Obama Watch (2)

2008-11-05T00:19:00.001+11:30

FINIS

As I write this in the early morning of the 5th. in Australia, Americans are now voting in the Presidential election. So there does not seem to be a lot of point in saying anything further here about Dumbama. Whatever could be said and done to stop America falling into the hands of an ignoramus has been said and done. The more I have seen of Obama, the more I have become convinced that his academic qualifications are just bits of affirmative action paper. The man knows nothing and has no ideas. All he has to say is hoary old Leftist boilerplate and largely content-free generalities.

So the die is cast and there will be no more posts here after today. This has been a campaign blog only. If Obama is more than a footnote in history tomorrow, his words and deeds will be discussed on my general political blog: DISSECTING LEFTISM.

Just as a parting shot, however, a few last pieces of commentary below:

Economic Illiteracy Is Not the Change We Need

Barack Obama is campaigning for president under the slogan "Change We Need." Unfortunately, many of his economic policy proposals would move us in exactly the wrong direction. As of this writing it appears that Senator Obama will be the next president of the United States. We can move forward by looking at the implications of some of his economic policy proposals.

Consider first the issue of trade. One of the fundamental principles of economics is that there are gains from exchange. During the third presidential debate, Senator Obama said that he believes in free trade but then proposed a slate of caveats and provisos that would undermine the principles of free trade. On the surface, environmental protection and labor standards sound noble, but they actually harm the desperately poor by artificially raising the cost of employing them and effectively legislating them out of the international marketplace. Restrictions on trade provide a short-run windfall for unionized American workers-a powerful Obama constituency-but this windfall comes at the expense of other Americans who have to pay higher prices and at the expense of poor people around the world who are then barred from the market.

Senator Obama has also proposed trying "to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers." However, it isn't clear how NAFTA currently works against American workers, and trying to renegotiate agreements with important trading partners sets a dangerous precedent. The United States risks alienating the international community and imperiling future progress toward free trade.

Second, Senator Obama wants to create millions of new jobs via various environmental schemes. It is important to remember, though, that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The resources to create all these jobs must come from somewhere, and if the government is to get the resources to create these jobs, they must redirect them from other lines of employment. Where government intervention is involved, jobs created in one sector are jobs destroyed in another.

Third, Senator Obama wishes to make it easier for workers to unionize. This will raise some incomes for some workers in the short run, but these increases come at the expense of lower wages for other workers, reductions in investment, and reductions in the international competitiveness of the firms that are unionized. The near-failures of the Detroit automakers illustrate how union-friendly policies allowed special interests to bleed producers dry. In the late twentieth century, the government sowed the seeds of financial and social prodigality. Today, we're reaping what was sown.

Finally, Senator Obama proposes increasing the minimum wage. This runs counter to economic theory and mountains of evidence showing that minimum wages hurt exactly the people they are supposed to help. Minimum wages reduce the number of workers businesses wish to hire and legislate some of them out of the labor market. If we wish to truly help the poor, we should eliminate the minimum wage, not increase it.

Both Senator Obama and Senator McCain have offered numerous proposals that are almost audacious in their economic illiteracy. As president, Senator Obama would do well to reexamine the economics of the changes he is proposing. Especially in a turbulent economy, many of his proposals exemplify exactly the kind of change we don't need.

Source

Media Are Big Losers in Election 2008

In one of the worst editorial decisions of this entire campaign, MSNBC, the cable news arm of NBC, used Olbermann and Matthews to anchor the Democratic and Republican conventions. The verdict is in: the mainstream media were overwhelmingly in the tank for Barack Obama, and did their part to make sure he will be elected. Their polls predict an Obama victory, but the people have a chance to vote against media bias on Election Day.

Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger calls Obama a "con-man" who intends on buying the election with untraceable and possibly illegal contributions or stealing it through the efforts of ACORN if necessary. If this is the case, then it will be up to John McCain to decide what to do?concede or fight. The outcome could fall into the hands of lawyers for both sides, and it could be weeks or even months till we know for sure.

The evidence of bias in favor of Barack Obama continues to pour in. In the last couple of weeks came studies from the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), neither of which is considered in any way to have conservative leanings. In the former study, they found that, based on coverage from 48 news outlets between the end of the two party's conventions and the end of the debates, 57% of the stories on McCain were negative, while only 14% were considered positive, while for Obama, those figures were 29% negative and 36% positive.

Surveys show that, by a margin of seven to one, the public thinks that most journalists want Obama to win. Even Democrats, by a six-to-one margin, believe the same. They also saw the bias in favor of Obama during the Democratic primaries and caucuses. The liberal bias cannot be denied.

The CMPA reported their findings last week: "Based on a scientific content analysis of 979 election news stories with 33 hours 40 minutes airtime that appeared on the ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX evening newscasts (the first half hour of Fox News Channel's "Special Report") from August 23 to October 24," they determined that "On the broadcast network newscasts, evaluations of Barack Obama and Joe Biden have been over twice as favorable as evaluations of John McCain and Sarah Palin-65% positive versus 35% negative for the Democratic ticket compared to 31% positive versus 69% negative evaluations of the Republican ticket."

They go on to reveal that Fox's (the Fox News Channel) premier news show, Brit Hume's "Special Report," is both more balanced and more negative than the broadcast network shows. McCain and Palin combined have received 39% favorable and 61% unfavorable comments on Brit Hume's show, compared to 28% favorable and 72% unfavorable comments about Obama and Biden.

What is particularly significant about these findings is that though the size of their audiences are way down from years back, the three broadcast network news shows are seen by 25 - 30 million viewers a night, while even the highest rated cable news show, "The O'Reilly Factor" averages in the 2 - 3 million range per night. So the power of the old media persists.

The Big Picture

In addition, the CMPA findings do not include CNN or MSNBC, the latter of which has been a virtual infomercial for Obama every night throughout its prime time schedule, repeated throughout the late-night blocks as well. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are clear partisan supporters of Obama, and rarely provide a balanced picture on matters regarding Obama or McCain. In fact, much of the time is spent venomously attacking President Bush, McCain, Sarah Palin, or any other number of Republicans and conservatives. Matthews, to his credit, does invite some people on his show to provide balance. What a concept!

In one of the worst editorial decisions of this entire campaign, MSNBC, the cable news arm of NBC, used Olbermann and Matthews to anchor the Democratic and Republican conventions. Phil Griffin, the MSNBC president, defended it by saying that they "put on different hats. I think the audience gets it. . . . I see zero problem." But just days after the end of the Republican convention, and after much criticism even from inside the more staid NBC offices, Griffin relented and said the two of them would no longer anchor live political events. But they were free to continue their partisan hackery on their respective programs.

Many have questioned Olbermann's emotional stability, especially during his extended rants that he calls "special commentaries." NBC's "Saturday Night Live" show even felt compelled to make fun of him last Saturday. The funny bit captured Olbermann's dishonesty, political bias, sense of self-importance and emotional fragility. What's most amazing, it came come from his own NBC family and noted Hollywood liberal Ben Affleck, who played Olbermann. In case you missed it, here it is.

Double Standard

Speaking of the popular culture, there has been a relentless attack on McCain and Palin, and Bush. Between Comedy Central's "Daily Show" and "Colbert Report," and shows like "The View," "Ellen," and even many prime time entertainment shows, like Tina Fey's "30 Rock," the cumulative battering and ridiculing of the Republican ticket certainly has to have an impact on some impressionable people, most of them young potential voters.

Except for "American Carol," a film making fun of the far left and especially Michael Moore, Hollywood is careful not to do anything to help the Republicans. Consider the recent Warner Brothers decision to not release the new DVD version of the 1988 film, "Hanoi Hilton," because it includes as an extra feature an interview with Sen. McCain, who was, as is well known, tortured as a POW in Vietnam over much of his five-and-a-half years in captivity. After initially saying last month that their reason for delaying the release was to avoid violating any campaign finance laws, Warner later changed the rationale to, "It's just us trying to be cautious and not affect the election one way or the other."

But this is the same Time Warner that brings Bill Maher's show "Real Time with Bill Maher" on its HBO network for the last two and a half months leading up to the election to engage in a weekly hate-fest aimed again, at Bush, McCain, and Palin. And it is repeated many times over the week. And the same HBO has been running the HBO-produced film "Recount," which premiered earlier this year and won several Emmys in September, and has re-aired a minimum of 20 times over the past couple of months. "Recount" offers a version of history that strongly suggests, with virtually all the good guys being the Democrats, that Al Gore had the presidency stolen from him in 2000. It is apparently just a coincidence that it's running now.

Another notable figure has just added his voice to the many who experience the media's bias in favor of Obama. Harold Evans was the editor of the Sunday Times (London) for 14 years, which he left over editorial differences with Rupert Murdoch, and as a naturalized American citizen, has been the editorial director of U.S. News and World Report, the New York Daily News, and Atlantic Monthly magazine, as well as the head of Random House publishing. He is also the husband of Tina Brown, formerly the editor of Vanity Fair magazine.

In a piece he wrote for the UK Guardian, he states that "In this 2008 race, it's the American media that have voted very early and often. They long ago elected the star graduate of Chicago's Democratic machine, Barack Obama."

Evans cites a laundry list of complaints against the media: "All the mainstream national outlets were extraordinarily slow to check Obama's background," he writes. "And until it became inescapable because of a video rant, they wouldn't investigate the Reverend Jeremiah Wright connection for fear of being accused of racism. They wouldn't explore Obama's dealing with the corrupt, now convicted, Chicago businessman Tony Rezko. They haven't investigated Obama's pledge to get rid of the secret ballot in trade union affairs. After years of inveighing against `money in politics,' they've tolerated his breach of the pledge to restrict himself to public financing as McCain has done (to his cost). Now the L.A. Times refuses to release a possibly compromising video, which shows Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet, saying its promises to its source prevent it from doing so."

Regarding that L.A. Times story about the suppressed video, the question is how close of a relationship did Obama have with Khalidi, and does it matter. After all, as Keith Olbermann and others have pointed out, didn't John McCain have some connection with an organization that gave more money to Khalidi's group than did any of Obama's foundations? The answer to that is yes, but it is not the same kind of relationship.

The International Republican Institute (IRI) gave nearly a half million dollars to "the Center for Palestinian Research and Studies (CPRS) for polling in the West Bank/Gaza." Their full statement of explanation can be found here, and says in essence that this was the only organization qualified and in a position to do polling in the West Bank and Gaza during the so-called Oslo peace process in the 1990's, and they cleared doing so with Israel, while not doing background checks on individuals involved with the group.

While there was no evidence of a personal or professional relationship between Khalidi and McCain, there was between Obama and Khalidi. This makes all the difference in the world.

The Pattern

The problem for Obama is that this was just one part of a pattern of relationships that Obama had over a number of years that shed light on his mindset and world view. In this youtube video, a segment from a Sean Hannity TV show, the links among Obama, Khalidi and unrepentant terrorist William Ayers are shown. More detail is provided in an article by Daniel Pipes of the Hoover Institution, who identifies and documents several close associations between Obama and various Islamists with ties to the terrorist organization Hamas, as well as people associated with Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.

More here

Obama-Farrakhan Ties Are Close, Ex-Farrakhan Aide Says

A former top deputy to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan tells Newsmax that Barack Obama's ties to the black nationalist movement in Chicago run deep, and that for many years the two men have had "an open line between them" to discuss policy and strategy, either directly or through intermediaries. "Remember that for years, if you were a politician in Chicago, you had to have some type of relationship with Louis Farrakhan. You had to. If you didn't, you would be ostracized out of black Chicago," said Dr. Vibert White Jr., who spent most of his adult life as a member and ultimately top officer of the Nation of Islam. White broke with the group in 1995 and is now a professor of African-American history at the University of Central Florida in Orlando.

White said Obama was "part of the Chicago scene" where Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. and radicals would go to each other's events and support each other's causes. "Even though Chicago is the third-largest city in the country, within the black community, the political and militant nationalist community is very small. So it wouldn't be uncommon for [Obama and Farrakhan] to show up at events together, or at least be there and communicate with each other," White told Newsmax.

The Anti-Defamation League has denounced Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam as a "hate group." Farrakhan has called Jews "bloodsuckers," "satanic" and accused them of running the slave trade. He has labeled gays as "degenerates." In a 2006 speech, the ADL again condemned Farrakhan when he said: "These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood that is seeding the American people and the people of the world and bringing you down in moral strength. . It's the wicked Jews the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality. It's wicked Jews, false Jews that make it a crime for you to preach the word of God, then they call you homophobic!"

Obama was careful to "denounce" Farrakhan's comments - but not the man -- during the Democratic primary season earlier this year, but only after Hillary Clinton called him out for benefiting from Farrakhan's support. Farrakhan endorsed Obama in a videotaped speech to his followers at Mosque Miryam in Chicago in February. "You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth," Farrakhan said. He told the crowd that Obama was the new "messiah."

Once the news media and the Clinton campaign got hold of those comments from Farrakhan, demands mounted from all sides that Obama "renounce" Farrakhan. But as he has done repeatedly throughout this campaign, Obama was careful to parse his words. "You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments," he said during one appearance on "Meet the Press." "I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible."

Obama hastened to point out that Farrakhan had been praising him as "an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we're not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan."

But Obama, once again, was less than candid. In 1995, according to a profile of Obama that appeared in the Chicago Reader newspaper, Obama "took time off from attending campaign coffees to attend October's Million Man March in Washington, D.C." At the time, Obama was running for the Illinois Senate from Chicago's South Side, a seat he won after getting surrogates to challenge the signatures on nominating petitions for his chief rival, the incumbent Alice Palmer.

The march, which fell far short of attracting the million men it advertised, was organized by Farrakhan and by Obama's then-pastor, the anti-white black nationalist Wright. Obama spoke at length with the Chicago Reader upon his return from the Million Man March. "What I saw was a powerful demonstration of an impulse and need for African-American men to come together to recognize each other and affirm our rightful place in the society," he said. "These are mean, cruel times, exemplified by a `lock 'em up, take no prisoners' mentality that dominates the Republican-led Congress," Obama said. "Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and towards black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us, and that white Americans couldn't care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing."

"Black nationalism" is a current of thought and political action in the African-American community that has been championed by the likes of Farrakhan, Wright, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and Khalid al-Mansour. Obama discussed his attraction to black nationalism at length in his 1995 memoir "Dreams of My Father."

More here

(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.)

2008-11-04T00:11:00.000+11:30

Obama's No Kennedy

A former RFK confidante leads McCain's rally in Gotham

In blistering remarks to a Saturday morning rally here, former Robert F. Kennedy aide Bartle Bull embraced Republican John McCain for president, hurled Barack Obama under the bus, and then backed it slowly over the Democratic nominee. "America needs a president who is grounded in patriotism, not drowning in ambition," Bull told a crowd of hundreds gathered in Lower Manhattan. "I have used that sentence many times in the last three months, and not once - never once - have I been asked which candidate is which."

The lifelong activist and former Village Voice publisher presented his impeccable liberal-Democrat credentials. "I had the privilege of serving as Robert F. Kennedy's New York campaign manager when he ran for president in 1968," Bull explained. "I was arrested as a civil-rights lawyer in Mississippi, and I campaigned for the Equal Rights Amendment. But in honest conscience, I cannot support the Democratic ticket in this campaign."

Bull aimed at his target and charged like a longhorn. "Character in the White House should be more important than charisma on the campaign trail," Bull declared. "Barack Obama does not want to `change' America. Barack Obama wants a different country."

Turning to Obama's financial agenda, Bull minced no words. "Obama's notion of economic fairness is pure Karl Marx," Bull said, "plus a pocketful of Chicago-style `community organization.' "

Bull derisively recalled "how the Obama campaign ridiculed John McCain for not being able to use a computer - an attempt to reference his age. Senator McCain cannot use a computer because the Vietnamese repeatedly broke his arm when he refused to renounce his country and his fellow prisoners." Bull then asked the gathered McCain fans, "Do you suppose that Obama, or talky Joe Biden, can land an A-4 at night on a flight deck of an aircraft carrier in heavy seas?"

Bull and six other speakers rallied voters at Manhattan's Foley Square - one of six simultaneous events across the Empire State. The New York Veterans for McCain-Palin also hosted supporters of the GOP ticket in Albany, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Utica.

Surrounded by the U.S. Courthouse, the Jacob Javits Federal Building, and other government facilities, John McCain and Sarah Palin's backers waved flags, shook placards, and cheered applause lines deep in the heart of Obama Country. While they were hard-pressed to tip New York (or even the 10007 Zip Code) into McCain's column, cameras from CBS, NBC, and Univision carried their message to places where McCain's fortunes are brighter.

More here

Barack Obama victory will hurt US firms - and world economy

Well, it's nearly over - this presidential election campaign that has gone on for so long I can scarcely remember what life was like before it started. So long has it been running that the world has actually gone through two tumultuous transformations of political reality during its span.

First there was the emergence of Russia as a threat to international stability in a form that should not have, but nevertheless did, come as a startling revelation to a complacent free world: a phenomenon which, in cynical partisan terms, played heavily in John McCain's favour. But that was followed, and almost totally eclipsed, by the economic implosion that brought every earlier assumption about the electorate crashing down with it.

So, in one of those bizarre jokes that history sometimes plays, the United States is apparently about to choose as president the most inexperienced, untried and virtually unknowable (because there is so little to know) candidate who has ever run for that office at a time of unquantifiable international risk and unprecedented economic instability: a candidate who, as Bill Clinton revealed in a wonderfully back-handed "tribute", responded to the banking collapse by ringing every expert he could find (including Bill) to ask them what he should be saying.

And not only does it seem likely that Barack Obama will be elected president, but that he will arrive in office accompanied by a legion of new Democratic senators and congressmen which will give his party a lock on both the executive and legislative branches of government, thus permitting it to do precisely anything it wants.

A week ago in New York, I talked to senior Republicans who were dividing their time between conference calls to the White House to discuss the economic crisis and exasperated confrontations with the McCain campaign team over the ineffectiveness of its strategy. It is almost impossible to exaggerate the state of dissension and dissatisfaction within the higher ranks of the Republican Party - which is why the Obama claim that a McCain White House would simply be George Bush by other means is so ludicrous and disingenuous.

In truth, McCain's status as an outlaw within his own party ("maverick" is much too mild a word) has meant that he has had only the most ambivalent relationship with what was once a very professional Republican campaigning machine. Those members of the Bush team who have been involved with the McCain-Palin ticket have been accused of being so out of sympathy with its message and tone as to be positively counter-productive.

Combine this with the fact that McCain has been running against not just a super-financed Obama machine but the most monolithically hostile media barrage in electoral history, which forced him to spend most of his time and energy on defensive fire-fighting, and you get a sense of why the Republican effort has so often seemed at cross-purposes with itself.

This media phenomenon may yet prove double-edged. There is just a possibility (maybe I am clutching at straws here, but we shall see) that the relentless onslaught from the mainstream press and television networks has made support for McCain unsayable rather than impossible and that this is producing seriously skewed opinion-polling results. This could mean, to put it in British historical terms, that this election will be 1992 (complete with premature victory celebrations) rather than 1997.

Source

Look who's rooting for Obama

What do Iran's ayatollahs, Hamas terrorists, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi have in common? They are all pulling for Barack Obama to win the US presidential election. When Israel's disparate foes manage to rally behind a single candidate, it should set off alarm bells for anyone who cares about the Jewish state.

If you think this is just Republican scaremongering, consider the following. Last week, Ali Larijani, the hard-line speaker of the Iranian parliament, told a press conference in Bahrain that "we are leaning more in favor of Barack Obama because he is more flexible and rational" (Agence France Presse, October 22).

And then there is the October 19 endorsement that Obama received from Hamas spokesman Ahmed Yousef, who told WABC radio host John Batchelor and World Net Daily's Aaron Klein that "we as Palestinians are thinking that we might have better luck with a new administration, maybe, if Obama wins the election... I do believe he will change the American foreign policy in the way they are handling the Middle East."

There you have it. Two clear expressions of preference for Obama from two of the leading anti-Israel and anti-Western forces in the Middle East. Both the Iranian regime and the Hamas terrorist organization view Obama in a positive light and hope he will be elected. Their enthusiasm for the senator from Illinois is shared by a number of other long-time enemies of the Jewish state on both sides of the Atlantic.

On June 11, Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi, in a speech broadcast on Al-Jazeera, spoke glowingly of the Democratic nominee. According to a translation provided by MEMRI, Gaddafi said, "His name is Obama. All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency."

Back in the US, anti-Semitic firebrand Louis Farrakhan earlier this year labeled Obama "the hope of the entire world" and compared him to the founder of the Nation of Islam, the group Farrakhan heads (Associated Press, February 25).

Normally, one would expect that such a motley collection of rogues would be enough to send shivers down the spine of even the most spineless of voters. In the end, who wants to be cheering for the same outcome as Gaddafi and Farrakhan? Nonetheless, if two recent polls are to be believed, Obama seems poised to capture a significant majority of the Jewish vote.

A SURVEY released last week by Quinnipiac University found that Jews in the battleground state of Florida are backing Obama by a margin of 77 percent to 20%, while a Gallup survey revealed that nationwide, Jews favor him over Sen. John McCain by 74% to 22%. While that is less than the 80% that Democrats Al Gore and Joe Lieberman garnered in the 2000 election, it is similar to the 75% that John Kerry captured four years ago.

One can only shake one's head in bewilderment at such a predilection, particularly in light of Obama's flip-flop on Jerusalem back in June, when he told the annual AIPAC policy conference that he supports the city remaining Israel's united capital, only to back-track from that position the following day. If Obama can't stand firm on the campaign trail on such a basic issue of fundamental importance to Israel and its supporters, how can he be counted on to do so if given the keys to the White House? Any pro-Israel Jews and Christians still sitting on the fence, wondering how to cast their ballot on November 4, would therefore do well to bear in mind the revealing comments made recently by Jesse Jackson.

Speaking at the World Policy Forum in Evian, France two weeks ago, Jackson promised that the "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" will lose influence once Obama is in charge, as he will stop "putting Israel's interests first." "Obama is about change," Jackson observed, "and the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it" (New York Post, October 14).

The bottom line is that Obama makes Teheran, Tripoli and Gaza convulse with excitement, and that alone should make the rest of us shudder with fear.

Source

Passing by in Silence

The other day our Flemish correspondent VH produced a well-researched and thoughtful article about Indonesia and Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama. Dymphna and I were dismayed by the lack of reader response, given how much time, energy, and bandwidth has been given over to (for example) arguing about Russia.

The election on Tuesday will be one of the pivotal events of the early 21st century, and the Islamic aspects of Barry Soetoro's childhood in Indonesia deserve close scrutiny, since they may affect the well-being of millions of people once he takes the reins of power.

I just posted another article about Russia, and I'm sure there will be a hundred more comments on it with people rehashing the same old arguments.

But, just for a change of scenery, I suggest a visit to VH's excellent article before the election results turn the this, the twilight of American democracy, into ancient history.

Here's what Dymphna had to say about these matters in a comment (the only comment so far) on VH's post:

In looking through post listings on our dashboard, I noticed with surprise that this essay has no comments. Not a one. Birds chirping. Silence.

This is amazing. Two trackbacks - and good ones, I might add - but nary a word on our blog addressed to this wealth of material.

It is worrying that this essay is passed over as though it's not even here. The Russian thread went on endlessly, though Russia is of peripheral interest to us AT THE MOMENT compared to Obama's origins. After all, where he comes from and what his influences are could have a direct and lasting impact on about half the people who read this blog.

So I have been contemplating why the post is simply ignored and my pondering led to this comment. Since nary another soul has seen fit to respond to it, I will write at length. It doesn't make up for the lack of response, but it does make me feel better to let it all hang out.

Certainly the material presented in this post is fascinating. Not just what we learn about Barry Soetoro's early childhood experiences - though they are crucial to the fate of America if he wins the election. It reminds one of the old saying "give me a child until he is six and he is mine forever."

As our poster makes clear, little Barry internalized the Koran early on. He did it the same way I internalized the Latin Mass at that age. Just as I can still recite the "Gloria" or the Introit of that ancient liturgy, no doubt O can still chant parts of the Koran in perfect Arabic.

In other words, such intensive training, for better or worse, stays with you. It doesn't go away just because you "grow up" and move on to other things. Elizabeth Barrett Browning's apt lines about the depth of childhood's faith and of one's "lost saints" is operative here.

Thus li'l Barry's formative experiences in Indonesia (before he was shipped back to Hawaii) plus the growing cultural unrest and instability in the region are crucial in two areas: the first is the implications they have for our election here in the US, and the second is for the coming destabilization of the area.

This could mean big trouble for Australia, at the very least.

So why do you think this post about Obama was passed by in silence? Does the disturbing knowledge about his childhood formation combine with the fear we have that Obama's handlers will turn us irrevocably toward a European "solution" for what was the exceptionalism represented by the US character? We all be socialists now??

Are we now to be judged safer by the world because we will be tamed by a talker rather than led by a man of action? To those America-hating Europeans who so love Obama, who would vote for him if they could, here is a warning: be careful for what you wish. When the One takes over, your exultation may change to dismay as the realization sets in that you're on your own to handle the thugs in the larger world. Obama will be too busy talking to those same thugs to notice your plight.

The Obama juggernaut, so carefully planned and executed by Bill Ayers & Co (the same Ayers who thought the deaths of 25 million Americans a small collateral price to pay for the triumph of his plans) may appear to many as an inevitable rape. With no way to stop it, we numb out and wait for it to be over. We hope he won't inflict more damage than Carter did, when in reality Obama's handlers are more brutal than FDR ever dreamed.

The abnegation of the US media regarding Obama is another tipping point. This slide to the bottom where they will live now with the other mud-feeding fish makes them a new species of "journalists".

What they have done in this election makes their treatment of Bill Clinton look harsh in comparison. If they were "in the tank" for the latter, they are actually flushing their heads down the toilet for the One.

Who feels up for the quixotic task of fighting these piranha for Obama? You only have to look at what they did to Joe the Plumber to know you're in dangerous waters. That attack could not have taken place without the active cooperation of the frenzied press as they followed the Leader.

So I interpret the passing over of "Indonesia, Terrorism, and Barry Soetoro" as a kind of unvoiced despair. This hopelessness applies not only to the coming election, but to the ratcheting up of the violence and increasing Islamization of Barry's childhood home place.

More here

The Coming Obama Global Test

"The reality is, we have to cleanse the soul of America. Our soul is covered in militarism, economic exploitation and racism. . . We need to acknowledge the obscenity that America is . . . America the beautiful is America the obscene."
- Boston City Councilman Chuck Turner, Sept 13. 2005

Hundreds of middle class Americans leapt to their feet and applauded those words as they echoed off the walls of Boston's Faneuil Hall, a place where 263 years earlier Samuel Adams, and other American patriots, fomented the American Revolution.
Other speakers followed, all of them mirroring Turner's horrid disdain for America, including Professor Naseer Aruri of the National Council of Arab Americans who referred to Islamic terrorists as "so-called terrorists" and portrayed the US as the world's biggest cause, and purveyor, of international terrorism. But Aruri's remarks were mild compared to the anti-US tirade delivered by the evening's keynote speaker, British MP George Galloway, a corrupt man who had once licked the bloodstained boots of Saddam Hussein.

The people who cheered Galloway's speech that September evening are now among Barack Obama's core supporters, friends, and promoters. They are not people who will vote for Obama out of ignorance or naivety. They will vote for him because they agree with his friend Jeremiah Wright when he screams, "No, no, no, not God Bless America, God damn America." They do not overlook Obama's collaborations with Bill Ayers because they have bought the tripe that Obama was "only eight years old" when Ayers was throwing bombs, they will vote for him because they agree with Ayers's violent anti-US, anti-capitalist views. Obama's friendship with Ayers, and Obama's other radical alliances are signals of his kinship with them.

Bill Ayers says, "It [America] makes me want to puke." People who cheer a Councilman Turner when he excoriates their country also share Bill Ayers's retching sentiments, just as surely as one who sits in the pews of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ for two decades shares Jeremiah Wright's.

The question is: Are those who hold such views even capable of protecting America from her conventional enemies like Iran and from existential threats like those posed by stateless, dedicated totalitarian groups like Al Qaeda? Human beings do not protect and secure principles they do not love or ideas they have been taught to hate.

Like those who cheered Chuck Turner's and George Galloway's Faneuil Hall speeches, Obama's ideological signals have not eluded America's external enemies. Through provocation, they will seek to clarify their meaning.

Who will "test" a President Obama?

Obama's running mate Joseph Biden recently said, "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. . .Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. . . As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen."

With that statement, and perhaps for the first time in his life, Senator Biden made sense. He also prompted a question: Can America afford the results of the test he guarantees will happen? What if ruthless Islamic radicals test Obama? They tested President Carter and he failed. The cost of failure was the radicalization of Iran, the rise of violent Islamist movements, the loss of a strategic ally and the emboldening of America's adversaries worldwide.

Islamic radicals tested President Clinton. They tested him in Somalia and he failed, they tested him in Tanzania and he failed, they tested him in New York City in 1993 and he failed. Finally, they tested him in Yemen by ramming an explosive-filled boat into the USS Cole, killing Americans and nearly sinking that ship. Clinton failed his tests, confirming to Osama Bin Laden his view of America as a paper tiger, and prompting 911.

On September 11, 2001, Islamic radicals tested another US president by crashing airliners into American landmarks, murdering 3,000 people in the process. By responding to those attacks instantly and ferociously, that president passed his "test." The proof of that is irrefutable: America has not been attacked since, and those who administered his "test" have spent the last seven years so occupied by the pursuit of self-preservation, that they have not had the time to test him again.

Politically speaking, Barack Obama has far more in common with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton than he does with George W. Bush. It is speculative but reasonable to conclude that considering the devastation brought upon them by President Bush, Islamic radicals would be extremely hesitant to "test" him, or someone like him, again.

Not so when it comes to Barack Obama -- since his aversion to the use of force is written on his sleeve. Obama promises to hold non-conditional talks with America's enemies. He and fellow leftist Democrats promise to downsize the military and to walk away from Iraq. Obama spoke about the "tiny" country of Iran and about preemptively invading Pakistan, illustrating a shocking ineptitude in the realms of foreign policy and basic geography. None of his statements or gaffe-prone political posturing has escaped the notice of America's enemies. They will be racing each other to "test" a President Obama. If one of those "tests" is of the magnitude of 911 while America is in a weakened economic state, she might not survive.

Consider the economic destruction caused by the events of September 11, 2001: Lower Manhattan lost 30% of its office space and many businesses there were permanently destroyed. Close to 200,000 jobs were lost or moved out of New York. Direct job losses amounted to $17 billion in lost wages and increased pressure on government social programs. Fourteen billion dollars worth of private business assets were vaporized, as were $2.2 billion worth of federal and local government enterprises.

Rescue and cleanup efforts cost around $11 billion. Total losses, including lost tax revenue, lost jobs, cleaning costs and damage and destruction to buildings and infrastructure in New York were approximately $95 billion. Insurance losses related to the attacks were between $30-58 billion, resulting in increased insurance premiums and permanently cutting into the bottom lines of businesses and individuals across America. Airlines, on a weak economic footing prior to the attacks, were devastated. Air travel crashed 8% after 911 and massive, industry-wide layoffs were executed. Consumer spending dropped sharply in the months following the attacks and America's GDP shrank.

The 911 attacks happened during a time of relative economic stability. What will happen to America, indeed to the world, if a similar attack occurs while she is in an economic state like the current one?

Those who most trivialize the magnitude of the threats posed by totalitarian Islam are squarely in the Obama camp. That is a fact, not a smear. Some of them (John Kerry, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, and Obama himself) toiled to undermine the US-led war against Islamic terrorists in Iraq. They did that while American soldiers were in harm's way.

Those same Democrat Senators and Congressmen will be among Barack Obama's closest advisors. Their dangerous disrespect for America's fighting men and women, their apologetics towards America's enemies, their characterizations of American soldiers as murderers and torturers, their media-abetted crusade to hamstring America's intelligence capabilities have given support and encouragement to those who intend to harm us.

As elected officials they have opposed almost all of the policies that have kept America safe from attack for seven years -- that opposition has not escaped notice by our enemies. The same Democrats who shouted premature proclamations of defeat in Iraq will be controlling US foreign policy and directing the military they seem to loathe. Their treacherous actions during the Bush presidency nearly assure that Senator Biden's prediction of an Obama "test" will come true sooner rather than later in an Obama presidency.

Before stepping into the voting booth on Tuesday, ask yourself these questions: Is Barack Obama suited to deal with violent Muslim theocrats who have sworn "death to America" by any means? Will a Barack Obama presidency invite attacks on our soil by such people? Can America with a President Barack Obama at her helm survive the guaranteed test Joseph Biden speaks of?

Finally, with Chuck Turner, George Galloway, Jeremiah Wright, and Obama's close friend Bill Ayers on your mind, ask yourself this: Does Barack Obama and the Democrats who will govern with him have enough love for America as she is, to protect her by any means necessary? After answering those questions, vote.

Source

The Obama Campaign's Credit-Card Crack-up

A breakdown of controls has enabled foreign and other unaccountable funds to pour into the Obama campaign - and it's not an accident

The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has been and may still be accepting credit-card and prepaid-card contributions from overseas. It has done so in a way that may very likely prevent it from refunding the contributions to "donors," many of whom may have had their credit cards used without their consent. It's virtually impossible that the system for accepting card contributions was inadvertently set up without adequate controls, and almost certain that existing controls were instead deliberately disabled to create untraceability. Finally, it is likely that the total dollar amounts involved run in millions, if not tens of millions, of dollars.]

In mid-August, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, writing at American Thinker, summarized a pattern of irregularities she had found. Geller, and readers who assisted her, discovered that: "Obama's overseas (foreign) contributors are making multiple small donations, ostensibly in their own names, over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances, but others are aggregating in excess of the maximums when all added up."

The contributions had come from over 50 specifically named countries and major cities. Obviously bogus contributor names that a 7 year-old would have known to be fictitious, including "Hbkjb, jkbkj," "Doodad Pro," and "Good Will," were frequent.

"Thousands of Obama's foreign donations ended in cents." U.S. contributors very rarely contribute in anything other than whole dollar amounts, so the reason why contributions would end with anything other than ".00? would almost always involve foreign currency translation.

In a later post, Geller listed 18 donors who had contributed more than the legal $2,300 limit. "Good Will" and "Doodad Pro" were among them, to the tune of over ten grand each.

You might think "Well that's pretty bad, but really no big deal, because at some point, Obama will just refund the money." In many cases, that does not appear likely.

On October 22, Geller's "Who Is John Galt?" post revealed information that should have set off alarms in newsrooms across America - namely, that anyone could pretend to be someone else, with someone else's address, and successfully process a credit-card donation to Obama. Reader Craig reported the following:

I've read recent reports of the Obama campaign receiving donations from dubious names and foreign locales and it got me wondering; how is this possible?

I run a small internet business and when I process credit cards I'm required to make sure the name on the card exactly matches the name of the customer making the purchase. Also, the purchasers address must match that of the cardholders. If these don't match, then the payment isn't approved. Period. So how is it possible that the Obama campaign could receive donations from fictional people and places? Well, I decided to do a little experiment. I went to the Obama campaign website and entered the following:

Name: John Galt; Address: 1957 Ayn Rand Lane; City: Galts Gulch; State: CO; Zip: 99999

Then I checked the box next to $15 and entered my actual credit card number and expiration date (it didn't ask for the 3-digit code on the back of the card) and it took me to the next page and "Your donation has been processed. Thank you for your generous gift."

This simply should not, and could not, happen in any business or any campaign that is honestly trying to vet its (sic) donors.

How can this happen? Here's how:

Having worked for companies that process credit cards online, it is necessary to go through and manually disable the safeguards that they put in place to verify a person's address and zip code with the cardholder's bank. But international banks don't currently have the same safeguards that banks in the U.S. have, which also works in the One's favor. So most likely they've disabled the necessary safeguards for U.S. cards .

The disabled components involved are part of what is known as the "AVS" (Automated Verification System). Many bloggers and blog commenters have confirmed the accuracy of the just-excerpted claims, including the fact that the merchant has to take proactive steps to rewrite or disable existing programming and controls to make AVS not work.

This information would indicate that Team Obama does not know (or pretends not to know; that would be for investigators to determine) who specifically has donated much of its campaign money - and the fact that they don't know is deliberate.

Further, the lack of controls in Obama's campaign-contribution system enables the use of prepaid cards, which if paid for in cash, are more than likely completely untraceable without going back to store video recordings, most of which are discarded or overwritten after a short time.

From all appearances, in both cases - unverified credit-card and prepaid-card contributions - it is very likely that the Obama campaign couldn't refund monies received even if it wanted to. Donations to Obama are making it to statements of cardholders who never authorized them. The only people who might get their money back are the ones who catch the charges. And what about charges to stolen or forged cards?

Despite many tests, no one has been able to show that these material control weaknesses exist in the McCain-Palin contributions system.

Meanwhile, though space doesn't permit fully chronicling the specifics, America's mainstream Obama-mad media has been negligent in covering this astonishing story, either failing to report it at all (which Clay Waters of NewsBusters has noted is the case at the New York Times), or blandly understating the severity and, if you will, audacity of the enterprise (Washington Post, October 25 and October 28; National Journal).

If this were John McCain's campaign, a deafening "what did he know and when did he know it?" chorus would have begun well over a week ago. As it is, most voters have cast or will cast their presidential ballots totally unaware of what may very well be the largest and most highly-organized campaign-finance fraud in U.S. elections history. As they do, they should be asking, "What did Obama know and when did he know it?"

Source

Brainless Obama the Warmist wants to bankrupt coal-fired electricity generation

And thus cause blackouts in most of America, apparently

Imagine if John McCain had whispered somewhere that he was willing to bankrupt a major industry? Would this declaration not immediately be front page news? Well, Barack Obama actually flat out told the San Francisco Chronicle (SF Gate) that he was willing to see the coal industry go bankrupt in a January 17, 2008 interview. The result? Nothing. This audio interview has been hidden from the public...until now. Here is the transcript of Obama's statement about bankrupting the coal industry:

Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them.

Amazing that this statement by Obama about bankrupting the coal industry has been kept under wraps until this time.

UPDATE: NewsBusters' Tom Blumer has found out that the San Francisco Chronicle story published on January 18 based upon this January 17 interview did not include any mention of Obama's willingness to bankrupt the coal industry which you can hear on the audio. You can read the story here when you scroll down to the "In His Own Words" section. Way to cover up for The One, SF Chronicle!

Source (See the original for links, graphics etc.)

(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.)

2008-11-03T00:02:00.000+11:30

Obama's links to the semi-Communist "New Party"

By Stanley Kurtz

Ben Smith answers my post, "A Party Without Members?" by conceding that my analysis of the facts regarding Obama's New Party ties is essentially correct. Unable to dispute my account of the facts, Smith takes guilt by association one step further. Rather than confronting what I actually say and believe about the significance of Obama's radical ties, Smith tries to put me in a box with Jerome Corsi, whom I do not know and whose work I have never commented on (or done more than glance at). Smith's rhetorical strategy (based on his apparent near-total unfamiliarity with what I have actually written) is to set up a false dichotomy between the not-so-respectable search for Obama's crypto-radicalism and a respectably policy-wonkish attempt to itemize Obama's good-old-fashioned Democratic liberalism.

My piece, "Barack Obama's Lost Years," is precisely an effort to show that the two enterprises cannot be separated. In that piece, I present a contextualized treatment of Obama's radical associations, showing exactly how they played into his broader legislative program, which I also examine in detail, and on its own. Smith does his best to avoid confronting my actual writings by erecting a Corsi-like straw man, into which he can stuff both me and my Corner colleagues. In fact, as I have said in numerous interviews (and as Andy McCarthy has eloquently noted on The Corner) the fundamental point is not to find a single, killer, smoking-gun, radical association (although many of them are in fact deeply disturbing and arguably disqualifying).

The larger point is that the very existence of so many of these radical political partnerships (and that is what they are, significant political partnerships, not mere "marginal relationships," as Smith would have it) reveals a systematic pattern-a pattern that shows Obama to be a man of the left-so far left that he long had one foot out of (but also one foot in) the conventional Democratic mainstream. It's true that the McCain campaign has not effectively made this point. Yet my Corner colleague Andy McCarthy has eloquently complained about that. The most important point is what Obama's many radical political partnerships reveal about his overall perspective, and how his radicalism ties in to, and helps explain, even his more conventional-seeming Democratic liberalism. I have written extensively about all of this.

Radical or liberal? It's not an either/or. What's certain is that Obama is not the post-ideological, post-partisan pragmatist he presents himself as. The press has shamefully colluded in that false presentation.

Ben Smith has done us a favor by putting his journalistic bias out in the open. We no longer need to ask: "What were they thinking?" Now we know. Smith's obvious distaste for the Corner, and other critics of Obama's radical past, has gotten the best of him. His obvious desire to avoid validating conservative concerns led him to abandon proper journalistic standards in the case of Obama's ties to the New Party. It's not really a question of whether Ben Smith, or the New York Times, or the Washington Post thinks Obama's links to the New Party ought to matter to the American people. Their job is to thoroughly report the facts, and let the public decide. By that standard, on the matter of the New Party, Smith has failed.

If Smith really believes that he and I have little substantive disagreement on the facts of the matter, then he had no business writing his initial post in the way that he did. Yes, quoting Joel Rogers' ludicrous denial of the documented fact that the New Party had members did possess the potential to "advance the story." But the credulous way Smith reported on Rogers' statement had the effect of suppressing the story, not advancing it. I believe that any fair reader of Smith's original post would see that it was designed to suppress the story, and not to advance it.

Contrary to Smith's claim, I have not been "dismissive" of those who argue that the New Party was effectively socialist. On the contrary, I have taken their arguments very seriously. Nothing in my stance toward the socialism question should be used to justify Smith's sarcasm, which goes far beyond the socialism point and extends to dismissing completely legitimate concerns about Obama's radical ties, and Obama's failure to be frank about them. Yes, I have bracketed the socialism question. But that is all.

Smith himself acknowledges that Obama has not in fact being forthcoming about his past. Yet this awareness had no visible effect on Smith's response to the New Party story. Apparently, instead of responding to the Obama camp's protestations with amply justified skepticism, Smith's antipathy toward conservatives, Corner-posters, etc, was sufficient to outweigh even his own knowledge that Obama has been less-than-honest on these issues. This is not responsible journalism. It is bias unmasked.

Source

Criticizing Obama: Mission Impossible

Barack Obama has been talking a lot about the "last eight years" recently. It feels as though he could be referring to the length of the current presidential campaign, but he's actually asking voters to evaluate President Bush's job performance. Fair enough. President Bush is extremely unpopular as he leaves office, and the Democrats were destined to try to run against him-even though he's not on the ballot. While many people aren't pleased with Bush's record, replacing him is a solemn decision and requires the election of a man or woman who is prepared and qualified to serve. Voters ought to expand their judgment of the last eight years by factoring Barack Obama into the equation. What, precisely, has the Democratic nominee for president done in the past eight years? Attempting to meaningfully answer this question proves rather difficult.

Despite its improbable twists and turns, one thing hasn't changed over the course of this endless election: When put on the spot, Obama's supporters are unable to name a significant concrete accomplishment he's managed in his entire professional career. In February, Sean Hannity asked a Democratic focus group to list Obama's accomplishments. Their stirring responses ranged from "he gave a great speech" to "pass." Prior to the Texas and Ohio primaries, Chris Matthews interrogated Kirk Watson, an Obama surrogate, on the same point. "I'm not going to be able to [answer] that," he responded. "One of the things Senator Obama does is he inspires," he added, convincingly. Just last week, Obama backer Jeffrey Sachs was confronted with a similar query from Joe Scarborough. Sachs replied that Obama had "[brought] the country together on a new direction." In case that wasn't sufficiently persuasive, he offered a follow-up. "He's defined a way to achieve energy and new approaches for this country."

There's a reason for these stammering evasions: Barack Obama-love him or hate him-simply does not own any significant legislative accomplishments. Indeed, his greatest career achievements have been the successful attainment of higher office. Obama's last eight years consisted of serving as an unremarkable part-time State Senator, voting "present" on dozens of tough issues, running unsuccessfully for Congress, giving a popular speech at the 2004 DNC, and winning a US Senate seat after consecutive rival campaigns collapsed under the weight of prodigious scandal.

As a United States Senator, Obama did not challenge his own party's leadership in any significant way, authored zero consequential bills, and showed up late for a striking number of committee meetings. Then, after 143 days of federal legislative service, Obama decided it was time to run the country. Not to worry, though. We're told this dearth of accomplishments isn't a big deal. After all, experience doesn't really matter. Not this time.

So let's blissfully ignore his record and focus on what the promises he's made. Over the course of his presidential campaign, he's offered more than a few. One of his earliest promises was to accept public financing if his GOP opponent did the same. John McCain said yes, but Obama shamelessly backtracked for political expediency. Another signature pledge he's made is to cut taxes for all Americans making less than $250,000 per year. Since then, this "richness" threshold has curiously slid by five figures on two different occasions. For those keeping score at home, it's currently at $150,000 per year, and dropping. That's a lot more "patriots" than initially thought. He also agreed to meet John McCain for a series of town hall forums across the nation after clinching the nomination. The tentative agreement was abandoned as soon as Team Obama realized it would not be especially beneficial to their candidate.

Nevertheless, Barack surely wouldn't back away from his principled opposition to granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies as part of a FISA reform bill, drop his refusal to characterize Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, reverse himself on an undivided Jerusalem, dump his position on the DC gun ban, or change his mind on unconditional meetings with rogue dictators within the first year of his administration, would he? Oh, he did all of those things? Never mind. Cynical cries of "flip-flop!"-no matter how justified-just won't work. Not this time.

Maybe an extensive chock-full-o-compromise voting record is the key to discovering Obama's greatness. Wrong again. The non-partisan National Journal ranked him the Senate's most liberal member last year. He voted against the confirmation of Supreme Court justices Roberts and Alito for nakedly ideological reasons. In Springfield, his voting record was troubling. He voted to expand sex education to kindergartners and to defeat a bill that required medical attention for babies who managed to survive abortions. Both of these claims have been angrily decried as falsehoods by the Obama campaign and their media echo chamber, but they are matters of public record. Obama, though, refuses to be tethered to an ideological label. Sliming him as a hardened liberal partisan-regardless of the ample supporting evidence-is just a nasty Republican trick that just won't work. Not this time.

Since it's apparently far too rude to judge Obama on his lack of accomplishments, broken commitments, or leftism, perhaps the company he's kept over the years will give us a measure of the man. Au Contraire. Any discussion of his associations is at the very least a distraction, but probably fear-mongering racism. These are indisputable facts: Obama attended the sermons of an anti-American race-baiter for 20 years. He enjoyed a close working and personal relationship with an unrepentant terrorist. He entered into a lucrative land deal with an ethically-challenged political fixer who's now a convicted felon. And he befriended, funded, and toasted a former PLO mouthpiece who has defended suicide attacks against Israeli governmental and military targets. Any mention of these facts, however, sends the Obama campaign's outrage meter through the roof-which is usually an open invitation for increased media scrutiny. Obama's media allies, though, have exhibited extraordinary deference to their preferred candidate on these issues, with some media outlets going so far as to withhold potentially damaging information from the public. No, Obama's radical associations aren't relevant, and the neo-swiftboaters who raise them are a bunch of liars. Fight the smears. Guilt by association-no matter how vile and extensive those associations may be-just won't work. Not this time.

John McCain is an American hero who's served his country with honor for the majority of his impressive, meaningful life. He's fought for his country. He's been tortured and broken by Communists for defending our liberties. He's devoted decades to public service, bipartisanship, and pursuing what he believes is best for the United States-for better or worse. His deep and intimate knowledge of the world uniquely equips him to navigate the great international game of geopolitical chess more effectively than almost anyone on earth. This man was born to serve as president. Even so, depending on Tuesday's outcome, his unparalleled qualifications, demonstrable integrity, personal heroism, and abiding love of country may not be enough to vault him into the office he so richly deserves. Not this time.

Source

The Obama Bubble Could Cost the Democrats

Obama's stealth campaign has now been exposed by the New Media as just another assault on power by the old-fashioned radical Left, beefed up with race-baiting demagoguery. As a result of constant New Media expos‚s, the Leftwing media are now discredited and widely distrusted, and teetering on the edge of a death spiral. The New York Times' debt securities now have junk bond status from S&P.

The same ideological suicide could happen to the Democratic Party itself.

The Obama campaign, with its many incestuous links to "small 'c' communists" and Islamic fascists, could end up discrediting the entire Democratic Party -- if Americans realize they've been Suckered Big by the slickest demagogue since Bill Clinton. When ordinary people find out how extreme the America-hating inner circle of Democrats really are, many of the rank and file might just walk out in disgust. They certainly should. We'll soon see in states like Pennsylvania.

The Obama Bubble is entirely based on telephone polls to voters who've been told they are racist monsters if they don't vote for O. Under those circumstances people just don't talk freely. That's what intimidation did in the old Soviet Union, where it was impossible to find out the truth about the coming wheat crop because everybody lied. Polls mean nothing in this climate of media intimidation.

But regardless of who is elected on Tuesday, this election represents an amazing gamble for the Dems. Look at this video, showing Barack Obama slyly giving the hidden finger to Hillary Clinton during one of the primary debates. His own people burst out laughing when he pulls that very risky piece of teenage bravado. That's what he means by audacity -- and now the entire Democratic Party is stuck with Barack on his death-defying ride to become Emperor Barack I. Even the Clinton scandals didn't expose the Democrats to this kind of risk. They will have to live with the consequences for years to come.

The Obama Bubble may be hard to recognize today, when it has been blown up to awesome size, just like the mortgage bubble, the oil price bubble, the dot com bubble, and endless others.

But it's happened before: In 1948 Henry Wallace ran for the Democratic nomination. Harry Truman beat him, in good part because Wallace looked like a puppet of Joe Stalin. Truman went on to re-election and became the first Cold War president. The Obama campaign is the closest thing to Henry Wallace since 1948.

But there's more. After 1948 the Democratic Party flipped from Left to Right in short order, and became the Cold War Democrats. The Wallace-Truman contest also began the downward spiral of the US Communist Party, crashing in the 1950s, when Americans became convinced -- quite accurately -- that the CP-USA posed a clear and present threat. They call it "McCarthyism" today, but at that time it looked like Joe Stalin on the march with nukes in his pockets. (Those nukes were copied from plans stolen by Klaus Fuchs from the Manhattan Project.) No wonder the American people were afraid of Communist penetration of the State Department. They were right about that, too.

Today, the Obama election campaign has again exposed the whole Democratic Party as a sucker front for the radical Left. Bill Ayers is just the tip of a gigantic anti-American iceberg that now dominates US education, the media and Hollywood, the unions, and militant minorities. Don't think people don't know it.

In the 1940s the Wallace campaign looked like a power grab of the totalitarian Left. Today Obama looks the same. Some time soon the American people will understand that again: We'll see whether Tuesday is the day they show it. But even if McCain loses on Tuesday the voters will still have some time for a course correction as long as the New Media survive to "tell truth to power." Even in "soft" socialist Britain, Margaret Thatcher was elected when things really got bad.

Like the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge, the Democrats are celebrating premature victory. We'll see very soon if they have overreached.

Source

Hey Barack: Share Share is not always Fair

During a Thursday stump speech in Sarasota, Fl, Obama suggested that people wanting to keep their hard-earned money rather than hand it over to the taxman are "selfish." After explaining how changing "our tax code" to take even more from the rich to give to the poor would "make sure that everybody's got a shot," Obama counterattacked his opponents' blasts at his earlier "spread the wealth" comments:

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

Selfishness? Hmmm. Where have I heard that one part Karl Marx, one part Sesame Street economic bias before? Oh yeah, it was during his April Philadelphia debate with Hillary. Remember his similarly kiddy-comrade response to Charlie Gibson's rebuke that his plan to raise the capital gains tax rate would likely decrease revenues? It went like this:

"Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair."

Not fair? Selfish?

Moving the discussion to the adult table, it appears that not only does Obama's self-righteous sense of fair-play trump economic efficiency, but anyone unwilling to share the booty of their daily toil with less-productive strangers is immoral. The socialist experiment has failed all international field-tests miserably. Obama's Sophomoric Socialism would only spread similar misery to America. Perhaps he'd think that unselfishly fair.

Source

Young Undecideds Who Love Guns: Vote Your Glock

Check out this list from gunbanobama.com

Reality. Obama voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm for self-defense in their frickin' homes. (Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165, vote 20. 3/25/04)

Reality. Obama supported increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500%. That means the $500 Ruger you want to buy that currently has an excise tax of $55 would skyrocket to $330 tax. (Chicago Defender, 12/13/99). But that shouldn't bug you, Obama backers, because you're all about "spreading the wealth," aren't you?

Reality. Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry. (United States Senate, S. 397, vote 219, 7/29/05).

Reality. Obama wants to reimpose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban. (Illinois State Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes, 10/21/04).

Reality. Obama endorsed a ban on all handguns. (Independent voters of Illinois/Independent precinct organization general candidate questionnaire, 9/9/96; Politico, 3/31/08).

Reality. Obama opposes the Right to Carry laws. (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/02/08; Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04).

Reality. Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting. (United States Senate, S.397, 7/29/05).

More here

The illegal Auntie

The revelation that Obama has an illegal immigrant aunt living in the USA has not been used in any negative way by the McCain campaign and it is a very minor unsavoury association in the great pantheon of unsavoury Obama associations.

Nonetheless, America's political Left are furious about it. Are they furious about the lawbreaking? Not at all. They are furious that the truth is out. Below, for example, is the comment from the widely-read Leftist blog TPM. All the rage is about who it was who let the cat out of the bag. There is not a shred of regret or concern about the aunt staying on after a court ordered her to go. As usual with the Left, propaganda matters far more than truth or the law

Here's how the right's big eleventh-hour smear on Obama was carried out. First the Murdoch-owned Times of London reported Thursday that Obama's aunt, Zeituni Onyango, is living in a Boston public-housing complex. It's unclear how the paper learned of the woman's presence in the U.S. From there, the story quickly got taken up by the right-wing echo chamber. Fox News (also Murdoch-owned, of course), Drudge, the Boston Herald, and various conservative blogs -- as well as some mainstream outlets -- began breathlessly hyping the story. But the Times had been unable to tie up one key detail. It reported:

The Times could not determine their immigration status and an official at Boston City Hall said that Ms Onyango was a resident of Flaherty Way but not registered to vote on the electoral roll. However, that Ms Onyango made a contribution to the Obama campaign would indicate that she is a US citizen.

But that was easily taken care of. The Associated Press was the first to confirm, in a story posted this morning, that Onyango is here illegally after her request for asylum was rejected by an immigration judge four years ago. But note the way in which AP seems to have obtained the information. High up in the story, it reports:

Information about the deportation case was disclosed and confirmed by two separate sources, one a federal law enforcement official. The information they made available is known to officials in the federal government, but the AP could not establish whether anyone at a political level in the Bush administration or in the McCain campaign had been involved in its release.

In other words, it looks like someone in the Bush administration leaked the information, with the goal of throwing a last-minute wrench into Obama's campaign. And someone else confirmed it, with similar motives.

On the record, of course, the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, a unit of the Department of Homeland Security, is telling reporters it can't comment on any individual person's immigration status. It would appear to be a violation of department procedures, at the least, to leak such information.

We've seen this same tactic used recently by the Bush administration. Earlier this month, law enforcement sources leaked the news, also to the AP, that the FBI has begun a nationwide investigation into ACORN. Again, the obvious purpose of the leak was political -- to bolster a Republican campaign to stoke fears about voter fraud, in an effort to de-legitimize an Obama win. The Justice Department still has not confirmed the existence of the investigation.

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.)

2008-11-02T00:06:00.000+11:30

Ego and Mouth

by Thomas Sowell

After the big gamble on subprime mortgages that led to the current financial crisis, is there going to be an even bigger gamble, by putting the fate of a nation in the hands of a man whose only qualifications are ego and mouth? Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else.

Anyone who has actually had to take responsibility for consequences by running any kind of enterprise-- whether economic or academic, or even just managing a sports team-- is likely at some point to be chastened by either the setbacks brought on by his own mistakes or by seeing his successes followed by negative consequences that he never anticipated. The kind of self-righteous self-confidence that has become Obama's trademark is usually found in sophomores in Ivy League colleges-- very bright and articulate students, utterly untempered by experience in real world.

The signs of Barack Obama's self-centered immaturity are painfully obvious, though ignored by true believers who have poured their hopes into him, and by the media who just want the symbolism and the ideology that Obama represents. The triumphal tour of world capitals and photo-op meetings with world leaders by someone who, after all, was still merely a candidate, is just one sign of this self-centered immaturity. "This is our time!" he proclaimed. And "I will change the world." But ultimately this election is not about him, but about the fate of this nation, at a time of both domestic and international peril, with a major financial crisis still unresolved and a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon.

For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of "spreading the wealth," is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries.

The equally casual ease with which Barack Obama has talked about appointing judges on the basis of their empathies with various segments of the population makes a mockery of the very concept of law.

After this man has wrecked the economy and destroyed constitutional law with his judicial appointments, what can he do for an encore? He can cripple the military and gamble America's future on his ability to sit down with enemy nations and talk them out of causing trouble.

Senator Obama's running mate, Senator Joe Biden, has for years shown the same easy-way-out mindset. Senator Biden has for decades opposed strengthening our military forces. In 1991, Biden urged relying on sanctions to get Saddam Hussein's troops out of Kuwait, instead of military force, despite the demonstrated futility of sanctions as a means of undoing an invasion.

People who think Governor Sarah Palin didn't handle some "gotcha" questions well in a couple of interviews show no interest in how she compares to the Democrats' Vice Presidential candidate, Senator Biden. Joe Biden is much more of the kind of politician the mainstream media like. Not only is he a liberal's liberal, he answers questions far more glibly than Governor Palin-- grossly inaccurately in many cases, but glibly.

Moreover, this is a long-standing pattern with Biden. When he was running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination back in 1987, someone in the audience asked him what law school he attended and how well he did. Flashing his special phony smile, Biden said, "I think I have a much higher IQ than you do." He added, "I went to law school on a full academic scholarship" and "ended up in the top half" of the class. But Biden did not have a full academic scholarship. Newsweek reported: "He went on a half scholarship based on need. He didn't finish in the 'top half' of his class. He was 76th out of 85."

Add to Obama and Biden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and you have all the ingredients for a historic meltdown. Let us not forget that the Roman Empire did decline and fall, blighting the lives of millions for centuries.

Source

A message from a disillusioned Obama campaign insider

Sounds reasonable

I'm going to let you in on a few secrets here, and this is not because I enjoy the gossip or the attention directed my way. I'm doing this because I doubt much of you know the true weaknesses of Obama. Another reason for my doing this is that I am lost faith in this campaign, and feel that this choice has been forced on many people in this country. Put simply, you are being manipulated. That was and is our job - to manipulate you (the electorate) and the media (we already had them months ago). Our goal is to create chaos with the other side, not hope. I've come to the realization (as the campaign already has) that if this comes to the issues, Barack Obama doesn't have a chance. His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans. It has worked up until now. Joe the Plumber has put the focus on the issues again, and this scares us more than anything. Being in a position to know these things, I will rate what the Obama campaign already knows are their weak links from the most important on down.

1 - Hillary voters. Internal polling suggests that at best, we are taking 70-75% of these voters. Other estimates are as low as 60% in some areas - particularly Ohio and western PA. My biggest problem with this campaign's strategy was the decision NOT to offer Hillary the VP slot. She was ready and able to take this on, and would have campaigned enthusiastically for it. This selection would have also brought virtually all of her supporters into the fold, and the Obama campaign knew it. Though I have no way of knowing this for certain, and I do admit that I am relying on internal gossip, Senator Obama actually went against the advice of his top advisors. They wanted him to choose her, but the only significant opposition to this within the campaign came from Barack and Michelle Obama. In short, he let personal feelings take precedence over what was the most logical thing to do. Biden, by the way, has been a disaster inside the campaign. Everyone cringes whenever he gives an interview, and he creates so many headaches as the campaign has to stay on their toes in order to disseminate information and spin whatever it was he was trying to say.

2 - Sarah Palin. Don't believe what the media is telling you about how horrible a choice she was. Again, our internal polling suggest that though she has had a minimal impact on pulling disaffected Hillary Democrats to McCain, she has done wonders in mobilizing the base for McCain. Another thing - we were completely taken by surprise with her pick. In my capacity in the research department, I looked into the backgrounds of Leiberman, Romney, Pawlenty and Ridge, and prepared briefs. I don't mind bragging that we had pretty good stuff on all of them. With Leiberman, the plan was to paint him as an erratic old-timer who didn't have a clue as to what he was doing (pretty much a clone of McCain). In Romney, we had him pegged as an evil capitalist who cut jobs. Pawlenty was going to get the "Quayle treatment", or more precisely: a pretty face, with no valid experience. Tom Ridge was going to be used to provide a direct link from McCain to Bush. As you can see, we were quite enamored of all of them. Then the unexpected happened - Sarah Palin. We had no clue as to how to handle her, and bungled it from the start. Though through our misinformation networks, we have successfully taken some of the shine off. But let there be no doubt. She remains a major obstacle. She has singlehanded solidified "soft" Republican support, mobilized the McCain ground game, and has even had some appeal to independents and Hillary voters. This is what our internal polling confirms.

3 - Obama's radical connections. Standards operating procedure has been to cry "racism" whenever one of these has been brought up. We even have a detailed strategy ready to go should McCain ever bring Rev. Wright up. Though by themselves they are of minimal worth, taken together, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfelger, and now, Rashid Khalili, are exactly what the campaign does not need. The more focus on them, the more this election becomes a referendum on Obama. The campaign strategy from the very beginning was to make this election a referendum on Bush. Strategists have been banging their head on how successfully McCain has distanced himself from Bush. This has worked, and right now the tide is in his favor. People are taking a new look at Barack Obama, and our experience when this happens tells us this is not good news at all. When they take a look at him, one or more of these names are bound to be brought up. McCain has wisely not harped on this in recent weeks and let voters decide for themselves. This was a trap we set for him, and he never fully took the bait. Senator Obama openly dared him to bring up Ayers. This was not due to machismo on the part of Obama, but actually due to campaign strategy. Though McCain's reference to Ayers fell flat in the last debate, people in the Obama campaign were actually disappointed that he didn't follow through on it more and getting into it. Our focus groups found this out: When McCain brings these connections up, voters are turned off to him. They'd rather take this into consideration themselves, and when this happens, our numbers begin to tank.

4 - The Bradley Effect. Don't believe these polls for a second. I just went over our numbers and found that we have next to no chance in the following states: Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire and Nevada. Ohio leans heavily to McCain, but is too close to call it for him. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa are the true "toss up states". The only two of these the campaign feels "confident" in are Iowa and New Mexico. The reason for such polling discrepancy is the Bradley Effect, and this is a subject of much discussion in the campaign. In general, we tend to take a -10 point percentage in allowing for this, and are not comfortable until the polls give us a spread well over this mark. This is why we are still campaigning in Virginia and Pennsylvania! This is why Ohio is such a desperate hope for us! What truly bothers this campaign is the fact that some pollsters get up to an 80% "refuse to respond" result. You can't possibly include these into the polls. The truth is, people are afraid to let people know who they are voting for. The vast majority of these respondents are McCain supporters. Obama is the "hip" choice, and we all know it.

As part of my research duties, I scour right wing blogs and websites to get somewhat of a "feel" as to what is being talked about on the other side. Much of it is nonsense, but there are some exceptions which give the campaign jitters. A spirited campaign has been made to infiltrate many pro-Hillary sites and discredit them. A more disorganized, but genuine effort has also been made to sow doubts among the unapologetically right wing sites such as redstate.com. Don't you guys get it? This has been the Obama campaign's sole strategy from the very beginning! The only way he wins is over a dispirited, disorganized, and demobilized opposition. This is how it has been for all of his campaigns. What surprises me is that everyone has fallen for it. You may point to the polls as proof of the inevitability of all of this. If so, you have fallen for the oldest trick in the book. How did we skew these polls, you might ask? It all starts with the media "buzz" which has been generated over the campaign. Many stories are generated on the powerful Obama ground game, and how many new voters were registered. None of this happens by coincidence. It is all part of the poll-skewing process. This makes pollsters change their mixes to reflect these new voters and tilt the mix more towards Democratic voters. What is not mentioned or reported on is not the "under-reported cell phone users or young voters" we hear so much about. What is underreported is you.

I changed my somewhat positive opinion of this campaign during the unfair and sexist campaign against Sarah Palin. I will never agree with her on the issues and will probably never vote for her, but I am embarrassed of what has happened. I can't ignore our own hand in all of this. What I do know is that I will not be voting for Obama this time around. Treat that as you will.

Source

Barack Obama 'could worsen crisis', says owner of Fox TV

News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch has warned that Barack Obama could worsen the world financial crisis if he is elected US president next week and implements protectionist policies. In an interview with The Weekend Australian before delivering the first of six Boyer lectures on ABC radio tomorrow afternoon, Mr Murdoch said the Democrats' policies would result in "a real setback for globalisation" if implemented.

Mr Murdoch said he did not know whether Senator Obama would implement all of the protectionist measures espoused by the party. "Presidents don't often behave exactly as the campaign might have suggested because they become prisoners of all sort of things - mainly circumstances and events," Mr Murdoch said.

He warned that any rise in protectionism in the US, including introducing trade measures against China as espoused by some Democratic members in Congress, would risk retaliation and could threaten the world trading and financial systems. "For the past three or four years, some Democrats have been threatening to do things like put on extra tariffs (against Chinese imports) if they don't change their currency,' Mr Murdoch said. "If it happened, it could set off retaliatory action which would certainly damage the world economy seriously."

Mr Murdoch said Kevin Rudd had been "very sure-footed" in his handling of the financial crisis and defended the Prime Minister against criticism that he acted too quickly in his blanket guarantee of the deposits of the Australian banking system.

But the chairman of News Corporation, which owns The Weekend Australian, warned that politicians should be careful not to make the situation worse by "alarming people more than they should be alarmed, regardless of party". "You've got to recognise when he (Rudd) did it, he did it the day after the biggest ever fall in the stock market and the US Congress's first refusal of the $700million bailout," Mr Murdoch said. "I think, relatively, over this whole financial period, he has acted very sure-footedly."

He said politicians should be careful that their comments did not further exacerbate the delicate financial situation. Asked if the comments were meant to refer to Malcolm Turnbull, he said: "I don't think Mr Turnbull has done that."

With the US election five days away, Mr Murdoch criticised Senator Obama's tax policies as "crazy", particularly his plan to hand out tax rebates to most Americans and to increase taxes for people earning more than $250,000. He said Senator Obama's promises to give tax rebates to 95per cent of Americans was "rubbish". "Forty per cent (of the US population) don't pay taxes, so how can he give them a tax cut?" he said. "But you can give them a welfare cheque which he has promised - a grant of $500 - which will disappear very fast. It's not going to turn the economy around at all."

Mr Murdoch said no one knew what would happen under an Obama administration "but his declared policy would see a real setback of globalisation". Mr Murdoch said politicians should take heed of the lessons of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in the US in 1930, which raised tariffs on American goods to record levels and provoked protectionist retaliation by US trading partners, slashing world trade levels and sending the world economy into depression.

Mr Murdoch said Senator Obama would make the situation worse if he implemented the policies he had promised the American union movement, which represented only 12 per cent of the US workforce, most of them government workers. "We have the historical precedent of Smoot-Hawley," he said. "I can't imagine he would do anything as crazy as that. But anything in that direction could add to all sorts of tensions in the world financial system and the world trading system and eventually all the way down to employment. I am not saying all these things are going to happen, but we are living in a dangerous period." He said the whole world should "fight like hell" for freer trade and the success of the Doha Round of trade talks.

Mr Murdoch rejected suggestions that Tuesday's US election could act as a circuit breaker for the current crisis of confidence in world financial markets. "To some extent it is beyond the power of politicians," he said. "You are going to find that the politicians are very limited in what they can do: they can make it worse but they can't stop it."

Mr Murdoch said there was a slight easing of the liquidity crisis, as market interest rates had edged down in recent weeks. But he said the financial crisis would inevitably affect economies for some time. Mr Murdoch said a push for freer trade around the world, including the success of the Doha Round, could help the world economies come out of the recession faster. "But if it (world trade) goes the way that a lot of politicians are talking in a lot of countries, you are really going to slow down trade and business in every way," he added.

Mr Murdoch, who arrived in Australia this week, will record the first Boyer lecture tomorrow in front of a live audience at the Sydney Opera House. The series of lectures is entitled A Golden Age of Freedom and includes Mr Murdoch's views on the rise of the new global middle class, his concerns about the raising of education levels in Australia and the importance of being ahead of the curve in using new technologies. The third lecture is a detailed exposition of Mr Murdoch's views on the future of newspapers. Mr Murdoch has been scathing of journalists in the US, whom he argues have been all too eager to predict the demise of their own industry.

He told The Weekend Australian that newspapers would survive, although they might have to live with lower profit margins because of competition from the internet. He predicted that newspapers should see the internet as an opportunity to reach more readers in a world where people were increasingly hungry for more information.

Source

Obama's ever changing definition of who is "rich"

If we heard it once from Obama we heard it a thousand times; no tax increase for those who make less than $250,000, right? Um ... not so fast. John Podheretz of Contentions:

Last week, John McCain made a big deal out of the fact that Joe Biden suddenly lowered the annual salary number below which no one would be taxed under the Obama plan from $250,000 to $150,000. That gave added heft to his argument that Obama is pursuing redistributionist policies that will have a negative effect on efforts to help the economy grow. But that was Biden mouthing off, after all, something it's easy to take not all that seriously. What is more serious, and more telling, is that without making any admissions of a change, the Obama campaign as a whole is now explicitly acknowledging the $250,000 floor for tax increases is no longer operative. Instead, both in a commercial released last week and in last night's infomercial, the number that is now being used is $200,000.

Granted, the absolute number of people in this country who make between $200,000 and $250,000 is relatively small, but that is not the issue. What this suggests is that these plans are subject to downward revision in a way that will take in far more taxpayers than Obama spent more than a year promising they would. It's not clear why he didn't just continue to prevaricate about this until Election Day, but facts are facts, a changed policy is a changed policy, and taxpayers under that $200,000 threshold will have to judge whether the promise to increase taxes on others but not on them is to be believed.

What will your definition of "rich" be next week Obama? Next month? This is the clearest sign yet that a President Obama would raise taxes on more than just "rich" Americans. And he will have a ready made excuse; the budget deficit.

Mark my words; he will appear on national TV early in his presidency and tell us that "the situation has changed," the budget deficit is too high and that taxes must be raised on all those in the two top tax brackets. The increase in taxes will be necessary because he will need to fund his wealth redistribution schemes as well as get control of a ballooning federal deficit. I will let you guess which priority of the two will get the funding.

This is why you cannot trust this man. But of course, we know that. I wonder what the press and American people will say when they find out Obama is a liar?

Source

Obama's '$4 Billion for Exxon' Myth

Why haven't the 'fact-checkers' done a better job?

In the final days of the campaign, Barack Obama continues to land the same sucker punch on taxes he used in the debates -- and John McCain continues to take it on the chin. In the last debate, Sen. Obama said, "We both want to cut taxes, the difference is who we want to cut taxes for. . . . The centerpiece of [McCain's] economic proposal is to provide $200 billion in additional tax breaks to some of the wealthiest corporations in America. Exxon Mobil, and other oil companies, for example, would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks."

That $200 billion figure is false. Yet FactCheck.org and most reporters never bothered to ask Mr. Obama where he came up with it. FactCheck.org did discover that Mr. Obama's claim about "$4 billion in tax breaks for energy companies" came from a two-page memo from the Center for American Progress Action Fund -- a political lobby headed by John Podesta, former chief of staff to Bill Clinton, with tax issues handled by two lawyers, Robert Gordon and James Kvaal, former policy directors for the John Kerry and John Edwards campaigns. Those lawyers confused average tax rates (after credits and deductions) with the 35% statutory rate on the next dollar of earnings, so that cutting the latter rate from 35% to 25% would supposedly cut big oil's $13.4 billion tax bill by 28.5%, or $3.8 billion. That is not economics; it is not even competent bookkeeping.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, by contrast, correctly notes that, "Senator McCain has called for the repeal and reform of a number of tax preferences for oil companies," which would raise the oil companies' taxes by $5 billion in 2013.

When fact checkers do look into campaign claims on taxes, they invariably cite estimates from the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center (TPC). The TPC estimates that the McCain corporate tax cuts would lose $734.7 billion of revenue over 10 years (2009-2018). Mr. McCain would also allow immediate expensing through 2013 for equipment normally written-off over three to five years, but no deduction for interest expense if the investment was made with borrowed money. Once equipment has been written-off in 2009 or 2010 it can't be written-off in later years, so the estimated revenue loss over 10 years is only $45 billion, or $4.5 billion per year. Altogether, that adds up to $78 billion a year in corporate tax cuts, not $200 billion.

Yet the $78 billion TPC estimate is also nonsense because it's entirely static. The estimate assumes raising or lowering corporate tax rates has no effect on corporate decisions about where to locate production, income or costs, and no effect on the economy's performance. If that made sense, the corporate tax rate could be doubled to 70% and the only effect (according to TPC estimates) would be to double corporate tax receipts. Such a static analysis is obviously worthless, yet it is nonetheless crucial to the TPC's estimates of the revenue supposedly lost from the McCain plan and its alleged distributional effects.

Mr. McCain proposes to cut the corporate tax rate to 30% in 2010-11, 28% in 2012-13, 26% in 2014, and 25% thereafter. The timing could be better. Why not cut the corporate tax rate to 28%-30% right away? Could anyone doubt that would help struggling businesses to minimize cutbacks and layoffs? Could anyone doubt it would invigorate the stock market?

Phasing in tax-rate reductions -- as in 1981 and 2001 -- has become a bad habit among Republicans. The trouble is that knowing tax rates will be lower in the future provides incentives to delay earning and reporting income until after they fall. In the American Economic Review, December 2006, University of Michigan economists Christopher House and Matthew Shapiro found "the phased-in tax cuts called for in the 2001 tax bill worked to depress employment as firms and workers waited for the lower tax rates to materialize."

In the U.S today, the combined federal and state tax on corporate profits averages 40%, which is increasingly out of line with the rest of the world. The average corporate tax rate dropped to 25.9% in 2008 from 37.7% in 1996 among 97 countries surveyed by KPMG, and to 23.2% from 38% in the European Union. Corporate tax revenues typically increased as a share of GDP after tax rates were reduced. Countries with corporate tax rates from 12.5% to 25%, such as Ireland, Switzerland, Austria and Denmark, routinely collect more corporate tax revenue as a share of GDP than the anemic 2.1% figure the Congressional Budget Office projects for the U.S.

In a new Tax & Budget Bulletin at Cato.org, Jack Mintz of the University of Calgary estimates that a federal-state corporate tax rate higher than 28% loses money for the government. Kimberly Clausing of Reed College estimated revenues would be maximized with a 33% federal and state tax. Kevin Hassett and Alex Brill of the American Enterprise Institute found "the revenue maximizing point has dropped over time, and is about 26%." In all of these studies, cutting the federal tax to 28%-30% sooner rather than later is very likely to raise revenue.

Regardless who wins the election, an accelerated version of Mr. McCain's original plan -- to cut the corporate tax rate to 28%-30% and expense investments in business equipment -- is by far the most potent "stimulus plan" anyone has yet proposed. And far from costing $200 billion a year, as Mr. Obama claims, it wouldn't cost a dime.

Source

OBAMA & THE ARABS

“Obama! Inshallah!”—Obama! Allah willing! That slogan, scribbled on walls in Gaza, indicates the hopes that Barack Obama has inspired among Arabs. While Obama has tried to push his origins into the background, his “Islamic roots” have won him a place in many Arabs’ hearts.

One columnist, Mohamed Al-Menshawi, hails Obama as “the candidate with Muslim roots” and as the “harbinger of solidarity between Americans and the Muslim world.” Another, Al-Jazeera’s Aala al-Bayoumi, notes: “Had it not been for Obama, Arabs would not even bother to follow the US presidential race.” What makes the difference is Obama’s “Islamic and African roots.” Marwan Bishara hails Obama’s “radical politics”: “For the US to vote in an African-American progressive liberal would certainly mark a departure from the hyper and violent conservatism of the Bush-McCain camp,” he writes. An Obama presidency “would be better for both the US and the Arab world.”

Obama especially appeals to pan-Arab nationalists angry at the United States for having ousted Saddam Hussein. Obama’s promise to leave Iraq gives pan-Arabs their only chance (albeit slim) to destroy the new Iraqi democracy. While radical Arabs, including the Hamas leadership, favor Obama, most Arab officials are wary of him. They fear his inexperience and leftist connections might destroy all that has been gained in Iraq, provoke a bigger mess in Afghanistan, trigger a war with Pakistan and open the way for Khomeinist hegemony in the region.…

Obama… has retained his Arabic-Islamic names. (Barack means “blessed” and Hussein means “beautiful.”) His family name is Swahili, an East African lingua franca based on Arabic. Arab commentators note that his siblings also all have Arabic Muslim names. His sister is called Oumah, Arabic for “the community of the faithful”, his older daughter, Malia, bears the name of a daughter of the Caliph Othman, who commissioned the compilation of the first edition of the Koran. That Obama’s stepfather was also a Muslim (from Indonesia) strengthens the empathy that many Arabs feel for him.

The Syrian regime has also indicated its preference for Obama, not least because President Bush forced it to end its 29-year military occupation of Lebanon. Buthaina Shaaban, an adviser to President Bashar al-Assad, has welcomed Obama’s call for radical change in US policy. She writes, “The change suggested by Obama is essential not only for the US but for the entire human family.” Also enthusiastic for Obama is the Lebanese Hezbollah. The party’s No. 2, Sheik Naim al-Kassim, went as far as inviting Americans to vote Obama as a step toward peace with Islam. (The party disowned his comments as “personal opinion.”) Pro- Hezbollah columnist Amal Saad-Ghorayeb has no doubt that Arabs should welcome an Obama presidency because “African-Americans are more sympathetic to Arabs because they, too, are oppressed.”…

Some columnists have also noted Obama’s close ties to a number of Palestinian radicals, including Rashid Khalidi and the late Edward Said, as signs that the senator would change US Middle East policy in the Arabs’ favor. Strengthening that impression was an interview the Rev. Jessie Jackson granted to several Arab media outlets, including Al-Jazeera and the popular Internet newspaper Elaph, in which he promised an end to the United States’ allegedly pro-Israel policy.

Not all Arab commentators are struck by Obamania, however. His flip-flops on issues—including the future of Jerusalem, withdrawal from Iraq and dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat—have prompted some to counsel caution. Tareq Al-Houmayed, editor of the daily Asharq Alawsat, warns Arabs not to expect too much: “Every American president would be governed by American interests. Obama’s understanding of politics is not important here.” Abdulrahman al-Rashed, a Saudi commentator, also notes that no president can radically alter US global policies. He advises Arabs to neither have exaggerated hopes nor be dispirited when Obama tells the Israelis “more than they hoped to hear” to win Jewish support

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.)

2008-11-01T17:06:00.002+11:30

Will SCOTUS intervene in birth certificate row?

Obama's steadfast refusal to make his birth cert available sure gives grounds for doubt. And SCOTUS could certainly conclude that THEY have standing to intervene

The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to help the nation avoid a constitutional crisis by halting Tuesday's election until Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama documents his eligibility to run for the top office in the nation.

Democratic attorney Philip Berg had filed a lawsuit alleging Obama is ineligible to be president because of possible birth in Kenya, but as WND reported, a federal judge dismissed the complaint claiming Berg lacks standing to bring the action.

The 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order from Judge R. Barclay Surrick concluded ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.

Instead, Surrick said Congress could determine "that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency," but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.

"Until that time," Surrick says, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring."

Berg has maintained that uncertainty about how the U.S. does enforce the requirements of presidency may result in a constitutional crisis should an ineligible candidate win the office.

In a statement today, Berg said he is applying to Justice David Souter for an "Immediate Injunction to Stay the Presidential Election of November 4, 2008."

"I am hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will grant the injunction pending a review of this case to avoid a constitutional crisis by insisting that Obama produce certified documentation that he is or is not a "natural born" citizen and if he cannot produce documentation that Obama be removed from the ballot for president," Berg said.

"We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the office of the presidency of the United States," Berg said.

More here

2008-11-01T00:13:00.001+11:30

A German Lady Remembers and Speaks

In Germany, when Hitler came to power, it was a time of terrible financial depression. Money was worth nothing. In Germany people lost homes and jobs, just like in the American Depression in the 1930s, which we have read about in Thoene's Shiloh books.

In those days, in my homeland, Adolph Hitler was elected to power by promising "Change." He blamed the "Zionists" around the world for all our problems. He told everyone it was greedy Zionist Bankers who had caused every problem we had. He promised when he was leader, the greedy Zionist bankers would be punished. The Zionists, he promised, would be wiped off the face of the earth. So Hitler was elected to power by only 1/3 the popular vote. A coalition of other political parties in parliament made him supreme leader.

Then, when he was leader, he disgraced and expelled everyone in parliament who did not go along with him. Yes. Change came to my homeland as the new leader promised it would. The teachers in German schools began to teach the children to sing songs in praise of Hitler. This was the beginning of the Hitler Youth movement.

It began with praise of the Fuhrer's programs on the lips of innocent children. Hymns in praise of Hitler and his programs were being sung in the schoolrooms and in the playyard. Little girls and boys joined hands and sang these songs as they walked home from school. My brother came home and told Papa what was happening at school. The political hymns of children proclaimed Change was coming to our homeland and the Fuhrer was a leader we could trust.

I will never forget my father's face. Grief and fear. He knew that the best propaganda of the Nazis was song on the lips of little children. That evening before he said grace at the dinner table, he placed his hands upon the heads of my brothers and me and prayed the Living Word upon us from Jeremiah 1:4-5.

'Now the Word of the Lord came to me, saying,
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to The nations."

Soon the children's songs praising the Fuhrer were heard everywhere on the streets and over the radio. "With our Fuhrer to lead us, we can do it! We can change the world!"

Soon after that Papa, a pastor, was turned away from visiting elderly parishioners in hospitals. The people he had come to bring comfort of God's Word, were "no longer there." Where had they vanished to while under nationalized health care? It became an open secret. The elderly and sick began to disappear from hospitals feet first as "mercy killing" became the policy. Children with disabilities and those who had Down syndrome were euthanized.

People whispered, "Maybe it is better for them now. Put them out of misery. They are no longer suffering.And, of course, their death is better for the treasury of our nation. Our taxes no longer must be spent to care for such a burden." And so murder was called mercy.

The government took over private business. Industry and health care were "nationalized." (NA-ZI means National Socialist Party) The businesses of all Jews were seized. (Perhaps you remember our story in Berlin on Kristalnacht in the book Munich Signature)

The world and God's word were turned upside down. Hitler promised the people economic Change? Not change. It was, rather, Lucifer's very ancient Delusion leading to Destruction. What began with the propaganda of children singing a catchy tune ended in the deaths of millions of children.

The reality of what came upon us is so horrible that you in this present generation cannot imagine it. Our suffering is too great to ever tell in a book or show in a black and white newsreel.

When I spoke to Bodie about some of these things, she wept and said she could not bear to write them. Perhaps one day she will, but I asked her, "who could bear to read our suffering?" Yet with my last breaths I warn every Christian and Jew now in the name of the Lord, Unless your course of the church in America is spiritually changed now, returning to the Lord, there are new horrors yet to come.

I trembled last night when I heard the voices of American children raised in song, praising the name of Obama, the charismatic fellow who claims he is the American Messiah. Yet I have heard what this man Obama says about abortion and the "mercy killing" of tiny babies who are not wanted.

There are so few of us left to warn you. I have heard that there are 69 million Catholics in America and 70 million Evangelical Christians. Where are your voices? Where is your outrage? Where is passion and your vote? Do you vote based on an abortionist's empty promises and economics? Or do you vote according to the Bible? Thus says the Lord about every living child still in the womb.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you."

I have experienced the signs of the politics of Death in my youth. I see them again now. Christians! Unless you stand up now, you will lose your freedom of religion. In America priests and preachers have already lost their freedom to speak openly from their pulpits of moral danger in political candidates. They cannot legally instruct you of which candidate holds fast to the precepts of scripture! American law forbids this freedom of speech to conservative pastors or they will lose their "tax exempt" status.

And yet I have heard the words of Obama's pastor Damning America! I have heard the words of Obama damning and mocking all of you in small towns because you "Cling to your religion." But I am a woman whose name is unknown. My life is recorded as a work of fiction. I have no fear of reprisal when I speak truth to you from the pages of a book.

I have no fear for myself, but for all of you and for your children, I tremble. I tremble at the hymns to a political leaders which your children will sing at school.. (Though even now a hymn or a prayer to God and our Lord Jesus is against the law in public school!)

Your vote must put a stop to what will come upon America if Barack Obama is elected. I pray you will personally heed this warning for the sake of your children and your grandchildren. Do not be deceived. The Lord in Jeremiah 1:7-8 commands every believer to speak up!

"Do not say, 'I am only a youth,' for to all whom I send you, you shall go, and whatever I command you, you shall speak. Do not be afraid of them for I am with you, declares the Lord!"

Source

Two quotes from the Obama-Khalidi videotape

You know the videotape that shows Barack Obama toasting PLO terrorist Rashid Khalidi? The one that the Los Angeles Times refuses to release? "The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton...

How frickin' stupid do they think we are? Someone gave the Times a videotape so it wouldn't be released? And they can't publish a transcript? I guess that's the kind of executive talent the newspaper business is attracting these days.

However, I received a tip from a person who has provided useful, accurate and unique data from LA before (e.g., "All six of CNN's 'undecided voters' were Democratic operatives"). Take it for what it's worth, but I believe this person is on target.

"Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."

Source

Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are-beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:

THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."

THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.

THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."

THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years-and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."

THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "

THE FACTS: His proposals-the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more-cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged-although not in his commercial-that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."

THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."

THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.

THE SPIN: "We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we're going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad that we've got to look at bringing that war to a close." These lines in the ad were taken from a debate with McCain.

THE FACTS: Obama was once and very often definitive about getting combat troops out in 16 months (At times during the primaries, he promised to do so within a year). More recently, without backing away explicitly from the 16-month withdrawal pledge, he has talked of the need for flexibility. In the primaries, it would have been a jarring departure for him to have said merely that "we've got to look at" ending the war. As for Iraq's surplus, it's true that Iraq could end up with a surplus that large, but that hasn't happened yet.

Source

Comrade Obama?

If Barack Obama is not a socialist, he does the best imitation of one I've ever seen. Under his tax plan, the top 5 percent of wage-earners have their income tax rates raised from 35 percent to 40 percent, while the bottom 40 percent of all wage-earners, who pay no income tax, are sent federal checks. If this is not the socialist redistribution of wealth, what is it? A steeply graduated income tax has always been the preferred weapon of the left for bringing about socialist equality. Indeed, in the "Communist Manifesto" of 1848, Karl Marx was himself among the first to call for "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

The Obama tax plan is pure Robin Hood class warfare: Use the tax power of the state to rob the successful and reward the faithful. Only in Sherwood Forest it was assumed the Sheriff of Nottingham and his crowd had garnered their wealth by other than honest labor. "Spread the wealth," Barack admonished Joe the Plumber.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," said old Karl in 1875. When Barbara West of WFTV in Orlando, Fla., put the Marx quote to Biden, however, Joe recoiled in spluttering disbelief.

West: "You may recognize this famous quote: 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' That's from Karl Marx. How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

Biden: "Are you joking? Is this a joke?"

Biden's better defense, however, might have be the "Tu quoque!" retort: "You, too!" -- the time-honored counter-charge of hypocrisy.

Indeed, how do Republicans who call Obama a socialist explain their support for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare and the Earned Income Tax Credit? What are these if not government-mandated transfers of wealth to the middle and working class, and the indigent and working poor?

Since August, the Bush-Paulson team has seized our biggest S&L, Washington Mutual, and largest insurance company, AIG. It has nationalized Fannie and Freddie, pumped scores of billions into our banks, bailed out GM, Ford and Chrysler, and paid the $29 billion dowry for Bear Stearns to enter its shotgun marriage with JPMorgan Chase.

And with federal, state and local taxes taking a third of gross domestic product, and government regulating businesses with wage-and-hour laws, civil rights laws, environmental laws, and occupational health and safety laws, what are we living under, if not a mixed socialist-capitalist system?

Norman Thomas is said to have quit running for president on the Socialist ticket after six campaigns because the Democratic Party had stolen all his ideas and written them into its platforms.

Did Ike repeal the New Deal? Did Richard Nixon roll back the Great Society? Nope. He funded the Great Society. Did Ronald Reagan cut federal spending? Nope, defense spending soared. Bill Clinton slashed defense, but George Bush II set social spending records with No Child Left Behind and prescription drug benefits for the elderly under Medicare. Surpluses vanished, deficits returned, the national debt almost doubled.

Is the old republic then dead and gone, in the irretrievable past? Are we engaged in an argument settled before we were born? In his 1938 essay "The Revolution Was," Garet Garrett wrote: "There are those who think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of the Depression, singing songs to freedom."

Nevertheless, there is a difference not just of degree but of kind between unemployment compensation for jobless workers, welfare for destitute families, and confiscating the income of taxpayers who earned it -- to hand out to chronic tax consumers who did not. This last is the socialism Winston Churchill called "the philosophy of envy and gospel of greed." And it is this suggestion of socialist ideology in Obama's words that has produced the belated pause by a nation that seemed to be moving into his camp. What did Barack say in 2001?

He spoke of the inadequacy of the courts as institutions to bring about "redistributive change" in society, of the "tragedy" of the civil rights movement in losing sight of the "political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change." Normal people don't talk like that. Socialists do.

This is ideology speaking. This is the redistributionist drivel one hears from cosseted college radicals and the "Marxist professors" Obama says in his memoir he sought out at the university. It is the language of social parasites like William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Father Pfleger.

Enforced egalitarianism entails the death of excellence. For it seizes the rewards that excellence earns and turns them over to politicians and bureaucrats for distribution to the mediocrities upon whose votes they depend. One need not be Ayn Rand to see that Barack has picked up from past associates utopian notions that have ever produced nightmare states.

Source

Obamapologist denies Obama's own "Wealth spreading" ideas

Occasionally, it's good to take people at their word. If somebody says something explicitly, you should listen implicitly, because they tend to mean what they say. There is no further need to question their every answer.

And so it is with Barack Obama. He thinks "one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement" was that it tried to achieve too many of its goals via the courts. This was good for achieving application of voting rights and the like, but not for "redistribution of wealth" and "basic issues of political and economic justice in the society."

Instead, he believes that a better strategy is to do so legislatively. Okay, we get it. He really does believe in the "redistribution of wealth." He wants to "spread the wealth." He has said it repeatedly. He believes it. He means it.
There's no misunderstanding here at all. We should take the man at his word.

However, Slate's Emily Bazelon would have one believe that when he spoke of "redistributive change", Senator Obama did not really mean what he said at all. As Mr. Obama's self-appointed translator, she explains that he "was speaking against the backdrop of an old debate in the legal academy, which was not about who should pay higher taxes."

Excuse me? The debate may not have entirely been about progressive taxation-one of the primary instruments of wealth redistribution-but it most certainly was about the best method of achieving redistribution of wealth, as Mr. Obama explicitly noted.

To somehow suggest that Mr. Obama's views on wealth redistribution are entirely divorced from his views on raising taxes on the top 5 percent of wage earners is, well. wrong. Inaccurate. Misleading.

He explicitly justified that view-in favor of progressive taxation-to Joe the Plumber because he wants to "spread the wealth around":

"It's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Clearly to "spread the wealth," you first have to take the wealth. But, Ms. Bazelon is undaunted. Her piece is titled, "He's Not Robin Hood." The subheadline reads, "What Obama really meant by `redistributive change.'" To be fair, perhaps this was an editorial decision and those weren't her intended headlines. Though they probably were.

Nonetheless, they are misleading because Mr. Obama really does want to engage in the redistribution of wealth. Some folks support taxation because they believe there are certain, limited functions that government ought to perform. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, goes much, much further. He thinks that the wealthy should be taxed at higher rates so that the money may be redistributed to those less fortunate-or those who simply don't care to work quite as hard, thank you.

Ms. Bazelon even admits it: "[O]f course Obama is for redistribution." And then, almost as if catching herself in mid-fall, she gasps, "So is any politician, including John McCain, who favors a progressive income tax. Governments constantly take more from one group and give more to another."

The controversy, Ms. Bazelon, is not over the structure of the tax code per se. That is a well-entrenched tragedy. It is over why Mr. Obama-and all other Marxists.or, rather, socialists. excuse me, Democrats-believe the tax code ought to be structured that way. About which, there is no misunderstanding: Senator Obama wants to tax the wealthy at higher rates so as to "spread the wealth around".

Senator McCain, we suspect, does not believe that is the proper role of government-even though he has in the past shown a decidedly unfortunate proclivity for taxation and even class warfare rhetoric.

So let us not conflate the issues involved. The controversy is over Mr. Obama's motives for raising taxes on the top 5 percent of wage earners. Or whoever else happens to enter his crosshairs as the "undeserving" rich. There is no misunderstanding.

We got it. We'll take him at his word. He really is a socialist who wants to-as he has repeatedly said-"spread the wealth".
Next question?

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.)

2008-10-31T03:38:00.000+11:30

Obama campaign tries to bribe African Press International

API apparently have a tape of Michelle Obama making racist comments

Six hours after the release of information by API on the planned broadcast by Fox News Network of the Michelle Obama tape, in accordance with an agreement that has been reached between API and Fox News Network, API was contacted by Obama’s Campaign Manager.

Those who are close to the democratic presidential candidate must be desperate to win the elections no matter what, otherwise they would not have taken such bold step to contact API with an offer of a bribe in order to stop the airing of the tape. Obama’s campaign manager contacted API by telephone and email offering 3 million US dollars followed with a request to API to cancel the deal with Fox News Network.

Ten days ago API received the first request to accept 2 million US dollars by Mr Ed Hale, President of Plains Radio, Texas - USA, in an effort to suppress the information from reaching the public before the coming US Presidential elections.

API has now taken a decision to contact the American Embassy in Oslo, Norway as soon as possible in order to report the matter and hand over the evidence for investigative purposes. API’s Canadian lawyer is expected to fly to Oslo shortly in order to assist in the legal matters that arise from the bribery attempt.

API’s Chief editor is expected to travel to New York, together with the Canadian lawyer, where he will appear live in one of the shows that will air the Michelle Obama tape.

Source

2008-10-31T00:05:00.000+11:30

Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor

The fix is in. His visit to Hawaii to "see his grandmother" was obviously a great success

Although the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama's birth certificate has become a focus of intense speculation - and even several lawsuits - WND has learned that Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate's birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances. The governor's office officially declined a request made in writing by WND in Hawaii to obtain a copy of the hospital-generated original birth certificate of Barack Obama.

"It does not appear that Dr. Corsi is within any of these categories of persons with a direct and tangible interest in the birth certificate he seeks," wrote Roz Makuala, manager of constituent services in the governor's office, in an e-mailed response to a WND request seeking the information.

Those listed as entitled to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate include the person born, or "registrant" according to the legal description from the governor's office, the spouse or parent of the registrant, a descendant of the registrant, a person having a common ancestor with the registrant, a legal guardian of the registrant, or a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant.

WND was told the official reason for denial of access to Obama's birth certificate would be authority granted pursuant to Section 338-18 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, a provision the anonymous source claimed was designed to prevent identity theft.

Still, the source told WND confidentially the motivation for withholding the original birth certificate was political, although the source refused to disclose whether there was any information on the original birth certificate that would prove politically embarrassing to Obama. The source also refused to answer WND's question whether the original document on file with the Department of Health was a hospital-generated birth certificate or a registration of birth that may have been filed subsequent to the birth.

The anonymous source made clear the Hawaii Department of Health would immediately release Obama's original birth certificate, provided Obama requested the document be released, but the Department of Heath has received no such request from the senator or from anyone acting officially on his behalf.

WND also found on microfilm in the Honolulu downtown public library a notice published under the "Births, Marriages, Deaths" section of the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser for August 13, 1961, on page B-6, noting: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack II Obama. 6085 Kalanianaole-Hwy, son, Aug. 4."

In searching through the birth notices of the Honolulu Advertiser for 1961, WND found many birth notices were published between one and two weeks after the date of birth listed. The notice in the Honolulu Advertiser does not list the hospital where the Obama son was born or the doctor who delivered the baby.

In a startling development, Obama's Kenyan grandmother has reportedly alleged she witnessed Obama's birth at the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.

Friday, U.S. Federal judge Richard Barclay Surrick, a Clinton appointee, dismissed a lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania attorney Phillip J. Berg who alleged Obama was not a U.S. "natural born" citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency under the specifications of the U.S. Constitution, under Article II, Section 1.

Berg told WND last week he does not have a copy of a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama that he alleges exists. In Kenya, WND was told by government authorities that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4.

The Obama campaign website entitled "Fight the Smears" posts a state of Hawaii "Certificate of Live Birth" which is obviously not the original birth certificate generated by the hospital where Obama reportedly was born. "Fight the Smears" declares, "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America."

Although the Obama campaign could immediately put an end to all the challenges by simply producing the candidate's original birth certificate, it has not done so. And the "Fight the Smears" website offers no explanation as to why Obama has refused to request, and make public, an original hospital-generated birth certificate which the Hawaii Department of Health may possess.

Source

Obama and the Politics of Crowds

The masses greeting the candidate on the trail are a sign of great unease

There is something odd -- and dare I say novel -- in American politics about the crowds that have been greeting Barack Obama on his campaign trail. Hitherto, crowds have not been a prominent feature of American politics. We associate them with the temper of Third World societies. We think of places like Argentina and Egypt and Iran, of multitudes brought together by their zeal for a Peron or a Nasser or a Khomeini. In these kinds of societies, the crowd comes forth to affirm its faith in a redeemer: a man who would set the world right.

As the late Nobel laureate Elias Canetti observes in his great book, "Crowds and Power" (first published in 1960), the crowd is based on an illusion of equality: Its quest is for that moment when "distinctions are thrown off and all become equal. It is for the sake of this blessed moment, when no one is greater or better than another, that people become a crowd." These crowds, in the tens of thousands, who have been turning out for the Democratic standard-bearer in St. Louis and Denver and Portland, are a measure of American distress.

On the face of it, there is nothing overwhelmingly stirring about Sen. Obama. There is a cerebral quality to him, and an air of detachment. He has eloquence, but within bounds. After nearly two years on the trail, the audience can pretty much anticipate and recite his lines. The political genius of the man is that he is a blank slate. The devotees can project onto him what they wish. The coalition that has propelled his quest -- African-Americans and affluent white liberals -- has no economic coherence. But for the moment, there is the illusion of a common undertaking -- Canetti's feeling of equality within the crowd. The day after, the crowd will of course discover its own fissures. The affluent will have to pay for the programs promised the poor. The redistribution agenda that runs through Mr. Obama's vision is anathema to the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and the hedge-fund managers now smitten with him. Their ethos is one of competition and the justice of the rewards that come with risk and effort. All this is shelved, as the devotees sustain the candidacy of a man whose public career has been a steady advocacy of reining in the market and organizing those who believe in entitlement and redistribution.

A creature of universities and churches and nonprofit institutions, the Illinois senator, with the blessing and acquiescence of his upscale supporters, has glided past these hard distinctions. On the face of it, it must be surmised that his affluent devotees are ready to foot the bill for the new order, or are convinced that after victory the old ways will endure, and that Mr. Obama will govern from the center. Ambiguity has been a powerful weapon of this gifted candidate: He has been different things to different people, and he was under no obligation to tell this coalition of a thousand discontents, and a thousand visions, the details of his political programs: redistribution for the poor, postracial absolution and "modernity" for the upper end of the scale.

It was no accident that the white working class was the last segment of the population to sign up for the Obama journey. Their hesitancy was not about race. They were men and women of practicality; they distrusted oratory, they could see through the falseness of the solidarity offered by this campaign. They did not have much, but believed in the legitimacy of what little they had acquired. They valued work and its rewards. They knew and heard of staggering wealth made by the Masters of the Universe, but held onto their faith in the outcomes that economic life decreed. The economic hurricane that struck America some weeks ago shook them to the core. They now seek protection, the shelter of the state, and the promise of social repair. The bonuses of the wizards who ran the great corporate entities had not bothered them. It was the spectacle of the work of the wizards melting before our eyes that unsettled them.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late Democratic senator from New York, once set the difference between American capitalism and the older European version by observing that America was the party of liberty, whereas Europe was the party of equality. Just in the nick of time for the Obama candidacy, the American faith in liberty began to crack. The preachers of America's decline in the global pecking order had added to the panic. Our best days were behind us, the declinists prophesied. The sun was setting on our imperium, and rising in other lands.

A younger man, "cool" and collected, carrying within his own biography the strands of the world beyond America's shores, was put forth as a herald of the change upon us. The crowd would risk the experiment. There was grudge and a desire for retribution in the crowd to begin with. Akin to the passions that have shaped and driven highly polarized societies, this election has at its core a desire to settle the unfinished account of the presidential election eight years ago. George W. Bush's presidency remained, for his countless critics and detractors, a tale of usurpation. He had gotten what was not his due; more galling still, he had been bold and unabashed, and taken his time at the helm as an opportunity to assert an ambitious doctrine of American power abroad. He had waged a war of choice in Iraq.

This election is the rematch that John Kerry had not delivered on. In the fashion of the crowd that seeks and sees the justice of retribution, Mr. Obama's supporters have been willing to overlook his means. So a candidate pledged to good government and to ending the role of money in our political life opts out of public financing of presidential campaigns. What of it? The end justifies the means.

Save in times of national peril, Americans have been sober, really minimalist, in what they expected out of national elections, out of politics itself. The outcomes that mattered were decided in the push and pull of daily life, by the inventors and the entrepreneurs, and the captains of industry and finance. To be sure, there was a measure of willfulness in this national vision, for politics and wars guided the destiny of this republic. But that American sobriety and skepticism about politics -- and leaders -- set this republic apart from political cultures that saw redemption lurking around every corner.

My boyhood, and the Arab political culture I have been chronicling for well over three decades, are anchored in the Arab world. And the tragedy of Arab political culture has been the unending expectation of the crowd -- the street, we call it -- in the redeemer who will put an end to the decline, who will restore faded splendor and greatness. When I came into my own, in the late 1950s and '60s, those hopes were invested in the Egyptian Gamal Abdul Nasser. He faltered, and broke the hearts of generations of Arabs. But the faith in the Awaited One lives on, and it would forever circle the Arab world looking for the next redeemer.

America is a different land, for me exceptional in all the ways that matter. In recent days, those vast Obama crowds, though, have recalled for me the politics of charisma that wrecked Arab and Muslim societies. A leader does not have to say much, or be much. The crowd is left to its most powerful possession -- its imagination.

From Elias Canetti again: "But the crowd, as such, disintegrates. It has a presentiment of this and fears it. . . . Only the growth of the crowd prevents those who belong to it from creeping back under their private burdens."

The morning after the election, the disappointment will begin to settle upon the Obama crowd. Defeat -- by now unthinkable to the devotees -- will bring heartbreak. Victory will steadily deliver the sobering verdict that our troubles won't be solved by a leader's magic.

Source

A President Who Won't Uphold the Constitution? Never

Well, now we know why Barack Obama's been so reluctant to have symbols of this country associated with his campaign. No flags on his airplane. Nix to pins on his lapel. Not inclined to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem. After all, it turns out he has a problem with that other slightly more significant representation of our nation, the United States Constitution.

Just as he tried to prove to everyone that his patriotism was demonstrated by the lack of symbols of the United States, so he is now arguing that his passion for the Constitution is demonstrated by his commitment to shredding it.

The Drudge Report and other legitimate investigative sources like the National Review, have exposed the most damning evidence yet of Barack Obama's utter disregard for the core principles of the United States government. In a radio interview given in 2001, Obama reveals yet again about what he means by `equality,' when he says, ".the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."

Bad? Sure. Because now it's not just "spread the wealth" a little bit (antithetical as that already is to American notions of hard work and prosperity). It's that "redistribution of wealth" is part and parcel of Obama's vision of what is "political and economic justice" in this society.

But it is much worse. Because this Harvard-educated lawyer then announces that the United States Supreme Court when headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, was "not radical enough," in its pursuit of civil liberties, because "[i]t didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."

If this has not stopped you dead in your tracks, either you don't understand, or you're already dead. What Obama is doing here is expressing his opinion that the Court would have better effectuated his definition of "political and economic justice" if it had been willing to ignore the limits placed upon it by the Constitution.

I have written elsewhere of Obama's potential designs on the country, and his inclinations should he obtain the power he seeks. Many of the hypotheticals I posited then were pooh-poohed by readers, who said, in essence, "He'd never do that; the Constitution prevents it."

At this point, any belief in Obama's respect for constitutional limits is delusional. If he is so cavalier about the Constitution's limits upon the power of the judiciary, why on earth would he respect the limits on the power of the Presidency? Or on Congress? Clamor for the reinstatement of the insidiously named "Fairness Doctrine" has already put the First Amendment in Obama's sights. What would be sacrosanct about the Second? Or the Fourth? Or Fifth? Or Eighth? Why would Obama let any constitutional limit stand in the way of what he views as "political and economic justice"?

These views are why Obama's acquaintances, associates and allies matter. Why his Alinskyite "by any means necessary" philosophy matters. Why we should care that he funds and takes money from people who say they hate or wish to undermine America. Why we should be concerned when he took spiritual sustenance from a man who spends much of his time condemning white people. This is what drives Barack Obama. And this is why he wants the Presidency.

The rest of Obama's observations during this interview are just as asinine, and just as threatening. He says, "generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."

This is deception. As an initial matter, few listening to him would understand the gobbledygook, "negative liberties." But more importantly, he never explains that the United States Constitution is the oldest constitution in effect in the world. And that is no accident. It is the oldest, because it is the only constitution I am aware of that is drafted the way it is. Specifically, other constitutions list certain rights that the government conveys upon the people. Or, to put it as Obama did, the things "government must do on your behalf."

Our Constitution, by contrast, has precisely the opposite construction. We, the people, are presumed to have all the rights, not just those written down in the Constitution. (And the Declaration of Independence states that these rights are "endowed by our Creator;" not by any government.) Lest this be unclear, the drafters of the Constitution put it in writing. The Ninth Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." And the Tenth Amendment goes further, stating explicitly that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."

Obama is engaging in dangerous demagoguery when he suggests that we the people of the United States need him - or the government he wants in place - to give us rights we don't already have.

This deceitful view was echoed when he was introduced by Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur in Ohio earlier this week, who said that Americans "needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers." This is no "bill of rights," it is a bill of attainder (look it up). Those found "guilty" would be anyone wealthier, more successful, or more prosperous than any other. And the punishment? The very things Obama and the Democrats are already pushing for: high taxes, and even seizure and redistribution of all American's private property.

I am stunned beyond belief that these blunt admissions do not give otherwise patriotic Obama supporters (and this describes the vast majority of them) serious pause. But those voting for him seem to fall into two groups. The first group says, "Oh well, Bush has trashed the Constitution, too." Even assuming that this were true, it is hardly a ringing endorsement for your candidate. Worse, it displays a surprising ignorance that the procedural protections Obama is determined to dismantle won't be there to protect you against the next right-wing fascist you guys are always running in terror from. What - you think Obama will give those rights back right before (if) he leaves office?

The second group consists of disgruntled so-called "conservatives" like Kathleen Parker, Colin Powell, Peggy Noonan, and Christopher Buckley, who hear what Obama is saying, but choose not to believe him. I'm not sure what to say to these people, except that their refusal to learn from history suggests that there may be something to those claims that there's no such thing as evolution.

Those who drafted the Constitution knew that persuasive orators who promised beneficence in exchange for liberty would come along. This is why George Washington admonished that "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master." And it is why Thomas Jefferson said, "In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Every President, upon taking office, takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." A President should be willing to die to defend our Constitution. Obama is dying to destroy it

Source

An Acorn Whistleblower Testifies in Court

The group's ties to Obama are extensive

Acorn, the liberal "community organizing" group that claims it will deploy 15,000 get-out-the-vote workers on Election Day, can't stay out of the news.

The FBI is investigating its voter registration efforts in several states, amid allegations that almost a third of the 1.3 million cards it turned in are invalid. And yesterday, a former employee of Acorn testified in a Pennsylvania state court that the group's quality-control efforts were "minimal or nonexistent" and largely window dressing. Anita MonCrief also says that Acorn was given lists of potential donors by several Democratic presidential campaigns, including that of Barack Obama, to troll for contributions.

The Obama campaign denies it "has any ties" to Acorn, but Mr. Obama's ties are extensive. In 1992 he headed a registration effort for Project Vote, an Acorn partner at the time. He did so well that he was made a top trainer for Acorn's Chicago conferences. In 1995, he represented Acorn in a key case upholding the constitutionality of the new Motor Voter Act -- the first law passed by the Clinton administration -- which created the mandated, nationwide postcard voter registration system that Acorn workers are using to flood election offices with bogus registrations.

Ms. MonCrief testified that in November 2007 Project Vote development director Karyn Gillette told her she had direct contact with the Obama campaign and had obtained their donor lists. Ms. MonCrief also testified she was given a spreadsheet to use in cultivating Obama donors who had maxed out on donations to the candidate, but who could contribute to voter registration efforts. Project Vote calls the allegation "absolutely false."

She says that when she had trouble with what appeared to be duplicate names on the list, Ms. Gillette told her she would talk with the Obama campaign and get a better version. Ms. MonCrief has given me copies of the donor lists she says were obtained from other Democratic campaigns, as well as the 2004 DNC donor lists.

In her testimony, Ms. MonCrief says she was upset by Acorn's "Muscle for Money" program, which she said intimidated businesses Acorn opposed into paying "protection" money in the form of grants. Acorn's Brian Kettering says the group only wants to change corporate behavior: "Acorn is proud of its corporate campaigns to stop abuses of working families."

Ms. MonCrief, 29, never expected to testify in a case brought by the state's Republican Party seeking the local Acorn affiliate's voter registration lists. An idealistic graduate of the University of Alabama, she joined Project Vote in 2005 because she thought it was empowering poor people. A strategic consultant for Acorn and a development associate with its Project Vote voter registration affiliate, Ms. MonCrief sat in on policy-making meetings with the national staff. She was fired early this year over personal expenses she had put on the group's credit card.

She says she became disillusioned because she saw that Acorn was run as the personal fiefdom of Wade Rathke, who founded the group in 1970 and ran it until he stepped down to take over its international operations this summer. Mr. Rathke's departure as head of Acorn came after revelations he'd employed his brother Dale for a decade while keeping from almost all of Acorn's board members the fact that Dale had embezzled over $1 million from the group a decade ago. (The embezzlement was confirmed to me by an Acorn official.) "Anyone who questioned what was going on was viewed as the enemy," Ms. MonCrief told me. "Just like the mob, no one leaves Acorn happily." She believes the organization does some good but hopes its current leadership is replaced. She may not be alone.

Last August two of Acorn's eight dissident board members, Marcel Reed and Karen Inman, filed suit demanding access to financial records of Citizens Consulting Inc., the umbrella group through which most of Acorn's money flows. Ms. Inman told a news conference this month Mr. Rathke still exercises power over CCI and Acorn against the board's wishes. Bertha Lewis, the interim head of Acorn, told me Mr. Rathke has no ties to Acorn and that the dissident board members were "obsessed" and "confused."

According to public records, the IRS filed three tax liens totaling almost $1 million against Acorn this spring. Also this spring, CCI was paid $832,000 by the Obama campaign for get-out-the-vote efforts in key primary states. In filings with the Federal Election Commission, the Obama campaign listed the payments as "staging, sound, lighting," only correcting the filings after the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review revealed their true nature.

"Acorn needs a full forensic audit," Ms. MonCrief says, though she doesn't think that's likely. "Everyone wants to paper things over until later," she says. "But it may be too late to reform Acorn then." She strongly supports Barack Obama and hopes his allies can be helpful in cleaning up the group "after the heat of the election is gone."

Acorn's Mr. Kettering says the GOP lawsuit "is designed to suppress legitimate voters," and he says Ms. MonCrief isn't credible, given that she was fired for cause. Ms. MonCrief admits that she left after she began paying back some $3,000 in personal expenses she charged on an Acorn credit card. "I was very sorry, and I was paying it back," she says, but "suddenly Acorn decided that . . . I had to go. Since then I have gotten warnings to 'back off' from people at Acorn."

Acorn insists it operates with strict quality controls, turning in, as required by law, all registration forms "even if the name on them was Donald Duck," as Wade Rathke told me two years ago. Acorn whistleblowers tell a different story.

"There's no quality control on purpose, no checks and balances," says Nate Toler, who worked until 2006 as the head organizer of an Acorn campaign against Wal-Mart in California. And Ms. MonCrief says it is longstanding practice to blame bogus registrations on lower-level employees who then often face criminal charges, a practice she says Acorn internally calls "throwing folks under the bus."

Gregory Hall, a former Acorn employee, says he was told on his very first day in 2006 to engage in deceptive fund-raising tactics. Mr. Hall has founded a group called Speaking Truth to Power to push for a full airing of Acorn's problems "so the group can heal itself from within."

To date, Mr. Obama has declined to criticize Acorn, telling reporters this month he is happy with his own get-out-the-vote efforts and that "we don't need Acorn's help." That may be true. But there is no denying his ties with Acorn helped turbocharge his political career.

Source

Education: Obama says schools need more money, McCain wants more accountability

Though education has not figured prominently in the campaign, John McCain and Barack Obama have their proposals. Each falls squarely within their respective party's established political framework: Boiled down, Mr. Obama believes that schools require more resources and federal support, while Mr. McCain wants to introduce to the education system more choice and accountability.

School choice. Mr. McCain would pursue education reforms that institute equality of choice in the K-12 system. He would allow parents whose kids are locked into failing public schools to opt out, whether in favor of another public school, a charter school or through voucher or scholarship programs for private options. Parents, he believes, ought to have more control over their education dollars. Teachers' unions and school administrators find none of this amenable. Mr. McCain supports merit pay for teachers and would establish a bonus program for high-performing educators, as well as devote more funds toward attracting successful college graduates into the field. He would also give principals more control over their schools, including spending decisions, instead of district school boards.

Teachers. Mr. Obama prefers that students stay within the current system, though he acknowledges its many problems. A mainstay of his campaign is his promise to completely underwrite training costs in teacher preparation. He also supports continuing education and mentoring programs for current teachers. So that there is a "guarantee of quality," he backs mandatory professional accrediting for educators and proposes a "career ladder initiative" to reform teacher compensation and tenure to recognize expertise. During a recent speech to the American Federation of Teachers, Mr. Obama disparaged "tired rhetoric about vouchers and school choice."

No Child Left Behind. The 2001 legislation that introduced national performance standards and accountability to the schools remains a political live wire, particularly in regard to weak enforcement by the Department of Education. Mr. McCain has offered few specific reforms but generally supports the law's broad contours as a good start. Many of Mr. Obama's reform ideas would result in essentially suspending the law's accountability provisions, though not the Washington funding, which he says he would increase.

Early childhood education. Mr. Obama supports a universal preschool policy and says that his "zero-to-five" early education agenda "begins at birth." He would increase federal outlays for universal preschool education by $10 billion annually, handing the states block grants devoted to infants and toddlers. Mr. Obama also wants to expand eligibility for Head Start, the four-decade-old federal preschool program for low-income kids. Mr. McCain believes there is already a profusion of federal programs devoted to early child care and preschool, including Head Start and its many offshoots. He would try to better coordinate the programs and focus them on outcomes to reduce waste. To reward success, Mr. McCain wants to establish "centers of excellence," which would receive more Head Start funding and serve as models for underperforming institutions.

Public service. Though both candidates call on listeners to devote themselves to "causes greater than self-interest," Mr. Obama would see to it that they do, with a plan for "universal voluntary citizen service." In addition to doubling the size of the Peace Corps, he would create a Classroom Corps, a Health Corps, a Homeland Security Corps and a Clean Energy Corps, plus a Green Jobs Corps. Mr. Obama proposes a fully refundable tax credit of $4,000 for college students who complete 100 hours of community service a year ($40 an hour). He would make federal education aid conditional on high schools requiring students to perform 50 hours of service a year.

Higher education. Mr. Obama suggests expanding federal student aid programs, including Pell Grants, and says he will streamline college tax benefits, which are so complicated many students and families don't end up claiming them. Mr. McCain likes the tax simplification part. He also believes that earmarks have compromised the integrity of government-financed research at the nation's universities and promises to eliminate them (the earmarks, not the universities).

Source

The scriptures speak

You cannot be a Christian and vote for Obama

To all those who name the name of Christ who plan to willfully disobey Him by voting for Obama, take warning. Not only is our nation in grave danger, according to the Word of God, so are you. First, the facts on life: On July 17, 2007, Barack Obama spoke to Planned Parenthood and said:

On this fundamental issue of [abortion rights], I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield. ... The first thing I'll do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do. ...

And what is the "Freedom of Choice Act"? It would completely federalize the abortion issue and strike down all state laws from parental notification to the Woman's Right to Know Laws to bans on partial-birth abortion, declaring them null and void with the stroke of an Obama pen.

In one week, America will make a choice. And to those who call themselves "Christian" who are planning on voting for Barack Obama, put down the Obama talking points and read God's voter guide before you go to the polls:

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live (Deuteronomy 30:19).

But you think this issue doesn't matter? God felt so strongly about it that he carved it in stone:

You shall not murder (Exodus 20:13).

Think you can love God and still vote against life? In John 14:15, Jesus said:

If you love Me, keep My commandments.

Yes, and "Thou shall not murder" made the top 10.

Barack Obama and many of his followers claim to be Christian. But Isaiah 29:13 says:

Therefore the Lord said: "Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths and honor Me with their lips, But have removed their hearts far from Me, And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men" (Isaiah 29:13).

And Matthew 7:20:

Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions (Matthew 7:20).

Knowing that, here's another command from Proverbs 31:8:

Open your mouth for the speechless, in the cause of all who are appointed to die.

To you who are pretending that you don't know this, Proverbs 24:11 speaks directly to you:

Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to die;
Save them as they stagger to their death.
Don't excuse yourself by saying, "Look, we didn't know."
For God understands all hearts, and he sees you.
He who guards your soul knows you knew.
He will repay all people as their actions deserve.

It's not just about "hope" and "change." Proverbs 6:16-22 states there are some things God hates.

These six things the LORD hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.

Obama-Biden are pro-death. McCain-Palin are pro-life.

More here

(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.)

2008-10-30T00:09:00.001+11:30

The useful vagueness of Obama

Nineteen eighty-two was a lucky time (as your columnist can attest) to be leaving college. Whatever faults various authorities find in the "decade of greed," which was followed by another decade of greed, it marked the start of 25 years of exceptional prosperity and opportunity. Freer trade and the epochal joining of a couple billion Chinese and others into the global division of labor played a role. The ideas of Reagan and Thatcher, bringing the private sector back to a place of honor, played a role.

Is the age of Obama the beginning of a less golden age? We cast no aspersion on the man or his program. Mr. Obama, in his short career, has not strongly associated himself with any policy idea. His relation to his own proposals during the campaign has been pleasantly noncommittal, if generally liberal (as voters and the media are only now getting around to noticing).

His rise offers little insight either. His Senate primary and general election races were smoothed by the serendipitous bowing out of formidable opponents in each case, in divorce-related "scandals." His presidential hopes have been turned overnight into landslide hopes by a financial crisis that has left the public angry and confused, though not one that plays to any expertise of Mr. Obama's.

Yet if he wins next week, it could be with a sweeping mandate to decide, er, what his mandate will be. He's a presidential vehicle perfectly designed, or self-designed, to be driven by history, rather than driving it. And he comes just at the moment when, overnight, crashing down is just about every normal restraint against intrusive, redistributing, regulating government. This is the door the remarkable Mr. Obama is about to waltz through.

In a two-party system, both parties need to be capable of governing, of having some long view of the central challenge -- which, arguably, in our case remains the financing challenge of the American welfare state. John McCain may not be much of an economist and hasn't adopted the "ownership society" as his slogan, but his health-care plan falls right in with tradition on the center right -- a spectrum that once included Bill Clinton -- of invoking a new role for individual responsibility and individual choice in making the welfare state work.

Democrats, in contrast, never really tell us where they want us to go. That hasn't been the Democratic way and Mr. Obama, in this, is a perfect Democrat -- as opaque on the big question as his party has been. Al Gore let on that he favored a single payer health-care system only two years after he lost the White House. Politics -- simple politics -- instead has been Democrats' governing philosophy, and Mr. Obama is, again, the perfect heir.

In an interesting piece of work, economist Henning Bohn has forecast the future voting propensities of an aging electorate based on two things: how much in taxes a median voter would expect to pay until retirement, and the present value of his or her expected Social Security and Medicare benefits. His conclusion: It will make financial sense for the median voter to vote for higher taxes on his remaining working years and on younger people in order to secure his benefits.

If he's right, Democrats need to say only one thing when running for office -- and that's nothing intelligible about the funding dilemma of the welfare state or the need to address it. Mr. Obama has evidently learned his politics well. This week, he told Time Magazine's Joe Klein that, after the current financial crisis, "a new energy economy . . . That's going to be my No. 1 priority when I get into office."

This is a cipher, an air sandwich. Mr. Obama here affords himself a placeholder for a priority to be named later. He knows that such impractical, centrally planned "energy revolutions" have been preached by candidates and op-ed writers for decades, only to be forgotten after inauguration day in favor of less rhetorical agendas.

Mr. Obama's knack for eliciting pleasing feelings of self-regard in his followers is certainly a political virtue. (That so many of John McCain's supporters must hold their noses is, in its way, the equal and opposite virtue.) More than that, the vagueness of Mr. Obama's governing philosophy is a natural fit for a party that has long been wedded to the strategy that you get where you're going (a bigger welfare state) by not saying where you're going.

Source

Barack Wrote a Letter . . .

At the October 7 Presidential debate, John McCain said that Barack Obama had encouraged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make risky loans, and that Mr. Obama was the second largest recipient of campaign cash from the government mortgage giants. Mr. Obama replied that he "never promoted Fannie Mae" and that "two years ago I said that we've got a subprime lending crisis that has to be dealt with." And that's not all. "I wrote to Secretary Paulson, I wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and told them this is something we have to deal with, and nobody did anything about it," said the Illinois Senator.

There's more. Mr. Obama's March 2007 letter included a stirring call to "assess options" and boldly suggested that the two men "facilitate a serious conversation" about housing. He was even brave enough to suggest that "the relevant private sector entities and regulators" might be able to provide "targeted responses." Then in paragraph four, the Harvard-trained lawyer dropped his bombshell: a suggestion that various interest groups get together to "consider" best practices in mortgage lending.

Some may find it hard to believe that Mr. Obama had nothing to show for this herculean effort to shake up Washington. They may be shocked as well that such passionate language didn't move the Fed and Treasury to action. For our part, we note that nowhere in his letter did Mr. Obama suggest that the government should stop subsidizing loans to people who can't repay them.

This is the latest fad among Beltway liberals who spent years encouraging noneconomic mortgage loans. They now proudly announce that at critical moments they issued a press release, or wrote someone, suggesting that somebody do something. Since soured mortgage loans are a root cause of this panic, and since Democrats did so much to encourage mortgage lending, the most politically useful of these archived warnings are the ones blaming something other than housing.

For example, recent media reports have lauded the prescience of Edward Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who has long called for increased regulation of financial derivatives. Not that this says much about derivatives. Mr. Markey has also called for increased regulation of the Internet, cable TV, telephones, prescription drugs, nuclear plants, natural gas facilities, oil drilling, air cargo containers, chlorine, carbon dioxide, accounting, advertising and amusement parks, among other things.

But derivatives are the irresistible story now, because they offer the opportunity to shift the blame from bad housing policy, and they suggest that a lack of financial regulation was the problem. While lauding Mr. Markey, the media also cast Brooksley Born, Bill Clinton's Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as the ultimate heroine in this drama. Like Horatio at the bridge, she tried to regulate the derivatives market over the objections of such dummies as Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, SEC chief Arthur Levitt, and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

The left's hope is that derivatives are so poorly understood that people can be convinced that turmoil in the market for credit default swaps -- an effect of soured mortgage loans -- is actually a cause of this crisis. Credit default swaps (CDS) are insurance policies against companies or investment vehicles going bankrupt and being unable to pay their creditors. This insurance is cheap when things are going well, and very expensive when investors expect the relevant entities to fail. Turns out that the markets for CDS and other derivatives not tied to the housing crisis are functioning normally.

Meanwhile, in an amazing coincidence, it is the failure -- or the expected failure -- of entities with heavy exposure to toxic mortgages that is putting extreme financial strain on those who sold insurance. But the problem can't possibly be the toxic mortgages encouraged by Washington, according to the politicians. It must be the system of insuring against the collapse of those who bought the mortgages.

Did many sellers of credit default swaps make horrendous judgments in assessing the likelihood of defaults? Yes, and they were encouraged to make these poor judgments by government-approved credit-rating agencies stamping approval on mortgage-backed securities. If an investment or commercial bank was holding assets branded rock-solid by government's anointed judges of creditworthiness, who wouldn't feel comfortable insuring against their failure?

Much of the subprime disaster could have been avoided if only the credit raters had never agreed to slap the AAA tag on collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Almost no one understood these instruments, which contained portions from other pools of mortgage-backed securities, but with even less transparency. Most investors around the world had never heard of a CDO before the housing boom. But they knew what AAA meant. They had been told for years by the government's chosen credit raters that this label meant sound, conservative investing. Highly unlikely to default.

If Barack Obama wants to write any more letters, he should urge his colleagues in Washington to focus on the causes of this crisis, not the effects. Unlike Senators, Presidents are expected to solve problems, not merely write about them.

Source

Obama's Not "New"

There's an old saying: The oldest word in American politics is "new." Only in that sense is there anything new to Barack Obama. Obama prefers the word "progressive" to "liberal" because it makes it sound like he's shedding old liberal ideas. But if he is, it's only to embrace older ones.

America first encountered the vision Obama espouses under Woodrow Wilson, the first progressive president and the first to openly disparage the U.S. Constitution as a hindrance to enlightened government. His new idea was to replace it with a "living constitution" that empowered government to evolve beyond that document's constraints. The Bill of Rights, lamented the progressives, inhibited what the government can do to people, but it failed to delineate what it must do for people.

The old conception of individualism needed to be replaced by a new system in which the citizen would "marry his interests to the state," in Wilson's words. This would allow the state to fulfill the progressive pledge to "spread the prosperity around." Obama shares Wilson's faith in a living constitution and has argued that Supreme Court judges should be confirmed based on their empathy for the downtrodden.

In a vital essay in the current Claremont Review of Books, Charles Kesler notes that Obama mentions Franklin Roosevelt in his book, "The Audacity of Hope," more times than any living Democratic politician. That's not surprising, given that FDR -- a veteran of the Wilson administration -- carried the progressive vision of government much further than Wilson himself.

In 1944, FDR proposed updating the Bill of Rights with a new "economic bill of rights" that would define freedom not as liberty from government intrusion but as the possession of goodies provided by government. "Necessitous men are not free men," FDR proclaimed. It's a statement Obama surely agrees with; his advisor, Cass Sunstein, wrote a book saying FDR's "second bill of rights" should become the defining principle of American politics.

Wilson, Roosevelt and now Obama -- all their ideas sprung forth from the work of John Dewey, the most important liberal philosopher of the 20th century. Dewey held that "natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology," and that "organized social control" via a "socialized economy" was the only means to create "free" individuals. Dewey proposed that statism be taught as a kind of civic religion in our schools so that Americans could be raised to see the government as the solution to all of our problems.

Dewey lives on in the education reform ideas espoused by former Weatherman Bill Ayers. Ayers, now an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, often invokes Dewey when justifying his own dream of indoctrinating public school students in "social justice." Obama doesn't condone Ayers' '70s-era bombings, but he certainly subscribes to Ayers' educational vision. In fact, Ayers' educational work is the primary defense for the candidate's association with an unrepentant terrorist.

Much has been made of Obama's comment to "Joe the Plumber" that things are better when we "spread the wealth around." The Obama campaign has rebuffed charges of "socialism" or "radicalism" with the usual eye-rolling.

But Obama's words that day in Ohio were consistent with his past statements. A just-unearthed 2001 interview with Obama on Chicago public radio reveals as much. Then a law school instructor and state legislator, Obama offered an eloquent indictment of the Warren Court for not being radical enough. While the court rightly gave blacks traditional rights, argued Obama, "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth." Unfortunately, according to Obama, "it didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."

Officially, Obama says he is not advocating single-payer health care. That would seem too un-moderate. But in 2003, Obama told the AFL-CIO, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. ... But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."

Note: If Obama wins next week, all three of his preconditions will have been met, and his colleagues in the House and Senate are itching like junkies for a new New Deal. Only in a country of amnesiacs could one claim that socialized medicine is a "new idea."

Blowing away the dust and cobwebs from ancient wares doesn't make them new. Save for his skin color, Obama doesn't represent anything novel. Rather, he symbolizes a return to an older vision of the United States that was seen as the "wave of the future" eight decades ago. I for one have no desire to go back to that future.

Source

Obama and the Law

One of the biggest and most long-lasting "change" to expect if Barack Obama becomes President of the United States is in the kinds of federal judges he appoints. These include Supreme Court justices, as well as other federal justices all across the country, all of whom will have lifetime tenure. Senator Obama has stated very clearly what kinds of Supreme Court justices he wants-- those with "the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old."

Like so many things that Obama says, it may sound nice if you don't stop and think-- and chilling if you do stop and think. Do we really want judges who decide cases based on who you are, rather than on the facts and the law? If the case involves a white man versus a black woman, should the judge decide that case differently than if both litigants are of the same race or sex? The kind of criteria that Barack Obama promotes could have gotten three young men at Duke University sent to prison for a crime that neither they nor anybody else committed.

Didn't we spend decades in America, and centuries in Western civilization, trying to get away from the idea that who you are determines what your legal rights are?

What kind of judges are we talking about? A classic example is federal Judge H. Lee Sarokin, who could have bankrupted a small New Jersey town because they decided to stop putting up with belligerent homeless men who kept disrupting their local public library. Judge Sarokin's rulings threatened the town with heavy damage awards, and the town settled the case by paying $150,000 to the leading disrupter of its public library.

After Bill Clinton became president, he elevated Judge Sarokin from the district court to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Would President Barack Obama elevate him-- or others like him-- to the Supreme Court? Judge Sarokin certainly fits Obama's job description for a Supreme Court justice.

A court case should not depend on who you are and who the judge is. We are supposed to be a country with "the rule of law and not of men." Like all human beings, Americans haven't always lived up to our ideals. But Obama is proposing the explicit repudiation of that ideal itself. That is certainly "change," but is it one that most Americans believe in? Or is it something that we may end up with anyway, just because too many voters cannot be bothered to look beyond rhetoric and style?

We can vote a president out of office at the next election if we don't like him. But we can never vote out the federal judges he appoints in courts across the country, including justices of the Supreme Court. The kind of judges that Barack Obama wants to appoint can still be siding with criminals or terrorists during the lifetime of your children and grandchildren.

The Constitution of the United States will not mean much if judges carry out Obama's vision of the Constitution as "a living document"-- that is, something that judges should feel free to change by "interpretation" to favor particular individuals, groups or causes.

We have already seen where that leads with the 2005 Kelo Supreme Court decision that allows local politicians to take people's homes or businesses and transfer that property to others. Almost invariably, these are the homes of working class people and small neighborhood businesses that are confiscated under the government's power of eminent domain. And almost invariably they are transferred to developers who will build shopping malls, hotels or other businesses that will bring in more tax revenue.

The Constitution protected private property, precisely in order to prevent such abuses of political power, leaving a small exception when property is taken for "public use," such as the government's building a reservoir or a highway. But just by expanding "public use" to mean "public purpose"-- which can be anything-- the Supreme Court opened the floodgates. That's not "a living Constitution." That's a dying Constitution-- and an Obama presidency can kill it off.

Source

Will the Return of Values Voters Bring Another Election Day Surprise?

The most startling factor in the Presidential election of 2004 could deliver an even bigger shock in the battle for the White House in 2008, if the nation witnesses the possible repeat of the decisive impact of "values voters".

Four years ago, the media largely ignored the significance of moral and family issues until Election Day exit polls revealed their crucial role in the GOP victory. In the same way, seasoned political observers - especially those who consider an Obama victory a foregone conclusion - have ignored the very real chance that social conservatives may bring about a stunning upset on November 4th.

Four years ago, when asked "what mattered most in deciding how you voted for president," more voters cited "moral values" than any other factor. According to the authoritative Edison-Mitofsky exit poll, 22% named "moral values" compared to 20% indicating "the economy and jobs," 19% choosing "terrorism," 15% "Iraq" and a mere 8% citing "health care."

Among those who chose "moral values" as their chief concern, a stunning 80% voted for George W. Bush, while his opponent, John Kerry, got a similar 80% show of support from those who primarily worried about "the economy and jobs." Nearly one quarter of the electorate in 2004 identified as "white evangelical and born-again Christians" and they backed President Bush by a four-to-one margin. Without this overwhelming support from Christian conservatives, Bush could never have won his 51 to 48% victory over Senator Kerry.

Considering the hugely significant role of values voters in the last presidential race, it makes no sense for leading electoral experts to assume that they've become suddenly irrelevant in 2008. Did the social conservatives who tipped the scales to Bush and Cheney in a tough race four years ago somehow vanish or give up?

Conventional wisdom suggests that values voters don't matter this year for several important reasons. First, it's assumed that social conservatives remain lukewarm on John McCain and won't give him the huge turnout and overwhelming support that propelled George W. Bush to victory. Second, according to many leading pundits, Barack Obama has neutralized moral issues with his inclusive rhetoric about unity and respect and his comfort in talking about his Christian faith (though not about his long-time pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who has all-but-vanished from media coverage of the campaign). Finally, and most significantly, all major analysts seem to agree that the financial crisis and looming recession have crowded out all other public concerns, leaving little chance that worried voters will once again find themselves "distracted" by social issues like abortion, marriage, or gun rights.

For several reasons, these assumptions may look shaky on Election Day. Yes, it's true that John McCain has never been a favorite of Christian conservatives (especially after his self-destructive denunciation of Falwell and Robertson in the 2000 primary campaign). But his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, and renewed attention to his strong pro-life record over the course of 30 years (he gets a perfect "Zero" lifetime rating from Planned Parenthood), have helped to rally the troops. The huge, enthusiastic turnouts at recent GOP rallies (particularly those featuring Governor Palin) and the determined, ongoing efforts by prominent organizations on the religious right suggest that "values voters" may return in force and startle the pundits once again.

Most obviously, Obama efforts at "Christian outreach" have largely failed, recognized as a phony, manipulative and, ultimately, insulting strategy. Obama may claim he understands and sympathizes with the concerns of religious traditionalists, but he's running on the most pro-abortion platform in major party history (calling for a return to federal funding for abortions for poor women) and he famously suggested that the question of when life begins was "above my pay grade."Of course, leaders of left-leaning Christian and Jewish denominations enthusiastically back Obama (just as they backed Kerry) but traditionalists remain deeply suspicious. Those concerns go far beyond the silly charges that Obama is some sort of "secret Muslim" and involve his slimy, equivocal treatment of all religious questions, whether involving his boyhood study of the Koran in Indonesia, or his twenty years of loyal discipleship with the America-hating Reverend Wright.

Finally, there's no reason to assume that universal concern about the state of the economy means that religious conservatives no longer care about the future of marriage or the protection of the unborn. In fact, a dramatic turnaround in voter sentiment in California (of all places) indicates precisely the sort of mobilization of values voters that could derail the Obama Express on November 4th.

The citizens of the Golden State face a fateful choice in the wake of the State Supreme Court's controversial 4 to 3 decision to mandate gay marriage. Proposition 8 on the California ballot adds to the State Constitution a provision declaring that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." In one of the most liberal and lopsidedly Democratic states in the union, gay activists felt confident they would defeat this measure by a decisive margin, but recent surveys show an unexpected surge of support for traditional marriage. A Survey USA poll shows a swing of 8 points in the three weeks between September 25th and October 17th, from a 5% margin against the proposition to a 3% margin for it. "Equality for All," the group leading the fight for homosexual marriage, acknowledged to the Wall Street Journal on October 22nd that their internal polling also showed a shift in voter sentiment toward traditional marriage - with a 4% current lead for the proposition over-ruling the Supreme Court.

In the last days before the election, even voters in deep-blue California (a state the McCain campaign has all-but-abandoned) seem to be rallying against gay marriage - despite Obama and Biden strongly and outspokenly opposing Proposition 8. This should encourage values conservatives to recognize that many (and perhaps most) Americans still care deeply about moral issues.

It's now crucial for Senator McCain, Governor Palin and their supporters to emphasize those issues --- not even at a time of economic crisis, but especially at a time of economic crisis.

Controversies regarding the future of the family aren't a distraction from financial challenges; for most Americans, there's an inescapable connection between economic and values issues. Nothing brings long-term security and prosperity more reliably than a stable, traditional family life and nothing predisposes people for a life of poverty more than out-of-wedlock birth and marital chaos. The educational success of our children, which directly determines their future financial future, depends more on the values they learn at home than the quality of their schools. Learning to work hard, to save money and to live within your means remains a dependable path to economic advancement and the failure to learn those lessons (especially by political and business leaders) helped to create the current crisis.

Moreover, the big-government "spread the wealth" programs favored by Barack Obama represent an assault on the family as well as a threat to the free-market economy. Today's radical Democratic platform calls for a vast expansion of federal power that would make families and parenthood less important and less necessary.

Consider Obama's promise of "universal pre-school" for all children age three and above. He insists that attendance at such federally mandated schools will remain voluntary, but paying for them will not. All citizens - including those mothers who choose to stay home with their little ones - will share in financing governmental day care, in effect punishing women who take care of their kids while rewarding those who want to leave them with someone else.

At the other end of life, there's also legitimate concern over Obama's support for re-imposition of a crushing death tax, with a confiscatory rate of 45%. Nothing represents a more fundamental right for many families than the ability to pass on to their own children the wealth that they've accumulated through honest hard work -and on which they've already paid taxes as the parents earned the money.

No wonder that married voters already tilt decisively toward McCain, according to all polls. (The most recent IBD-TIPP survey gives him a margin of 50% to 43%). Obama leads among the public in general only because of his huge lead among single voters (about a third of the electorate).

According to exit polls in 2004, Bush won married voters 57% to 42%. If McCain comes close to that margin he too will win the election. The chances for a come-from-behind victory for Republicans depend almost entirely upon the return of values voters --- most of them married people who care deeply about religious faith, traditional virtues and family issues. Those voters abandoned the Republicans in the disastrous off-year election of 2006 --- repulsed by the Mark Foley scandal and numerous other indications of ethical lapses among flawed and compromised conservatives in Congress. If the values voters return to the polls (and to the GOP fold) victory remains possible.

The 2004 prominence of social conservatives was more than a fluke or a temporary phenomenon. The Los Angeles Times has conducted its own exit polling since 1992, asking voters "which two issues they considered most important in deciding how they would vote." In 2004, 40% listed "moral/ethical values" as one of those top two - a strikingly similar percentage to the 35% who named moral values in 2000 and the 40% who did so in 1996. On a related note, the percentage of religious people who participate in recent elections has remained stable and reliable: 41% of voters in both 2004 and 2000 said they attended church at least once a week and they voted decisively, both times, for George W. Bush.

Leading commentators largely ignored these citizens in 2004 until the results of the election and the exit polls forced them to reconsider. If Republicans concentrate on mobilizing social conservatives between now and Election Day, and speak clearly and persuasively about the powerful connection between economic and moral issues, then values voters may provide the defenders of conventional wisdom with an even bigger surprise than they did four years ago.

Source

Free trade

Obama has distanced himself from the post-Hoover consensus

The U.S. hasn't elected a genuinely protectionist president since Herbert Hoover, and for most of the last 80 years a rough bipartisan consensus has held that free trade is in the American national interest. The erosion of that consensus is reflected in the gulf between John McCain and Barack Obama on trade, which is probably the widest division at the presidential level since the 1920s.

Free trade agreements. Mr. McCain supports the bilateral pacts with Colombia, Panama and South Korea that have already been signed by the two governments. Colombia already enjoys preferential access to the U.S. market, and Mr. McCain stresses that opening Colombia to U.S. exports would be good for U.S. jobs and especially small and medium-sized businesses. He says it would help "a crucial democratic ally" in a region fraught with instability.

He has a similar view toward South Korea, which buys $50 billion of U.S. exports annually and has been a key ally in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Republican also favors renewing trade negotiating authority, which expired in 2007 and without which no new trade pact is likely to succeed on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Obama opposes the Colombia and South Korea agreements, for the same reasons cited by other Congressional Democrats. In the last presidential debate, Mr. Obama pointed to violence in Colombia against labor unions. The politically independent Colombian attorney general says violence against union members has come down sharply under President Alvaro Uribe, but Mr. Obama says that's insufficient.

He also opposes the South Korea pact, which would remove auto tariffs in both directions and end South Korea's use of nontariff barriers to protect its domestic markets. Mr. Obama says the U.S. buys "hundreds of thousands of cars" from South Korea and "we can get only 4,000-5,000 into South Korea." The Democrat wants assurances that the imbalance in auto sales will end. The Obama campaign declined to tell us whether he supports the Panama FTA or trade negotiating authority.

More generally, Mr. Obama says he would change the way the U.S. negotiates trade agreements. Instead of focusing mainly on removing barriers to the movement of goods and services, he would use the agreements "to spread good labor and environmental standards" to the rest of the world. He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (Cafta) in 2006 and says he will oppose others that do not have strong-enough labor and environmental provisions.

The North American Free Trade Agreement. Trade within Nafta topped $930 billion in 2007, more than three times what it was in 1993, the year before Nafta was implemented. Mr. Obama nonetheless believes Nafta has hurt Americans because it does not contain provisions to force our trading partners to adopt U.S. labor and environmental standards. He says Bill Clinton's Nafta accord was "oversold" to Americans and that he would seek to amend it so that it "works for American workers" -- and that he'd do so unilaterally if Canada and Mexico refuse to cooperate.

This position became a source of controversy during the primaries, when a Canadian diplomat quoted Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee as saying privately his candidate's words were for U.S. domestic political consumption and wouldn't be implemented if Mr. Obama won. The Obama campaign said Mr. Goolsbee's comments were taken out of context and reiterated Mr. Obama's intention to renegotiate Nafta. Neither Canada nor Mexico has shown an interest in such a negotiation, which might mean higher costs for their producers.

Mr. McCain supports Nafta and opposes any renegotiation. He acknowledges that there are border issues that need attention, which he would negotiate separately from Nafta. He voted for Cafta.

U.S. agriculture policy and the Doha Round. Mr. McCain links U.S. agriculture subsidies and tariffs -- including the recent $300 billion farm bill -- to U.S. difficulties in opening new markets overseas. He says a strong multilateral trading system would be the goal of his trade policy, and that the Doha Round in the World Trade Organization is the best way of getting there. In 2005 Mr. Obama was one of 58 senators who signed a letter asking President Bush not to agree to cut farm subsidies as part of Doha. He also says that he'd preserve the 54-cents per gallon import tariff on Brazilian ethanol. Mr. McCain says he'd ask Congress to lift it.

Help for displaced workers. Both candidates believe government should assist workers who lose their jobs as a result of overseas competition. Both also want workers who anticipate the elimination of jobs to be eligible for training before layoffs actually hit.

Mr. McCain stresses choice in education to improve U.S. competitiveness. He says trade is only one type of "shock" that reshapes the U.S. job market. Others are productivity gains and domestic competition. He favors wage subsidies -- sometimes called "wage insurance" -- for older workers that would temporarily complement their income if they have to shift to a lower-paying job.

Mr. Obama also points to education -- though not choice -- but unlike Mr. McCain, stresses the employer role in job losses from outsourcing. He'd raise taxes on U.S. companies that earn income abroad as a way to punish what he sees as unpatriotic behavior. He would also create a federal "advanced manufacturing fund" of unspecified amount and funding that would subsidize companies that keep jobs in the U.S. To help displaced workers, he would add service jobs to those eligible for the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance, and he'd create education accounts, for retraining, though the campaign has not said how these would work.

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.)

2008-10-29T00:19:00.000+11:30

Why the Left Wants to Change America

Because, in their hate, they have constructed a delusory view of it

If you ask most supporters of Sen. Barack Obama why they so fervently want him to be elected president, they will tell you about their deep yearning for "change." And that, of course, has been the theme of the Obama campaign from its inception -- "change." It is the word found on nearly all the placards at Obama rallies. It is the word most often cited by the candidate himself. But for all its ubiquity and for all the passion of its advocates, what this change is about is not entirely clear.

Of course, Obama himself often has spoken about the overriding need for change from eight years of President George W. Bush's policies. But this is not what he or most of his supporters really mean when they talk about change. In fact, it cannot be. This is easy to show: All candidates for president run on a platform of change from the party in power. If they don't stand for change, why vote for them?

George W. Bush wanted a change from Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton wanted a change from the first George Bush. And so on back to the first candidate for president to run from a party other than that of the prior president. If change in policies from those of George W. Bush were all Barack Obama meant by change, "change" would not elicit anywhere near the passion it does. Nor would it be the basis of the depth of his appeal to his left-wing supporters. Surely John Kerry wanted as much of a change from George W. Bush in 2004. Yet he did not run on a platform of "change."

What Barack Obama is tapping into with the word "change" is nearly eight years of the left's constructing a description of an America that has been made so awful that "change" means changing America, not just changing policies. The truth is that aside from the Iraq war, which is turning out to be quite successful, George W. Bush's policies have not been particularly controversial or even particularly right-wing. But the left has constructed for itself a view of America that, if you subscribe to it, makes radical change imperative. The left, from The New York Times to MoveOn.org, has led itself and others to believe that:

--George W. Bush lied America into war.

--Tens of thousands of Iraqis and more than 4,000 Americans have been killed in a war waged in order to line the pockets of Vice President Dick Cheney's friends.

--The Constitution has been trampled on.

--America has become a torturing country.

--America's poor have become far more numerous and far more downtrodden.

--American troops in Iraq repeatedly have engaged in atrocities against innocent civilians.

--The opportunity for economic self-improvement has ceased for most Americans.

--Racism is endemic to American society.

--Republican rallies are hate-fests.

--John McCain has run a racist campaign against Barack Obama.

--Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, is a religious zealot and an idiot.

--Christian fundamentalists are on the verge of taking over America and turning it into a theocracy.

--The world is getting closer and closer to catastrophic and irreversible damage caused by human beings; and George W. Bush and energy interests are standing in the way of preventing universal destruction.

--America is on the road to fascism.

Now, as it happens, none of those things is true. But the left believes them all. That is why radical "change" becomes mandatory -- or America will collapse (and the world, too, which is why Barack Obama often mentions changing the world, as well as America).

Of course, many Americans who do not consider themselves leftist also will vote for Barack Obama and left-wing Democratic congressional candidates. They do so because they are lifelong Democrats who do not realize how far left their party has strayed and think they still are voting for the party of Truman and JFK; or because they personally benefit from Democratic largesse (e.g., government workers); or because they are active in their unions; or because they have come to believe the media and the Democrats, who have been telling them for almost a decade about how George W. Bush and the Republicans have ruined their country.

But as for the left, it lives in a bubble of its making. That is why most leftists live in places where nearly everyone shares their fantasies -- bubbles such as Manhattan, San Francisco, Boston, the west side of Los Angeles, and the most hermetically sealed of the bubbles: universities. They interact almost only with other people who share their fantasy world of America Made Bad.

From Karl Marx to today's Democratic Party, the left everywhere has manufactured villains to slay -- starting with the bourgeoisie and land owners to today's "special interests" (though not, of course, left-wing special interests, such as labor unions, teachers unions and the trial bar), "the rich," drug companies, oil companies, neocons, evangelical Christians and, of course, the myriad racists, sexists, Islamophobes, homophobes and xenophobes.

That's why the left is so passionate about "change." In fact, if I believed America had become what the left believe it has become, I would be, too. But what they believe about America is not true; America remains the greatest country in the world. It needs to be fixed where broken, but not changed. Those who want to change it will make it worse. Perhaps much worse.

Source

Big Media Pull Out All Stops to Elect Obama

We hear more about Palin's wardrobe than we do about Obama's Communist associations

Big Media have pulled out all their stops in trying to elect Barack Obama by withholding from the American people the truth about his radical record and associates. Big media, their polls and the presidential debates practically ignored front-burner issues important to millions of Americans.

By excluding abortion and same-sex marriage from national debate, Big Media kept the voters from knowing that Obama, as chairman of the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, killed the "Born Alive" bill, thereby depriving babies born alive from botched abortions of medical care and nutrition. Big Media obviously didn't want a repetition of Obama's embarrassing handling of these issues in the Saddleback dialogue.

The issue of illegal aliens was censored out of the presidential debates and other coverage. The voters were kept oblivious to the fact that Obama favors giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens and John McCain does not. This issue is so powerful with the voters that it played a major role in the dumping of New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and the unprecedented recall of California Gov. Gray Davis. It could have done likewise to Obama.

How many times have you heard that Obama will cut taxes on 95 percent of Americans? Have you even once heard Big Media tell us that's a big lie because 40 percent of Americans don't pay any federal income taxes at all?

Talking about "95 percent" means Obama intends to increase government handouts, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), to non-taxpaying Americans. That would surely be compatible with his promise to "spread the wealth around."

Big Media have threatened to hang a scarlet letter on anyone who dares to mention Obama's middle name. Funny thing, in all the years that I spent criticizing the disarmament-appeasement policies of JFK's and LBJ's Secretary of Defense Robert Strange McNamara, nobody ever said I was unfair to use his strange middle name.

But Obama is different. Big Media have cloaked him with a security blanket that not only protects him from criticism, but viciously attacks anybody who tells the truth about Obama's life story in Indonesia, Hawaii, Kenya or Chicago.

On Oct. 15, The New York Times ran a front-page above-the-fold pretend-news article threatening McCain that Big Media will not tolerate any negative attacks on Obama, such as talking about Obama's relationship with the 1960s terrorist Bill Ayers. The Times warned McCain and his supporters that it is unacceptable to make "strong political attacks" on Obama or be "sharply personal" or even use an "angry tone."

But the voters have a right to know who are and were Obama's associates. Old adages are still valid: "Birds of a feather flock together," and, "A man is known by the company he keeps." Why don't Big Media tell us that Obama launched his political campaign in the Chicago living room of former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, who was famous for bombing the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon? Why don't Big Media tell us about the relationship of Obama on school issues with Ayers, who as a professor of education is now working to replace the three R's with a fourth -- Rebellion against the U.S. social and economic structure?

When Sean Hannity aired a program about "Obama and Friends," The New York Times rushed forth to defend Obama's ties with Ayers and to attack Hannity's program as "partisan" and "provocative." We are apparently not permitted to be partisan or provocative about Obama.

How could Obama sit in a church for 20 years where the Rev. Jeremiah Wright spoke hatefully about whites and cursed America as a racist country? Yet, Big Media now claim it is racist for anyone to criticize Obama's long and personal association with Jeremiah "damn America" Wright.

Why don't Big Media dissect the revelations and biases in Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," with the same journalistic curiosity they use about Sarah Palin's wardrobe? Big Media present Obama as some sort of intellectual, but why don't we hear about his failure to write anything meaningful for the Harvard Law Review when he was its affirmative-action president?

Why don't we hear more about Obama's friendship with the communist Frank Marshall Davis, who was part of a Soviet-sponsored network in Hawaii? Why aren't we given details about Obama's financial relationship with Tony Rezko, the Chicago fixer now in prison?

The source of money has always been fair game for anybody to talk about in political campaigns. Why haven't Big Media assigned their investigative reporters to trace the hundreds of millions of dollars that may be illegally flowing to the Obama campaign from foreign sources?

Pew Research confirms that 70 percent of Obama's media coverage has been positive and 60 percent of McCain's has been negative. Memo to the American people: Will we let Big Media decide this election by censoring the news we have a right to know?

Source

Scion Of The Times: Elect Obama, Get Two Two-Fers ... Or Maybe An Asian "Compromise"

According to this article in Sunday's The Hill newspaper, the leading candidates to replace Barack Obama and Joe Biden in the Senate, should they be elected president and vice president, are Jessie Jackson's son, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., and Joe Biden's son, Beau Biden. Both fathers are said to be eager to have their sons inherit their seats.

Jackson's case is strengthened by the fact that Obama is the only African-American member of the Senate. Presumably, Obama would like to see at least one African-American representative in the chamber.

Really? Don't Senators represent states, not races? And doesn't future president Obama present himself as post-racial? Isn't he on record (quoted here) saying "There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America - there's the United States of America"?

Never mind, since he's also on record defending the practice of providing preferential treatment to some Americans based on their race. Or maybe Illinois (or at least the Democratic Party in Illinois), unlike the United States of America whose unity Obama praises when it suits him, maintains a vestigial political culture still made up of clearly defined racial and ethnic tribes. That certainly seems to be the case, for The Hill reports that

it's not a slam-dunk for Jackson. [Governor] Blagojevich must pick a candidate who can hold the seat in 2010, when the temporary two-year appointment would expire. Some Democratic strategists question whether Jackson can win statewide.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who's white and is very close to organized labor, has made it clear that she also would like to move into Obama's Senate seat.

Democrats in Schakowsky's camp argue that she would run more successfully in Southern Illinois and tout her strong ties to the labor community. They also tout her energy and record of accomplishment in Congress. She is one of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) closer friends.

But Gov. Blagojevich's choice is not, as it were, black and white, since there is a third choice (a candidate that, in other contexts, might be described as a dark horse).

Blagojevich may go outside the Illinois House delegation. One possible candidate would be Tammy Duckworth, director of the Illinois Department of Veterans' Affairs. Duckworth, who is Asian-American, could serve as a compromise candidate on the race question.

Racialism has really run amuck when a reporter can write, with an apparently straight face, that an Asian-American is "a compromise candidate on the race question." If racialism remains that pervasive, we are all compromised beyond redemption.

Source

Hillary Backers Decry Massive Obama Vote Fraud

With accusations of voter registration fraud swirling as early voting begins in many states, some Hillary Clinton supporters are saying: "I told you so." Already in Iowa, the Obama campaign was breaking the rules, busing in supporters from neighboring states to vote illegally in the first contest in the primaries and physically intimidating Hillary supporters, they say.

Obama's surprisingly strong win in Iowa, which defied all the polls, propelled his upstart candidacy to front-runner status. But Lynette Long, a Hillary supporter from Bethesda, Md., who has a long and respected academic career, believes Obama's victory in Iowa and in 12 other caucus states was no miracle. "It was fraud," she told Newsmax.

Long has spent several months studying the caucus and primary results. "After studying the procedures and results from all 14 caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process," she said. In Hawaii, for example, the caucus organizers ran out of ballots, so Obama operatives created more from Post-its and scraps of paper and dumped them into ice cream buckets. "The caucuses ended up with more ballots than participants, a sure sign of voter fraud," Long said.

In Nevada, Obama supporters upturned a wheelchair-bound woman who wanted to caucus for Hillary, flushed Clinton ballots down the toilets, and told union members they could vote only if their names were on the list of Obama supporters.

In Texas, more than 2,000 Clinton and Edwards supporters filed complaints with the state Democratic Party because of the massive fraud. The party acknowledged that the Obama campaign's actions "amount to criminal violations" and ordered them to be reported to state and federal law enforcement, but nothing happened.

In caucus after caucus, Obama bused in supporters from out of state, intimidated elderly voters and women, and stole election packets so Hillary supporters couldn't vote. Thanks to these and other strong-arm tactics, Obama won victories in all but one of the caucuses, even in states such as Maine where Hillary had been leading by double digits in the polls.

Obama's win in the caucuses, which were smaller events than the primaries and were run by the party, not the states, gave him the margin of victory he needed to win a razor-thin majority in the delegate count going into the Democratic National Convention. Without these caucus wins, which Long and others claim were based on fraud, Clinton would be the Democrats' nominee running against John McCain.

Citing a detailed report on the voting results and delegate accounts by accountant Piniel Cronin, "there were only four pledged delegates between Hillary and Obama once you discount caucus fraud," Long said. Long has compiled many of these eyewitness reports from the 14 caucus states in a 98-page, single-spaced report and in an interactive Web site: www.caucusanalysis.org.

ACORN involvement

The Obama campaign recently admitted that it paid an affiliate of ACORN, the controversial community organizer that Obama represented in Chicago, more than $832,000 for "voter turnout" work during the primaries. The campaign initially claimed the money had been spent on "staging, sound and light" and "advance work."

State and federal law enforcement in 11 states are investigating allegations of voter registration fraud against the Obama campaign. ACORN workers repeatedly registered voters in the name of "Mickey Mouse," and registered the entire starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys twice: once in Nevada, and again in Minnesota.

A group that has worked with ACORN in the past registered a dead goldfish under the name "Princess Nudelman" in Illinois. When reporters informed Beth Nudelman, a Democrat, that her former pet was a registered voter, she said, "This person is a dead fish."

ACORN was known for its "intimidation tactics," said independent scholar Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., who has researched Obama's long-standing ties to the group. Fully 30 percent of 1.3 million new voters ACORN claims to have registered this year are believed to be illegitimate........

"Mr. Obama's elections are pregnant with the implications that he has so far gamed every office he has sought by underhanded and sordid means," Blankley wrote, while "the American media has let these extraordinary events simply pass without significant comment." Hillary Clinton supporters, belatedly, now agree.

More here

Obama's First 100 Days

Undeniably, a powerful tide is running for the Democratic Party, with one week left to Election Day. Bush's approval rating is 27 percent, just above Richard Nixon's Watergate nadir and almost down to Carter-Truman lows. After each of those presidents reached their floors -- in 1952, 1974, 1980 -- the opposition party captured the White House. Moreover, 80 percent to 90 percent of Americans think the nation is on the wrong course, and since mid-September, when McCain was still slightly ahead, the Dow has lost 4,000 points -- $5 trillion to $6 trillion in value.

Leading now by eight points in an average of national polls, Barack Obama has other advantages. Not a single blue state is regarded as imperiled or even a toss-up, while Obama leads in six crucial red states: Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri and Colorado. Should McCain lose one of the six, he would have to win Pennsylvania to compensate for the lost electoral votes. But the latest Pennsylvania polls show Barack with a double-digit lead. Lately moving into the toss-up category are Nevada, North Dakota, Montana and Indiana. All voted twice for George W. Bush.

Not only is Obama ahead in the state and national polls, he has more money, is running far more ads, has a superior organization on the ground, attracts larger crowds, and has greater enthusiasm and more media in camp. And new voter registrations heavily favor the Democrats.

Though Congress is regarded by Americans with a disdain bordering on disgust -- five of six Americans think it has done a poor job -- Democratic majorities are certain to grow. Indeed, with Democrats favored by 10 points over Republicans, Nancy Pelosi's majority could grow by 25 seats and Harry Reid could find himself with a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senators.

Democrats already have 49, plus two independents: Socialist Bernie Sanders and Independent Joe Lieberman. Their challengers are now ahead in New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, Minnesota, Oregon and Colorado, with a chance of picking up Georgia, Alaska, Kentucky and Mississippi. We may be looking at a reverse of 1980, when Reagan won a 10-point victory over Jimmy Carter, and Republicans took the Senate and, working with Boll Weevil Democrats, effective control of the House.

With his tax cuts, defense buildup and rollback policy against the "Evil Empire," Reagan gave us some of the best years of our lives, culminating in America's epochal victory in the Cold War. What does the triumvirate of Obama-Pelosi-Reid offer?

Rep. Barney Frank is calling for new tax hikes on the most successful and a 25 percent across-the-board slash in national defense. Sen. John Kerry is talking up new and massive federal spending, a la FDR's New Deal. Specifically, we can almost surely expect:

-- Swift amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and a drive to make them citizens and register them, as in the Bill Clinton years. This will mean that Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona will soon move out of reach for GOP presidential candidates, as has California.

-- Border security will go on the backburner, and America will have a virtual open border with a Mexico of 110 million.

-- Taxes will be raised on the top 5 percent of wage-earners, who now carry 60 percent of the U.S. income tax burden, and tens of millions of checks will be sent out to the 40 percent of wage-earners who pay no federal income tax. Like the man said, redistribute the wealth, spread it around.

-- Social Security taxes will be raised on the most successful among us, and capital gains taxes will be raised from 15 percent to 20 percent. The Bush tax cuts will be repealed, and death taxes reimposed.

-- Two or three more liberal activists of the Ruth Bader Ginsberg-John Paul Stevens stripe will be named to the Supreme Court. U.S. district and appellate courts will be stacked with "progressives."

-- Special protections for homosexuals will be written into all civil rights laws, and gays and lesbians in the military will be invited to come out of the closet. "Don't ask, don't tell" will be dead.

-- The homosexual marriages that state judges have forced California, Massachusetts and Connecticut to recognize, an Obama Congress or Obama court will require all 50 states to recognize.

-- A "Freedom of Choice Act" nullifying all state restrictions on abortions will be enacted. America will become the most pro-abortion nation on earth.

-- Affirmative action -- hiring and promotions based on race, sex and sexual orientation until specified quotas are reached -- will be rigorously enforced throughout the U.S. government and private sector.

-- Universal health insurance will be enacted, covering legal and illegal immigrants, providing another powerful magnet for the world to come to America, if necessary by breaching her borders.

-- A federal bailout of states and municipalities to keep state and local governments spending up could come in December or early next year.

-- The first trillion-dollar deficit will be run in the first year of an Obama presidency. It will be the first of many.

Welcome to Obamaland!

Source

Biden Tosses Second TV Station 'Under the Bus'

Today, a new video surfaced, showing the Democratic Party vice presidential nominee facing an on-air grilling at the hands of Chris May and Angela Russell, co-anchors of the 4 p.m. newscast at KYW-TV "CBS 3? in Philadelphia. And, for the second time in a week, the Democratic Party vice presidential nominee has tossed a local television station "under the bus."

Several days ago, I published a post showing Biden being grilled by Orlando television news anchor Barbara West. Soon after, word surfaced that the Obama-Biden campaign had banned the station from future interviews.

While it's been difficult to pin down the exact day on which the newscast aired, the questions asked of Biden ? ranging from spreading the wealth to funneling campaign cash to relatives ? made today a day filled with nearly two and one-half minutes of shear entertainment pleasure.

With so many television stations now "under the bus," perhaps we can get some undercover reports from under the bus during the next eight days?

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.)

2008-10-28T00:04:00.001+11:30

Note about Obama from a black Christian

Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him..

Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness. I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads I follow. I can't dictate the terms He does because He is the leader. I can't vote black because I am black, I have to vote Christian because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.

In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning to name a few, wrong economic concerns will soon not matter. We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I don't know Obama so all I can go off is his voting record. His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007. NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008) To beat Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.

There is a reason planned parenthood gives him a 100 % rating. There is a reason the homosexual community supports him. There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him. There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court. There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill. There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion. There is a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito.

These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue. Lets take a look at the practice he wanted to continue. The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedure: A. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. (Remember this is a live baby) B. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal. C. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head. D. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole. E. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed. God help him.

There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law. Think about this: you can't give a kid an aspirin without parental notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.

There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. Obama tells us he has good judgment but he sat under Jeremiah Wright teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why now? Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 'Go and make disciples of all nations.' This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you, talk like you believe what you believe etc.

The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him? Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a 1. Commitment to the White Community 2. Commitment to the White Family 3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic 4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community . 5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions 6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System 7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.

Would you support a President who went to a church like that? Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside. This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discovered he went to a racist church.

The church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world. A church can't have a value system based on race. The church's value system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if it's a white church or a black church it's still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote.

Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation. Cone once wrote: 'Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?

So what does all this mean for the nation? In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment. Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 'Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.' Then God says 1 Samuel 1:18 ' When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.' 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' they said. 'We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.' 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, 'Listen to them and give them a king.'

Here is what we know for sure. God is not schizophrenic He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God.. Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture so I doubt it.

For all my friends who are voting for Obama can you really look God in the face and say; Father based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four supreme court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy. I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions.

Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends. Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation, 1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation? 2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?

Blessings, Huntley Brown

Note: Mr Brown is a Jamaican-born classical pianist, well-known in evangelical circles. Snopes.com confirms that the email above is genuine

Messianic Pretensions

From David Warren in Canada

For all the figurative heat of crashing markets, impending recession numbers, carnage in the commodities, the flying squirt-bomb of the American dollar, the cat's cradle of international political crises, humanitarian disasters across Africa, the usual Islamist terrorism, and the deep winter freeze portended by a flatlined solar magnetic low -- there is Hope. But that is of another world. Hope, in this world, must be for the right things.

My column today may be read as an extension of what I wrote Wednesday for this page. I concluded those remarks by noting that if, by a surprise that is not implausible, McCain wins, we may have riots across the United States starting in Grant Park, Chicago, and an unprecedented outpouring of anti-American venom across 24 time zones. (Take France, for example, where support for McCain was clocked in a recent poll at one percent.)

I had doubts about John McCain -- not as a man, but as a presidential candidate -- from the beginning. I preferred George W. Bush in the Republican primaries of 2000, because he was not McCain. I preferred Rudy Giuliani at the beginning of this year's cycle, despite my considerable distaste for his views on social issues. But given a choice between McCain and Obama -- were I entitled to vote in an American election -- I would now pull the lever for the Republican slate without the slightest compunction.

Moreover, McCain has grown in my estimation, as circumstances have changed. He has in many ways earned his maverick reputation, together with a reputation for incorruptible patriotism. He's the guy to make politically risky and potentially unpopular decisions, in face of the recessionary slide; and crucially, he's the guy to make America's most loathsome and unpredictable enemies (who are also our enemies, lest we forget) not want to test him. In his appointment of Sarah Palin, for all the sneers of the urbane and over-educated, he has suggested a way forward in which America retrieves her "core values," which include cutting through the blather of conventional "expertise," and distinguishing right from wrong. And she can articulate what McCain mumbles.

McCain is a man of action and accomplishment, Obama a man of "charisma" and pretty words, whose only real accomplishment has been his remarkable self-advancement. And Obama's policy outlook, so far as it can be discerned from the usual electoral pronouncements, consists of the same snake oil the pre-Clinton Democrats had been selling continuously since they chained the Great Society to America's ankle: that is, a constantly expanding Nanny State. I am hardly reassured by Obama's last-lap rhetorical reassurances: you don't send a man to Washington with a trillion dollars of candy-shop promises on medicare, education, government job-creation, "spreading the wealth" -- especially when the economy has just tanked.

I wish that were the worst I could say about the man, who has survived nearly two years of campaigning for President without serious cross-examination from either the media or his media-chastened opponents. A man who, should he win the election and serve one term, will have been President of the United States longer than he has held any steady job.

In my world, you don't humour a politician who presents "Change," "Unity," and especially, "Hope," as hypnotic mantras, with the power of enchantment over very large crowds. And you especially don't humour such a politician at a time when both country and world are unstable, and hard decisions will have to be made.

Deeper than this: Obama has presented himself from the start as a messianic, "transformational" leader -- and thus played deceitfully with ideas that belong to religion and not politics. That he has done this so successfully is a mark of the degree to which the U.S. itself, like the rest of the western world, has lost its purchase on the Christian religion. Powerful religious impulses have been spilt, secularized.

In this climate, people tend to be maniacally opposed to the sin to which they are not tempted: to giving Christ control over the things that are Caesar's. But they are blind to the sin to which they are hugely tempted: giving Caesar control over the things that are Christ's.

"Faith, hope, and charity" are Christ's things. They apply, properly, outside time -- to a "futurity" that is not of this world. They must not be applied to any earthly utopia. A Caesar who appropriates otherworldly virtues, is riding upon very dangerous illusions. Follow him into dreamland, and you'll be lucky to wake up.

Source

Obama and "The Left"

by Thomas Sowell

Although Senator Barack Obama has been allied with a succession of far left individuals over the years, that is only half the story. There are, after all, some honest and decent people on the left. But these have not been the ones that Obama has been allied with-- allied, not merely "associated" with. ACORN is not just an organization on the left. In addition to the voter frauds that ACORN has been involved in over the years, it is an organization with a history of thuggery, including going to bankers' homes to harass them and their families, in order to force banks to lend to people with low credit ratings. Nor was Barack Obama's relationship with ACORN just a matter of once being their attorney long ago. More recently, he has directed hundreds of thousands of dollars their way. Money talks-- and what it says is more important than a politician's rhetoric in an election year.

Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger are not just people with left-wing opinions. They are reckless demagogues preaching hatred of the lowest sort-- and both are recipients of money from Obama. Bill Ayers is not just "an education professor" who has some left-wing views. He is a confessed and unrepentant terrorist, who more recently has put his message of resentment into the schools-- an effort using money from a foundation that Obama headed.

Nor has the help all been one way. During the last debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, Senator McCain mentioned that Senator Obama's political campaign began in Bill Ayers' home. Obama immediately denied it and McCain had no real follow-up. It was not this year's political campaign that Obama began in Bill Ayers' home but an earlier campaign for the Illinois state legislature. Barack Obama can match Bill Clinton in slickness at parsing words to evade accusations. That is one way to get to the White House. But slickness with words is not going to help a president deal with either domestic economic crises or the looming dangers of a nuclear Iran.

People who think that talking points on this or that problem constitute "the real issues" that we should be talking about, instead of Obama's track record, ignore a very fundamental fact about representative government. Representative government exists, in the first place, because we the voters cannot possibly have all the information necessary to make rational decisions on all the things that the government does. We cannot rule through polls or referendums. We must trust someone to represent us, especially as President of the United States.

Once we recognize this basic fact of representative government, then the question of how trustworthy a candidate is becomes a more urgent question than any of the so-called "real issues." A candidate who spends two decades promoting polarization and then runs as a healer and uniter, rather than a divider, forfeits all trust by that fact alone.

If Ronald Reagan had attempted to run for President of the United States as a liberal, the media would have been all over him. His support for Barry Goldwater would have been in the headlines and in editorial denunciations across the country. No way would he have been able to get away with using soothing words to suggest that he and Barry Goldwater were like ships that passed in the night. If Barack Obama had run as what he has always been, rather than as what he has never been, then we could simply cast our votes based on whether or not we agree with what he has always stood for.

Some people take solace from the fact that Senator Obama has verbally shifted position on some issues, like drilling for oil or gun control, since this is supposed to show that he is "pragmatic" rather than ideological. But political zig-zags show no such moderation as some seem to assume. Lenin zig-zagged and so did Hitler. Zig-zags may show no more than that someone is playing the public for fools.

Some people who see the fraud in what Obama is saying are amazed that others do not. But Obama knows what con men have long known, that their job is not to convince skeptics but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe. He does that very well.

Source

Obama's pro-union agenda is the most ambitious in decades

Big Labor is hoping to have a big election next Tuesday, with a goal of building a majority to rewrite negotiating rules between unions and management. Though it has received little media attention, Barack Obama's pro-union agenda is the most ambitious in decades and has a real prospect of becoming law. His stated goal is to "strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions" by doing the following:

- Mr. Obama is a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would eliminate the secret ballot in union organizing elections. Unions would be certified to negotiate pay, benefits and work rules simply by collecting signed "union authorization cards" from a majority of employees at a work site. The law passed the House in 2007 but didn't come up for a Senate vote.

Under current law, union organizers and management both have the opportunity to present the pros and cons of forming a union. A secret employee vote is then held. Under Mr. Obama's proposal, unions would be the sole provider of information to the employee, and the worker's decision whether to organize would no longer be private.

Unions say current law favors management, which can stall to a point where workers lose interest in organizing. But the median number of days between filing a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and holding an election has actually fallen over the past two decades. In 2007, more than 1,500 such elections were held, and unions won 54% of them, the same win rate of the early 1970s.

- Another labor-friendly provision of the Employee Free Choice Act is mandatory arbitration. Under current law, labor and management are required to bargain in good faith but aren't obliged to reach an agreement. Under Mr. Obama's proposal, if the parties can't settle on a contract within 120 days, the dispute goes to an arbitration panel which can impose a contract that is binding for two years.

As a practical matter, contracts typically involve dozens of provisions dealing with wages as well as seniority, grievances, overtime, transfers and promotions. Rarely is this accomplished in four months. The provision would notably shift bargaining power to unions, which would have an incentive to run out the 120-day clock and let an arbitrator impose a contract that is bound to include much of what unions demand.

- Mr. Obama also supports legislation to reverse the NLRB's "Kentucky River" ruling last year, which fleshed out the definition of a supervisor for the purposes of organizing. Unions usually prefer a narrow definition of management, because it increases the number of people potentially under their control. Conversely, labor has worked to expand the definition of "employee" to include everyone from temp workers to graduate-student teaching assistants.

- The Democrat also wants to bar companies from replacing striking workers -- a right that management has held for some 70 years. Unions made a similar push in the early 1990s, and a bill passed the House but was blocked in the Senate. Mr. Clinton issued an executive order that would have ended the provision for federal contractors. It was struck down in federal court. Mr. Clinton then tried to get the NLRB to make it more difficult to replace striking workers. The courts overturned that too. Mr. Obama says he will "work to ban the provision," but hasn't provided specifics.

- Mr. Obama supports the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act and has said he'd push for its enactment as president. The bill, which passed the House last year and already has 60 votes in the Senate, would force state and local governments to recognize union leaders as the exclusive bargaining agent for police, firefighters and other first responders. More than half of the states would have to change their laws. Thousands of public safety officers would no longer be able to negotiate directly with their employers on their own behalf.

- Last year Congress raised the minimum wage, which is set to rise to $7.25 an hour next year from the current $6.55. But Mr. Obama wants to raise it again, to $9.50 per hour by 2011, and index it for inflation. Mr. Obama says further increases are necessary so that "full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs." According to Census data, less than 1% of workers over 25 are earning the minimum. And rather than family heads or full-time workers, they tend to be young single adults, teenagers living at home or spouses providing a second income.

John McCain has not made labor issues a major part of his campaign, but he opposes both the Employee Free Choice Act and the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. The Republican has also gone on the record in support of national right-to-work legislation that would repeal all current federal laws that authorize the firing of employees for refusing to join or pay dues to a union. Some 22 states currently have right-to-work laws, which Mr. Obama opposes.

Source

OBAMA USING KIDS 12 AND UNDER

Obama's official site now has a section explicitly targeting kids age 12 and under, urging them to persuade their parents and grandparents to vote for him. The same age group is protected by regulations even when it comes to marketing of products like candies and cereal. The site also offers a "kit" for people who want to orgnanize Obama events for kids. Here're a few quotes to give you feel of it: (hat tip Jeff over at Dr. Slogan):

For the first time in campaign history, children ages 12 and under, have a place to go and actually vote-through their voice. What a great way to be introduced to politics and to express your support for Senator Obama.

Implement T-Shirt Thursday. Get friends to wear an official Obama for America T-Shirt to school. Take an adult (voting age) to the polls on Election Day and encourage them to vote for you, by voting for Senator Obama.

...your grandma and grandpa love you and have faith in you. That is your weapon! "Precious" needs to get on the phone and say, "Grandpa, Grandma, I am asking you to vote for Barack Obama. This is really important to me. It's about my future. It's about the world I will be living in. It's about the world I want for my future children. (They will love that one!) Please! Do it for me!"

Source

Video Outlines Obama’s Rhetoric vs. His Record

Tonight, with less than ten days to go before election day, William J. “Bill” Federer sent me an e-mail. It included a link to a video, Barack Obama: Rhetoric vs. Record, featuring Foster Friess, a successful businessman and Army veteran living in Jackson Hole, Wyo. Because I hold Federer in such high esteem as a conservative, an author and a friend, I watched the video and now heartily recommend it to you.

Before you watch it, however, you should know a bit more about Friess’ beliefs and philosophy — information I found at his web site, FosterFriess.com. Unlike the Democratic Party presidential nominee, Friess believes in combating the negativity in our culture with uplifting, inspiring stories. He promotes and encourages the American dream — not to make everyone equal, but to provide each citizen the opportunity and freedom to pursue the potential God intended for them.

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.)

2008-10-27T00:03:00.000+11:30

MSM Refuse to Release the Video Of Barack Obama Attending Jew-Bash & Toasting a Former PLO Operative...

Introduction: The LA Times is holding a video that shows Barack Obama celebrating with a group of Palestinians who are openly hostile towards Israel. Barack Obama even gives a toast to a former PLO operative at this celebration. If the American public saw this side of Barack Obama he would never be elected president. But, the media refuses to release this video.

LA Times writer Peter Wallsten wrote about Barack Obama's close association with former Palestinian operative Rashid Khalidi back in April. Wallsten discussed a dinner held back in 2003 in honor of Khalidi, a critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights. Barack Obama has denied his close association with Khalidi, too.

According to Wallsten the evening not surprisingly turned into a classic Jew-bash:

"During the dinner a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace." One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Barack Obama also praised the former PLO operative during the event. And, Obama confessed that his family often shared dinner with the Khalidis:

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases... It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world." ...The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

Khalidi and the Obamas were great friends in Chicago and often shared meals together. By the way, Khalidi was also best friends with Bill Ayers.

On Wednesday I talked with Peter Wallsten from the Los Angeles Times about the article on Obama and Khalidi:

Wallsten was one of the few mainstream media reporters to report on this radical Obama associate. Wallston said that the article was written after he watched video taken at the Khalidi going away party. When I asked him about the video he said that as far as he was concerned he was through with the story.

I asked him if he was planning on releasing this video of Obama toasting the radical Khalidi at this Jew-bash. He told me he was not releasing the video. He also would not comment on his source for the video. Wallston also said he did not know if Khalidi's good friend Bill Ayers was at the event or not.

So, there you have it. The LA Times has video of Obama toasting a former PLO operative at a Jew-bash but will not release the video. This is outrageous.

Obviously, this video would do great damage to Obama who struggles with Jewish voters due to his circle of close anti-Semitic friends. Maybe this is the reason it is not being released?

More here

Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth, says Berg

'This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20 months'

The Pennsylvania Democrat who has sued Sen. Barack Obama demanding he prove his American citizenship - and therefore qualification to run for president - has confirmed he has a recording of a telephone call from the senator's paternal grandmother confirming his birth in Kenya

The issue of Obama's birthplace, which he states is Honolulu in 1961, has been raised enough times that his campaign website has posted an image purporting to be of his "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii But Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general for Pennsylvania, told the Michael Savage talk radio program tonight that the document is forged and that he has a tape recording he will soon release.

"This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20 months," Berg told Savage. "I'll release it [the tape] in a day or two, affidavits from her talking to a certain person. I heard the tape. She was speaking [to someone] here in the United States." He said the telephone call was from Obama's paternal grandmother affirming she "was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961."

Berg said he's pursuing the issue because of "the most important document in the United States," the U.S. Constitution. "Nothing is more important than enforcing the Constitution," he said. "The Constitution's provisions are very small for qualifying for president. One, be over 35, and he is. Two, be in the country 14 years, and he has been. Three, be a natural-born citizen. He is not."

Obama campaign officials acknowledged the dispute by posting the image purporting to be a copy of his certification of live birth earlier this year. But they've declined to return WND requests for comment on the issues.

Berg addressed the existence of a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper, featured on the Atlasshrugs2000 website, that suggests Obama was born in the city Aug. 4, 1961. But Berg explained to Savage he believes Obama's mother was near the end of her pregnancy and unable to travel by plane, so Obama was born in Kenya. The family then traveled to Hawaii and registered the birth and submitted the newspaper announcement.

Besides Berg's lawsuit, several other court challenges also have been filed, including one in Washington state where petitioners are seeking to have the Washington secretary of state "verify Obama's eligibility" to serve prior to the election. The claim states, "The 'certificate' that Mr. Obama has posted on his official Website is a 'Certification of Live Birth,' and not a 'Birth Certificate' from Hawaii. There is no indication on even this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place." Berg also told Savage there is no information available on which hospital Obama's mother used in Hawaii.

The Washington state case also alleges, "Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008, stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen...

Berg said he believed it also was a complication that Obama's mother divorced his father, married and moved to Indonesia for several years and Obama attended school there at a time when, Berg said, only Indonesia citizens were allowed in schools. Records that are available from Indonesia revealed Obama was registered in school as Barry Soetoro, and his religion was listed as Islam.

When Obama later returned to Hawaii, within the United States, there should have been a government document affirming his citizenship, but that also cannot be found. If that was not processed properly, Berg said, Obama would be in a situation even worse than not being a natural-born citizen. "If he didn't go through immigration, he now is illegal and has been an illegal alien. He couldn't even hold the position of senator for Illinois," Berg said.

Further, Berg said he suspected Obama's college records may indicate he received aid as a foreigner, and that's why those records have been withheld by the campaign. "I really think it's because it probably indicates he's from Kenya, or Indonesia, or received foreign aid," Berg said. "I feel very confident saying these things," Berg told Savage.

Source

Berg v. Obama lawsuit dismissed - Berg appealing to U. S. Supreme Court

Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama's lack of "qualifications" to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?

So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned. According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution. What happened to `...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...' Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.

We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States," Berg said.

Our website obamacrimes.com now has 71.8 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website - and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.

Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, "we" the people, are heading to a "Constitutional Crisis" if this case is not resolved forthwith.

Source

Obama campaign can't handle tough questions

WFTV-Channel 9's Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday. A friend says it's some of the best entertainment he's seen recently. West wondered about Sen. Barack Obama's comment, to Joe the Plumber, about spreading the wealth. She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama isn't being a Marxist with the "spreading the wealth" comment.

"Are you joking?" said Biden, who is Obama's running mate. "No," West said. West later asked Biden about his comments that Obama could be tested early on as president. She wondered if the Delaware senator was saying America's days as the world's leading power were over. "I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden shot back.

Biden so disliked West's line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife. "This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign. McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was "a result of her husband's experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West."

WFTV news director Bob Jordan said, "When you get a shot to ask these candidates, you want to make the most of it. They usually give you five minutes." Jordan said political campaigns in general pick and choose the stations they like. And stations often pose softball questions during the satellite interviews. "Mr. Biden didn't like the questions," Jordan said. "We choose not to ask softball questions." Jordan added, "I'm crying foul on this one."

Source

Obama Bin Lyin'

Oh, yes. Obama's been lyin' for sure. Since ACORN has been in the news recently due to a twelve-state investigation for voter fraud, he has been lying fast and furiously about his close relationship with ACORN. This profitable association began in 1992.

There is a multitude of documentation that, in addition to representing ACORN in a suit against Illinois (the only relationship he admits to), he has served as a trainer for them every year since 1992, and directed a voter registration campaign for them which delivered 50,000 new voters (many of them fraudulent).

Obama claims that he was never a trainer for ACORN. But the photo below shows a young Obama teaching in a conference room at ACORN's Chicago headquarters. It accompanied an article in a frankly Socialist magazine written by ACORN "Community Organizer" Tony Foulkes in which she admits that, although ACORN's voter registration are supposed to be non-partisan by law (since they receive 40% of their funding by way of your tax dollars), that "in some elections we get to have our cake and eat it too: work on nonpartisan voter registration and GOTV, which also turns out to benefit the candidate that we hold dear."

Foulkes goes on to describe how ACORN delivered the Illinois Senate seat for Obama, "the candidate that we hold dear." And she states in the 2004 article that "We have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus, it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign."

I spoke to a gentleman today who said that Obama seems like a nice person; he thought Obama just had the wrong policies. The operative word in his sentence is "seems". Obama seems to be sincere. He seems to care about America. He seems to be truthful. He is none of those things. John McCain takes the high road; he says Obama is a "decent man." I don't think that this close to a crucial election we can afford the luxury of civility that prevents us from telling the truth. We have to call a spade a spade, not an agricultural implement. If the American citizenry doesn't realize in the next few weeks that Obama is the slickest liar ever to run for the White House, our country may elect the most dangerous man ever to occupy that office.

I always thought Bill Clinton was the best liar on the national scene. He lied even when he wasn't talking. Remember the famous incident when he was laughing and joking with a friend after Ron Brown's funeral? When he noticed a TV camera on him, he immediately assumed a somber expression, and somehow managed to produce a tear!

But Obama has him beat hands down. He's the chief chameleon in a profession full of them. He spoke a few months ago to a group of Jewish voters and gave them his solemn promise that Jerusalem would always belong to Israel. The VERY NEXT DAY he spoke to a group of Muslims, and said that he believed Jerusalem should be the capitol of Palestine. When he speaks to a mixed audience he talks like a college professor (which he claims to have been, but never was; he was only a lowly lecturer). But when he speaks to a predominantly black audience, he goes into his jive street guy act and starts speaking Ebonics.

Before we go further, let me describe ACORN. The acronym stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. It was founded by left-over hippies and 1960's Communist radicals who decided they could accomplish more by becoming "Community Organizers" than they had by bombing "The Man" or (as they liked to call the police) "The Pigs." As you will see, Obama's ACORN engages primarily in voter fraud, but it also found time to be the founder of our nation's current housing and credit crisis. They call for the destruction of the Free Market System, which they believe is evil. And they believe, as Obama does, in "economic justice" (Socialist-speak for taking money from people who work, and giving it to people who don't).

As you read the next paragraph, remember that Obama has repeatedly, flatly denied in interviews and on his website that he has ever had any association with the Socialist ACORN organization other than representing them in one lawsuit. (There are public court records on the court case. Otherwise he would probably lie about representing ACORN in the case.)

Last month Obama reported to the FEC (Federal Elections Commission) that he had paid ACORN subsidiary CSI, Inc. $800,000 to do "sound and lighting" at his rallies. (Candidates must submit sworn statements of their campaign expenses under federal law.) Isn't it curious that the man who claims no association with ACORN would hugely overpay them for basically being stage hands? Remember, this was not for the huge extravaganza at the Temple of Obama during his convention. He probably did pay close to a million bucks for that sound and lighting! But the $800,000 was for local rallies.

It got curiouser a few weeks later. When his staffers realized that the fraudulent payment of $800,000 had been discovered, Obama quickly resubmitted his filing. This time, after blaming the error on a clerk, he claimed that only $200,000 was for sound and lighting. The other $600,000 was for "get out the vote" efforts on his behalf. Only two things are wrong with that. First, ACORN is sworn to be non-partisan in its voter fraud - excuse me, voter registration - efforts. Second, they are under investigation by at least 12 State Attorneys General for voter registration fraud. Over their 30 year history, there have been dozens of such investigations and many convictions for fraud. So why is the Democratic nominee for the highest office in the land giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to a Socialist organization that regularly violates state and federal law?

Concerning ACORN's supposed non-partisan voter registration efforts, I was amused when I watched an interview with an ACORN worker on national television last week. The young lady doing the interview asked the woman from ACORN some easy questions first. "How do you register people?" "Are people open to having you help?" Then she set the trap. "Who do you think the people you register will vote for?" Obama, of course. Who do you plan to vote for?" Same answer. Then she went for the kill: "Do you tell them they should vote for Obama?" The ACORN lady replied, "Sure I do!" Then, realizing what she had just admitted to, she practically ran away from the camera, yelling over her shoulder, "Uh, I gotta go!"

ACORN has submitted millions of fraudulent voter registrations in key battleground states for the presidential election. According to County Elections Supervisors in numerous states, one of their favorite is to gather registrations over several months, then submit hundreds of thousands of registrations on the last possible day. That way, officials don't have the time to weed out the bogus registrations for non-existent and dead people.

ACORN admits to hiring criminals to do their registration work, and claims that all the fraud is theirs, not ACORN's. And they claim that "voter registration fraud" is not a big deal. (It is, because confusion on the voter rolls could swing a tight election.) They claim it's only serious of "voter fraud" takes place, saying that just because an illegal or a felon registers doesn't mean they will vote. Really? Well the why does ACORN spend millions to obtain the fraudulent registrations? The only possible reason is that there will be fraudulent voting. By the way, I heard Obama use this exact ACORN justification in an interview a few days ago.

You will also be pleased to know that ACORN shares the blame with the Democrats in the Congress for the current financial crisis in our nation. Theirs was the largest group in the nation that did the "Community Organizing" that pressured Congress to force banks and mortgage companies to give housing loans to people who could not afford them. Any Senator or Congressman who didn't vote their way was threatened with being publicly branded a racist. That's powerful stuff. Most politicians would rather be accused of being a terrorist. So the Democrats followed ACORN's agenda, and when their reckless fiscal policies caused Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac to be investigated, the Democrats protected the failed institutions. (Fannie and Freddie are the huge Government Sponsored Enterprises - GSE's - that backed the bad loans. They were recently taken over by the US Government because they were insolvent.)

Four years ago McCain and other Republicans pushed for strong regulation of Fannie and Freddie, which would almost have averted the current crisis. The Democrats never let it get out of Committee. (See the VIDEO LINK of a Senate Hearing on Fannie & Freddie below.) Two years ago McCain introduced legislation to save us from what he correctly believed was a looming housing crisis. The Democrat-controlled Congress shot it down to protect their buddies, the criminals running the GSE's.

The broader financial crisis today all stems from the housing crisis. The investment banking firms that have gone out of business all held these bad mortgage loans through the vehicle of derivatives. Ditto the many banks that failed, many of which also held these bad loans directly. And the AIG debacle occurred because AIG (the world's largest insurer, which our government recently bailed out to the tune of $85 Billion) insured the mortgage backed securities, which led to AIG's downfall.

As I detailed last week, our nation's housing crisis started more than 30 years ago under a Democrat President (Carter), and became truly radical under Bill Clinton. Yet the Democrats, led by their Messiah (as Obama's racist, anti-Semite buddy Louis Farrakhan calls Obama), persist in claiming that all this happened in the last eight years due to George W. Bush's "failed economic policies." The fact is that the "failed policies" of the Democrats, ACORN, and Fannie and Freddie are directly responsible for the worst drop in real estate values we have experienced, as well as the credit crisis that is crippling our economy. And Obama defends all of them.

The irony of all this is that when the $700 Billion bailout bill (which Nancy Pelosi proudly admits was written by the Democrats) was first introduced, it contained a huge payout to ACORN backed by Obama. Do you remember Treasury Secretary Paulson assuring the nation that we weren't just giving money to the financial institutions; that they would "pay the taxpayers back"? Well, Robin Hood Obama and his merry band of Democrats decided that the FIRST TWENTY PER CENT of the money paid back would go to ACORN! This would have meant tens of billions to ACORN (much of which would find its way into the pocks of Dem lawmakers. It took John McCain suspending his campaign and returning to DC to get that huge piece of pork surgically removed from the bill.

Source

Obama's foolish attack on capital

Tax Policy: Democratic nominee Barack Obama touts his tax plan as just a way to "spread the wealth." But to us it looks like something quite different: a declaration of war on capital. Obama has described his plan to hike taxes as "neighborliness," "patriotism" and "justice." In fact, it's the widest-ranging assault on capital - and those who create it - in at least a generation, possibly longer.

Look at just a few of the things he and congressional Democrats have in mind: Higher taxes on successful entrepreneurs (anyone earning over $250,000), higher taxes on capital gains, higher taxes on dividends, a possible raid on Americans' 401(k)s, a takeover of America's private health care industry, strict new limits on what CEOs can make, and the reimposition of the death tax.

Add it up, and Obama will usher in a new era in America - one where capital, the engine of our economic growth and success, is punished severely through the tax code. If Democrats win a filibuster-proof majority in Congress, it'll be the only form of capital punishment their party will support.

Obama denies this, but listen to Barney Frank, head of the House Financial Services Committee, who said just last week: "I believe later on, there should be tax increases. . . there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money."

And all this in the middle of what looks like a deep recession. This is a big reason why stock markets in the U.S. and abroad have plunged in recent weeks. As Obama climbs in the polls, investors have awakened to a stark fiscal reality.

This should worry all Americans. A 2005 study found 57 million U.S. households - 60% of the total - owned stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Average people don't realize they'll take a direct hit.

Higher taxes lower returns on capital. This means everything - wages, stock prices, real estate - will have to decline further as Obama's tax hikes take hold. That means fewer jobs. This reverses what has always been America's recipe for success: an economy built on low taxes, few regulations, free trade and, in general, letting markets decide winners and losers.

Obama says he's merely "spreading the wealth" - taking money from those who've earned it and giving it to those who haven't. But we already "spread the wealth." According to economists Gerald Prante and Andrew Chamberlain, the top 40% of households redistribute $1 trillion each year through the tax code to the bottom 60%. And yes, that includes the middle class.

By the way, the top 5% of earners - those squarely in Obama's tax-hike cross hairs - already pay 60% of all taxes. Obama's changes would skew that further. Worse, many of Obama's "get the rich" tax hikes are really targeted at successful small businesses that create nearly 90% of all U.S. jobs. Among tax filers with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more, some 67% report small-business income.

At this delicate time in our economic history, talk of tax hikes on wealth creators and capital is irresponsible - a recipe for the kind of market meltdowns we've seen repeatedly in recent weeks. Spread the wealth? More like, destroy it.

Source

The Secret of Obama's Success

The fantasy of unity and harmony

Barack Obama's success so far in this campaign is a puzzle. How is it that a youngish first-term senator with so many disadvantages -- a slight resume, a foreign-sounding name, an exotic background, a professorial manner, a thoroughly liberal voting record, and a skin color unlike any previous president -- has come so far, and even leads in national polls with less than two weeks to go?

He does have some things going for him, of course: his rhetorical skill, his unflappability and not least of all a financial crisis that reflects badly on the party occupying the White House. But none of those explains how he managed to defeat a daunting Democratic rival and outshine an inspiring war hero with demonstrated crossover appeal. If you had written the story as fiction a few years ago, publishers would have rejected it as grossly outlandish.

But the implausibility of the occasion is no deterrent to the 35,000 people who have turned out this weekday morning to see one of the few Democratic presidential candidates to imagine he might carry the staunchly Republican state of Indiana.

It is a racially mixed audience, and I meet a variety of participants, including a white factory worker, a black pharmacy technician, a group of white teens from Illinois in blue Future Farmers of America jackets and a black ex-Marine who teaches middle school. There is also a quartet of lively middle-aged women -- two white, two black -- who, after dancing happily to the warmup music, christen themselves the Michellettes.

And what did they hear from the man they came to see? Much of Obama's address consisted of standard campaign riffs, most of which could be delivered just as well by his opponent, on timeworn topics: the plight of the middle class, the need for tax relief, the unfairness of our health care system and the failure of economic policies that -- can you guess? -- "put Wall Street before Main Street."

But wait long enough, and you hear the indispensable passage, the one that transcends everything else he says. "There are no real and fake parts of this country," Obama declares. "We are not separated by the pro-America and anti-America parts of this nation -- we all love this country, no matter where we live or where we come from." America's veterans, he says, "have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America -- they have served the United States of America."

From the moment he vaulted into national consciousness with his inspiring speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, this theme has lain at the heart of his approach and his appeal. "We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States," he reminded us then. "We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States."

It is a message of fundamental unity and good will, at a time when politics often resembles Henry Adams' mordant description: "the systematic organization of hatreds." And it has worked especially well for Obama for several reasons. One is that, as the son of an African father and a white, Kansas-born mother, he embodies the diversity of America.

Another is that it contrasts so starkly with the message of the opposing camp. You have Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) saying "liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God." You have Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) suspecting the Democratic nominee is "anti-American." You have Sarah Palin saying she loves "what I call the real America [the] very pro-America areas of this great nation." It's a strategy of fear and division, and it seems to be failing because Obama is not very scary and because the things that bind us together really are more powerful than the ones that push us apart.

Which brings us to the most important reason for the success of his message: It touches a chord that resonates not just across races and regions, but across more than two centuries of the republic's history. Whatever his errors, Obama's campaign and the followers it has inspired remind us of the essential meaning of America, captured in the motto adopted by the Founders: E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. Not: Out of many, two.

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.)

2008-10-26T00:05:00.000+11:30

The spreader

Wnat we see below is apparently a receipt signed by Michelle Obama at the Waldorf Astoria on Oct 15, 2008 at 4pm. $447 for an afternoon snack. It's only the "little people" who will have to give up pie, apparently.

Barack Obama: One Man, One Vote, One Time

This May Be Your Only Chance To Stop Obama's Agenda

Barack Obama is the most left-wing major-party presidential candidate in modern history. The evidence of this is all over his record and his campaign. Yet for a variety of reasons, ranging from terminal frustration with the Bush Administration to swooning over Obama's pop culture cache to buying Obama's and the media's spin that he's really a mainstream figure to the right, not the left, of John Kerry, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and Howard Dean, we keep encountering moderates, independents, liberal Republicans and even self-identified conservatives who are willing to give Obama a chance in the White House. Even though America remains a center-right country, Obama leads in the major polls, and the odds currently favor his chances of winning the election, and of the unpopular Democratic Congress expanding its majorities to approach a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate, something the nation has not seen since the Great Society.

Our friends who take seriously the future of America as a non-left-wing country with a viable party of the Right should reconsider lending any support to this venture. Under the normal rules of politics, we would accept the idea that Obama, after winning, would inevitably overreach to the Left, leading to a backlash from which Republicans could rebuild a new and better GOP in 2010 and 2012, as we did in 1980 and 1994 after the last two Democratic presidents overreached and underperformed. But this assumes that Obama's agenda will be mostly about policy, and will seek by traditional means to persuade a center-right voting public to support a European-style left-wing social-democrat government.

In fact, it is highly likely that Obama and the Congressional Democrats will instead concentrate major efforts on a number of longstanding policy priorities are aimed at stacking the deck to change the electorate and the political process themselves, and thus entrenching themselves in long-term power without ever needing again to persuade a center-right electorate to support their policies. Let's look at a number of examples of things the Democrats are likely to do with their new majority to bring this about:

(1) Card Check: The vanguard of this movement to redistribute political power to the Left - the sign you will see early on to know that an Obama Administration is prioritizing political entrenchment - is legislation with the Orwellian title of the Employee Free Choice Act, which was stopped in this Congress only by GOP filibuster. The "card check" bill puts its thumb on the scales of union organizing in a number of ways, most notoriously by eliminating the secret ballot in union elections, allowing workers to be coerced to form unions which will then route coerced union dues to the Democratic party.

(2) Same-Day Voter Registration: Another longstanding priority of left-wing groups like ACORN - and near and dear to Obama's heart as a man who came up through the PIRGs and has made voter-registration and recruitment the central theme of his career - is mandate that every state allow people to register and vote on the same day. The downside, of course, is that this precludes efforts to follow up before Election Day to make sure that a voter has registered at a bona fide address, among other things. It's an invitation to voter fraud. Yet liberal writers are insistent, in the face of all evidence, common sense and understanding of human nature and political history, that voter fraud does not exist and that all precautions against it are misguided at best and racist at worst.

(3) Abolish Voter Identification Requirements: Relatedly, the Left was frustrated when the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's law requiring voters to present a valid form of identification. Expect federal moves against such state laws as well, whether through legislation or by action of the Justice Department (we've already seen career DOJ prosecutors move against wholly truthful political speech designed to warn non-citizens against voting). Like same-day registration, this is a maneuver primarily to empower corrupt urban political machines.

(4) Quash Investigations of Voter Fraud: Of course, it would be embarrassing to these efforts if investigations turned up voter fraud by ACORN during the 2008 election. So naturally, an Obama Justice Department will view voter fraud investigations as something to be investigated themselves, as evidenced by its call for a special prosecutor to investigate voter fraud investigators. This is a sure-fire way to send the message that any prosecutor who looks for evidence of voter fraud can kiss a career in an Obama Administration - and maybe even his or her liberty - goodbye.

(5) The Fairness Doctrine: With the mainstream media thoroughly in the tank for Obama, conservatives have had to rely on the alternative outlets - talk radio, blogs, conservative magazines, and the one network - Fox News - that at least gives conservatives a fair shake. This option, though, wasn't always available: before 1987, the FCC's so-called "Fairness Doctrine" required that "equal time" be given to opinion programming (but not opinion masquerading as "news"), which as a practical matter made conservative talk radio - long more popular than liberal alternatives, given among other things the greater conservative need for alternative media - uneconomical (it's no accident that Rush Limbaugh went national in 1988). Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine has been a long-cherished goal on the Left. Obama, of course, would particularly love to remake Fox News; he blamed the network for his loss in the Kentucky primary and now argues that it's unfairly hampering his presidential campaign:

"I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls," Obama told liberal journalist Matt Bai. "[T]he way I'm portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?" ..."I guess the point I'm making," he went on, "is that there is an entire industry now, an entire apparatus, designed to perpetuate this cultural schism, and it's powerful.

This might be regarded as a typical example of a politician complaining about press coverage, were it not for the history - here's the Heritage Foundation in 1993 explaining the operation of the Fairness Doctrine and discussing efforts to revive it by legislation the last time Democrats controlled the White House and Congress, a 2005 article making some of the Left's arguments for restoring it, and a 2008 talk with a current FCC Commissioner on how the Fairness Doctrine could make a comeback and be applied to the internet. More here and here.

(6) Campaign Finance Reform on Steroids: Democrats are still bitter about the independent ads run by groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004, engaging in free and open debate on subjects - like the Democratic nominee's own life history and past political activities - that Republican campaigns were too timid to touch. Obama talks frequently about "swift boating" and has complained incessantly about how it's beyond the pale to run ads about his own career. (Obama has also been known to send threatening letters like this one about an NRA ad). Even recognizing that Senator McCain is also no friend of independent advocacy groups, it's the Democrats who are likely to have a major axe to grind in 2009 to shut down such groups and exclude them from political debate in the future.

(7) A House seat for DC: The District of Columbia has a unique political status - it enjoys subsidies from the federal government and 3 electoral votes for President far out of proportion to its population. In return, DC operates under federal supervision and has no votes in Congress. But there have been moves by the Democrats in recent Congresses, which nearly succeeded, to take a House seat away from the states and give it to DC, the most reliably Democratic locale in the entire nation. (A more extreme step would be DC statehood or adding two Senators without formal statehood. Either, like the House seat, would be unconstitutional, which brings us to our next point).

(8) Liberal Judges: The best and surest way to reduce the scope in which a center-right electorate can operate is to have the federal judiciary take more and more issues entirely and permanently out of the hands of voters, and take the meaning of the constitution and of legislation out of the hands of the people's representatives. Obama is certain to appoint life-tenured federal judges, including probably at least two Supreme Court Justices, who will impose their own preferences (or worse yet, unelected international law) on American democracy.

(9) Census Sampling: A major demographic trend is working against the Democrats, as population shifts from blue states in the Northeast and industrial Midwest to redder states in the South and Southwest. Certainly the Democrats have tried to win over voters in those states, but another way to battle demographics is to change how you count. In 1999, the Supreme Court held that current federal law required that the 2000 Census use an actual count of people, rather than applying a "sampling" formula backed by the Democrats to "estimate" population, a method subject to manipulation and which was argued to be helpful to Democratic-leaning urban areas. The Bush Administration then blocked efforts to impose "sampling" on the 2000 Census. Expect renewed efforts to use it on the 2010 Census, so as to skew redistricting in Democrats' favor.

(10) Voting Rights Act Bigfooting of the Redistricting Process: Another way for the federal government to interfere in redistricting is to use the Justice Department's powers under the Voting Rights Act to manipulate district lines and block "preclearance" of new districts, often under the guise of preserving racial minority-held seats (long a pet cause of Senator Obama dating back to his State Senate days). Expect moves by the Democrats to use DOJ to draw legislative lines in their favor after 2010, regardless of how elections go at the state level.

(11) Immigration: If you don't like the voters, get new ones. You don't have to be anti-immigrant to notice that massive waves of non-English-speaking entrants to the voting process, combined with elimination of ballot security and the new entrants' lack of grounding in American values, could swamp the current electorate. Obama's attitude towards immigration is best shown in two ways: his sponsorship of a bill in Illinois to give drivers' licenses to illegal aliens and his support of biligual education, which is an educational failure best suited to keeping Latinos locked in a linguistic ghetto cut off from the American mainstream. Here again, John McCain has been a supporter as well of "comprehensive immigration reform," but McCain has pledged his own supporters that he will tackle border security first, he doesn't have Obama's history of offering governmental benefits and identification specifically to illegal aliens, and he'll be constrained in other ways by his party.

(12) Voting Rights For Felons: Another Democratic constituency is convicted felons. Prepare for a major push to restore felon voting rights.

These are not the only ways in which we may see efforts to entrench the Left. Obama's tax plan will create a newly enlarged group of citizens dependent on government handouts. The Left may also press to abolish the hated Electoral College, thus nationalizing the effects of ballot-box stuffing anywhere in the country, although it's less clear that this will actually be on the agenda.

Now, if you were the Left, and you wanted to prioritize political entrenchment over persuasion, who would you choose as your candidate? A man with no real experience governing but years of experience organizing, a man who has structured his campaign as a movement centered on new voters that sends its recruits to Camp Obama.

And what would be the keystone of any public relations effort to prepare the ground for changing the political structure of the nation to marginalize the current center-right electorate and create a 'post-partisan' (i.e., one-party) political future? You would seek to delegitimize the Right by portraying it as a violent and dangerous mob in need of governmental supervision. You'd tell everyone that unfettered debate is too scary because Republicans are unstable and easily inflamed to violence. And that's exactly what the Left and the media have been doing in this campaign.

The most obvious example of this, recounted here and here and here by Walter Olson, is calls by liberal bloggers to prosecute McCain and Palin for criminal incitement for their criticisms of Barack Obama. But there are many examples of emphasis in the media or by the Democrats and their prominent supporters on stories - the bulk of them false or severely distorted - suggesting that Republican crowds are dangerously angry due to supposedly false rhetoric or simply tough arguments about Senator Obama's past - see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Indeed, Senator Obama himself made this argument, citing false news stories, in the third debate. Meanwhile, actually dangerous and violent behavior or extremist, hate-filled rhetoric from the Left is downplayed or wholly ignored - see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

We can't allow Barack Obama the opportunity to remake America in the image of foreign countries. We can't allow the center-right electorate that has sustained our nation as the last, best hope of mankind to be silenced, marginalized or extinguished. This is a battle that will be fought on many fronts over the next several years, but the most important front will be on Election Day. Today's GOP isn't perfect - win or lose this election, there's more work to be done to clean our own house. But those who don't join the fight against Obama on November 4 may end up finding there's nowhere left to go to fight him later.

Source (See the original for links)

Yes, he is a socialist!

"Senator Obama said he wants to quote `spread the wealth.' What that means is he wants government to take your money and dole it out however a politician sees fit. Barack Obama calls it spreading the wealth. But Joe the Plumber and Ed the Dairy Man, I believe that they think that it sounds more like socialism. Friends, now is no time to experiment with socialism. To me our opponent's plan sounds more like big government, which is the problem. Bigger government is not the solution. Whatever you call his tax plan and that redistribution of wealth it will destroy jobs. It will hurt our economy."

-Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK), October 19th, 2008.

Governor Palin won't say it outright. And Senator John McCain (R-AZ) won't utter the word specifically. Florida's Governor Charlie Crist shies away from it. And Mitt Romney won't say it either. That's fine. We'll say it. Directly. Barack Obama is a socialist.

And let's be specific: the direction that Senator Obama's proposed policies will take the United States is one where the government increasingly subsidizes, regulates and then nationalizes one industry after another, consolidates government-control over the industries that have already been nationalized, and simultaneously disincentivize private investment in those same sectors of the economy.

In other words, the goal will be for the government to control the means of production. Sound familiar? It should. It's a central tenant of socialism. After all, there's more to socialism than simply redistributing the wealth of society-or "spreading the wealth," as the Senator would say, or welfare, as we would say-although that is critical. The other end of the spectrum is the nationalization of entire sectors of the economy.

To wit, let's review where we already stand. Education has been state-run for decades, and the university (and its valuable research) system is almost entirely financed via federally-backed student loans. Agriculture is heavily subsidized. Energy is overregulated, overtaxed, and restricted from increasing production necessary for the health of our economy. Banking has now been nationalized, and the mortgage industry has been for decades in reality (the GSE's Fannie and Freddie account for more than half of all U.S. mortgages). Increasingly health insurance, via Medicare, Medicaid, and other state-run programs are being controlled by government.

And Barack Obama will not roll back any of it. Instead, he will consolidate control over each and every one of those sectors, and add to it. Let's look at some of the Obama proposals:

1) Forced unionization via card check-Barack Obama wants to return strength to Big Labor, and one of the critical ground components to that is allowing unions to use the intimidating card check system to bully enough workers-a majority-into forming a union without there ever being a vote via secret ballot.

2) National Health Insurance-As if health costs had not skyrocketed enough since the advent of Medicare and other government-subsidized programs, Senator Obama wants to double down and create a National Health Insurance program that would dwarf all other entitlements currently offered by the federal government. He puts a $65 billion/year price tag on it, but that is almost certainly a (very) lowball estimate. In short, he wants to socialize 14 percent of the economy in one fell swoop.

3) Energy-Mr. Obama wants to fund the "green" energy and phase out American dependence on oil and coal. He does not support increased hydrocarbon fuel production-things like gasoline, home heating oil, coal power plants, etc. He thus wants to bury the smokestack industries and phase in a new, nationalized "clean" energy sector. He wants to make carbon dioxide a heavily regulated pollutant under law. He supports cap-and-trade, and would create a "Global Energy Forum" between the G8 plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. He even wants those who turn the heat up (past 72 degrees) or the air down. When he's through, energy production and distribution will be run by the government.

4) Automobiles-While making new cars more expensive by mandating greater fuel efficiency, Senator Obama would subsidize this process to the tune of $3 billion. And assuming that American auto giants crash next year, would anyone be surprised if a President Obama decided not to heavily subsidize, if not nationalize, the entire industry?

5) Communications-Mr. Obama wants to, according to his own website, bring about "diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum." Can you say (Un)fairness Doctrine? This is government control over broadcast media, and yes that is a form of socialization. It's called censorship.

That may seem like a short list-and these are but a few examples-but then again, there's not that much else for government to get its claws into anyway. So while everyone else may be loathe to call a duck a duck, here at Americans for Limited Government we will cling to every last bit of liberty that is left for private individuals. If the free market system is soon to become a "fleeting wisp of glory," let's at least be intellectually honest enough to say so. Hence, at ALG, we will call Barack Obama what he is, because of his own proposed policies: a socialist.

Source (See the original for links)

How's Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion?

The Democrat's tax and spending plans deserve closer examination

The most troublesome tax increases in Barack Obama's plan are not those we can already see but those sure to be announced later, after the election is over and budget realities rear their ugly head.

The new president, whoever he is, will start out facing a budget deficit of at least $1 trillion, possibly much more. Sen. Obama has nonetheless promised to devote another $1.32 trillion over the next 10 years to several new or expanded refundable tax credits and a special exemption for seniors, according to the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center (TPC). He calls this a "middle-class tax cut," while suggesting the middle class includes 95% of those who work.

Mr. Obama's proposed income-based health-insurance subsidies, tax credits for tiny businesses, and expanded Medicaid eligibility would cost another $1.63 trillion, according to the TPC. Thus his tax rebates and health insurance subsidies alone would lift the undisclosed bill to future taxpayers by $2.95 trillion -- roughly $295 billion a year by 2012.

But that's not all. Mr. Obama has also promised to spend more on 176 other programs, according to an 85-page list of campaign promises (actual quotations) compiled by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. The NTUF was able to produce cost estimates for only 77 of the 176, so its estimate is low. Excluding the Obama health plan, the NTUF estimates that Mr. Obama would raise spending by $611.5 billion over the next five years; the 10-year total (aside from health) would surely exceed $1.4 trillion, because spending typically grows at least as quickly as nominal GDP.

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. Altogether, Mr. Obama is promising at least $4.3 trillion of increased spending and reduced tax revenue from 2009 to 2018 -- roughly an extra $430 billion a year by 2012-2013. How is he going to pay for it?

Raising the tax rates on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $200,000-$250,000, and phasing out their exemptions and deductions, can raise only a small fraction of the amount. Even if we have a strong economy, Mr. Obama's proposed tax hikes on the dwindling ranks of high earners would be unlikely to raise much more than $30 billion-$35 billion a year by 2012.

Besides, Mr. Obama does not claim he can finance his ambitious plans for tax credits, health insurance, etc. by taxing the rich. On the contrary, he has an even less likely revenue source in mind.

In his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention on Aug. 28, Mr. Obama said, "I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime -- by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens." That comment refers to $924.1 billion over 10 years from what the TPC wisely labels "unverifiable revenue raisers." To put that huge figure in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office optimistically expects a total of $3.7 trillion from corporate taxes over that period. In other words, Mr. Obama is counting on increasing corporate tax collections by more than 25% simply by closing "loopholes" and complaining about foreign "tax havens."

Nobody, including the Tax Policy Center, believes that is remotely feasible. And Mr. Obama's dream of squeezing more revenue out of corporate profits, dividends and capital gains looks increasingly unbelievable now that profits are falling, banks have cut or eliminated dividends, and only a few short-sellers have any capital gains left to tax.

When it comes to direct spending -- as opposed to handing out "refund" checks through the tax code -- Mr. Obama claims he won't need more revenue because there will be no more spending. He even claims to be proposing to cut more spending ending up with a "net spending cut." That was Mr. Obama's most direct answer to Bob Schieffer, the moderator of the last debate, right after Mr. Schieffer said "The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CFARB) ran the numbers" and found otherwise.

When CFARB "ran the numbers," they relied almost entirely on unverifiable numbers eagerly provided to them by the Obama campaign. That explains why their list of Mr. Obama's new spending plans is so much shorter than the National Taxpayers Union fully documented list.

But nothing quite explains why even the vaguest promises to save money are recorded by CFARB as if they had substance. Mr. Obama is thus credited with saving $50 billion in a single year (2013) by reducing "wasteful spending" and unnamed "obsolete programs." He is said to save Medicare $43 billion a year by importing foreign drugs and negotiating bargains from drug companies. Yet even proponents of that approach such as the Lewin Group find that cannot save more than $6 billion a year. So the remaining $37 billion turns out to depend on what the Obama campaign refers to as undertaking "additional measures as necessary" (more taxes?).

The number of U.S. troops in Iraq will decline, regardless of who the next president is. Yet the CFARB credits John McCain's budget with only a $5 billion savings from troop reduction in Iraq, while Mr. Obama gets an extra $55 billion.

Straining to add credibility to Mr. Obama's fantasy about discovering $75 billion in 2013 from "closing corporate loopholes and tax havens," CFARB assures us that "the campaign has said that an Obama administration would look for other sources of revenue." Indeed they would.

In one respect, CFARB is more candid than the Obama campaign. Mr. Obama favors a relatively draconian cap-and-trade scheme in which the government would sell rights to emit carbon dioxide. The effect on U.S. families and firms would be like a steep tax on electricity, gasoline and energy-intensive products such as paper, plastic and aluminum. Whenever Mr. Obama claims he has not (yet) proposed any tax increase on couples earning less than $250,000, he forgets to mention his de facto $100 billion annual tax on energy. (The McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade plan is more gradual and much less costly.)

CFARB assumes Mr. Obama's cap-and-trade tax would raise $100 billion in 2013 alone, but the actual revenue raised would be much lower. Like every other steep surge in energy costs, the Obama cap-and-trade tax would crush the economy, reducing tax receipts from profits and personal income.

The Joint Tax Committee reports that the bottom 60% of taxpayers with incomes below $50,000 paid less than 1% of the federal income tax in 2006, while the 3.3% with incomes above $200,000 paid more than 58%. Most of Mr. Obama's tax rebates go to the bottom 60%. They can't possibly be financed by shifting an even larger share of the tax burden to the top 3.3%.

Mr. Obama has offered no clue as to how he intends to pay for his health-insurance plans, or doubling foreign aid, or any of the other 175 programs he's promised to expand. Although he may hope to collect an even larger share of loot from the top of the heap, the harsh reality is that this Democrat's quest for hundreds of billions more revenue each year would have to reach deep into the pockets of the people much lower on the economic ladder. Even then he'd come up short.

Source

Study: Coverage of McCain Much More Negative Than That of Obama

Media coverage of John McCain has been heavily unfavorable since the political conventions, more than three times as negative as the portrayal of Barack Obama, a new study says. Fifty-seven percent of the print and broadcast stories about the Republican nominee were decidedly negative, the Project for Excellence in Journalism says in a report out today, while 14 percent were positive. The McCain campaign has repeatedly complained that the mainstream media are biased toward the senator from Illinois.

Obama's coverage was more balanced during the six-week period from Sept. 8 through last Thursday, with 36 percent of the stories clearly positive, 35 percent neutral or mixed and 29 percent negative.

McCain has struggled during this period and slipped in the polls, which is one of the reasons for the more negative assessments by the 48 news outlets studied by the Washington-based group. But the imbalance is striking nonetheless.

Sarah Palin's coverage ricocheted from quite positive to very negative to more mixed, the study says. Overall, 39 percent of the Palin stories were negative, 28 percent were positive and 33 percent neutral. Only 5 percent of the coverage was about her personal life. But McCain's running mate remains a media magnet, drawing three times as much coverage as the Democrats' VP nominee, Joe Biden. He was "nearly the invisible man," the group says, and his coverage was far more negative than Palin's. That may be because Biden tends to make news primarily when he commits gaffes.

The project says McCain's coverage started out positive after the GOP convention but nosedived with his frequently changing reaction to the financial crisis. McCain's character attacks against Obama hurt the Democrat but yielded even more negative coverage for the senator from Arizona.

Obama's coverage since the conventions represents a fall to earth from the early primaries of 2008, when the project found that, horse-race stories aside, positive narratives about Obama were twice as frequent as negative ones, 69 percent to 31 percent.

The Wall Street meltdown appears to have been a turning point for both candidates. Thirty-four percent of the stories about Obama's reaction to the crisis were positive, while 18 percent were negative. McCain's coverage, though, went into a free fall after he initially declared that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." By the following week, more than half the stories about McCain were negative and only 11 percent positive, just as Obama's coverage was turning positive by a margin of more than 5 to 1.

The most negative element of the Palin coverage involved scrutiny of her record as Alaska governor, with 64 percent of the stories carrying a negative tone and just 7 percent positive. The coverage of her interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson was a wash, but stories about her subsequent sitdown with CBS's Katie Couric were 57 percent negative and 14 percent positive.

While some will seize on these findings as evidence that the media are pro-Obama, the study says they actually contain "a strong suggestion that winning in politics begets winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls ... Obama's numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago, and McCain's numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore."

Source

Ayers' role in Obama's 'Dreams' poised to break out

In July 2008, I stumbled on a story that won't let me go. Someone had sent me excerpts from Barack Obama's memoir, "Dreams From My Father," and asked me whether they were as radical as they sounded. After a little research, I concluded that these excerpts were not particularly troubling in context. What I also noticed, however, was that they were much too well-written.

After a speculative article in late July, I let the story drop. A month or so later - for unrelated reasons - I picked up a copy of Bill Ayers' memoir, "Fugitive Days." It has been a roller coaster ever since.

Until late last week, I despaired of breaking this story beyond the Internet and talk radio. Then a seriously can-do congressman intervened. As I speak, we are running sophisticated data-driven tests at two separate sites. Early results are positive. If they are strong enough, and if we can somehow penetrate the battlements the mainstream media have built around Obama, we just might break this story out.

Thanks to WorldNetDaily and Rusty Humphries, among others, for getting it this far. A status report follows:

* The evidence strongly suggests that Barack Obama had significant help with the writing of "Dreams From My Father."

* The preponderance of that evidence argues that the struggling Obama brought his unfinished manuscript to Bill Ayers in the 1993-1994 time window and asked for help. Ayers seems to have edited the entire book, in some parts with a light polish and in others with fully created situations and original analyses.

* This evidence includes university-based authorship analysis, the suspicious history of Dreams' genesis, an examination of Obama's skills, as well as assessments of incredibly parallel themes, metaphors, word choices, and even anecdotes in Ayers' and Obama's works.

* As shall be seen, it is no more likely that Obama could have transformed himself from an uninspired hack into a literary superstar than he could have transformed himself from a high 90s golfer into a touring pro - with no known practice rounds.

* Although inconclusive, and difficult to track because of the fluctuations in style, preliminary university-based authorship analysis supports this assessment.

* Writes one professor: "The fact that the Q values for Dreams-Dreams matched those of Dreams-Fugitive in 45 separate experiments is important. There was a significant upward shift in the Dreams-Ayers comparisons in 105 experiments. The repeatability of the result in experiment after experiment on the subtexts starts to build support for the argument that Ayers either wrote or strongly influenced the writing of 'Dreams.'"

* Ayers' involvement is problematic on several levels, not the least of which is that it puts a lie to Obama's claim that the semi-retired terrorist was just another "guy in the neighborhood." Indeed, the relentless American-hating Ayers may have influenced Obama's philosophy as much as he did his style.

* In 1990, Obama contributed an essay entitled "Why Organize" to a book called "After Alinsky." This workmanlike and wonkish piece showed no hint of the promise of "Dreams," a book Time magazine has called "the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician."

* That same year, Obama contributed an unsigned case note to the Harvard Law Review, his only contribution to any law review ever. Politico reporters Ben Smith and Jeffrey Resner observe that "the temperate legal language doesn't display the rhetorical heights that run through his memoir, published a few years later."

* Other than some regrettable undergraduate poetry, this is the extent of what Politico calls a "scant paper trail." The Obama camp has refused all efforts to secure grades, SAT scores, LSAT scores, student theses, or any other documents that would strengthen Obama's case.

* Sometime between 1992 and 1994 Simon & Schuster canceled the advance it had offered Obama to write "Dreams."

* Ayers provided an informal editing service for like-minded friends in the neighborhood. Rashid Khalidi attests to this in the very first sentence of the acknowledgements in his 2004 book, "Resurrecting Empire." "There are many people without whose support and assistance I could not have written this book, or written it in the way that it was written," he writes. "First, chronologically, and in other ways, comes Bill Ayers."

* There was a good deal of literary back-scratching going on in Chicago's Hyde Park. Obama, for instance, wrote a short and glowing review of Ayers' 1997 book, "A Kind and Just Parent," for the Chicago Tribune. In that same book, perhaps with a self-congratulatory wink, Ayers cites the "writer" Barack Obama as one among the celebrities in his neighborhood.

* Obama's memoir was published in June 1995. Earlier that year, Ayers helped Obama get appointed chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. In the fall of that same year, 1995, he helped blaze Obama's path to political power with a fundraiser in his Chicago home. In short, Ayers had the means, the motive and the ability to jump start Obama's literary career.

* Ayers also had the time. He published his book "To Teach" in 1993. Between 1993 and 1996, he had no other formal authorial assignment than to co-edit a collection of essays. This was an unusual hole in his very busy publishing career.

* Some stunningly parallel themes, metaphors and even stories appear in "Dreams" and in Ayers' various books.

* Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir "Fugitive Days" and Obama's "Dreams From My Father" follow oddly similar rules. Both are suffused with repeated reference to lies, lying and what Ayers calls "our constructed reality." The evidence strongly suggests that Ayers transformed the stumbling literalist of "Why Organize" into the sophisticated postmodernist of "Dreams."

* Obama's frequent and sophisticated use of nautical metaphors makes a powerful case for Ayers' involvement in the writing of "Dreams." Ayers knew a great deal about the sea. After dropping out of college, he took up the life of a merchant seaman.

* Certain stories are told with only slight variance in Ayers' work and in "Dreams." In "To Teach," Ayers tells the story of a teacher in NYC whose students are struck by the fact that the Hudson River seems to flow north and south simultaneously. In "Dreams," Obama shares an amazingly comparable anecdote about tidal rivers from his own brief New York sojourn. "Excuse me, mister," a boy asks him, "You know why sometimes the river runs that way and then sometimes it goes this way?" This is one of many such incidents.

* Ayers imposes his '60s consciousness on an Obama too young to know or remember. In "Dreams," Obama relates an experience at Columbia in which "two Marxists" scream insults at each other over minor sectarian differences. "It was like a bad dream," thinks Obama. "The movement had died years ago, shattered into a thousand fragments." These sentiments seem much too knowing and weighty for a 20 year-old just in from Hawaii. They make perfect sense, however, for a radical of nearly 40 emerging from a futile decade in hiding.

* In an interview for the book "Sixties Radicals," Ayers makes this clear. "When the war ended, our differences surfaced," he regrets. "We ended up in typical left-wing fashion: We ate each other . cannibalism." Similarly, when the young Obama pontificates about "angry young men in Soweto or Detroit or the Mekong Delta," one hears the voice of someone much edgier and more aware than Obama.

* Classics professor Bruce Heiden of Ohio State has analyzed the Obama/Ayers introduction and preface and found it a marvel of evasive postmodernism: "As Obama tells it, his authorship of 'Dreams' was miraculous, because although he lacked the writing skill to be the author of anything, and he didn't want to be the author of a memoir. . nevertheless 'Dreams from My Father' somehow 'found its way' onto the page with Barack Obama's name under the title as the author."

Source

Obama: Most Secretive Democratic Candidate Ever

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign says his campaign will bring a new level of honesty and transparency to the White House. Obama proudly touts that he and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, passed a law requiring more transparency via a public database of all federal spending. But when it comes to offering the public documents about his own public and private activities, Obama's record for openness gets an "F" grade.

During the heated Democratic primary, Obama complained of the Bush White House being "one of the most secretive administrations in our history" and chided Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules. Ironically, Obama, just days away from possibly being elected president, continues to stonewall a growing chorus of information requests for documents about his legislative, personal health, education, financing, and background -- leaving many voters to cast ballots based on incomplete information.

And serious questions about his past continue to swirl as Election Day looms, fueled in part by his own campaign's refusal to make relevant documents available. And the press, usually banging at the door for candidates to make "full disclosure" is strangely quiet about Obama's stonewalling. A Newsmax survey of key Obama aspects of Obama's public and private life continued to be shielded from the public. Among the examples:

* Obama has released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hands, released what he said was his complete medical file totaling more than 1500 pages. After criticism on the matter, last week the Obama campaign also released some routine lab-test results and electrocardiograms for Obama. All test results appeared normal, but many details about his health remain a mystery.

* Obama has refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois, and has been unable to produce correspondence, such as letters from lobbyists and other correspondence from his days in the Illinois state senate. There are also no appointment calendars available of his official activities. "It could have been thrown out," Obama said while on the campaign trail during the Democratic primary. "I haven't been in the state Senate now for quite some time."

* Obama has not released his client list as an attorney or his billing records. Obama has maintained that he only performed a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June. But he has not released billing records that would prove this assertion.

* Obama won't release his college records from Occidental College where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia.

* Obama's campaign refuses to give Columbia University, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Such transcripts would list the courses Obama took, and his grades. President George W. Bush, and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry, all released their college transcripts. (McCain has refused to release his Naval Academy transcript.)

* Obama's college dissertation has simply disappeared from Columbia Universities archives. In July, in response to a flurry of requests to review Obama's senior thesis at the Ivy League school, reportedly titled "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told NBC News "We do not have a copy of the course paper you requested and neither does Columbia University."

* The senator has not agreed to the release of his application to the Illinois state bar, which would clear up intermittent allegations that his application to the bar may have been inaccurate.

* Jim Geraghty of the National Review has written extensively about Obama's unwillingness to release records related to clients he represented while he was an attorney with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill, and Gallard. Obama was required to list his clients during his years in the Illinois senate. "Obama listed every client of the firm," Geraghty reported, making it impossible to discern which clients he represented.

* Obama has never released records from his time at Harvard Law School.

* Obama also has not disclosed the names of small donors giving $200 or less to his campaign. An exception to the finance-reporting laws exempts the campaign from reporting those who donate less than $200, but that law never envisioned the more than $300 million that has been raised by Obama in small amounts. The Republican National Committee has released its small donors, as well as McCain's, on a public database.

On several occasions, the Obama campaign has offered to provide additional information to reporters if they have specific questions or issues. And in some cases, it has done so.

When Internet rumors began to fly that perhaps Obama was born outside the United States, for example, the campaign released images of a birth certificate that verified his birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii. When that led to suggestions the birth certificate had been altered, the campaign again responded, allowing reporters to examine the actual birth certificate, complete with raised seal. (In late July, according to FactCheck.org, a researcher uncovered an announcement of Obama's birth in the August 13, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser).

Such instances of cooperation pale, however, compared to the many unanswered questions surrounding Obama, such as the financing of his education, and requests for the complete release of all donors to his campaign.

Of course, candidates are often reticent to disclose any information that opposition researchers could use against them. But Politico.com notes that the Obama's failure to share documents is "part of his campaign's broader pattern of rarely volunteering information or documents about the candidate, even when relatively innocuous."

The hue and cry from the media for disclosure usually forces candidates to release sought after documents. But the press has largely acquiesced to Obama's stonewalling.

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.)

2008-10-25T00:09:00.001+11:30

1995 Obama Race Baiting Video Discovered

It sounds like those first 10 years with Rev. Jeremiah Wright rubbed off on him... Barack Obama slams "white executives" living out in the suburbs who do not want to pay taxes to inner city children in a 1995 interview:

Obama talks redistribution and salvation:

Obama admits his Redistribution of Wealth is to SAVE the African American community SO HE CAN ENSURE HIS OWN SALVATION! (and Our Countries Salvation) He compares the plight of African Americas to the ethic genocide's of Bosnia and Africa. He blames all of African American's problems on "ONE GROUP" who suppresses them. And He says WHITE people don't want their taxes to help black children.

Obviously, Obama's plans to redistribute wealth is not something he just thought up. Funny- This is the same millionaire who won't send his brother living in a slum hut 20 bucks.

Source

Obama getting funding from Wall St

The money raised and spent to elect a new US president and members of Congress is likely to surpass a colossal $5.3 billion next week, shattering previous records, with Wall Street firms dominating the donor list of the most expensive White House race in history. As Americans fret about the economic crisis and the billions of dollars being poured into the stricken banking sector, a report released yesterday revealed a scale of political fund-raising and expenditure that exceeds even the wildest predictions earlier this year. The presidential race alone is costing a record $2.4 billion.

The report by the Centre for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog, adds up the money raised and spent for the entire presidential and congressional election cycle by the candidates, the parties and outside groups. "In terms of political finance, these numbers are staggering," said Sheila Krumholz, the centre's executive director.

Since the presidential campaigning began in January 2007, White House candidates from both parties have raised $1.5 billion, double the amount collected in 2004 and triple the figure in 2000. It is the first time that presidential hopefuls have raised and spent $1 billion, a figure that few considered possible to surpass when the contest began last year.

Despite the financial crisis, Wall Street firms make the lion's share of donations, along with real estate and insurance companies. Between them they gave $370 million and the top corporate donor was Goldman Sachs. The investment bank's employees and political action committee have donated $5 million to this year's campaigns.

The greatest beneficiary has been Barack Obama, who has raised more than $600 million since he announced his candidacy in February 2007, including a record-breaking $150 million last month alone. It has given him a huge advantage over John McCain, allowing the Democrat to saturate the airwaves. He is outspending his Republican rival on television advertising nationally by a ratio of four to one, and in some battleground states by eight to one. He can even afford to buy an unprecedented 30-minute, primetime speaking slot on three networks on October 29, six days before the election.

After the Democrat held a rally in Indiana yesterday - a state won by President Bush in 2004 by 21 points but where a new poll put Mr Obama ahead - he left for Hawaii to visit his ill grandmother, a move that takes him off the campaign trail for two days. In an early morning interview Mr Obama said that one of the primary reasons he was leaving the campaign trail was because he failed to get to his mother's bedside in time before she died of cancer in 1995 at the age of 53, and he did not want "to make the same mistake twice". He said on Wednesday that his grandmother might not "be around" for the election on November 4. His maternal grandmother Madelyn Dunham, 85, whom he calls "Toots", brought him up during his teenage years with Mr Obama's grandfather, who is now dead.

"My grandmother's the last one left," Mr Obama said of the people who raised him. "She has really been the rock of the family, the foundation of the family. Whatever strength, discipline I have, it comes from her."

His decision to suspend his campaign for 48 hours has left many Democrats - a superstitious breed who have seen defeat snatched from the jaws of victory many times before - feeling a deep sense of nervousness, amid bouts of growing optimism. His campaign events for the next two days will be taken over by his wife Michelle, who has grown in confidence since the race began nearly two years ago, but has also given Mr Obama's aides heartburn on several occasions.

A string of new polls - including a survey of the critical Midwest region - have given Mr Obama significant leads. Yet an Associated Press survey gave Mr Obama only a one-point lead over Mr McCain. Mr McCain, meanwhile, barn-stormed central Florida, a state where a new poll shows the race tightening.

Source

In Defense of Negative Campaigning

Obama and his supporters have decried McCain's "negativity" and "hateful rhetoric". We are told that we should stick to the issues and not attack a candidate's personality or competence. These complaints are wrong. Questions about a candidate's character and competence are absolutely relevant. And "negativity", which I suppose means pointing out a candidate's disqualifications, is a valid and honorable way of demonstrating unsuitability for office. Let me try to explain, in words so simple that even a MSM journalist can understand them.

Character and competence matter

A political platform is like a three-legged stool. It is based on issues, character, and competence. If any one of those legs is rotten, the whole structure collapses, no matter how sturdy the other two legs are.

If a candidate is honest and competent but has views on major issues that we think are dangerous, then however much we like him, we won't vote for him. (I felt that way about Hubert Humphrey.) But that's not the only reason for rejecting someone.

A candidate may be open and honest and have sound views on foreign and domestic policy, but if he is incompetent, his administration will be a disaster. One thinks of Warren Harding and (if charitably inclined) of Jimmy Carter.

A candidate may be clever and competent, but if he is a liar and a scoundrel, the soundness of his statements about issues is irrelevant -- he is probably lying about them. In particular, if he says different things to different voting groups solely to get more votes, then we are compelled to suspect that his professed positions on issues are mere poses. If he is what I call a level 5 flip-flopper, using lies and concealment to hide his changes of position, then he can't be trusted at all. So any one of the three legs of the stool is a valid area for examination and criticism.

Disqualifications matter

Negativity is often a wise and just strategy: When awarding grants or picking the right applicant for a job, one invariably starts by weeding out all the applicants with major disqualifications. When federal agencies review proposals, they first throw out all applications that fail to conform to the submission guidelines. In selecting job applicants, the usual strategy is to first weed out all the candidates that are woefully inexperienced, or who have lied in there resumes, thereby leaving the remaining un-disqualified candidates for further study. As Lucky Jim's future employer tells him:

"It's not that you've got the qualifications....but there are plenty who have. You haven't got the disqualifications, though, and that's much rarer."

The same principle applies to voting. More often than not, we decide to vote against the candidate we don't like rather than for one that we do like.

Drawing the line

The question is how big a flaw in viewpoint, character, or competence must be to be considered a disqualification. Lets use the issue of abortion as an example.

With regard to issues, the degree of conflict will depend on the comparison between the stated positions of the candidate and the priorities of the voter. Thus, any sincere Catholic voter will regard abortion as a grave matter and will reject any pro-choice candidate, regardless of his stands on other issues. On the0 other hand, a skin-deep Catholic, who is more concerned about prosperity than religious matters, will shut his eyes to the abortion issue and vote for or against a candidate on the basis of his economic proposals. Therefore, an issue-based disqualification is fundamentally subjective and its importance will vary drastically from one voter to another. In a sense, shared views on what is or isn't a disqualification are the basis of formation of political groups and parties.

In contrast, disqualification on the basis of competence is usually objective. The questions are simply "has he had experience and responsibilities commensurate with the post he's seeking?" and "if so, how well did he do?" However, there is usually plenty of room for disagreement about the degree of relevance of past successes or failures.

Character-based disqualifications are at least partly objective. A candidate who is a casual or fallen-away Catholic cannot be character-disqualified for being pro-choice; there is no moral conflict. But a pro-choice candidate who professes to be a devout Catholic must be either a fool, a hypocrite, or (as the babblings of Nancy Pelosi seem to suggest) a bizarre combination of both. Regardless of a voter's views on abortion, he would be well advised to reject such a person as unfit for public office. Similarly, most voters would agree that, while a single past dishonesty or unsavory association is in most cases not a serious disqualification, a persistent pattern of such deeds, lies, or associations indicates a dishonest character and is a major disqualification.

Therefore, although accusations about Obama's association with Ayers may not of themselves indicate a serious disqualification, the cumulative effect of all of the accusations against Obama---such as of dishonest flip-flopping, of deceitful campaign tactics, of mendacious concealment of past deeds, and of long term associations with crooked individuals and groups -- are in aggregate an ample body of evidence of a deceitful and dishonest personality. They therefore constitute proof of a serious character disqualification that should convince any rational voter that Obama is unfit for public office.

Source

The Obama Enigma: Change . . . from what to what?

By Victor Davis Hanson

Lame-duck Republican President Bush's dismal poll ratings have descended to those of Harry Truman's when he left office. The Democratic majority in Congress will probably widen after the election. Republican nominee John McCain has not run a dynamic campaign. Gen. Colin Powell, George Bush's former secretary of state, has now enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama.

The country is in two unpopular wars - amid the worst financial panic of the last 80 years. Not since prophet of change and newcomer Jimmy Carter ran against Gerald Ford (post Watergate and the lost Vietnam war) have voters been so eager for a shake-up.

Why then is the charismatic Barack Obama not quite yet a shoo-in?
Easy. Voters apparently still don't know who Obama is, or what he wants to do - and so are still not altogether sure that Obama is the proper antidote to George W. Bush. After more than a year of campaigning, he still remains an enigma.

Obama promised to be the post-racial candidate who would bring us together. But when asked in March 2004 whether he attended regularly Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama boasted, "Yep. Every week. 11 o'clock service."

The healer Obama further characterized the racist Wright as "certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for." And Obama described the even more venomous father Michael Pfleger as "a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely."

Obama can dismiss his past associations with Bill Ayers as perfunctory and now irrelevant. But why then did an Obama campaign spokesman say Obama hadn't e-mailed with or spoken by phone to Ayers since January 2005, suggesting more than three years of communications - in a post-9/11 climate - after Ayers said publicly he had not done enough bombing?

Obama's campaign shrugged when legal doubts were raised about the sloppy voter registration practices of ACORN - an organization that Obama himself has both helped and praised.

Yet Obama once was a stickler for proper voter documents. In 1996, he had all of his Democratic rivals removed from the ballot in an Illinois state primary election on the basis of sloppy voter petitions.

Many of Obama's surrogates - from congressional leaders like Rep. John Lewis to his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden - have suggested that the McCain and Palin candidacies have heightened racial tensions. Do such preemptory warnings mean that one cannot worry about Obama's 20-year relationship with Rev. Wright or long association with Father Pfleger?

It's also unclear exactly what Obama's message of "hope" and "change" means. The hope part turned a little weird when Obama, in prophetic fashion, proclaimed, "We are the ones we've been waiting for," and later put up Greek-temple backdrops for his speech at the Democratic convention.

If we didn't get that supernatural message, Obama also promised of his election that it would be the "moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

And change? Obama himself has changed positions on FISA, NAFTA, public campaign financing, town-hall meetings with McCain, offshore drilling, nuclear and coal power, capital punishment and gun control, his characterization of Iran, the surge in Iraq, and the future of Jerusalem. So change from what to what?

Under Sen. Obama's tax plan, nearly half of all income earners wouldn't pay federal income taxes. He also offers billions in cash payments to millions of those people. And he promises to pay for that loss in revenue by upping taxes on those in the highest income brackets, who already pay the majority of existing income taxes - and who could also be subject to proposed higher payroll, estate, and capital-gains taxes.

Is that a tax-cut policy or more a redistribution of wealth in search of forced equality - what Obama himself apparently calls to "spread the wealth around" or what Biden once suggested was "patriotic"?

A Martian who reviewed Obama's past elections in Illinois, the various associations he once cultivated, his brief voting record in the Senate, and the positions he originally outlined when he announced his presidential campaign might objectively conclude that America could elect either the most far left or the most unknown presidential candidate in its history.

I just hope that it is still not racist or McCarthy-like - or blasphemous - simply to suggest that.

Source

A Personality Profile of Barack Obama's Leadership

Obama will not lose his bid for the presidency because of his connections to Ayers, ACORN or socialist politics. In fact, he won't lose it because of his stand on any issue. The coup de grace for Obama's presidential election downfall will come only through convincing the American public of his lack of decisive leadership under pressure. I'm not just talking about facing rogue nations or terrorist thugs. I'm referring to making major choices in conflict. Indecisiveness is his greatest weakness, and it's one this country cannot afford at this time in its history.

Interestingly, a while back, the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics, at St. John's University and the College of St. Benedict, did a professional personality profile "for anticipating Obama's likely leadership style as chief executive, thereby providing a basis for inferring the character and tenor of a prospective Obama presidency." The study concluded:

"The combination of Ambitious, Accommodating, and Outgoing patterns in Obama's profile suggests a confident conciliator personality composite. Leaders with this personality prototype, though self-assured and ambitious, are characteristically gracious, considerate, and benevolent. They are energetic, charming, and agreeable, with a special knack for settling differences, favoring mediation and compromise over force or coercion as a strategy for resolving conflict. They are driven primarily by a need for achievement and also have strong affiliation needs, but a low need for power."

While most might laud Obama's personality as a needed polar opposite to George W. Bush's, I pose to you that Obama's "accommodating-conciliator-favoring-compromise" personality pendulum swing is way too far to the other side. Even Obama's voting record proves that. His own Democratic colleagues have a difficult time understanding why, when he was an Illinois state senator, he voted "present" (instead of "yes" or "no") 129 times, including a number of noncommittal tallies on issues such as gun rights and abortion.

You also have heard that Obama doesn't have any executive experience, whether it be running a government or a business. I would pose to you the reason is simply that he's not comfortable making executive decisions. An "executive conciliator" overly depends upon others, at times compromising judgment and needed action in order to appease the masses. Proof of that was seen in how Obama handled his and our "emergency" economic decisions.

A few months ago, Obama did not turn to Warren Buffett for counsel on the housing crisis. As The Washington Post reported July 16, he turned to Franklin Raines, the former Fannie Mae chief executive officer and six-year money manipulator. The Post said Raines took "calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

And consider Obama's handling of the "emergency" bailout crisis. During the first go-round of the bailout, while McCain was certain of his stand, Obama wouldn't say where he stood because he was afraid it would be a wrong or unpopular stand. Only after most of his political cronies were bribed in favor of the bailout did Obama give it his stamp of approval. If he cannot take decisive action as a senator in the greatest nation on earth, how in the world is he going to make critical and emergency decisions as the president?

Obama's inability to draw and hold hard lines is the primary reason he repeatedly struggles with -- and caves and morphs into -- the polls or people in front of him. More than any other politician in history, he has flip-flopped on a host of critical issues: Iraq, Iran, gay rights, NAFTA, abortion, race, religion, gun control, etc. It's one thing to be political, but it's quite another to be a chronic people pleaser under pressure. Swaying based on political expediency is not a leadership quality we need in tough times. Sooner or later, that character flaw will bite Obama big-time -- and us if we elect him president.

I'm not saying Obama has no continued future in politics. He just needs more experience in life to weed out those character deficiencies. That's why I'm asking Americans to look afresh at these questions: Is Obama crisis-leadership qualified? Will he truly be ready Jan. 20 to assume the helm of our country?

Actually, those leadership questions have been answered already by three leading Democrats (before they could taste the perks from their alignment with the Democratic presidential nominee). Obama's own running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, replied only months ago about whether Obama is ready for the presidency: "Right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training." Then he later told George Stephanopoulos, "I stand by the statement." Biden was right.

Before Obama was her party's choice, Hillary Clinton repeatedly proved him to be an indecisive waffler who couldn't or wouldn't be pinned down on any issues. Hillary was right. Even former President Bill Clinton dodged having to give an affirmative answer to an ABC correspondent when asked whether Obama is ready to be president by saying, "You can argue that no one is ready to be president." Another smooth answer, Bill. The fact is he totally understands that Obama is not ready.

America is in one of its toughest hours -- a market meltdown, the worst fiscal environment since the Great Depression -- an economic 9/11, if you will. Do we really believe we can be delivered by an indecisive people pleaser as our country's CEO?

Source

An Obamanomics Preview

Tax and spend, but not in that order

"I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat . . . I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money."

-- Barney Frank, October 20, 2008

The election is still two weeks away, but we are already living in the world of Obamanomics. In fact, on fiscal policy we've been living in that world at least since February when the Bush Administration conceded to the Congressional priority of Keynesian fiscal "stimulus." That didn't work very well, but no matter. Spurred on by Barack Obama, Democrats in Congress are preparing Round Two, this time in the form of $150 billion to $300 billion in new spending.

If we may borrow a phrase, this is the triumph of hope over experience. The one thing Washington hasn't failed to do in recent years is spend, yet the economy doesn't seem to have improved on the event. Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation, has calculated that in 2008 Congress enacted $332 billion of "emergency" supplemental spending bills, only half of which was for the Iraq war. Do you feel stimulated?

The nearby chart shows the arc of tax policy and economic growth across the Bush years. After the dot-com bust, President Bush compromised with Senate Democrats and delayed his marginal-rate income tax cuts in return for immediate tax rebates. The rebates goosed spending for a while but provided no increase in incentives to invest. Only after 2003, when the marginal-rate cuts took effect immediately, combined with cuts in dividend and capital gains rates, did robust growth return. The expansion was healthy until it was overtaken by the housing bust and even resisted recession into this year. Mr. Bush and Congress returned to the rebate formula in February, but a blip in second-quarter growth has now ended as the economy heads into recession. The Dow plunged again yesterday with a 514-point drop.

The latest plan is even worse than the spring round of $100 billion or so in tax rebate checks. At least rebates allowed taxpayers to spend their own money. Under this stimulus the government will tax or borrow $150 billion to $300 billion in order to spend the money on social and pork-barrel programs. The latest draft would direct dollars to food stamps, another expansion in unemployment insurance, home heating subsidies, more aid to states and cities, and "infrastructure" like roads, bridges and public transit. Because of Davis-Bacon wage requirements on these brick and mortar projects, a portion of the dollars would coincidentally flow to the Democrats' biggest campaign contributors: unions. Call it a political "rebate" check.

On Tuesday Senator Obama said this spending would create millions of new jobs by closing a federal "investment deficit." Over the past eight years the federal budget has exploded by more than $1.1 trillion, much of it for the very programs that Democrats want to spend more on. Let's start with infrastructure. Three years ago Congress passed a transportation bill of more than $286 billion. The transportation budget is up 22% after inflation in the past eight years. Roads and bridges can help economic growth if they increase productivity by more than the amount they cost in higher taxes or borrowing. But not if they are bridges to nowhere as so many of these projects are.

How about aid to local communities? That spending has soared by 91% after inflation in eight years. The education budget is up 57%. Welfare programs are up 30%. Only two years ago Democrats were calling the Tom DeLay Republicans spendthrift. Now they say there's an "investment deficit."

Federal budget deficits are not something we obsess about, but eventually this new spending has to be paid for, and Barney Frank's comments only underscore that big tax increases are coming. The prospect of these tax increases is now hanging over the economy like a pall, as investors and businesses wonder where and how heavily an Obama Administration and Congress would strike. The pall is likely to continue well into 2009, as millions of Americans delay their investment decisions until they know how much their after-tax returns are likely to fall.t given the condition of the economy he won't raise taxes at all. Meanwhile, all of us are getting a preview of Obamanomics in action.

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.)

2008-10-24T15:42:00.001+11:30

“OPERATION ALOHA OBAMA” yields up truth about Barack Obama

There is no independent confirmation of this as yet but it is certainly a straw in the wind. It is actually good for Obama if true because it sets at rest doubts about whether he is a U.S. citizen

Internet powerhouse Andy Martin told a Honolulu news conference today that after an intense international investigation he is convinced that Barack Obama, Junior, the presidential candidate is really the son of Obama’s controversial mentor Frank Marshall Davis.

“Mendacious adults ’switched’ Obama at birth. That is why he has refused to allow access to the original or ‘vault’ birth certificate,” Martin told a Honolulu news conference. “We believe the original certificate did not list a father. Barack Obama became the father as a result of an agreement between Ann Dunham, Frank Marshall Davis and Barack Obama, Sr.

“Davis was already married to a White Woman. He did not need a nonmarital child by a second one. Ann probably refused to have what was then called a ‘back alley’ abortion. Davis may have felt that ‘Obama’ would face less stigma with an ‘African’ background than a Negro one. The civil rights revolution, of course, turned that gambit upside down. In discovering and understanding what happened we cannot forget we are dealing with events in 1961, not 2008.

“The irony in all of this is that Obama once stated he did not want his daughters to be ‘victimized’ with a child. And he is alive because his mother took the contrary view. “Barack Obama has known this since adulthood, and the shock of this discovery still reverberates in his psyche.

“Ironically, what I have to say today dilutes the ‘Muslim’ theory that has propagated. Davis was not a Muslim. If Obama had told the truth at some point in his life, instead of living endlessly with the lies that were imposed on him by the adults in his life, we would have avoided a great deal of confusion. I, for one, have deep compassion for Mr. Obama. He is not the first person in history to be caught up in this kind of family fraud.

“The disclosure by the two women in his life that he was not the ’son’ of his ‘father’ also explains why he manifests such extreme ambivalence to both his mother and grandmother. He is angry because he was cheated of his real father. “Obama was robbed of his birthright of being the son of civil rights royalty, and of a father with whom he was completely simpatico. He could have grown up the son of Frank Marshall Davis, civil rights pioneer and activist, cutting-edge journalist, poet and man of letters. Mr. Davis was an extraordinary man in a dark period of this nation’s history, the pre-dawn of the civil rights era.

“Obama has probably suspended his campaign and is flying to Honolulu because he is deathly afraid his grandmother may make a ‘dying declaration’ and blow the whistle on his family fraud. Dying people often blurt out the truth. The true facts of Obama’s parentage also reflect why there has been so much tension and alienation, as well as genuine love, in Obama’s relationship with his grandmother. “Madelyn Dunham is the last surviving person who knows the truth about the switch. That is why as we closed in on Dunham, Obama went ballistic, cancelled his campaign and came to Hawai’i to head us off.

“I actually carry an official, certified pocket-sized birth certificate on me at all times [Andy shows a copy to media]. But this is NOT my ‘birth certificate.’ The original certificate is held in the City Clerk’s vault in Middletown, Connecticut. That is what has come to be known as the ‘vault copy.’ “Likewise, the document that Obama has plastered over the Internet is NOT his original birth certificate or even a copy of his original certificate. It is a computer generated facsimile of an official record and nothing more. The original certificate was either handwritten or typewritten, not computer-generated in 1961. No one has ever seen that original certificate except the people that are working so hard to keep it hidden from the American people. “I am asking Judge Ayabe to impound the value certificate and have the court hold it for safekeeping.

“By the time Barack Obama learned who he was, it was too late to change his identity. He was who he was, so he continued the ruse of being the son of an ‘African herder,’ which was yet another lie. ‘Dreams From My Father’ bears no connection to dreams from Barack Obama; there were none. It was Frank Marshall Davis who communicated his dreams to his secret son.

“There is a simple way for Obama to resolve this controversy: he can either admit the truth of these facts and order the immediate release of his vault certificate; or he can submit to a DNA test. We can conduct a Maury Povich-style DNA test to determine filiation between Obama and his brothers, one of whom blogs at BarackObama.com.

“I bear Mr. Obama no ill will and no animus. I have only been a faithful servant of the search for truth, and I believe we finally know the secret truths about who Barack Obama really is: the son of Frank Marshall Davis.””

More here

2008-10-24T00:08:00.001+11:30

A President Obama would be the first to have nude pictures of his mother on the net

They have been gathered together from various sources but can conveniently be viewed here and here and here.

Background on the story here. The woman was clearly not your average American Mom.

The person who gathered the pictures suspects that the photographer was "Frank", Obama's Communist "mentor". As do many bloggers (e.g. here), he suspects that Frank was in fact Obama's father. The two look alike. So how to establish who took the pictures? The floor in the photo may give a clue. It looks like Oregon pine, which is an unusual flooring material. That may jog some memories somewhere. Secondly, there seems to be an address associated with one of the pictures: 6035 Kalanianaole Hwy. Maybe some GOP enthusiasts in Hawaii would like to look into it.

So if the pictures CAN be linked to "Frank", it would strongly suggest that he had an intimate relationship with the young woman and Obama could be the fruit of that. In that case we would have a Presidential candidate who is the offspring of a Communist and a slut. It would be much to Obama's credit to have risen above that but because personality traits are highly heritable it would also cast further doubts on his character.

Obama has made two trips to Hawaii during his candicacy and many bloggers link that to his refusal to produce his original birth certificate. They suspect that there is a quiet battle going on somewhere in Hawaii to have it altered. If the original shows Frank as the father, that would all fall into place.

The latest follow-up on the matter is on TONGUE-TIED.

The birth certificate coverup continues

Pennsylvania Democrat Philip J. Berg, who filed a lawsuit demanding Sen. Barack Obama present proof of his American citizenship, now says that by failing to respond Obama has legally "admitted" to the lawsuit's accusations, including the charge that the Democratic candidate was born in Mombosa, Kenya.

As WND reported, Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August, alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Though Obama has posted an image of a Hawaii birth certificate online, Berg demands that the court verify the original document, which the Obama campaign has not provided.

Now Berg cites Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that unless the accused party provides written answer or objection to charges within 30 days, the accused legally admits the matter. Since Obama has only filed motions to dismiss and has not actually answered the charges in the lawsuit, Berg claims, according to Rule 36, Obama has legally admitted he is not a natural-born citizen. Now Berg is asking the court for a formal declaration of Obama's admission and asking the Democratic National Committee for another presidential candidate.

In a statement released today, Berg argues that he filed Requests for Admissions on Sept. 15, meaning Obama had until Oct. 15 to answer or face the consequences of Rule 36. "Obama and the DNC 'admitted,' by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit," Berg's statement reads. "Obama is 'not qualified' to be president and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for president and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate."

Berg's original lawsuit leveled several charges at both Obama and the DNC - accusing the former of lying about his place of birth, faking his birth certificate and fraudulently running for office; and accusing the latter of not properly vetting its candidate.

Though it hasn't given Berg the evidence he seeks, the Obama campaign has publicly answered allegations that the candidate was born in Kenya and faked his Hawaii birth certificate. "Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn't have a birth certificate aren't actually about that piece of paper," says the "Fight the Smears" section of Obama's website, "they're about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen. "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America," the campaign website states. It also includes images of a Hawaii birth certificate bearing the name Barack Hussein Obama II.

Berg has also taken the controversy public through his website and through repeated public offers to revoke the lawsuit if Obama will produce legal documents that establish his citizenship. Without those documents, Berg has chosen to file two additional motions in district court in Philadelphia. The first asks the court to notify Obama and the DNC of what Berg understands they have now legally "admitted," and the second asks for an expedited ruling, given the quickly upcoming Nov. 4 election.

"It all comes down to the fact that there's nothing from the other side," Berg told Jeff Schreiber for his blog, America's Right. "The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. He admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States."

Source.

There is another, more comprehensive post on the birth certificate affair here. There is definitely something being held back.

CHANGES IN THE WORKPLACE

You small business owners out there are preparing for life under a Barack Obama presidency. One of our listeners sent us some new rules for small businesses based on Obama's ideals of change and fairness:

As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama officially becomes president-elect, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:

1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are under-achieving a "fair shake".

2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst you. This will help those who are "too busy for overtime" to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.

3. All top management will now be referred to as "the government." We will not participate in this "pooling" experience because the law doesn't apply to us.

4. The "government" will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging its workers to continue to work hard "for the good of all".

5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's "good to spread the wealth around". Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more "patriotic".

6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our Democratic Congress, you might even get a free flat screen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?)!!!

If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, you may want to rethink your vote on November 4th.

Source

Fraudulent foreign contributions to Obama

There is enormous amount of money being secreted into the Obama campaign from foreign sources. It is fairly safe to say these countries will be richly rewarded - Kenya, Indonesia but most of all - Obama will drop a load on the UN. Fosho.

The crooked, corrupt international one world global warmers have the largest stake in this election. Back on August 14th, I wrote that Julia Gorin told me a funny story. About four months ago. Her husband's co-worker wanted to see what would happen if he tried giving a contribution to the Obama campaign via a credit card. He used his Macy's card. The system accepted it. He tried the same with McCain's campaign, and the transaction wouldn't go through. Atlas reader Craig submits to me the following,

I may have just uncovered how the Obama campaign is facilitating massive donation fraud. I've read recent reports of the Obama campaign receiving donations from dubious names and foreign locales and it got me wondering; how is this possible?

I run a small internet business and when I process credit cards I'm required to make sure the name on the card exactly matches the name of the customer making the purchase. Also, the purchasers address must match that of the cardholders. If these don't match, then the payment isn't approved. Period. So how is it possible that the Obama campaign could receive donations from fictional people and places? Well, I decided to do a little experiment. I went to the Obama campaign website and entered the following:

Name: John Galt
Address: 1957 Ayn Rand Lane
City: Galts Gulch
State: CO
Zip: 99999

Then I checked the box next to $15 and entered my actual credit card number and expiration date (it didn't ask for the 3-didgit code on the back of the card) and it took me to the next page and. "Your donation has been processed. Thank you for your generous gift."

This simply should not, and could not, happen in any business or any campaign that is honestly trying to vet it's donors. Also, I don't see how this could possibly happen without the collusion of the credit card companies. They simply wouldn't allow any business to process, potentially, hundreds of millions in credit card transactions where the name on the card doesn't match the purchasers name.

Not unless Obama's campaign is warehousing donations (held back) and any that fail or are rejected by the credit card companies or for any other reason are covered by illegal donations.

In short, with the system set up as it is by the Obama camp, an individual could donate unlimited amounts of money by simply making up fake names and addresses. And Obama is doing his best to facilitate this fraud. This is truly scandalous.

Yes, and then cover them with illegal funds.

Sincerely,

Craig

PS I tried the exact same thing at the McCain site and it didn't allow the transaction.

Pss I went back to the Obama site and made three additional donations using the names Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, all with different addresses. All the transactions went thru using the same credit card. I saved screen shots of the transactions if you want them

Cathy found this at Free Republic:

Somebody, high up, has access to millions of credit card, and possibly debit card accounts. This is how it works: An apparent charge appears on your account, then through the correction process, it disappears. An unauthorized charge delivers the funds to control of an intermediary, and the intermediary then reimburses the original draft on the account. The intermediary is a wealthy consortium of manipulators, who take the small contribution (always less than $200, so as to avoid the reporting requirements of name and occupation of the original source), thus providing hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of "contributors", and allowing ineligible contributors to cover up their participation. It would take the research of literally thousands of these accounts to uncover the pattern of "mistaken" charges, and if these accounts are held outside the US, there would be no overview of these transaction by any of the authorities that govern these transfers in this country. The only check on this is to review your own account, and those who had their accounts used in this manner. If individuals or corporate entities are already supporting Obama, or the Democrat National party, or any of the 527s that are anti-Republican, THEY are not going to say anything.

Source

The Tax Argument Still Works

Obama's plans are giving voters pause

By KARL ROVE

No campaign moves in a straight line. Every race experiences turns toward one side or the other, driven by events, the determined efforts of one candidate, or even a bored media hoping for a new story line. This campaign's most recent turn started Sept. 15 with the credit markets shutting down and the economy at the brink of disaster. Before then, John McCain was 2.1 points ahead in the RealClearPolitics average, his first lead since late March. Two weeks later, RealClearPolitics had Barack Obama ahead by 4.6 points, rising to an 8.2-point lead on Oct. 14. Is there one more turn in the contest and, if so, will it be toward Mr. McCain?

The race has tightened slightly in recent days to an average Obama lead of 6.8 points yesterday. And there are a few things bending toward Mr. McCain. The emergence of "Joe the Plumber" and the likelihood of an agreement with Iraq on a continued U.S. troop presence are two of them. Both are opportunities for Mr. McCain to contrast himself against Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama's troublesome friendships with Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko and (especially) Rev. Jeremiah Wright are important. But only 12 days remain. These relationships should have been highlighted by the McCain campaign in the spring and summer. But Mr. McCain complicated things by unilaterally declaring Rev. Wright off limits. Now, Mr. Obama will benefit from the noise the media will generate if Mr. McCain attempts to make Obama's Four Amigos this election's closing act.

On the other hand, Mr. McCain might gain by arguing that in this time of consequence for America's economy and security he has been right and Mr. Obama demonstrably wrong on the biggest issues facing the country. Mr. McCain's economic argument is simple: Raising taxes on small businesses in the face of recession will deepen and prolong the downturn. Taxing Joe the Plumber and other entrepreneurs to pay for what the National Taxpayers Union says are Mr. Obama's $293 billion-a-year new spending plans is an expense the nation cannot afford. Mr. Obama's tax-and-spend prescription will cause the economic fever to spike, not recede.

On national security, America is close to a bilateral agreement with Iraq that will continue sending U.S. troops home based on success -- the result of the surge that Mr. McCain strongly advocated and Mr. Obama fiercely opposed. Should we elect someone so wrong about a strategy vital for success in what Osama bin Laden calls the central front in the war on terror?

Beyond that, Mr. McCain should also use vivid imagery to highlight concerns about the freshman Illinois senator. There are plenty of warning signs about Mr. Obama we ignore at our peril. Mr. McCain needs to explain what they are. America's economy got into trouble when people didn't heed warning signs. Three years ago, Mr. McCain called for stricter oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, warning their risky practices threatened our economy and could cost taxpayers billions. He tried to prevent or at least reduce the breadth of the crisis we're in now. Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats ignored these signs and opposed reform.

There's more. Wanting to raise taxes -- anyone's taxes -- in a slowdown is a warning sign of a misguided economic philosophy. Mr. Obama's proposal to redistribute wealth is a warning of indifference or hostility to enterprise. Mr. Obama's health-care plan is a warning that government will have more, not less, to say about your health care if he has his way. Mr. Obama's dismissal of offshore drilling and opposition to nuclear power are warning signs for an economy whose growth depends on affordable energy. Mr. Obama's commitment to withdraw our troops from Iraq without regard to conditions on the ground is a warning sign that Mr. Obama is dangerously wrong-headed and ideological on national security.

There's more: The absence of a single significant instance in which Mr. Obama cooperated in a bipartisan manner in the Senate is a warning sign. So is his failure to dirty his hands by working hard on any major legislative challenge since entering Congress. And so is his refusal to break with his party or its interest groups on any issue of substance.

Mr. McCain has only one hope: to drive home doubts about Mr. Obama based on his record, and share as much as he can about his own values and vision to reassure voters. Even if he does, Mr. McCain's task won't be easy: Mr. Obama is using his considerable talents as a community organizer. Evidence from early voting in Florida, North Carolina, New Mexico and Nevada shows that Democrats are flocking to cast ballots. We don't know yet whether they're cannibalizing their Election Day turnout by getting reliable voters to cast ballots early, or creating an electoral tsunami by targeting people who wouldn't otherwise bother to turn out. If it's the former, Mr. McCain still has a (long) shot. If it's the latter, he and other Republican candidates are about to be dealt a punishing electoral blow.

Source

What Obama Can't Change: The Lives of Blacks

If Barack Obama wins the keys to the White House next month, even nonsupporters will acknowledge the historic significance of his achievement. And America's. But what might an Obama victory mean for African-Americans in particular? Should we expect his administration to play a major role in black group advancement?

For more than a century, black civic leaders have tangled over whether to pursue economic independence or focus their energies on integrating political, corporate and educational institutions. W.E.B. Du Bois, author of the groundbreaking 1903 treatise, "The Souls of Black Folk," argued for the latter, while his contemporary, Booker T. Washington, said "political activity alone" was not the answer. In addition, insisted Washington, "you must have property, industry, skill, economy, intelligence and character."

Since the 1960s, the black civil-rights leadership has sided with Du Bois. Between 1970 and 2001, the number of black elected officials in the U.S. grew from fewer than 1,500 to more than 9,000. And while impressive socioeconomic progress has been made, wide black-white gaps remain in educational achievement, homeownership rates, labor-force participation, income levels and other measures.

Nor should we conclude that civil-rights laws are responsible for the black progress that has occurred. For example, up until the 1950s, and in an era of open and rampant racial discrimination, the jobless rate for blacks was much lower than today and similar to that of whites in the same age group. In fact, blacks had higher labor-force participation rates than whites in every Census taken between 1890 and 1950. And in the decades preceding the 1960s -- that is, prior to the passage of landmark civil-rights bills and affirmative-action legislation -- there were sharp rises in black educational achievement, both absolutely and relative to whites.

The economist Thomas Sowell has spent decades researching racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. and abroad. And his findings -- in books like "Race and Culture: A World View," "Affirmative Action Around the World" and "Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?" -- show that political activity generally has not been a factor in the rise of groups from poverty to prosperity.

Many Germans came to the U.S. as indentured servants during colonial times. And while working to pay off the cost of the voyage they studiously avoided participation in politics. Only after they'd risen economically did Germans begin seeking public office, culminating with the election of presidents Hoover and Eisenhower.

A similar pattern can be found among Chinese populations in southeast Asia, the Caribbean and the U.S. In Argentina, where English minorities have done well financially and played a major role in the development of the economy, they've played almost no role in Argentine politics. And so it goes with Italians in the U.S. and Jews in Britain: In both places economic gains have generally preceded political gains. "Empirically, political activity and political success have been neither necessary nor sufficient for economic advancement," writes Mr. Sowell. "Nor has eager political participation or outstanding success in politics translated into faster group achievement."

Black Americans might keep in mind that in those rare instances where the political success of a minority group has come first, it has often resulted in slower socioeconomic progress. The Irish immigrants who came to the U.S. in the mid-19th century hailed from a country where 80% of the population was rural. Yet they settled in industrial centers like New York, Philadelphia and Boston and took low-skill jobs. Their rise from poverty was especially slow -- as late as 1920, 80% of all Irish women working in America were domestic servants -- despite the fact that Irish-run political organizations dominated many big-city governments. "The Irish were fiercely loyal to each other, electing, appointing and promoting their own kind," writes Mr. Sowell. "This had little effect on the average Irish American, who began to reach economic prosperity in the 20th century at about the same time when the Irish political machines began to decline."

If elected, Mr. Obama may well turn out to be a competent president, even an admirable one. But history gives us no indication that his political success will translate into black upward mobility. And given Mr. Obama's liberal leanings, there's every reason to believe that current obstacles to black progress will remain in place.

The candidate favors minimum-wage laws, for example, on the assumption that they help lift people out of poverty. But most poor people already earn more than the minimum wage. And most people who earn the minimum wage aren't poor. Minimum-wage laws are more likely to price people out of the labor market, especially younger and less educated workers, a large number of whom happen to be black. Today's economy places a premium on skills. If young people can't get an entry-level job because an artificial federal wage floor has made them too expensive to hire, they can't gain the skills and experience to move up the economic ladder.

To take another example: Mr. Obama opposes educational choice, which will also have a negative impact on poor blacks, who tend to be the ones stuck in America's worst public schools. Mr. Obama opposes school vouchers that would allow low-income black parents to send their children to the type of private school where he sends his own daughters. In both cases, the only "change" that Mr. Obama would be bringing the Oval Office is the color of the person perpetrating bad policies.

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.)

2008-10-23T00:19:00.000+11:30

McCain Gains 12 Points In a Week In Battleground Poll

A week ago, the GWU Battleground poll (pdf) showed Obama with a 13-point lead over McCain (53-40). Today, after a week of steady narrowing, that lead is down to one point (48-47).

If the undecided 6% breaks toward McCain (as the cable news heads assure us they will), and/or if Obama's young-skewing constituency can be trusted to show up in fewer numbers than McCain's older electorate, and/or if the Bradley effect on display throughout the Democratic primary exists at all (or - for the racially sensitive - let's say "if Obama continues to systematically overpoll, for whatever reason, compared with his actual vote share"), and/or if the trend is ongoing, then this is a very McCain-friendly data point.

The poll's survey window is 7 days wide, so even if the trend has recently stopped, this latest reading wouldn't yet capture the entirety of McCain's gains.

Source

Iran's Preconditions

So much for Obama's diplomacy

Barack Obama's declaration that, if elected, he would be willing to sit down and talk to Iran "without preconditions" has been widely discussed in this country. It's a key policy difference between him and John McCain, who rejects unconditional talks with Tehran.

So what does the Islamic Republic think? The enterprising reporters at the state news agency recently asked a high-ranking official for his opinion on talks with the U.S. As it turns out, Iran has its own "preconditions" and they don't suggest a diplomatic breakthrough, or even a summit, anytime soon.

Mehdi Kalhor, Vice President for Media Affairs, said the U.S. must do two things before summit talks can take place. First, American military forces must leave the Middle East -- presumably including such countries as Iraq, Qatar, Turkey and anywhere else American soldiers are deployed in the region. Second, the U.S. must cease its support of Israel. Until Washington does both, talks are "off the agenda," the Islamic Republic News Agency reports. It quotes Mr. Kalhor as saying, "If they [the U.S.] take our advice, grounds for such talks would be well prepared.

Iran is one of the toughest and most urgent foreign policy problems the new U.S. Administration will face. If Mr. Obama ends up in the Oval Office on January 20, he may find that solving it will take more than walking into a room and talking to Iranians "without preconditions."

Source

The Increasingly Erratic, Super-Gaffetastic Joe Biden

If the prospect of Joe Biden sitting a heartbeat away from the presidency doesn't give you palpitations, you are not paying attention. Hysterical Sarah Palin-bashers on the unhinged left and elitist right have dominated campaign press coverage and pop culture. They've ridiculed her family, her appearance and her speech patterns. They've derided her character, her parenting skills, her readiness and her intellect.

Meanwhile, the increasingly erratic, super-gaffetastic Joe Biden gets a pass. What does the guy have to do to earn the relentless scrutiny and merciless mockery he deserves? Answer: wear high heels, shoot caribou and change the "D" next to his name to an "R."

Team Obama is hammering John McCain as "erratic" in the closing days of the election campaign. There are now 615,000 Google hits and counting using the search terms "erratic McCain." Last week, The New York Times devoted an entire article to the Obama-Biden line of attack, titled "In Friendly Region, Biden Cites McCain as Erratic."

Who's erratic? Throughout the primary and general election cycles, Biden has lurched from attacking Obama as not ready for prime time ("The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training." -- September 2007) to ready to lead ("Barack Obama is ready. This is his time." -- August 2008) and back again.

This week, Biden warned America that an Obama victory would invite a dangerous global showdown between tyrants and the naif Obama. "Mark my words," Biden said Sunday at a Democratic fundraiser. "It will not be six months [after the inauguration] before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy." In a follow-up appearance, he told supporters to brace for the worst and "gird your loins." Out of Biden's mouth, this is called candor. Out of anyone else's mouth, it would be "fear-mongering," "negative campaigning" and a "distraction."

Tooting his own horn while vandalizing his running mate's, Biden bragged: "I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know." Yeah. Colleagues like that guy who had a mere 143 days of Senate experience before launching his presidential bid and choosing you to shore up his meager credibility, Joe.

In fact, Biden has spent the entire campaign questioning his running mate's judgment. Last month, he mused out loud: "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. . She is easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me." Biden assailed the campaign's position on clean coal, openly criticized the campaign's idiotic ad attacking McCain for not using e-mail and warned the pro-gun control Obama that "if he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem."

Dan Quayle will have "POTATOE" etched on his gravestone. But how many times have late-night comedians and cable shows replayed the video of senior statesman and six-term Sen. Biden's own spelling mishap last week while attacking McCain's economic plan?

"Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the No. 1 job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S." No, Joe. "D'-O-H" is a three-letter word.

Nightly news shows still haven't tired of replaying Palin's infamous interview with Katie Couric. But how many times have they replayed Biden's botched interview with Couric last month -- in which he cluelessly claimed: "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'" Er, here's what really happened: Roosevelt wasn't president when the market crashed in 1929. As for appearing on TV, it was still in its infant stages and wasn't available to the general public until at least 10 years later.

During the lone VP debate earlier this month, the increasingly erratic, super-gaffetastic Biden demonstrated more historical ignorance that Palin would never be allowed to get away with: "Vice President Cheney's been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history," he said. "He has the idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the executive -- he works in the executive branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that."

Article 1 of the Constitution defines the role of the legislative branch, not the executive branch. You would think someone who has served 36 years in government -- the same someone who is quick to remind others of his high IQ and longtime Senate Judiciary Committee chairmanship -- would know better.

Biden's erratic and gaffetastic behavior is the least of America's worries. He's worse than a blunderbuss. He's an incurable narcissist with chronic diarrhea of the mouth. He's a phony and a pretender who fashions himself a foreign policy expert, constitutional scholar and worldly wise man. He's a man who can't control his impulses. And he could be a heartbeat away. Now, back to your regularly scheduled Palin-says-"You Betcha" skit.

Source

Obama and the Kingfish

Barack Obama, who became rich with his best-selling books, seems to have a problem with wealth creation. It isn't in his lexicon, it isn't on his agenda, and it isn't in his campaign message. He never talks about creating wealth, which should be at the heart of all economic-growth incentives. Indeed, he wants to punish it by raising taxes on higher-income Americans to 40 percent and send that money to lower- and middle-income people in the form of a refundable tax credit that will include sending checks in 2009 to 49 million tax filers who pay no income taxes.

He doesn't talk about risk-capital formation, the lifeblood of a dynamic and growing economy, because he says he'll tax that, too, with a higher capital-gains and dividend tax on investors and savers and many retirees. He even ridiculed Joe Wurzelbacher after the Ohio plumber asked the freshman senator whether he'd be hit by higher tax rates under his economic plan. Joe could teach Obama a few things about the importance of wealth creation and encouraging investment capital, something he must have missed in Economics 101 at Harvard.

John McCain has been championing Joe Wurzelbacher's story on the campaign trail this week to illustrate the negative impact that Obama's income-tax hikes will have on Joe's dream to buy the small plumbing business that employs him. Millions of other Americans have the same dream, too, but that would put them into the income bracket Obama will tax the most.

When the burly, blue-collar worker asked Obama at a campaign rally last week whether his "new tax plan is going to tax me more" if he bought the business that would bring him about $250,000 or more in income, he was told it would. But Obama -- who calls American free-enterprise capitalism "trickle-down economics" -- said he has to tax Joe more and millions like him in order to "spread the wealth around."

It's clear what he meant by that. He calls it a tax cut to help the economy grow, but what he is pursuing is the left's long-sought goal of redistributing the nation's wealth by taking more money from the top 5 percent of all earners (who pay 57.13 percent of all income taxes) and distributing it to those who are taxed at a lower rate or are not taxed at all.

Obama wraps ideas like this in the mantle of "change," but it's hardly a new idea. That's what Democrat Huey Long, the demagogic Louisiana senator, preached in the 1930s, with his radical "share the wealth" campaign and his relentless class-warfare attacks on the rich.

Obama's economics have a lot in common with Huey Long, as we saw last week as he ridiculed McCain and Joe the Plumber's desire to create wealth by running his own business. "How many plumbers do you know who make $250,000?" Obama sarcastically asked a crowd the day after his third debate when McCain made Joe the symbol of the harm Obama's tax increases would inflict on America's budding entrepreneurs.

Actually, lots of plumbers make that much and more in small-business enterprises that install new plumbing in renovated kitchens and bathrooms. The fact that Obama is ignorant that many plumbers earn that much shows how truly "out of touch" (the charge he hurls at McCain) he is with common, everyday life among working Americans.

The National Federation of Independent Business, the small-business lobby, says that there are 16 million small businesses and 75 percent of them filed as individual taxpayers, just as you and I do. And millions of them will be slapped by Obama's higher income-tax rates that will jump to 36 percent from 33 percent, and to 39.6 percent from 35 percent.

These are the businesses that create the lion's share of the new jobs and the firms that will grow into the giant enterprises of tomorrow. How do we create jobs, wealth and growth by taxing them -- during a recession no less?

If you are starting to get the idea that maybe Barack Obama doesn't know any more about economics than Huey Long did, consider this. When asked last week about McCain's proposal to temporarily slash the capital-gains tax rate in half to unlock much-needed capital investment, Obama ridiculed that, too. "I don't know anybody, even the smartest investors, who right now are going to be experiencing a lot of capital gains," he told reporters.

But billionaire Warren Buffet, one of Obama's economic advisers, just purchased $3 billion in General Electric stock, knowing that, when the stock markets recover, his investment will yield a hefty capital gain. Millions of investors would like to do that, too. But Obama thinks their money should go to the government and spread around to "share the wealth" and that will create jobs.

But redistributing the nation's income won't grow the economy. It just divides the pie up into smaller slices. It hasn't worked in Europe, where they have draconian tax rates on wealth and it didn't work in Louisiana, either, still one of the poorest states in the country.

Source

Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer

I must confess I was not impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident - a wholesome presidential package. It is so instinctive for most people to want to see blacks succeed. It is as if all humanity is carrying a collective guilt for what the ancestors of blacks endured. However, despite my initial interest in him, I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words.

It is surreal to see the level of hysteria in his admirers. This phenomenon is unprecedented in American politics. Women scream and swoon during his speeches. They yell and shout to Obama, "I love you." Never did George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt. Martin Luther King Jr. or Ronald Reagan arouse so much raw emotion. Despite their achievements, none of them was raised to the rank of Messiah. The Illinois senator has no history of service to the country. He has done nothing outstanding except giving promises of change and hyping his audience with hope. It's only his words, not his achievements that is causing this much uproar.

When cheering for someone turns into adulation, something is wrong. Excessive adulation is indicative of a personality cult. The cult of personality is often created when the general population is discontent. A charismatic leader can seize the opportunity and project himself as an agent of change and a revolutionary leader. Often, people, tired of the status quo, do not have the patience to examine the nature of the proposed change. All they want is change. During 1979, when the Iranians were tired of the dictatorial regime of the late Shah, they embraced Khomeini, not because they wanted Islam, but because he promised them change. The word in the street was, "anything is better than the Shah." They found their error when it was too late.

Khomeini promised there would be separation between religion and state. He lied and they did not care to look into his past to see whether he actually meant what he said. Had they done that they would have seen that he always believed in caliphate and the rule of Islam. People gobbled everything he told them uncritically. They wanted to believe and therefore closed their eyes so they did not see what they did not want to see. Eyes welled when he spoke. Masses poured into the streets by the millions, screamed and shouted to greet him. People kissed his pictures. Some saw his portrait reflected on the Moon.

Listening to Obama ... it harkens back to when I was younger and I used to watch Khomeini, how he would excite the crowd and they'd come to their feet and scream and yell.

I was amused to hear a listener calling Fox News Radio's Tom Sullivan Show, (Feb 11) and saying: "Listening to Obama ... it harkens back to when I was younger and I used to watch those deals with Hitler, how he would excite the crowd and they'd come to their feet and scream and yell."

Equating anyone to Hitler by highlighting the similarities between the two is a logical fallacy. This fallacy, known as reductio ad Hitlerum is a variety of both questionable cause and association fallacy. I believe it is wrong to trivialize the holocaust and the horrors of Nazism by comparing our opponents to Hitler.

However, Hitler, prior to coming to power had not killed anyone. He was insane, but few could see that. Far from it, he was seen as a gifted man and hailed as the savior of Germany. He was admired throughout the world. He appealed to the masses of people - the working class and particularly to women, and did not just inspire them, he "elevated" them. Thousands rallied to listen to his passionate speeches. They shed tears when he spoke. Women fainted during his speeches. To Germans, he was not a politician, but a demigod, a messiah. They envisioned him as truly a magical figure of majestic wisdom and glory. They worshiped him. They surrendered their wills to him. He restored their national pride. He projected himself as their savior. He ran on the platform of change and hope. Change he delivered all right, but hopes he shattered.

I think it is fair to say that the Illinois senator puts the same passion in his speeches that Hitler used to put in his, and he evokes similar raw emotions in his audience. This much we can agree. Okay, we can also agree that both Hitler and Charlie Chaplin wore square moustaches. So what?

The Cult of Personality

There are other disturbing similarities. Like Hitler and Khomeini, Obama also likes to create a cult of personality around himself. As stated above, when a large number of a population is discontent, a charismatic leader can seize the opportunity and present himself as the agent of change. He can create a cult of Personality by associating himself with the idea of change. He convinces everyone that things are terrible and a drastic change is needed. He then casts himself as the only person who can deliver this revolutionary transformation that everyone is waiting for. He portrays himself as a benevolent guide; the only one who cares about people and their needs and can pull them out of their alleged misery. In reality, they have no clue about how to address the problem - have no experience, no track record. But they are convincing because they are self assured.

These revolutionary leaders need foes. They exaggerate the problems. They make everything look gloomy. They lie, cheat and slander their opponents while casting themselves as the saviors of the nation. Hitler chose the Jews to blame for everything that was wrong in Germany. Khomeini made the Shah and his westernization plans his scapegoats. Obama has chosen President George W. Bush to smear. He can rally people around himself, as long as he can instill in them the dislike of Bush and equate his rival, McCain to him. Sigmund Freud wrote, "It is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestations of their aggressiveness" (Civilization and Its Discontents).

A cult of personality is excessive adulation, admiration and exaltation of a charismatic leader, often with unproven merits or achievements. It is similar to hero worship except that it is created specifically for political leaders.

Who is Obama?

Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects. Barack Obama is a narcissist. Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love, also believes, "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist."

Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).

Vaknin explains: "Narcissistic leaders are nefarious and their effects pernicious. They are subtle, refined, socially-adept, manipulative, possessed of thespian skills, and convincing. Both types [cerebral and somatic] equally lack empathy and are ruthless and relentless or driven." These were the very traits that distinguished Hitler and Khomeini. Many of these traits can be seen in Obama. As for his ruthlessness, perhaps his support of legislation to let babies die if they survive abortion, gives a glimps into his soul, that he may lacks empathy, does not value life, and if in the position of power can be ruthless. Narcissists need power to show their ruthlessness. Considering the fact that Obama neglected his own half brother, George Hussein Obama, who lives on one dollar per month in Kenya, we can't vouch for Obama's empathy or say he is a caring person.

More here

Iconic 'Joe the Plumber' Lashes Out at Media for Delving Into His Personal Life

Wurzelbacher Says His Livelihood Has Been Impacted

"Joe the Plumber" is lashing out at the media for analyzing his personal life since he suddenly became a focal point of the presidential race last week. Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber from Holland, Ohio, told Mike Huckabee on his Fox News talk show Saturday that he is upset by the attention and has been unable to work with reporters crowded on his front lawn, the AP reports.

"The media's worried about whether I've paid my taxes, they're worried about any number of silly things that have nothing to do with America," Wurzelbacher told the former Republican presidential hopeful on his show, "Huckabee." Wurzelbacher said he felt terrible after reading some of the criticism of himself posted online. "I felt about that small," he said. "I mean I really did."

John McCain has been portraying Wurzelbacher as emblematic of people with concerns about Obama's tax plans. Wurzelbacher became famous after he met Obama and said the Democrat's tax proposal could keep him from buying the two-man plumbing company where he works. However, reports of Wurzelbacher's annual earnings suggest he would receive a tax cut rather than an increase under Obama's plan.

"You know, I am a plumber," Wurzelbacher said. "Just a plumber." Wurzelbacher said he agreed to appear on the show after he received phone calls from friends serving in the military who voiced their support. "You know, when you can't ask a question of your leaders anymore, that gets scary," he said.

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.)