Wednesday, October 8, 2008



Another link between Obama and terrorists

Forget about his association with Bill Ayers, how about his cousin Raila Odinga, the Muslim terrorist who commits genocide in Kenya every day

And who is Raila Odinga? He is the Kenyan who has slaughtered thousands. His cousin, Barack Obama, has supported him in his efforts.








Obama and the Attempt to Destroy the Second Amendment

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama must demonstrate executive experience, but he remains strangely silent about his eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization. He has one obvious reason: during his time as director, Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.

There is another, less known, reason. During Obama's tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama's directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun "grassroots" organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship. The plan's objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Joyce's directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.

In 1999, midway through Obama's tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.

In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an "outsider" serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today's Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.

Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him to write for the review, later explaining that "sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium." Prof. James Lindgren, a former Chicago-Kent faculty member, remembers that when Barnett sought an explanation he "was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time." Joyce had bought a veto power over the review's content.

Joyce Foundation apparently believed it held this power over the entire university. Glenn Reynolds later recalled that when he and two other professors were scheduled to discuss the Second Amendment on campus, Joyce's staffers "objected strenuously" to their being allowed to speak, protesting that Joyce Foundation was being cheated by an "`agenda of balance' that was inconsistent with the Symposium's purpose." Joyce next bought up an issue of Fordham Law Review.

The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times. Then, in 2001, a federal Court of Appeals in Texas determined that the Second Amendment was an individual right.

The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the "Second Amendment Research Center" as a thinktank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board's December 2002 meeting, Obama's last function as a Joyce director. In reporting the grant, the OSU magazine Making History made clear that the purpose was to influence a future Supreme Court case:
"The effort is timely: a series of test cases - based on a new wave of scholarship, a recent decision by a federal Court of Appeals in Texas, and a revised Justice Department policy-are working their way through the courts. The litigants challenge the courts' traditional reading of the Second Amendment as a protection of the states' right to organize militia, asserting that the Amendment confers a much broader right for individuals to own guns. The United States Supreme Court is likely to resolve the debate within the next three to five years."

The Center proceeded to generate articles denying the individual right to arms. The OSU connection also gave Joyce an academic money laundry. When it decided to buy an issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review, it had a cover. Joyce handed OSU $125,000 for that purpose; all the law review editors knew was that OSU's Foundation granted them that breathtaking sum, and a helpful Prof. Cornell volunteered to organize the issue. (The review was later sufficiently embarassed to publish an open letter on the affair).

The Joyce directorate's plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.

Having lost that fight, Obama now claims he always held the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, and that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms." But as a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation's attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms.

Voters who value the Constitution should ask whether someone who was party to that plan should be nominating future Supreme Court justices.

Source




A Slow Slide Into Fascism?

The cost of food had risen dramatically, Government had jumped in to save heavy industry. The cost of common goods had risen beyond the means of many. Fuel was hard to come by. Germany 1932? Nope, the U.S. today.

Fascism is described as the cooperation and blending of business and government. Friday, we inched closer to that goal with the so-called "Bailout." Now, government can purchase businesses by bying their bad debt or by buying the stock. 700 Billion dollars have been pledged to this effort, and an additional 25 billion to the automakers. And, sad to say, both Democrats who likely danced with glee and Republicans which should have known better participated in this catastrophe.

Well, screw them both. If it weren't for Sarahcuda I'd likely not vote this year, she's the one bright hope for conservative values and even she has a few quirks. But at least she's not Obama. Now there it a proto-fascist for you! Don't believe me? Then take a gander at these two photographs. See any similarities?



It would appear that Mr. Obama has learned some poses from the master of poses himself!

Ridicule? Of course I'm ridiculing Obama.
Dictators, tyrants, and those who aspire to seize and keep power by intimidation and force can tolerate no public ridicule. They generally harbor grandiose self-images with little bearing on how people really think of them. They require a controlled political environment, reinforced by sycophants and toadies, to preserve an impenetrable image.["Ridicule as a Weapon" by J. Michael Waller]

And if you think I'm kidding about the slide into fascism? Take a gander at this little bit of fascistic film making:



Source





About That Middle-Class Tax Cut . . .

Remember the last time a charismatic Democrat made such a promise?

"It's like deja vu all over again." As John McCain heads into the second round of presidential debates tonight, Yogi Berra's words come to mind. Mr. McCain could do worse than remind the middle class what happened to them the last time a charismatic Democratic candidate promised them a tax cut. While he's at it, he might also remind them how much more expensive it will be to send Barack Obama to the White House at a time when his fellow Democrats will have a majority in both houses of Congress.

The Clinton years hold some good lessons on both these scores. Back when Mr. Clinton was campaigning for president in 1992, he made a pretty direct pitch: Raise taxes on people making more than $200,000, and use those revenues to fund tax relief for the "forgotten middle class."

In an October presidential debate, then-Gov. Clinton laid out the marginal-rate increase he wanted and some of his plans for the revenue that would be brought in. He followed with a pledge: "Now, I'll tell you this," he said. "I will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs. If the money does not come in there to pay for these programs, we will cut other government spending, or we will slow down the phase-in of the programs."

Mr. Clinton, of course, won that election. And as the inauguration approached, he began backtracking from his promise. At a Jan. 14, 1993, press conference in New Hampshire, he claimed that it was the media that had played up a middle-class tax cut, not him. A month later, he announced his actual plan before a joint session of Congress.

On page one of the New York Times, the paper described the fate of the middle-class tax cut this way: "Families earning as little as $20,000 a year -- members of the 'forgotten middle class' whose taxes he promised during his campaign to cut -- will also be asked to send more dollars to Washington under the President's plan."

In some ways, we are today reliving the campaign of 1992. As in 1992, the Democrat is promising a middle-class tax cut. As in 1992, the Democrat is hammering the Republican as a tool of the rich. And as in 1992, the Republican doesn't seem to have an answer.

Give Sen. Obama his due. His patter is direct and easy to understand. ("I will cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95% of all workers and their families," "if you make under $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes go up one dime.") And his language about putting working families first is hard to attack as class warfare when his opponent is blaming our financial woes on Wall Street's greed.

But this doesn't have to be 1992 all over again. Not, at least, if Mr. McCain begins to direct his fire as much against the Democratic establishment on Capitol Hill as against Mr. Obama. For one thing, Congress is even less popular than the president. For another, the need for a Republican check on a Democratic Washington is a potent argument.

That was one of the lessons from the Clinton years. For the first two years of his first term -- when Democrats controlled Congress -- Mr. Clinton was a different president. With Democrats in control of Washington, the middle-class tax cut vanished, a massive tax hike was approved, and the political debate centered around HillaryCare.

Then came 1994, the "Contract with America" -- and a reform-minded Republican Congress. Robert L. Bartley, the late great editor of this newspaper, liked to note the bracing effect the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress had on the market -- and the Democratic president. After a few skirmishes, President Clinton would go on to embrace welfare reform, sign a cut in the capital gains tax, and even declare that "the era of Big Government is over."

Barring divine intervention, a President Obama would not have a Republican Congress to worry about. Instead, he would be working with a Democratic speaker of the House who loaded billions in pork onto a bill meant to fund our troops; with a Democratic Senate majority leader who promised to change the way Congress spent but fought earmark reform; and with committee leaders such as Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, who did so much to bring us the financial implosion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In this kind of Washington, the American taxpayer could use a Gary Cooper: the "High Noon" lawman willing to stand up for us when everyone else is ducking for cover. Marshal McCain, anyone?

Source







Obama's Father Figure

It is refreshing to see Sarah Palin going after Obama's radical, America-hating intimates. This is Obama's most vulnerable point, because it betrays more clearly than anything else his true attitude toward his country.

It is truly mind-boggling that so far McCain has not pressed this point. It almost seems as if he were engaged in a form of self-imposed political correctness whereby he has strenuously avoided pointing out the most embarrassing and damaging aspects of his opponent's background and candidacy.
I have put together a little video to remind us of the twenty-year relationship that Obama had with Jeremiah Wright. This friendship is an outrage and an offense to every America-loving citizen. Obama must answer for this.



Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . For readers in China or for when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

1 comment:

Toaf said...

Your slanderous remarks about Raila Odinga are nothing but sick propaganda. A genocidal Islamist? Get a grip!

As you're a former academic I would have thought that you would be able to differentiate between propaganda and fact, rather than simply parroting the propaganda. Clearly not.

Like that sick man, Corsi, you are happy to perpetuate cycles of hatred in a country recovering from violence just so you can score cheap, nasty, political points on behalf of a US political party. Take a look at yourself, John.