeful said in his 2006 book, "The Audacity of Hope." "And if we know that our families have some net beneath which they cannot fall."

"Training must be expanded," his father proposed as one of his government "investments." Likewise, Sen. Obama wants to "invest" billions more in federal jobs retraining.

His father's critique of Kenya's economic policy was published in the East Africa Journal under the title "Problems Facing Our Socialism." One discovers — after reading just a few pages into his eight-page tract, where he waxes quixotic about "communal ownership of major means of production" — that he wasn't criticizing the government for being too socialistic, but not socialistic enough.

Obama Sr. described his own economic plan, his counterproposal, as it were, as "scientific socialism — inter alia — communism." Yes, Obama's father was a communist who wanted to put socialist theory into action — by "force."

He trusted the collective over the individual, a theme he successfully instilled in his son, also Harvard-educated, with whom he visited once for a full month in Hawaii, even speaking to his prep school class. He kept up correspondence with his son through his college years.

(Media accounts portray Obama's father as being completely out of his life after leaving his mother and him at age 2. But Obama's first book, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that he remained an influential force in his life. Obama's first autobiography was devoted to "my father.")

Listen to what "the Old Man," as Obama and his siblings called him, wrote in proposing government-run farms: "If left to the individual, consolidation will take a long time to come. We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society, and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise."

He explained that "the government should restrict the size of farms that can be owned by one individual throughout the country."

More evil than individuals, Obama's father believed, are heads of corporations. More evil still are the bankers and investors, who conspire to control the world through their evil capitalist system.

"One who has read Marx cannot fail to see that corporations are not only what Marx referred to as the advanced stage of capitalism," he wrote. "But Marx even called it finance capitalism by which a few would control the finances of so many, and through this, have not only economic power but political power as well."

It's clear from Sen. Obama's own writings and speeches that he too is no fan of business or our system of "chaotic and unforgiving capitalism," as he wrote in "Audacity." He's fond of bashing Wall Street "greed" and the post-Reagan rise of individual investing over government investing. He wants to roll back the "Ownership Society." He resents the profit motive and individuals "on the make."

"Rather than vilify the rich," he laments, "we hold them up as role models, and our mythology is steeped in stories of men on the make."

This is no small point. The man who wants to be the nation's CEO actually believes we're living in a feudal society where the rich plunder the poor. And he thinks they should not only be vilified but punished.

"The problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed are rooted in the desire among those at the top of the social ladder to maintain their wealth and status whatever the cost," he wrote. "Solving these problems will require changes in government policy."

That is, massive taxation, among other things (or "inter alia," as his "brilliant" father would say).

Obama wrote in "Dreams From My Father" that he was trying to impress his father by taking a low-paying job organizing and agitating in the Chicago ghetto right out of college. "I did feel that there was something to prove to my father," he said.

Yet, suspiciously, he does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory. No doubt he wanted to keep that hidden. All he tells readers is that his father was pushed out of the Kenyatta administration. He does not explain why.

"Word got back to Kenyatta that the Old Man was a troublemaker and he was called in to see the president," Obama wrote, quoting his half-sister, "because he could not keep his mouth shut." About what, we aren't told.

However, Obama writes sympathetically of a comrade of his father, Oginga Odinga, who stepped down as vice president and tried to start his own party. He too was angry that President Kenyatta was letting private investors buy up businesses and land "that should be redistributed to the people," Obama said.

By 1967, two years after Obama Sr. penned his paper, Odinga had been placed under house arrest for holding a rally that turned into a riot.

Like Obama's father, Odinga was a member of the Luo tribe of Kenya. His son, Raila Odinga, ran for president in 2006. That year, Obama traveled to Kenya and appeared with Odinga at rallies where he criticized the pro-U.S. government Odinga wanted to oust.

When he lost the election the next year, despite Obama's tacit endorsement, angry Odinga supporters crying fraud sparked riots that resulted in some 1,500 deaths. Amid his ancestral country's civil unrest, Obama took time out from the campaign trail to phone Odinga to voice his support.

After weeks of violence, Odinga was granted a power-sharing deal. He's now acting prime minister.

He's also a something of a communist like his father. An East German-trained engineer, he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro. Paralleling him, Sen. Obama wants to open dialogue with Cuba and once proposed lifting the trade embargo.

The two sons have much in common. However, the son who would lead the U.S. learned from his father's mistakes and keeps his "mouth shut." Obama learned that revealing his real beliefs can jeopardize his quest for the power needed to put his "redistribution" plans into action.

ABC News Reporter Jake Tapper's Political Punch Blog has a report on Sen. Barack Obama's push-back on John McCain's description of his tax policies, Tapper begins with a quote from Obama in Florida, here is the whole report:

"The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich," Obama said in Sarasota, Fla., yesterday. "I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That's the American dream, that's the American way, that's terrific.

"The point is, though, that -- and it's not just charity, it's not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it's that when we actually make sure that everybody's got a shot -- when young people can all go to college, when everybody's got decent health care, when everybody's got a little more money at the end of the month -- then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That's what happened in the 1990s, that's what we need to restore. And that's what I'm gonna do as president of the United States of America.

"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don't know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

It's unclear if this was a nod to the Ayn Rand book "The Virtue of Selfishness," with all that the invocation of Rand implies.

It would seem to be, given the themes of Rand's work, what happens when independent achievers are demonized.

Which would fit with this description of those who want to keep their hard-earned tax dollars as "selfish."

Atlas may not be shrugging, but Obama is.

Obama is a 'liar' on abortion

Sunday, November 2, 2008

If you want to know Barack Obama's real views on abortion, you should meet registered nurse Jill Stanek.

Mrs. Stanek worked at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois from 1993 to 2001. When she worked in the hospital's Labor and Delivery Department she saw that babies who survived abortion attempts were left to die alone in supply rooms. They could linger for as long as eight hours, without medical care, without even the dignity of a warm blanket or a soft touch. Their tiny bodies were then dumped in the trash. Mr. Obama's spiritual mentor served on the board of the hospital. Mrs. Stanek went on a public crusade to protect these children.

At a 2001 Illinois legislature hearing, Mr. Obama questioned Mrs. Stanek. She insisted that children needed medical care if they were born alive. Mr. Obama said: "Ms. Stanek, your initial testimony last year showed your dismay at the lack of regard for human life. I agreed with you last year and we suggested that there be a Comfort Room or something of that nature be done. The hospital acknowledged that and changes were made and you are still unimpressed. It sounds to me like you are really not interested in how these fetus [es] are treated, but rather not providing absolutely any medical care or life to them."

Mrs. Stanek replied: "What the hospital did was try to make things look better. What it really is, is that the baby is still dead."

In committee testimony, Mr. Obama said it was sufficient to give "comfort care" to a baby that is born despite all the efforts to kill it. "Comfort care" means giving the infant a warm blanket and permitting the baby to be held by someone as it dies. This is the most Mr. Obama could find in his heart to provide - a warm blanket for a child grasping for life. Mrs. Stanek told The Washington Times that Mr. Obama showed callousness when he questioned her in committee testimony: His inability to grasp that babies born alive need medical care was disturbing.

Despite all the details Mrs. Stanek provided in her testimony, Mr. Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act in the Illinois legislature in 2002 - a bill that would give legal protection and medical assistance to a baby born from a botched abortion. Mr. Obama stated that he feared the bill could undermine Roe v. Wade. When a similar bill was put to Congress, other lawmakers had better sense and bigger hearts: The Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed the Senate with a vote of 98-0. It was signed into law by President Bush on Aug. 5, 2002. Infants born alive are now recognized as legal persons with full rights.

Mr. Obama even voted against banning partial-birth abortion - a radical procedure - in the Senate, in October, 2007. Since 2005, he has a 100 percent rating on pro-choice votes by NARAL, a leading, national pro-choice organization.

There is no doubt that Mr. Obama wants not only to uphold existing abortion laws, but a more radical view. At an address before Planned Parenthood on July 17, 2007, Mr. Obama said: "The first thing I will do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." He received a standing ovation. FOCA was introduced in Congress in November 1989 by Rep. Don Edwards, California Democrat. The legislation has since been a focal point for staunch pro-choicers. The bill would codify the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, into law in all the states. This would overturn state laws that have been passed to limit or delay abortions. Contrary to Mr. Obama's pledges to reduce the number of abortions, he really wants to make them easier to get - while overriding state and federal laws.

Mr. Obama wants to uphold an abortion policy that has a disproportionate impact on blacks. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research, finds that 13 percent of the U.S. population is black, but 37 percent of all abortions are performed on black women and teens: Blacks are 4.8 times as likely as whites to have an abortion. A vote for Mr. Obama is, in effect, a vote that permits the disproportionate elimination of blacks in America.

Mr. McCain believes unequivocally that life begins at conception. Mr. McCain even supports requiring parental notification for underage girls who want to abort the fetus. His 0 percent rating by NARAL is perhaps one of his greatest achievements as a senator. On one of the fundamental moral questions of our time, the choice is clear: One man favors life, the other prefers a society that permits the death of the most innocent and vulnerable of us.

Mrs. Stanek told The Times that Mr. Obama's talk of compassion for the weak and underprivileged rings hollow to her: "Frankly, I think he is a liar."

ACORN's Senator

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Barack Obama wasn't just the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac political contributions. He was also the senator from ACORN, the activist leader for risky "affirmative action" loans.

Despite efforts to blame the rescue bill's failure on the GOP, it should be remembered that 95 Democrats — some 40% of the Democratic Caucus — withheld support. Obama himself also deserves blame — not only for the bill's failure, but also for the crisis it was designed to solve.

As the New York Times reports, "Aides to Mr. Obama said he had not directly reached out to try to sway any House Democrats who opposed the measure." Is the reason the fact that the slush fund for ACORN in the original bill, siphoning off 20% of any future profits for such activist groups, was trimmed from the tree?

Obama, who once represented ACORN in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois, was hired by the group to train its community organizers and staff in the methods and tactics of the late Saul Alinsky. ACORN would stage in-your-face protests in bank lobbies, drive-through lanes and even at bank managers' homes to get them to issue risky loans in the inner city or face charges of racism.

In the early 1990s, reports Stanley Kurtz, senior fellow at the Ethics and Policy Center, Obama was personally recruited by Chicago's ACORN to run training sessions in "direct action." That's the euphemism for the techniques used under the cover of the federal Community Reinvestment Act to intimidate financial institutions into giving what have been called "Ninja" loans — no income, no job, no assets — to people who couldn't afford them.

CRA was designed to increase minority homeownership. Whenever a bank wanted to grow or expand, ACORN would file complaints that it was not sufficiently sensitive to the needs of minorities in providing home loans. Agitators would then be unleashed.

Chicago's ACORN used Alinsky's tactics against institutions such as Bell Federal Savings and Loan and Avondale Federal Savings. In September 1992, the Chicago Tribune described the group's agenda as "affirmative action lending."

Obama also helped ACORN get funding. When he served on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, the Woods Fund frequently gave ACORN grants to fund its activist agenda.

In 1995, Kurtz reports, Obama chaired the committee that increased funding of ACORN and other community organizers. The committee report boasted that the fund's "non-ideological" image "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and governmental 'establishments' without undue risk of being accused of partisanship."

The CRA empowered regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority and distressed neighborhoods." It gave groups such as ACORN a license and a means to intimidate banks, claiming they were "redlining" poor and minority neighborhoods. ACORN employed its tactics in 1991 by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA.

As a former White House staff economist writes in the American Thinker, Obama represented ACORN in a 1994 suit against redlining.  ACORN was also a driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton administration that greatly expanded the CRA and helped spawn the current financial crisis.

Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. Last November, he told the group, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career." Indeed he has. Obama was and is fully aware of what ACORN was doing with the money and expertise he provided. The voters should be aware on Nov. 4 of the roles of both in creating the current crisis.

How a Young Chicago Litigator Helped Create the Subprime Housing Crisis

Barack H. Obama is running around telling everyone that the housing mortgage market collapsed primarily because of some vaguely described "deregulation" that took place sometime under George Bush--or maybe under Clinton; I'm not clear on that. I'm not sure he is.

Whatever his claim is, it's a lie.

The reality is that the housing market collapsed in large part because a coalition of race-baiting bullies brought very heavy pressure to bear on the banks to make more subprime loans on properties in low-income communities. Those who didn't approve the risky subprime loans were accused of "redlining"--i.e., refusing to make loans on properties in those neighborhoods.

Who were these bullies?

Some of the bullies were out in Washington pounding the tables and screaming at bank executives about "redlining".

At the same time, other bullies were stalking big city courthouses, filing frivolous and extortinate lawsuits against banks based on novel "disparate impact" theories of what might be held to constitute "redlining." In other words, even banks which were making lots of loans in low-income communities were being sued if they weren't approving just as many loans in low-income communities as they were in high-income communities.

Who were these mortgage extortionists?

These guys, to name a few:

Yes, that "Barack H. Obama."

(READ MORE BELOW)

Here's what they were suing about:

OK, fair enough. Poor folks shouldn't be automatically denied loans, right?

But here's the thing: according to Obama's legal team, FIFTY-EIGHT PERCENT of a certain class of loan applicants living in 80%+ minority neighborhoods were approved for a loan. Far from being automatically denied, most of these applicants were approved. Also according to Obama's team, EIGHTY-ONE PERCENT of similar loan applicants living in 90%+ "white" (defined as European and Asian) neighborhoods were approved--and this is the source of the theory of harm put forth by the legal team.

Under the theory put forward, it wasn't enough, apparently, that most of the identified mortgage applicants in the minority neighborhoods were approved. The theory demanded parity in the statistics, despite the fact that properties in very different neighborhoods necessarily present very different risk situations. In other words, the lawyers sued Citibank because Citibank was, on balance, somewhat more likely to approve a loan for a property in a predominantly white neighborhood than on one in a predominantly black neighborhood. Given that predominantly black neighborhoods tend to be low-income neighborhoods characterized by low property values, was this phenomenon evidence of evil racism or just reasonable risk avoidance? I'll leave that to your judgment.

Ultimately, Citibank settled with Obama's firm rather than incur the expense of a protracted litigation. I haven't been able to locate a copy of the settlement agreement (it's likely sealed), but we can surmise as to what hoops it required Citibank to jump through going forward. The net result of this sort of litigation was, of course, that banks like Citibank started approving more subprime loans in the 1990s in order to avoid frivolous litigation brought by activists like Barack H. Obama.

The ultimate result of Obama's litigation and the banks' "litigation-avoidance" behavior is now reflected in your declining stock portfolio.

And no, you probably won't hear much about this in the mainstream media.

Senator Barack Obama in Kenya > Obama and Odinga: The True Story

Posted by africanpress on August 10, 2008

 By Paula Abeles  Friday, August 8, 2008

The mainstream media has justified ignoring this story based on a “conspiracy theory” chain email (politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/465) making the rounds from some African missionaries. Politifact.com examined the email—which claims Obama gave $1MM to Odinga’s campaign—and declared it “a pants on fire”. 

However, the underlying (more important issues) are verifiably true. In August and September 2006, Senator Barack Obama traveled to South Africa, Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Chad and Kenya as a congressional delegation of one (Codel Obama) (“Codel Obama” The Hill 9/7/2006) While in Kenya, Obama consistently appeared at the side of fellow Luo Raila Odinga (“your agent for change’), who was running for President. (“Senator Rebukes Kenya’s Corruption” Chicago Sun Times 8/29/2006) Because of his African heritage, Obama was treated as a virtual “Head of State” in Kenya While campaigning with Odinga, Obama was openly critical of governmental corruption under President Mibaki –usually a fair, if undiplomatic, criticism from an objective observer.

However, Kibaki’s government has been better than most—and Odinga has his own corruption issues.(
“Loud and Populist, But No Political Outsider” The Guardian 12/29/2007)

Obama’s partisan support for Odinga was considered so transparent, that the Kenyan Government spokesman, Alfred Matua, complained of political posturing to aid Odinga’s election chances: “It is very clear that the senator has been used as a puppet to perpetuate opposition politics,”(“Walking The World Stage” Newsweek 9/11/06) And, “…we earlier thought he was mature in his assessment of Kenyan and African politics,” Mutua told AFP.”We forgive him because it is his first time in the Senate and he is yet to mature into understanding issues of foreign policy,” he said.”(“Obama’s Kenya Honeymoon Ends Abruptly After Graft Rebuke” 8/29/06) Subsequently, Ambassador Ogingo Ogego made a public complaint to the US.(“Kenyan Envoy Kicks Off Diplomatic Row” My Africa 9/27/2006)

Raila Odinga subsequently lost the controversial (probably rigged) presidential election. In what appeared to many—including Human Rights Watch– as a coordinated strategy from the top, (“Violence We Fled was Planned, Say Kenyan Refugees” Reuters 1/26/2008 and “Kenya: Violence Planned Before Poll, Says Report” The Nation 3/18/2008) his Luo supporters (a core of whom call themselves The Taliban”(“Ethnic Gangs Rile Kenyan Slums” Newsweek 1/10/08)) engaged in what US Envoy Jendayi Frazer called “clear ethnic cleansing” (“US Envoy Calls Violence in Kenya ‘Ethnic Cleansing’” USA Today 1/30/2008) of the Kikuyu opposition.

Odinga’s supporters went on a rampage—burning Kikuyu homes and businesses, (“Ethnic Cleansing in Luoland” The Economist 2/7/2008) raping Kikuyu women, and murdering everyone in their path—including at least 50 Christian Kikuyu woman & children who had sought refuge in a church. They burned them alive. (“Mob Burns Kenyans Seeking Refuge In Church” CNN 1/10/2008)

“We have evidence that ODM [Odinga’s party] politicians and local leaders actively fomented some post-election violence,” Georgette Gagnon, acting Africa director for the New York based Human Rights Watch (HRW), said on Thursday.” (Violence We Fled was Planned, Say Kenyan Refugees” Ibid)

So: who is Raila Odinga that Senator Obama would expend his political capital and risk the goodwill of half the population of Kenya?

Their relationship is unclear. The BBC initially reported that Obama and Odinga were first cousins.(“Odinga Says Obama is His Cousin” 1/8/2008) The Obama campaign has since denied a familial relationship. Raila Odinga’s father Oginga Odinga was leader of the “Kenya People’s Union” and perceived as a “committed socialist” (“Oginga Odinga: Kenya’s Most Persecuted Politician” Kenya: Key Issues 8/21.2002). Odinga Sr. was also the political ally of fellow Luo; Barack Obama Sr.(The Risks of Knowledge (Ohio University Press, 2004) p. 182)

What we do know about Odinga is not good. A former Minister of Energy, Odinga is reported to have been set up in the oil business by the al Bakri Group and Muammar Quaddafi (“How Rich is Raila-The ODM Kenya Presidential Aspirant?” African Press 4/26/2007) Abdel Qader Bakri (or- Abdulkader al Bakri) was listed on the infamous “Golden Chain”–an internal Al-Queda list of wealthy Saudi financial sponsors seized by Bosnian police in a Islamic “charity” raid in 2001. (“Terrorist Financing Staff Monograph 9/11 Commission and “The Golden Chain”) According to his website, Odinga was educated in Communist East Germany, (Herder Institute, Leipzig & Otto von Guericke Tech. Institute, Magdeburg) (http://www.raila07.com) Odinga’s eldest son is named “Fidel” (http://www.raila07.com)

Perhaps most troubling is Odinga’s links to Islamic extremists in Kenya.  According to Voice of America and the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya, on 8/29/07, Odinga signed a secret agreement (exposed 11/27) with Sheikh Abdullah Abdi of the National Muslim

Leaders Forum (NAMLEF) in which he agreed to institute Islamic law in exchange for Abdi’s support (eakenya.org)–thereby potentially disenfranchising and curtailing the liberties of millions of Christian Kenyan women. Further, he promised that Muslims suspected of terrorism would be safe from extradition—thereby establishing a ‘safe haven’ for terrorists in Kenya.

After the public outcry, Odinga denied signing a secret agreement.  Angry at Odinga’s apparent repudiation, a member of NAMLEF subsequently released the agreement to the press.  Odinga then claimed the document was a forgery, but acknowledged a secret agreement had been signed in exchange for Muslim support. Finally, under constant pressure, Odinga released what he claimed was the actual document (“Real” MOU) a considerably watered down version of the original; but still anathema to many Christian groups. “In response to the revelations, The Evangelical Alliance of Kenya released a statement in which church leaders said Raila, in both MOUs, ‘comes across as a presumptive Muslim president bent on forcing Islamic law, religion and culture down the throats of the Kenyan people in total disregard of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of worship and equal protection of the law’” (“Concerns Raised Over Alleged Vow To Enforce Islamic Law in Kenya” Christian Post 12/18/2007) To many westerners, the idea of imposing Sharia in a predominantly Christian country may have seemed fanciful. However, Kenya has had Sharia courts for family law (not criminal law)—called Khadi courts—since 1963. 

For the US and “the war on terror”—the most worrisome section—contained in both agreements– concerns extradition (or renditions) of suspected terrorists to the US and
elsewhere. The Kibaki government had been a leading supporter of the US’s efforts to dismantle Al-Queda cells in Kenya (National Commission of Terrorist Attacks on the United States- 9/11 Report) and elsewhere. Raila Odinga made opposition to the government’s crackdown of suspected Al Queda supporters a cornerstone of his campaign “In Kimanthi’s view, ‘only some of the leaders’…were Al Queda sympathizers. The renditions- along with frequent police sweeps on the Swahili coast-had become an emotional issue in the presidential race. Islamic outrage had placed the incumbent, Kibaki, on the defensive and provided Raila Odinga with a tool to rally the support of Kenya’s Muslims.” (“The African Front” New York Times Magazine 12/23/2007) And, “Our government will not be held at ransom to extradite Muslims to foreign lands”, Odinga told supporters in the coastal city of Mombassa. ‘This government is behaving as if it is still a colony.’” (“Outcome of Kenyan Election Could Impact Anti-Terror Cooperation” CNSNews.com 10/17/2007)

So, how much of a national security concern is this? Well, actually: huge “…proximity to the volatile states…including Somalia and Sudan have made Kenya especially vulnerable, in the views of counterterrorism experts, to the call for jihad. Since the early 1990s, the mosques of Mombasa and other towns have resonated with militant Islamic rhetoric. Radical imams have preached violence against Westerners, attacked the Kenyan government as the lackey of the United States and Israel and called for the implementation of Shariah. Members of the Qaeda cells that blew up the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania…were recruited in mosques near the Indian Ocean beaches [in Kenya]“ (“The African Front” , ibid)

At no point has Senator Obama tried to distance himself from Odinga. Odinga visited Obama on a fundraising tour of the US in 2007 and it is believed that political strategist Dick Morris assisted in Odinga’s presidential campaign- gratis- at Obama’s request (Morris only acknowledged the suggestion came through “mutual friends”). (“Bridges Burned in US, Political Kingmaker Hits Africa” ABC News 11/20/2007) Odinga has claimed that he and Obama speak regularly and whether this is true or not– the similarities between their campaigns are startling. (“Kenya Tests New Style of Politicking” The Washington Post, 12/22/2007)

In fairness to Senator Obama, after Kenya erupted into violence ( and at the request of Condoleezza Rice), Obama did record a message “. …calling for calm…” and had “..near daily conversations with the US Ambassador…and Raila Odinga” (“The Demons That Still Haunt Africa” TIME magazine 1/10/2008). Perhaps not surprisingly, President Kibaki apparently declined to take his call. Kibaki’s not the only one no longer filled with enthusiasm for Senator Obama’s brand of diplomacy. As Nicholas Kristof reported (with some surprise) in February: “You might think that all Kenyans would be vigorously supporting Mr. Obama. But Kenya has been fractured along ethnic lines in the last two months, so now Mr. Obama draws frenzied support from the Luos ethnic group of his ancestors, while many members of the rival Kikuyu group fervently support Hillary Rodham Clinton. (“Obama’s Kenya Roots” New York Times 2/24/2008)

Curiously, it has been the Kenyan press (almost alone) who have realized the potential implications: “… this is what may be the most memorable effect of the ODM’s [Odinga’s party] post-election campaign for State House. The longer their protests last, and the less disciplined they are - or the more atrocities like Eldoret [church massacre] are conducted in the party’s name- the more likely Kenya is to be stuck on the front pages of the world’s media and the more embarrassment it will bring to the Senator.” (“The Kiss of Death, How Kenya Could Spoil It For Obama” KenyaImagine 1/13/2008)

Clearly, Obama campaigned for someone who is corrupt, ruthless and has financial ties to terrorists. More importantly, Obama campaigned for a candidate who had the stated objective of dismantling US & Kenyan government efforts to root out Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. Organizations that had already caused the deaths of hundreds of Americans and Africans in embassy bombings. Senator Obama’s actions—intentional or not—were in direct conflict with the efforts and interests of US national security. I think this raises serious questions about the judgment, maturity and readiness of Senator Obama.

 Here's more on Obama and Odinga:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QcpdUtxNQ

 Transcript of Barack "Spread the Wealth" Obama interview from 2001.

He's disappointed that we've been unable to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" and redistribute the wealth, the income, that most of us work hard to accumulate.

Work overtime to put a little money away for a rainy day?  Inherit the family farm?  Struggled to get through school and build your career, and now reaping the benefits of your sacrifice?

How dare you?  Why, you must have exploited someone to have a nice house, or a nice car, or money in the bank.  Don't worry, Barack's "reparative justice" will take your money from you and give it to all the people that you surely must have stepped on getting to where you are.

 Here's the video.

The transcript is below.

Study: Media coverage has favored Obama campaign

NEW YORK – John McCain supporters who believe they haven't gotten a fair shake from the media during the Republican's candidacy against Barack Obama have a new study to point to.

Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected positively on Obama in 65 percent of cases, compared to 31 percent of cases with regards to McCain, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

ABC's "World News" had more balance than NBC's "Nightly News" or the "CBS Evening News," the group said.

Meanwhile, the first half of Fox News Channel's "Special Report" with Brit Hume showed more balance than any of the network broadcasters, although it was dominated by negative evaluations of both campaigns. The center didn't evaluate programs on CNN or MSNBC.

"For whatever reason, the media are portraying Barack Obama as a better choice for president than John McCain," said Robert Lichter, a George Mason University professor and head of the center. "If you watch the evening news, you'd think you should vote for Obama."

The center analyzed 979 separate news stories shown between Aug. 23 and Oct. 24, and excluded evaluations based on the campaign horse race, including mention of how the candidates were doing in polls. For instance, when a voter was interviewed on CBS Oct. 14 saying he thought Obama brought a freshness to Washington, that was chalked up as a pro-Obama comment.

When NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported Oct. 1 that some conservatives say that Sarah Palin is not ready for prime-time, that's marked in the negative column for McCain.

ABC recorded 57 percent favorable comments toward the Democrats, and 42 percent positive for the Republicans. NBC had 56 percent positive for the Democrats, 16 percent for the Republicans. CBS had 73 percent positive (Obama), versus 31 percent (McCain).

Hume's telecast had 39 percent favorable comments for McCain and 28 percent positive for the Democratic ticket.

It was the second study in two weeks to remark upon negative coverage for the McCain-Palin ticket. The Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded last week that McCain's coverage has been overwhelmingly negative since the conventions ended, while Obama's has been more mixed.

Meanwhile, another survey issued Friday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed that television continues to be Americans' main source for campaign news, particularly the cable news networks.

But there were clear partisan differences in where people turned.

For instance, of the people who said they got most of their campaign news from Fox News Channel, 52 percent identified themselves as Republican, 17 percent as Democrats and 30 percent as independents, the Pew center said.

MSNBC viewers interested in campaign news identified themselves at 11 percent Republican, 50 percent Democratic and 36 percent independent. The breakdown for CNN: 13 percent Republican, 45 percent Democrat, 38 percent independent.

The study was based on a survey of 2,011 people taken Oct. 17-20 and 24-27. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.

Return to the Article

Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation's wealth.

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

The movement's impact on New York City was jolting: welfare caseloads, already climbing 12 percent a year in the early sixties, rose by 50 percent during Lindsay's first two years; spending doubled... The city had 150,000 welfare cases in 1960; a decade later it had 1.5 million.  

Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.

• 1. Register as many Democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them vote, multiple times if possible.
• 2. Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of deceased, random names from the phone book, even contrived names.
• 3. Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards.

By advocating massive, no-holds-barred voter registration campaigns, they [Cloward & Piven] sought a Democratic administration in Washington, D.C. that would re-distribute the nation's wealth and lead to a totalitarian socialist state.

In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of "redlining"-claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.

A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.

The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical "housing rights" groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama. (Emphasis, mine.)

"...the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago."

I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career (emphasis added). Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work. - Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007 (Courtesy Newsmax.)

It would be telling to know if Obama, during his years at Columbia, had occasion to meet Cloward and study the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

At Daily Kos Hate Website Obama Told Far Left to Fool Public To Further Cause

I thought this might be a good opportunity to offer some thoughts about not only judicial confirmations, but how to bring about meaningful change in this country.

Maybe some of you believe I could have made my general point more artfully, but it’s precisely because many of these groups are friends and supporters that I felt it necessary to speak my mind.

There is one way, over the long haul, to guarantee the appointment of judges that are sensitive to issues of social justice, and that is to win the right to appoint them by recapturing the presidency and the Senate. And I don’t believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position. I am convinced that, our mutual frustrations and strongly-held beliefs notwithstanding, the strategy driving much of Democratic advocacy, and the tone of much of our rhetoric, is an impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country.

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in “appeasing” the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda.

The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

Obama Voted 'Present' on Mortgage Reform

The only banking 'deregulation' in recent years was that of Fan and Fred.

By PETER J. WALLISON

In each of the first two presidential debates, Barack Obama claimed that "Republican deregulation" is responsible for the financial crisis. Most viewers probably accepted this idea, especially because Republicans generally do favor deregulation.

But one essential fact was missing from the senator's narrative: While there has been significant deregulation in the U.S. economy during the last 30 years, none of it has occurred in the financial sector. Indeed, the only significant legislation with any effect on financial risk-taking was the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, adopted during the first Bush administration in the wake of the collapse of the savings and loans (S&Ls). FDICIA, however, substantially tightened commercial bank and S&L regulations, including prompt corrective action when a bank's capital declines below adequate levels and severe personal fines if management violates laws or regulations.

If Sen. Obama had been asked for an example of "Republican deregulation," he would probably have cited the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA), which has become a popular target for Democrats searching for something to pin on the GOP. This is puzzling. The bill's key sponsors were indeed Republicans, but the bill was supported by the Clinton administration and signed by President Clinton. The GLBA's "repeal" of a portion of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 is said to have somehow contributed to the current financial meltdown. Nonsense.

Adopted early in the New Deal, the Glass-Steagall Act separated investment and commercial banking. It prohibited commercial banks from underwriting or dealing in securities, and from affiliating with firms that engaged principally in that business. The GLBA repealed only the second of these provisions, allowing banks and securities firms to be affiliated under the same holding company. Thus J.P. Morgan Chase was able to acquire Bear Stearns, and Bank of America could acquire Merrill Lynch. Nevertheless, banks themselves were and still are prohibited from underwriting or dealing in securities.

Allowing banks and securities firms to affiliate under the same holding company has had no effect on the current financial crisis. None of the investment banks that have gotten into trouble -- Bear, Lehman, Merrill, Goldman or Morgan Stanley -- were affiliated with commercial banks. And none of the banks that have major securities affiliates -- Citibank, Bank of America, and J.P. Morgan Chase, to name a few -- are among the banks that have thus far encountered serious financial problems. Indeed, the ability of these banks to diversify into nonbanking activities has been a source of their strength.

Most important, the banks that have succumbed to financial problems -- Wachovia, Washington Mutual and IndyMac, among others -- got into trouble by investing in bad mortgages or mortgage-backed securities, not because of the securities activities of an affiliated securities firm. Federal Reserve regulations significantly restrict transactions between banks and their affiliates.

If Sen. Obama were truly looking for a kind of deregulation that might be responsible for the current financial crisis, he need only look back to 1998, when the Clinton administration ruled that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could satisfy their affordable housing obligations by purchasing subprime mortgages. This ultimately made it possible for Fannie and Freddie to add a trillion dollars in junk loans to their balance sheets. This led to their own collapse, and to the development of a market in these mortgages that is the source of the financial crisis we are wrestling with today.

Finally, on the matter of deregulation and the financial crisis, Sen. Obama should consider his own complicity in the failure of Congress to adopt legislation that might have prevented the subprime meltdown.

In the summer of 2005, a bill emerged from the Senate Banking Committee that considerably tightened regulations on Fannie and Freddie, including controls over their capital and their ability to hold portfolios of mortgages or mortgage-backed securities. All the Republicans voted for the bill in committee; all the Democrats voted against it. To get the bill to a vote in the Senate, a few Democratic votes were necessary to limit debate. This was a time for the leadership Sen. Obama says he can offer, but neither he nor any other Democrat stepped forward.

Instead, by his own account, Mr. Obama wrote a letter to the Treasury Secretary, allegedly putting himself on record that subprime loans were dangerous and had to be dealt with. This is revealing; if true, it indicates Sen. Obama knew there was a problem with subprime lending -- but was unwilling to confront his own party by pressing for legislation to control it. As a demonstration of character and leadership capacity, it bears a strong resemblance to something else in Sen. Obama's past: voting present.

"Make no mistake about it: Obama's plan to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000 will raise taxes on most small-business profits in America." -- Grover Norquist

"An Argument Against Obama's Tax Plan"
Grover G. Norquist
Politico
July 11, 2008

The Tax Policy Center and the Barack Obama campaign used some sleight of hand this week in Politico. To quote Eric Tolder of the TPC, "Most small-business people, like most everyone else, are not really high-income." While this is true, it completely and totally misses the point.

Let's start with the definition of a "small business." Most will tell you that small-business income constitutes income derived from sole proprietorships, partnerships and Subchapter S corporations.

The conservative argument (and that of the John McCain campaign) is that Obama's stated plan to raise taxes on households making $250,000 or more in income is a tax increase on small business. The simple answer to this dilemma can be found in the IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin (Table 1.4, for those who are interested).

So what do the data say?

In 2006 (the latest year available), $706 billion of such income was reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Of this, about half was reported by households in the top marginal income tax rate. Interestingly, two-thirds of this income was reported by households making $250,000 per year or more -- the very same households that Obama wants to increase taxes on.

The Obama campaign maintains that the number of small-business owners is what's important. Economists know what matters is the tax rate that's applied to the bulk of small-business income. Make no mistake about it: Obama's plan to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000 will raise taxes on most small-business profits in America.

What type of tax rate are we talking about? Currently, S corporations face a top tax rate of 35 percent, while sole proprietors and general partners face a tax rate of 37.9 percent (since they're responsible for paying both income tax and the Medicare component of the payroll tax).

Under Obama's plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.

What would a world look like where two-thirds of all small-business income would be taxed at a 50 percent rate? The economic law that "taxing something more and getting less of it" would apply. Fewer Americans would be interested in opening or expanding small businesses. Tax evasion and legal tax avoidance would spike, as tax shelters would once again become a booming industry. Since small businesses create a majority of jobs in America, Main Street closing up shop will have a direct impact on the family budget, as well. Plants and equipment will go unused. Despite the misguided opinions of static scorers in Washington, federal tax revenues will likely decline as the economy staggers into a full-on recession.

What's the alternative? One place to look is the optional alternate tax system originally proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and now endorsed by McCain. It would give households (including those with small business income) a choice between the current tax code and one with a top rate of 25 percent on all income over $100,000. This would have the beneficial effect of lowering the tax rate on most small-business income by 10 percentage points. Small businesses haven't faced a tax rate that low in quite some time and would be likely to respond with the creation of new businesses and more investment in existing businesses.

The McCain small business tax plan doesn't end there. For those businesses that are organized as conventional corporations, the top tax rate would fall from 35 percent to 25 percent, the European average. For all businesses, technology and equipment -- which now must be slowly "depreciated" over many years -- would be immediately expensed in year one.

Stepping back, voters and policymakers should ask themselves whether they want two-thirds of small business income taxed at a 50 percent tax rate or if they want nearly all small-business income taxed at a 25 percent tax rate. They should ask themselves whether it's healthier for small businesses to write off a computer over six calendar years or to simply write it off in year one. To America's small business sector, the answer is obvious.

So, what do "the rich" pay in federal income taxes? Nothing, right? That, at least, is what most people think. And Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants to raise the top marginal rate for "the rich" -- known in some quarters as "job creators."

First, the data. The top 5 percent (those making more than $153,542 -- the group whose taxes Obama seeks to raise) pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes. The rich (aka the top 1 percent of income earners, those making more than $388,806 a year), according to the IRS, pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 1 percent's taxes comprise 17 percent of the federal government's revenue from all sources, including corporate taxes, excise taxes, social insurance and retirement receipts.

Now, what do people think the rich pay? The IBD/TIPP poll found that 36 percent of those polled thought the rich contribute 10 percent or less of all federal income taxes. Another 15 percent thought the rich pay between 10 and 20 percent, while another 10 percent thought the rich's share is between 20 and 30 percent. In other words, most people thought the rich pay less -- far less -- than they actually do. Only 12 percent of those polled thought the rich pay more than 40 percent.

Let's try this another way. A U.S. News & World Report blogger went to the Democratic National Convention in Denver and conducted an informal poll of 24 DNC delegates. He asked them, "What should 'the rich' pay in income taxes?" Half the respondents said "25 percent"; 25 percent said "20 percent"; 12 percent said "30 percent"; and another 12 percent said "35 percent." The average DNC delegate wanted the rich to pay 25.6 percent, which is lower than what the rich pay now -- both by share of taxes and by tax rate!

Thirty percent of American voters pay nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- in federal income taxes. And, not too surprisingly, compared with taxpaying voters, they are more likely to support spending that benefits them. The majority of the 30 percent who don't pay federal income taxes agree with Obama's $65 billion plan to institute taxpayer-funded universal health coverage. But the majority of the 70 percent who pay federal income taxes are opposed to Obama's health care plan.

Non-taxpayers support Obama's plans for increased tax deductions for lower-income Americans, along with higher overall tax rates levied against middle- and upper-income households. The majority of non-taxpayers (57 percent) also favor raising the individual income-tax rate for those in the highest bracket from 35 percent to 54 percent. And the majority (59 percent) favors raising Social Security taxes by 4 percent for any individual or business that makes at least $250,000.

Obama calls increasing taxes and giving them to the needy a matter of "neighborliness." Vice presidential running mate Joe Biden calls it a matter of "patriotism."

Yet when it comes to charitable giving, neither Obama (until recently) nor Biden feels sufficiently neighborly or patriotic to donate as much as does the average American household: 2 percent of their adjusted gross income.

Liberal families earn about 6 percent more than conservative families, yet conservative households donate about 30 percent more to charity than do liberal households. And conservatives give more than just to their own churches and other houses of worship. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, give far more money and donate more of their time to nonreligious charitable causes than do liberals -- especially secular liberals.

In 2007, President George W. Bush and his wife had an adjusted gross income of $923,807. They paid $221,635 in taxes, and donated $165,660 to charity -- or 18 percent of their income. Vice President and Mrs. Cheney, in 2007, had a taxable income of $3.04 million. And they paid $602,651 in taxes, and donated $166,547 to charity -- or 5.5 percent of their income.

Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned between $200,000 and $300,000 a year between 2000 and 2004, and they donated less than 1 percent to charity. When their income soared to $4.2 million in 2007, their charitable contributions went up to 5 percent.

Joe and Jill Biden, by contrast, made $319,853 and gave $995 to charity in 2007, or 0.3 percent of their income. And that was during the year Biden was running for president. Over the past 10 years, the Bidens earned $2,450,042 and gave $3,690 to charity -- or 0.1 percent of their income.

So let's sum up. The "compassionate" liberals -- at least based on charitable giving -- show less compassion than "hardhearted" conservatives. The rich pay more in income taxes than people think. Voters, clueless about the facts, want the rich to pay still more.