|
Iconoclast's Blog
October 2008
Friday October 31, 2008
Posted by: Iconoclast at 12:37AM CST on October 31, 2008
September 28, 2008 Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured CrisisBy James SimpsonDespite
the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the
blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama's connections to his
radical mentors -- Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama's radical connections since the beginning.
Yet, no one to my knowledge has yet connected all
the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together,
the influences on Obama's life comprise a who's who of the radical
leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is
Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his
adult life deeply immersed in it.
But even this doesn't fully describe
the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied directly to a
malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of
the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States
since the 1960s.
The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis
In an earlier post,
I noted the liberal record of unmitigated legislative disasters, the
latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before
our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years
of virtually unbroken power in Congress - with substantial majorities
most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after
issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their
command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they
chronically incapable?
Why?
One of two
things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who
ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of
contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions
and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.
I
submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a
practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at
taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician
keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent - the failure is deliberate. Don't laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.
The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation
magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors,
Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes
it as:
Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:
Newsmax rounds out the picture:
In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of "crisis" they were trying to create:
No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:
Capitalizing
on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare
system as their first target. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley,
who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to
implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm
welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their "rights."
According to a City Journal article by Sol Stern,
welfare rolls increased from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the
mid-1970s as a result, and in New York City, where the strategy had
been particularly successful, "one person was on the welfare rolls...
for every two working in the city's private economy."
According to another City Journal article titled "Compassion Gone Mad":
The
vast expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO's
Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975. Rudy Giuliani cited Cloward and Piven by name as being responsible for "an effort at economic sabotage." He also credited Cloward-Piven
with changing the cultural attitude toward welfare from that of a
temporary expedient to a lifetime entitlement, an attitude which
in-and-of-itself has caused perhaps the greatest damage of all.
Cloward
and Piven looked at this strategy as a gold mine of opportunity. Within
the newly organized groups, each offensive would find an ample pool of
foot soldier recruits willing to advance its radical agenda at little or no pay,
and expand its base of reliable voters, legal or otherwise. The
radicals' threatening tactics also would accrue an intimidating
reputation, providing a wealth of opportunities for extorting monetary
and other concessions from the target organizations. In the meantime,
successful offensives would create an ever increasing drag on society.
As they gleefully observed:
The
next time you drive through one of the many blighted neighborhoods in
our cities, or read of the astronomical crime, drug addiction, and
out-of-wedlock birth rates, or consider the failed schools, strapped
police and fire resources of every major city, remember Cloward and
Piven's thrill that "...the drain on local resources persists
indefinitely."
ACORN, the new tip of the Cloward-Piven spear
In 1970, one of George Wiley's protégés, Wade Rathke
-- like Bill Ayers, a member of the radical Students for a Democratic
Society (SDS) -- was sent to found the Arkansas Community Organizations
for Reform Now. While NWRO had made a good start, it alone couldn't
accomplish the Cloward-Piven goals. Rathke's group broadened the
offensive to include a wide array of low income "rights." Shortly
thereafter they changed "Arkansas" to "Association of" and ACORN went nationwide.
Today ACORN is involved in a wide array of activities, including housing,
voting rights, illegal immigration and other issues. According to
ACORN's website: "ACORN is the nation's largest grassroots community
organization of low-and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member
families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110
cities across the country," It is perhaps the largest radical group in
the U.S. and has been cited for widespread criminal activity on many fronts.
Voting
On voting rights, ACORN and its voter mobilization subsidiary, Project Vote, have been involved nationwide in efforts to grant felons the vote and lobbied heavily for the Motor Voter Act of 1993, a law allowing people to register at motor vehicle departments, schools, libraries and other public places. That law had been sought by Cloward and Piven since the early1980s and they were present, standing behind President Clinton at the signing ceremony.
ACORN's voter rights tactics follow the Cloward-Piven Strategy:
In this effort, ACORN sets up registration sites all over the country and has been frequently cited
for turning in fraudulent registrations, as well as destroying
republican applications. In the 2004-2006 election cycles alone, ACORN
was accused of widespread voter fraud in 12 states. It may have swung the election for one state governor.
ACORN's
website brags: "Since 2004, ACORN has helped more than 1.7 million low-
and moderate-income and minority citizens apply to register to vote."
Project vote boasts 4 million. I wonder how many of them are dead? For
the 2008 cycle, ACORN and Project Vote have pulled out all the stops.
Given their furious nationwide effort, it is not inconceivable that
this presidential race could be decided by fraudulent votes alone.
Barack Obama ran ACORN's Project Vote in Chicago and his highly successful voter registration drive was credited with getting the disgraced former Senator Carol Moseley-Braun elected. Newsmax reiterates Cloward and Piven's aspirations for ACORN's voter registration efforts:
Illegal Immigration
As I have written elsewhere,
the Radical Left's offensive to promote illegal immigration is
"Cloward-Piven on steroids." ACORN is at the forefront of this movement
as well, and was a leading organization among a broad coalition of
radical groups, including Soros' Open Society Institute, the Service Employees International Union (ACORN founder Wade Rathke also runs a SEIU chapter), and others, that became the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. CCIR fortunately failed to gain passage for the 2007 illegal immigrant amnesty bill, but its goals have not changed.
The
burden of illegal immigration on our already overstressed welfare
system has been widely documented. Some towns in California have even
been taken over by illegal immigrant drug cartels.
The disease, crime and overcrowding brought by illegal immigrants
places a heavy burden on every segment of society and every level of
government, threatening to split this country apart at the seams. In
the meantime, radical leftist efforts to grant illegal immigrants
citizenship guarantee a huge pool of new democrat voters. With little
border control, terrorists can also filter in.
Obama aided ACORN as their lead attorney in a successful suit he brought
against the Illinois state government to implement the Motor Voter law
there. The law had been resisted by Republican Governor Jim Edgars, who
feared the law was an opening to widespread vote fraud.
His
fears were warranted as the Motor Voter law has since been cited as a
major opportunity for vote fraud, especially for illegal immigrants,
even terrorists. According to the Wall Street Journal: "After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote..."
ACORN's
dual offensives on voting and illegal immigration are handy
complements. Both swell the voter rolls with reliable democrats while
assaulting the country ACORN seeks to destroy with overwhelming new
problems.
Mortgage Crisis
And
now we have the mortgage crisis, which has sent a shock wave through
Wall Street and panicked world financial markets like no other since
the stock market crash of 1929. But this is a problem created in Washington long ago. It originated with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), signed into law in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA was Carter's answer to a grassroots activist movement started in Chicago, and forced banks to make loans to low income, high risk customers. PhD economist and former Texas Senator Phil Gramm has called it: "a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks."
ACORN aggressively sought to expand loans to low income groups using the CRA as a whip. Economist Stan Leibowitz wrote in the New York Post:
In
fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than
other applications-but the overwhelming reason wasn't racial
discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.
ACORN
showed its colors again in 1991, by taking over the House Banking
Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. Obama represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining. Most significant of all,
ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed
through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and
laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial
crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively.
As a New York Post article describes it:
Flexible
lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates
than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find
CRA loans available via ACORN with "100 percent financing . . . no
credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don't report
it on your tax returns." Credit counseling is required, of course.
Ironically,
an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of
nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and
followed "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." That
lender's $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to
$80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.
The lender they were speaking of was Countrywide, which specialized in subprime lending and had a working relationship with ACORN.
Investor's Business Daily added:
Since
these loans were to be underwritten by the government sponsored Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, the implicit government guarantee of those loans
absolved lenders, mortgage bundlers and investors of any concern over
the obvious risk. As Bloomberg reported: "It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit."
And
if you think Washington policy makers cared about ACORN's negative
influence, think again. Before this whole mess came down, a Democrat-sponsored bill
on the table would have created an "Affordable Housing Trust Fund,"
granting ACORN access to approximately $500 million in Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac revenues with little or no oversight.
Even
now, unbelievably -- on the brink of national disaster -- Democrats
have insisted ACORN benefit from bailout negotiations! Senator Lindsay
Graham reported last night (9/25/08) in an interview with Greta Van
Susteren of On the Record that Democrats want 20 percent of the bailout money to go to ACORN!
This
entire fiasco represents perhaps the pinnacle of ACORN's efforts to
advance the Cloward-Piven Strategy and is a stark demonstration of the
power they wield in Washington.
Enter Barack Obama
In
attempting to capture the significance of Barack Obama's Radical Left
connections and his relation to the Cloward Piven strategy, I
constructed following flow chart. It is by no means complete. There are
simply too many radical individuals and organizations to include them
all here. But these are perhaps the most significant.
![]() The
chart puts Barack Obama at the epicenter of an incestuous stew of
American radical leftism. Not only are his connections significant,
they practically define who he is. Taken together, they constitute a
who's who of the American radical left, and guiding all is the
Cloward-Piven strategy.
Conspicuous in their absence are any connections at all with any other group, moderate, or even mildly leftist. They are all radicals, firmly bedded in the anti-American, communist, socialist, radical leftist mesh. Saul Alinsky
Most
people are unaware that Barack Obama received his training in
"community organizing" from Saul Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation.
But he did. In and of itself that marks his heritage and training as
that of a radical activist. One really needs go no further. But we have.
Bill Ayers
Obama
objects to being associated with SDS bomber Bill Ayers, claiming he is
being smeared with "guilt by association." But they worked together at
the Woods Fund. The Wall Street Journal added substantially to our knowledge by describing in great detail Obama's work over five years with SDS bomber Bill Ayers on the board of a non-profit, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, to push a radical agenda on public school children. As Stanley Kurtz states:
Also included in the mix is Theresa Heinz Kerry's favorite charity, the Tides Foundation.
A partial list of Tides grants tells you all you need to know: ACLU,
ACORN, Center for American Progress, Center for Constitutional Rights
(a communist front,) CAIR, Earth Justice, Institute for Policy Studies
(KGB spy nest), National Lawyers Guild (oldest communist front in
U.S.), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and
practically every other radical group there is. ACORN's Wade Rathke
runs a Tides subsidiary, the Tides Center.
Carl Davidson and the New Party
We have heard about Bomber Bill, but we hear little about fellow SDS member Carl Davidson. According to Discover the Networks, Davidson was an early supporter of Barack Obama and a prominent member of Chicago's New Party,
a synthesis of CPUSA members, Socialists, ACORN veterans and other
radicals. Obama sought and received the New Party's endorsement, and
they assisted with his campaign. The New Party also developed a strong
relationship with ACORN. As an excellent article on the New Party observes: "Barack Obama knew what he was getting into and remains an ideal New Party candidate."
George Soros
The
chart also suggests the reason for George Soros' fervent support of
Obama. The President of his Open Society Institute is Aryeh Neier,
founder of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). As
mentioned above, three other former SDS members had extensive contact
with Obama: Bill Ayers, Carl Davidson and Wade Rathke. Surely Aryeh
Neier would have heard from his former colleagues of the promising new
politician. More to the point, Neier is firmly committed to supporting
the hugely successful radical organization, ACORN, and would be certain
back their favored candidate, Barack Obama.
ACORN
Obama
has spent a large portion of his professional life working for ACORN or
its subsidiaries, representing ACORN as a lawyer on some of its most
critical issues, and training ACORN leaders. Stanley Kurtz's excellent
National Review article, "Inside Obama's Acorn." also describes Obama's ACORN connection in detail. But I can't improve on Obama's own words:
In another excellent article on Obama's ACORN connections, Newsmax asks a nagging question:
I
ask you, is it possible ACORN would train Obama to take leadership
positions within ACORN without telling him what he was training for? Is
it possible ACORN would put Obama in leadership positions without
clueing him into what his purpose was?? Is it possible that this most
radical of organizations would put someone in charge of training its trainers, without him knowing what it was he was training them for?
As a community activist for ACORN; as a leadership trainer for ACORN; as a lead organizer for ACORN's Project Vote;
as an attorney representing ACORN's successful efforts to impose Motor
Voter regulations in Illinois; as ACORN's representative in lobbying
for the expansion of high risk housing loans through Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac that led to the current crisis; as a recipient of their
assistance in his political campaigns -- both with money and campaign
workers; it is doubtful that he was unaware of ACORN's true goals. It is doubtful he was unaware of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.
Fast-forward to 2005 when an obsequious, servile and scraping Daniel Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae spoke at the Congressional Black Caucus swearing in ceremony
for newly-elected Illinois Senator, Barack Obama. Mudd called, the
Congressional Black Caucus "our family" and "the conscience of Fannie
Mae."
In 2005, Republicans sought to rein in Fannie and Freddie. Senator John McCain was at the forefront of that effort. But it failed due to an intense lobbying effort put forward by Fannie and Freddie.
In
his few years as a U.S. senator, Obama has received campaign
contributions of $126,349, from Fannie and Freddie, second only to the
$165,400 received by Senator Chris Dodd, who has been getting donations
from them since 1988. What makes Obama so special?
His closest advisers are a dirty laundry list of individuals at the heart of the financial crisis: former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson; Former Fannie Mae CEO and former Clinton Budget Director Frank Raines; and billionaire failed Superior Bank of Chicago Board Chair Penny Pritzker.
Johnson had to step down as adviser on Obama's V.P. search after this gem came out:
An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report[1]
from September 2004 found that, during Johnson's tenure as CEO, Fannie
Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top
executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to
receive substantial bonuses in 1998.[2] A 2006 OFHEO report[3]
found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson's
compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually
received approximately $21 million.
Obama denies ties to Raines but the Washington Post calls him a member of "Obama's political circle."
Raines and Johnson were fined $3 million by the Office of Federal
Housing Oversight for their manipulation of Fannie books. The fine is
small change however, compared to the $50 million Raines was able to
obtain in improper bonuses as a result of juggling the books.
Most significantly,
Penny Pritzker, the current Finance Chairperson of Obama's presidential
campaign helped develop the complicated investment bundling of subprime
securities at the heart of the meltdown. She did so in her position as
shareholder and board chair of Superior Bank. The Bank failed in 2001,
one of the largest in recent history, wiping out $50 million in
uninsured life savings of approximately 1,400 customers. She was named
in a RICO class action law suit but doesn't seem to have come out of it
too badly.
As a young attorney in the 1990s, Barack Obama
represented ACORN in Washington in their successful efforts to expand
Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) authority. In addition to making it
easier for ACORN groups to force banks into making risky loans, this
also paved the way for banks like Superior to package mortgages as
investments, and for the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac to underwrite them. These changes created the conditions that ultimately lead to the current financial crisis.
Did they not know this would occur? Were these smart people, led by a Harvard graduate, unaware of the Econ 101 concept of moral hazard
that would result from the government making implicit guarantees to
underwrite private sector financial risk? They should have known that
freeing the high-risk mortgage market of risk, calamity was sure to
ensue. I think they did.
Barack Obama, the Cloward-Piven
candidate, no matter how he describes himself, has been a radical
activist for most of his political career. That activism has been in
support of organizations and initiatives that at their heart seek to
tear the pillars of this nation asunder in order to replace them with
their demented socialist vision. Their influence has spread so far and
so wide that despite their blatant culpability in the current financial
crisis, they are able to manipulate Capital Hill politicians to cut
them into $140 billion of the bailout pie!
God grant
those few responsible yet remaining in Washington, DC the strength to
prevent this massive fraud from occurring. God grant them the courage
to stand up in the face of this Marxist tidal wave.
Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst. His writings have been published in American Thinker, Washington Times, FrontPage Magazine, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune and others. His blog is Truth and Consequences.. At Daily Kos Hate Website Obama Told Far Left to Fool Public To Further Cause
Posted by: Iconoclast at 12:33AM CST on October 31, 2008
At Daily Kos Hate Website Obama Told Far Left to Fool Public To Further Cause
At the Far Left anti-Semitic Daily Kos website, Barack Obama told moonbats to pretend to be less radical to further the progressive cause. Via Sweetness and Light: 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.Read the whole thing. Clearly, this man is no moderate. Monday October 20, 2008
Posted by: Iconoclast at 10:25PM CST on October 20, 2008
Obama Voted 'Present' on Mortgage ReformThe only banking 'deregulation' in recent years was that of Fan and Fred.By PETER J. WALLISONIn 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. Since Maurice Asked: An Argument Against Obama's Tax Plan
Posted by: Iconoclast at 10:09PM CST on October 20, 2008
"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" 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. In Defense of "The Rich"
Posted by: Iconoclast at 11:57PM CST on October 19, 2008
So, what do "the rich" pay in federal income taxes? Nothing, right? That, at least, is what most people think. And Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants to raise the top marginal rate for "the rich" -- known in some quarters as "job creators." A recent poll commissioned by Investor's Business Daily asked, in effect, "What share do you think the rich pay?" Their findings? Most people are completely clueless about the amount the rich actually do pay.First, the data. The top 5 percent (those making more than $153,542 -- the group whose taxes Obama seeks to raise) pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes. The rich (aka the top 1 percent of income earners, those making more than $388,806 a year), according to the IRS, pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 1 percent's taxes comprise 17 percent of the federal government's revenue from all sources, including corporate taxes, excise taxes, social insurance and retirement receipts. Now, what do people think the rich pay? The IBD/TIPP poll found that 36 percent of those polled thought the rich contribute 10 percent or less of all federal income taxes. Another 15 percent thought the rich pay between 10 and 20 percent, while another 10 percent thought the rich's share is between 20 and 30 percent. In other words, most people thought the rich pay less -- far less -- than they actually do. Only 12 percent of those polled thought the rich pay more than 40 percent. Let's try this another way. A U.S. News & World Report blogger went to the Democratic National Convention in Denver and conducted an informal poll of 24 DNC delegates. He asked them, "What should 'the rich' pay in income taxes?" Half the respondents said "25 percent"; 25 percent said "20 percent"; 12 percent said "30 percent"; and another 12 percent said "35 percent." The average DNC delegate wanted the rich to pay 25.6 percent, which is lower than what the rich pay now -- both by share of taxes and by tax rate! Thirty percent of American voters pay nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- in federal income taxes. And, not too surprisingly, compared with taxpaying voters, they are more likely to support spending that benefits them. The majority of the 30 percent who don't pay federal income taxes agree with Obama's $65 billion plan to institute taxpayer-funded universal health coverage. But the majority of the 70 percent who pay federal income taxes are opposed to Obama's health care plan. Non-taxpayers support Obama's plans for increased tax deductions for lower-income Americans, along with higher overall tax rates levied against middle- and upper-income households. The majority of non-taxpayers (57 percent) also favor raising the individual income-tax rate for those in the highest bracket from 35 percent to 54 percent. And the majority (59 percent) favors raising Social Security taxes by 4 percent for any individual or business that makes at least $250,000. Obama calls increasing taxes and giving them to the needy a matter of "neighborliness." Vice presidential running mate Joe Biden calls it a matter of "patriotism." Yet when it comes to charitable giving, neither Obama (until recently) nor Biden feels sufficiently neighborly or patriotic to donate as much as does the average American household: 2 percent of their adjusted gross income. Liberal families earn about 6 percent more than conservative families, yet conservative households donate about 30 percent more to charity than do liberal households. And conservatives give more than just to their own churches and other houses of worship. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, give far more money and donate more of their time to nonreligious charitable causes than do liberals -- especially secular liberals. In 2007, President George W. Bush and his wife had an adjusted gross income of $923,807. They paid $221,635 in taxes, and donated $165,660 to charity -- or 18 percent of their income. Vice President and Mrs. Cheney, in 2007, had a taxable income of $3.04 million. And they paid $602,651 in taxes, and donated $166,547 to charity -- or 5.5 percent of their income. Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned between $200,000 and $300,000 a year between 2000 and 2004, and they donated less than 1 percent to charity. When their income soared to $4.2 million in 2007, their charitable contributions went up to 5 percent. Joe and Jill Biden, by contrast, made $319,853 and gave $995 to charity in 2007, or 0.3 percent of their income. And that was during the year Biden was running for president. Over the past 10 years, the Bidens earned $2,450,042 and gave $3,690 to charity -- or 0.1 percent of their income. So let's sum up. The "compassionate" liberals -- at least based on charitable giving -- show less compassion than "hardhearted" conservatives. The rich pay more in income taxes than people think. Voters, clueless about the facts, want the rich to pay still more. Sunday October 12, 2008
Posted by: Iconoclast at 7:19AM CST on October 12, 2008
Obama's Weathermen pals should worry votersBarack Obama's supporters have trivialized his connections to former Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood," Obama told ABC's George Stephanopoulos on April 16. Campaign strategist David Axelrod told CNN Monday that Obama "certainly didn't know the history" of these two barbarians when they hosted a reception for him when he launched his political career. Obama might not have heard of Ayers and Dohrn's brutality from the '60s through the '80s had they merely tossed a rock or two in anger. But these two went much, much farther. In 1970, Ayers encapsulated the Weathermen's worldview: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents." In his 2001 memoir, "Fugitive Days," Ayers brags that he helped blast NYPD headquarters in 1970, the U.S. Capitol in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. Dohrn was an equally stalwart subversive. In July 1969, while John McCain languished in the Hanoi Hilton, Dohrn and five other Weathermen flew to Cuba to conspire with the National Liberation Front, America's North Vietnamese enemies. Dohrn was on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover called her "the most dangerous woman in America." Throughout the 1970s, under Ayers and Dohrn's leadership, the Weathermen blasted the State Department, Gulf Oil's Pittsburgh headquarters, and New York's Queens Courthouse, among at least 16 targets. Thankfully, one particular bomb detonated early. Three Weathermen fatally blew themselves up in March 1970 while building it in a Greenwich Village townhouse. The Weathermen wanted the nail-filled device to explode at New Jersey's Fort Dix Army base during a non-commissioned officers' dance. Soldiers, their spouses, and dates would have been maimed and likely killed. As Ayers said, the bomb would have ripped "through windows and walls and, yes, people too." No wonder Obama has been so evasive about his ties to Ayers and Dohrn. His relationship with these extreme Leftists goes far beyond waving at some folks who live nearby. It defies belief that Obama never learned that Ayers and Dohrn hated the USA and loved TNT. Obama chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers inaugurated. They jointly attended at least seven of that charity's top-level oversight meetings between March 1995 and September 1997. They jointly met a dozen times as board members of Chicago's Woods Fund between December 1999 and December 2002. They appeared together on two academic panels in 1997 and 2002. Obama concisely reviewed one of Ayers' books in the Chicago Tribune. Ayers and Dohrn invited Windy City liberals into their living room to meet Obama when he began his 1995 State Senate run. Ayers donated $200 to re-elect Obama in 2001. These considerable ties might be irrelevant if Ayers and Dohrn regretted their actions. But they are far from remorseful. "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough," Ayers said in an interview published Sept. 11, 2001 -- while Obama knew Ayers. That August, Ayers posed for a Chicago Magazine photo in which he stomped on an American flag crumpled in the dirt. Headline: "No regrets." "We'd do it again," Dohrn told ABC in 1998. "I wish that we had done more. I wish we had been more militant." If these facts are news to Obama, he must be the most oblivious man on Chicago's South Side. But if he knew about Ayers and Dohrn's background, he is being untruthful about it. At the very least, Obama showed dreadful judgment by closely and repeatedly associating with these violent traitors. Obama today calls Ayers' behavior "detestable acts." But what did Ayers and Dohrn see in Obama? What inspired these unrepentant, hard-Left bomb throwers to hand the chairmanship of Ayers' foundation and then share their home and friends with the charismatic then-35-year-old whose current 95.5 percent Left-wing vote record made him The National Journal's "Most Liberal Senator In 2007?" Friday October 10, 2008
Posted by: Iconoclast at 7:00AM CST on October 10, 2008
![]() Return to the Article October 10, 2008
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."
Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the
Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election
day, just a few weeks from now.
Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.
The current
financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a
substantial lead over John McCain— which is astonishing in view of
which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this
crisis.
It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?
Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years— including the present year— denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.
It was
Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for
years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency
to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
It was
liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed
for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime
mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.
Alan
Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the
Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary
of the Treasury, five years ago.
Yet, today,
what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing
ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial
crisis. Do facts matter?
We also
hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show
that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in
general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the
Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then
Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on
who was getting loans and who wasn't.
Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?
Then
there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the
people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie
Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.
Who in
Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine
Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom
referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him
to the same standard as white CEOs.
Even after
he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted
this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!
The
Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an
adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington
Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that
Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises
is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead.
The tie
between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has
been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial
contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.
But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media.
Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.
The media
alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans,
for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack.
They deserve to lose.
But the
country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky
know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the
advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years
allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed
their hatred of America.
Who is Obama's friend and patron William Ayers? This article, published in the New York Times on September 11th, 2001 tells us a little about the kind of person Obama chooses to surround himself with.
''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago. The long curly locks in his Wanted poster are shorn, though he wears earrings. He still has tattooed on his neck the rainbow-and-lightning Weathermen logo that appeared on letters taking responsibility for bombings. And he still has the ebullient, ingratiating manner, the apparently intense interest in other people, that made him a charismatic figure in the radical student movement.
Now he has written a book, ''Fugitive Days'' (Beacon Press, September). Mr. Ayers, who is 56, calls it a memoir, somewhat coyly perhaps, since he also says some of it is fiction. He writes that he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972. But Mr. Ayers also seems to want to have it both ways, taking responsibility for daring acts in his youth, then deflecting it.
''Is this, then, the truth?,'' he writes. ''Not exactly. Although it feels entirely honest to me.''
But why would someone want to read a memoir parts of which are admittedly not true? Mr. Ayers was asked.
''Obviously, the point is it's a reflection on memory,'' he answered. ''It's true as I remember it.''
Mr. Ayers is probably safe from prosecution anyway. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said there was a five-year statute of limitations on Federal crimes except in cases of murder or when a person has been indicted.
Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ''Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at,'' is today distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. And he says he doesn't actually remember suggesting that rich people be killed or that people kill their parents, but ''it's been quoted so many times I'm beginning to think I did,'' he said. ''It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.''
He went underground in 1970, after his girlfriend, Diana Oughton, and two other people were killed when bombs they were making exploded in a Greenwich Village town house. With him in the Weather Underground was Bernardine Dohrn, who was put on the F.B.I.'s 10 Most Wanted List. J. Edgar Hoover called her ''the most dangerous woman in America'' and ''la Pasionara of the Lunatic Left.'' Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn later married.
In his book Mr. Ayers describes the Weathermen descending into a ''whirlpool of violence.''
''Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,'' he writes. But then comes a disclaimer: ''Even though I didn't actually bomb the Pentagon -- we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it.'' He goes on to provide details about the manufacture of the bomb and how a woman he calls Anna placed the bomb in a restroom. No one was killed or injured, though damage was extensive.
Between 1970 and 1974 the Weathermen took responsibility for 12 bombings, Mr. Ayers writes, and also helped spring Timothy Leary (sentenced on marijuana charges) from jail.
Today, Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn, 59, who is director of the Legal Clinic's Children and Family Justice Center of Northwestern University, seem like typical baby boomers, caring for aging parents, suffering the empty-nest syndrome. Their son, Malik, 21, is at the University of California, San Diego; Zayd, 24, teaches at Boston University. They have also brought up Chesa Boudin, 21, the son of David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin, who are serving prison terms for a 1981 robbery of a Brinks truck in Rockland County, N.Y., that left four people dead. Last month, Ms. Boudin's application for parole was rejected.
So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said.
''I don't think you can understand a single thing we did without understanding the violence of the Vietnam War,'' he said, and the fact that ''the enduring scar of racism was fully in flower.'' Mr. Ayers pointed to Bob Kerrey, former Democratic Senator from Nebraska, who has admitted leading a raid in 1969 in which Vietnamese women and children were killed. ''He committed an act of terrorism,'' Mr. Ayers said. ''I didn't kill innocent people.''
Mr. Ayers has always been known as a ''rich kid radical.'' His father, Thomas, now 86, was chairman and chief executive officer of Commonwealth Edison of Chicago, chairman of Northwestern University and of the Chicago Symphony. When someone mentions his father's prominence, Mr. Ayers is quick to say that his father did not become wealthy until the son was a teenager. He says that he got some of his interest in social activism from his father. He notes that his father promoted racial equality in Chicago and was acceptable as a mediator to Mayor Richard Daley and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1966 when King marched in Cicero, Ill., to protest housing segregation.
All in all, Mr. Ayers had ''a golden childhood,'' he said, though he did have a love affair with explosives. On July 4, he writes, ''my brothers and I loved everything about the wild displays of noise and color, the flares, the surprising candle bombs, but we trembled mostly for the Big Ones, the loud concussions.''
The love affair seems to have continued into adulthood. Even today, he finds ''a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance,'' he writes.
He attended Lake Forest Academy in Lake Forest, Ill., then the University of Michigan but dropped out to join Students for a Democratic Society.
In 1967 he met Ms. Dohrn in Ann Arbor, Mich. She had a law degree from the University of Chicago and was a magnetic speaker who often wore thigh-high boots and miniskirts. In 1969, after the Manson family murders in Beverly Hills, Ms. Dohrn told an S.D.S. audience: ''Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim's stomach.''
In Chicago recently, Ms. Dohrn said of her remarks: ''It was a joke. We were mocking violence in America. Even in my most inflamed moment I never supported a racist mass murderer.''
Ms. Dohrn, Mr. Ayers and others eventually broke with S.D.S. to form the more radical Weathermen, and in 1969 Ms. Dohrn was arrested and charged with resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer during the Days of Rage protests against the trial of the Chicago Eight -- antiwar militants accused of conspiracy to incite riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
In 1970 came the town house explosion in Greenwich Village. Ms. Dohrn failed to appear in court in the Days of Rage case, and she and Mr. Ayers went underground, though there were no charges against Mr. Ayers. Later that spring the couple were indicted along with others in Federal Court for crossing state lines to incite a riot during the Days of Rage, and following that for ''conspiracy to bomb police stations and government buildings.'' Those charges were dropped in 1974 because of prosecutorial misconduct, including illegal surveillance.
During his fugitive years, Mr. Ayers said, he lived in 15 states, taking names of dead babies in cemeteries who were born in the same year as he. He describes the typical safe house: there were usually books by Malcolm X and Ho Chi Minh, and Che Guevara's picture in the bedroom; fermented Vietnamese fish sauce in the refrigerator, and live sourdough starter donated by a Native American that was reputed to have passed from hand to hand over a century.
He also writes about the Weathermen's sexual experimentation as they tried to ''smash monogamy.'' The Weathermen were ''an army of lovers,'' he says, and describes having had different sexual partners, including his best male friend.
''Fugitive Days'' does have moments of self-mockery, for instance when Mr. Ayers describes watching ''Underground,'' Emile De Antonio's 1976 documentary about the Weathermen. He was ''embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way,'' he writes. ''The rigidity and the narcissism.''
In the mid-1970's the Weathermen began quarreling. One faction, including Ms. Boudin, wanted to join the Black Liberation Army. Others, including Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers, favored surrendering. Ms. Boudin and Ms. Dohrn had had an intense friendship but broke apart. Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn were purged from the group.
Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers had a son, Zayd, in 1977. After the birth of Malik, in 1980, they decided to surface. Ms. Dohrn pleaded guilty to the original Days of Rage charge, received three years probation and was fined $1,500. The Federal charges against Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn had already been dropped.
Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn tried to persuade Ms. Boudin to surrender because she was pregnant. But she refused, and went on to participate in the Brink's robbery. When she was arrested, Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers volunteered to care for Chesa, then 14 months old, and became his legal guardians.
A few months later Ms. Dohrn was called to testify about the robbery. Ms. Dohrn had not seen Ms. Boudin for a year, she said, and knew nothing of it. Ms. Dohrn was asked to give a handwriting sample, and refused, she said, because the F.B.I. already had one in its possession. ''I felt grand juries were illegal and coercive,'' she said. For refusing to testify, she was jailed for seven months, and she and Mr. Ayers married during a furlough.
Once again, Chesa was without a mother. ''It was one of the hardest things I did,'' said Ms. Dohrn of going to jail.
In the interview, Mr. Ayers called Chesa ''a very damaged kid.'' ''He had real serious emotional problems,'' he said. But after extensive therapy, ''became a brilliant and wonderful human being.'' .
After the couple surfaced, Ms. Dohrn tried to practice law, taking the bar exam in New York. But she was turned down by the Bar Association's character committee because of her political activities.
Ms. Dohrn said she was aware of the contradictions between her radical past and the comforts of her present existence. ''This is where we raised our kids and are taking care of our aging parents,'' she said. ''We could live much more simply, and well we might.''
And as for settling into marriage after efforts to smash monogamy, Ms. Dohrn said, ''You're always trying to balance your understanding of who you are and what you need, and your longing and imaginings of freedom.''
''Happily for me, Billy keeps me laughing, he keeps me growing,'' she said.
Mr. Ayers said he had some of the same conflicts about marriage. ''We have to learn how to be committed,'' he said, ''and hold out the possibility of endless reinventions.''
As Mr. Ayers mellows into middle age, he finds himself thinking about truth and reconciliation, he said. He would like to see a Truth and Reconciliation Commission about Vietnam, he said, like South Africa's. He can imagine Mr. Kerrey and Ms. Boudin taking part.
And if there were another Vietnam, he is asked, would he participate again in the Weathermen bombings?
By way of an answer, Mr. Ayers quoted from ''The Cure at Troy,'' Seamus Heaney's retelling of Sophocles' ''Philoctetes:'' '' 'Human beings suffer,/ They torture one another./ They get hurt and get hard.' ''
He continued to recite:
History says, Don't hope
On this side of the grave.
But then, once in a lifetime
The longed-for tidal wave
Of justice can rise up
And hope and history rhyme.
Thinking back on his life , Mr. Ayers said, ''I was a child of privilege and I woke up to a world on fire. And hope and history rhymed.''
This is the same nutcase who thinks her own government - our own soldiers - perpetrated 9/11. This is the same nutcase that Racine Unified seems to think makes an appropriate guest speaker - a lunatic fringe candidate spewing hate-filled conspiracy theories.
McKinney Accuses Government of Slaughtering Prisoners, Dumping Bodies During Katrina
FOXNews.com
Thursday, October 02, 2008
File Photo: Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney (AP Photo)
Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney, known for her provocative statements when she was a congresswoman from Georgia, accused the Department of Defense this week of using Hurricane Katrina to cover up the slaughter of 5,000 prisoners.
At a news conference in Oakland, Calif., on Sunday, McKinney claimed the Pentagon authorized the execution of the prisoners with one bullet to the head three years ago and then dumped their bodies in a Louisiana swamp.
McKinney said she heard the story from the mother of a National Guard soldier who said her son was assigned to help dispose of the bodies.
"And these were mostly males and her son was afraid to talk because he had signed a silence agreement," McKinney told the crowd. "So he only complained to his mother. But the data was entered into a Pentagon computer."
McKinney said she verified the story from "insiders" who wanted to remain anonymous.
"I suspect that these are prisoners. ... So this investigation of the whole prison industrial complex is extremely important and it should not end with just a question of the nature of prisons in our country," she said to a captivated audience. "These 5,000 souls also need some justice too."
A Defense Department spokesman dismissed McKinney's accusation.
"The claim is outrageous on the very face of it and doesn't merit any further consideration," said Lt. Col. Les' Melnyk. "It would be inconceivable that 5,000 people would go missing in America without anyone noticing it prior to this."
Psychologists and psychology professors contacted by FOXNews.com wouldn't comment on McKinney's mental condition, but they expressed shock at her assertion.
"Wow! What a conspiracy theory," one professor exclaimed before declining comment and hanging up the phone.
Dr. Celia Ward, a clinical psychologist in Washington, D.C., said she wouldn't speculate on McKinney's state of mind because McKinney heard the story from someone else.
"This sounds like a game of telephone," Ward said, explaining how a rumor can change as it passes from one person to another. "But to take something that has so many questions attached to it and to treat a rumor as fact is the basis for mass distortion. It's really a good example of Swift-boating."
Ward said McKinney could have easily verified the story by checking prison records.
"This is the kind of rumor that warrants fact-checking," she said.
McKinney's presidential campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
A member of the House for 12 years until 2007, McKinney is no stranger to controversy. Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, she suggested that President Bush knew about the plot in advance but failed to warn Americans because of his father's business interests. Some political analysts say that statement contributed to her defeat in 2002.
After McKinney was re-elected in 2004, she tried to impeach Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on charges that they lied and manipulated intelligence to justify the war in Iraq.
McKinney hit a career low point in 2006 when she was accused of striking a Capitol Police officer who grabbed her after she passed a security checkpoint without wearing a congressional lapel pin. She later apologized for the incident. She was defeated in a Democratic primary later that year and left the Democratic Party in 2007. She was nominated in July to run for president on the Green Party ticket. There are 245 other Green Party candidates running for office this fall.
Click here to watch Cynthia McKinney charge that 5,000 people were executed by the Pentagon
You should watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIrzlFYaSks
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
"Republicans were in control of the Congress from 1995 until 2006. They got a lot through -- they got the Iraq war through; they got the Patriot Act through; they got tax cuts for the wealthy, a prescription drug program ..... But in twelve years, they never got a bill through the Congress to tighten up the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.
"I became chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction in February of 2007. Within two months, the committee had passed a bill that did all of the increased regulation that the Bush Administration ever wanted. I was a supporter of the regulation, but the Bush Administration couldn't get it through Congress. When the Democrats took over Congress, we passed exactly that regulation, and while the Senate didn't do it until July of this year, here's the record: Twelve years of Republican control, no legislation to increase the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Nineteen months of the Democrats, and we have done it."
"The recklessness of government is a primary culprit here. For years, Congress has been pushing banks to make risky, subprime loans. Using the authority of the Community Reinvestment Act, the big push for subprime mortgages began in earnest during the Clinton years. Banks that didn't play ball were subject to serious fines and lawsuits, and regulatory obstacles were placed in their way. While expanding access to the American Dream is a worthy goal, by blindly pursuing that goal and allowing the end to justify any means, we put millions of Americans at financial risk."
"The truth is that the Republicans failed in every year of their 12-year hold on Congress to create a strong, independent regulator to oversee Fannie and Freddie. And despite their rhetoric, the Bush administration also failed to enact strong regulation in the first seven years of its tenure."
"Yes, I did want to help affordable housing, but I also wanted to prevent bad loans."
"This fund siphons off a portion of Fannie and Freddie profits -- as much as $500 million a year each -- to a fund that politicians can then disburse to their favorite special interests."




