Saturday, October 18, 2008
"If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.
The nearby table shows [table not shown] the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.”
Saved by Filibuster: [Bills that were passed by the House in the 110th Congress but were blocked in the Senate]
Union Card Check
Representation for District of Columbia
Windfall Profit Tax on Oil Companies
Renegotiation of Contracts in Bankruptcy
Resurrection of the 'Fairness Doctrine'
It is fair to ask how we have gotten to the point where a charismatic Marxist is within walking distance to the White House. The answer is that a perfect storm of socialism has been developed by shrewd people behind the scene, a leftist news media and careful long term planning. All major players are acolytes of communist Saul Alinski who taught his students the Rules for Radicals to take over the country by working from within.
Saul Alinsky wrote two books where he described his organizational principles and strategies: Reveille for Radicals (1946) and Rules for Radicals (1971). Rules for Radicals begins with a quote about Lucifer, written by Saul Alinsky: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.”
In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky wrote: “Here I propose to present an arrangement of certain facts and general concepts of change, a step toward a science of revolution”; building on the tactical principles of Machiavelli: “The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals are written for the Have-nots on how to take it away.”
Alinsky’s Rules are concerned with the acquisition of power: “my aim here is to suggest how to organize for power: how to get it and how to use it.” This is not to be done with assistance to the poor, or even by organizing the poor to demand assistance: “Even if all the low-income parts of our population were organized ... it would not be powerful enough to get significant, basic, needed changes.”
Alinsky advises the organizer to target the middle class, rather than the poor: “Organization for action will now and in the decade ahead center upon America’s white middle class. That is where the power is.”
Clearly Alinsky is interested in the middle class only because it is useful: “Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change and the power and the people are in the middle class majority.”
Does this sound familiar? Obama is calling for “change” but the change Obama seeks is right out of the Alinsky Rule book.
In his Rules for Radicals Alinsky defends belief that the end justifies the means: “to say that corrupt the ends, is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles ... the practical revolutionary will understand ... [that] in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind.”
Altogether, Alinsky provides eleven rules of the ethics of means and ends. They are morally relativistic; the main one is that the Rules for Radicals “are therefore concerned with how to win. In such a conflict, neither protagonist is concerned with any value except victory. … “The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the ends justifies almost any means.”
“There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds, he becomes a founding father.”
Rules for Radicals teach the organizer that he must give a moral appearance (as opposed to behaving morally): “All effective action requires the passport of morality.”
The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends states “that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments ... Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.”
Rules for Radicals provide the organizer with a strategy for community organization that assumes an adversarial relationship between groups of people in which one either dominates or is dominated.
“The first rule of power tactics is: power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
“Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.”
“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
“The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself.”
“In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.”
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. One of the criteria for picking the target is the target’s vulnerability ... the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract. The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”
Rules for Radicals stresses organizational power-collecting: “The ego of the organizer is stronger and more monumental than the ego of the leader. The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which a man can reach -- to create, to be a ‘great creator’, to play God.”
Alinsky Thought Hillary Clinton was a terrific “organizer” and wanted her to become his protégé. She and Bill Clinton have employed Alinsky’s tactics probably better than anyone else, until Barack Obama came along.
Obama has followed Alinsky’s Rules perfectly. Although Alinsky was an atheist, Alinsky recognized the importance of church communities as springboards for agitation and for demanding goods and services. Obama undertook his agitating work in Chicago's South Side poor neighborhoods but he was not yet a church goer although he did have an office in a Church. The people he intended to organize were Church people who were serious church-goers. Many people asked where he went to church. He evaded the question for a while but then decided to join a church.
Of course the selection of a church to join was important. He decided to join a huge Black Nationalist Church with a pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who openly preached “black" gospel. Rolling Stone Magazine had a story on Obama and his church, entitled, "Destiny's Child," which included this excerpt from one of Rev. Wright's sermons (from an article by Kyle-Anne Schiver in American Thinker):
"Fact number one: We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," he intones. Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!"
"We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. . . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means! And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS S**T!"
Obama has called Reverend Wright his spiritual mentor and still claims he is his sounding board.
Among some of the Black Nationalist signs hanging in this church are a list of admonishments to black solidarity, called the "Black Value System," and a sort of moral code calling for the "Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclass ness."
This doesn't sound like the Ten Commandments to me nor does this seem like any church I am familiar with.
Let’s see how Obama follows Alinsky’s Rules to defeat John McCain and win the election.
Barack Obama mocks John McCain, while urging his followers to "get in their face," these are tactics right out of Saul Alinsky's playbook: ridicule and agitation.
During a Las Vegas rally Obama joked about McCain for what he described as lauding about "how as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, he had oversight of every part of the economy."
"Well, all I can say to Sen. McCain is, 'Nice job. Nice job,'" Obama said sarcastically; "Where is he getting these lines? It's like a 'Saturday Night Live' routine."
Alinsky advised community organizers like Obama to "laugh at the enemy" to provoke "irrational anger." "Ridicule," he said, "is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."
Obama speaks in a quiet voice and almost always wears a business suit. Both are also borrowed from Alinsky's Rules. "Don't scare" the middle class. Instead, look like them, talk like them, act like them.”
Alinsky taught his followers to work for radical change from the inside. Obama said in his first memoir "like a spy behind enemy lines." He wrote it before entering politics, while still working with Alinsky groups and training street agitators known as "community organizers" for ACORN. In 1983 Obama wrote he became a community organizer in ACORN because of "The need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds."
Here are some other examples of how well Obama follows the Alinsky Rules (from a Yahoo News article).
"Rule: "Rub raw the resentments of the people; search out controversy and issues." In the mortgage meltdown, for instance, Obama vows to prosecute "predatory lenders" for "abusing" minority borrowers. He's also stoking class resentment by painting Wall Street and other executives as villains.
Rule: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." In an ad to woo Hispanic voters, Obama demonized Rush Limbaugh by falsely claiming he made racist statements against immigrants.
Rule: "A mass impression can be lasting and intimidating." This explains why Obama moved his acceptance speech to a football stadium and bussed in 85,000 supporters. Alinsky's son was so impressed, he praised Obama for learning his father's "lesson well."
Rule: "Multiple issues mean constant action and life" for the cause. This is why Obama never harps on one issue, as Hillary did with health care. His platform is packed with grievances from "economic justice" to "reproductive justice" to "environmental justice.""
Obama is following almost perfectly the outline for socialist revolution written by the founder of community organizing, Saul Alinsky.
Not that Obama is altogether home free, but he uses his war room effectively.
After Sarah Palin ridiculed Obama’s community organizing in one speech, Obama surrogates quickly claimed Palin was bringing up the phrase as a racist code for "black."
Mention of “Community Organizing” is not racism, but racism is a code word used by communists. McCain should make that point instead of legitimizing such radicalism, as he did recently when he said, "I respect community organizers; and Senator Obama's record there is outstanding" -- which contradicted Sarah Palin in another example of the incompetent McCain campaign.
Alinksy could never have dreamed a disciple would be in a battle for the most powerful job in the world, let along have a good chance of winning. Nor would I have believed so many Americans would fall for the socialist claptrap of Barack Obama.
[If you want to get notice when a new article is posted, send an e-mail to email@example.com]
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
In true socialist fashion the government with tax payer’s money now nationalizes a huge segment of our economy. In this country this is being called “taking a position” in the banks; in Europe, more familiar with the practice, it’s called “nationalizing.” This is not right. If we want the government to assist the banks in some way, it shouldn't be by driving us further toward socialism.
Do we really want to socialize our financial system; because that’s what we are doing as the government forces the banks to sell a portion of their stockholders ownership to a bureaucracy not only unskilled in bank management but eager to exert control over banking practices?
We all now know what destruction the government can cause as seen in the reason for our current financial crisis in the first place. Think back to the late 1970s when we had a booming economy, massive economic development and national pride until the worst President that the United States that has ever had: Jimmy Carter, took over. Carter got Congress to pass the Community Redevelopment Act that was meant to promote minority home ownership.
Bill Clinton then used this law from the first days he was in office so that he could declare how he was the champion of the poor and of minorities and how it was he who was able to provide them with “affordable housing.” Do you know what “affordable housing” is? Someone once wrote “affordable housing is when people who can’t afford it buy a house and you and I pay for it.”
Clinton put the force of the government behind his plan so as to “encourage” lenders to “help” the “less fortunate” to obtain “affordable housing.” What really happened is that Clinton resurrected the Community Redevelopment Act and made it clear to lenders that they had to make “affordable loans “available” to basically to any minority who wanted one. Lenders did not want to turn anyone down because if they did they would be subjected to the full brunt of the US government penal code as enforced by the relevant agencies so they lowered their lending standards.
If a bank didn’t comply it could be investigated for anything from “unfair” loan practices to racism and discrimination. The Administration was in a position to levy hefty fines and other penalties on those who did not share the Administration’s enthusiasm for such high risk lending. Threatening lawsuits, Clinton's Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage.
Now that the government will have an ownership interest in the banks, and likely membership in their Boards of Directors, it will be a simple matter to dictate how the banks should do business and what they shall or shall not do as the exercise management of the banking operation. Furthermore, as an owner, the government has access to all personal information of depositors and anyone doing business with the bank. Imagine what mischief a socialist administration could do with that; consider how successful the Clinton administration was with only 600 personal FBI files?
So this is how socialism comes; not with force of arms, but in the silence of the public acquiescing to nationalization where American citizens are told to hand over the private property of investors to virtual government control. I wonder what would have happened if the banks had said "thanks, but no thanks?" Yet we hear not one peep from "conservative" economists? Where are the op-ed writers condemning this practice? Who is defending the free market system; just a few of us bloggers and some talk show hosts?
The US Government is spending as much as $250 billion to buy direct ownership in banks and other financial institutions under a so-called emergency plan which President Bush insisted today was "not intended to take over the free market but to preserve it". What nonsense! Even Treasury Secretary, the former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson, was the first to admit "Government owning a stake in any private US company is objectionable to most Americans”, but the government at his recommendation is doing it anyway.
The $250 billion will come from a $700 billion bailout package already agreed by Congress after negotiations led by Paulson. The initial plan for the bailout had been for the money to be used to purchase "toxic" sub-prime mortgage debt from lenders to allow them to clear up their balance sheets, but this was not good enough to exert government control over banking so the equity purchase scheme was created.
The government is said to be buying “non-voting preferred shares in the qualifying financial institutions, with stakes in each institution limited to $25 billion”. But not generally reported is that the government will receive dividends of 5% for five years and 9% after that, in exchange for the “investment” forced on the banks. In addition, the government will have the right to purchase the banks’ common (voting) shares.
The nine major banks which include the countries’ largest will participate now but most other banks are expected to be in the program as well. Most of the nine banks didn’t need capital from the government but were nonetheless pressured by Treasury Secretary Paulson to participate. Eventually all U.S. banks, saving and loan associations and holding companies, and other financial institutions will be required to join the program. Interestingly the initial plan advanced by Paulson was sold to legislators and the public as a mechanism to buy distressed mortgage-related securities to clean up bank balance sheets but now the focus on government ownership.
Paulson originally was expected to use $125 billion to “invest” in nine banks but now Paulson has also set aside another $125 billion to invest in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other banks through November. Incidentally, one of the nine banks, Morgan Stanley, is using their $9 billion “lifeline” to pick up smaller rivals; is this what was intended by the so-called “bailout?”
Once the government gets its foot in the door you can be sure they won’t be mere bystanders. Consider how the government exerts control over the states buy giving them money for education, highway construction and all sorts of programs accepted by greedy state governments.
When President Bush announced the plan he said that it was “not intended to take over the free market but to preserve it.” Sure, then why buy into the banks when the purpose is to, in the words of Paulson, “give the banks money to stabilize the financial system and loosen the tight credit market.” Wouldn't it have been just as effective to loan the banks the money?
After the government gets away with this it won't stop at banks. What other industries will be called into Paulsen's office and given the choice of "doing what's right for the national economy" or...what? Anything is possible.
If Bush can do this, what would a socialist like Barack Obama do in the name of this emergency, especially if he is joined with a Democrat controlled congress and senate?
One shudders to contemplate it.
Monday, October 13, 2008
With one debate left and only a few weeks until Election Day, what can McCain do to get through to the American people? There is only one approach that may get the attention of those not ideologically committed to the empty suit and his incredibly competent campaign gurus whose use of psychology to mask the nothingness of Obama and still appeal to the masses is exceedingly effective.
What McCain should not do is to continue to focus on Obama’s associations with the likes of Ayres and Reverend Wright. Americans have already proven they don’t care about such things, just as they didn’t care about Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes or his office “romance” with the thonged Monica. McCain also cannot out do Obama in distribution of the government’s largesse created by working tax payers; Obama is simply better at that and more convincing.
Obama’s secure voting block of the thirty percent of voters who pay no taxes is not sufficient to win an election but it can be supplemented by uninformed tax payers mesmerized by the possibility of “change” even if they don’t know what the change will be but are happy to experience it. These people must be made to understand that the change our country will have if Obama is elected is a surge of a different sort than has made the headlines; it is a surge toward socialism and a loss of the free enterprise system that has made the United States the greatest and freest country in the world.
President Bush hasn’t helped McCain nor has McCain helped himself by going along with government acquisition of American business, i.e. banks, in America. In our country this is described as “taking a position in various banks” but in Europe, more familiar with the concept, it is called “nationalizing” the banks. Americans are not ready for nationalization so they must be conditioned to the idea by concealing the practice with more neutral language.
As Steve Lohr wrote for The New York Times “Elsewhere, government bank-investment programs are routinely called nationalization programs. But that is not likely in the United States, where nationalization is a word to avoid, given the aversion to anything that hints of socialism.”
Obama has a history that actually teaches us what Obama and those pulling his strings have in mind if we would only pay attention. Since voters don’t do the research, it is up to John McCain to emphatically tell the people in the next and last debate and in all subsequent communications with the public.
Barack Obama doesn’t want America to know he’s a socialist and the biased liberal socialist press doesn’t want us to know he’s a socialist either. Obama wants to make you feel good as the government takes money from productive workers and gives it to the non productive who don't work because it is easier to take handouts. In true socialist fashion Obama seeks to redistribute income from producers, i.e. taxpayers, to his voting base of non tax paying recipients.
A Democrat House and Senate with Obama as president will pass higher taxes and create more give away programs and tax payers will pay for it. In his speeches Obama says he is just raising taxes on the rich because they have too many tax breaks and he just wants the rich “to pay their fair share” but if you make $40,000 Obama considers you rich.
[Note: currently the top 1% of taxpayers earns 21.2% of the nation’s income and pays 39.4% of all taxes. In actuality the top 1% pay about the same amount of federal individual taxes as the bottom 95%. However Obama wants the top 1% to pay even more. If this isn’t redistribution of wealth, what is it?]
Obama likes to say, and amazingly it goes unchallenged by McCain, that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of “working families.” This makes Obama seem to be a “middle-class tax cutter while proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But this is nonsensical since more than a third of all Americans pay no income taxes at all. Those who pay no taxes don’t just get a “tax cut”; they receive tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.” Therefore money people get from the federal government even if they pay no taxes at all are called “tax cuts” but are really welfare as part of the socialist income redistribution from tax increases on the “rich”.
But income redistribution is hardly the only evidence of Obama as a socialist. As John Lott reveals, there is an organization called the Chicago New Party which is a group of socialists affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America. [The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left. It was an attempt to regroup the forces on the left in a new strategy to take power, burrowing from within.] Barack Obama attended and participated in meetings of the Chicago New Party and sought their endorsement in his run for office. An investigation of the Chicago DSA, the local affiliated group, found Obama’s signature on a contract promising “a visible and active relationship” with the group. Obama used the endorsement from the Chicago DSA to win his seat in the Illinois State Senate and continued his involvement with the Chicago DSA and received their endorsements in subsequent campaigns.
But the New Party endorsement doesn’t hold a candle to the ultimate socialist prize; an endorsement by the Communist Party USA even though he isn't quite the perfect little Communist. The Communist Party USA says that Barack Obama may not be the perfect communist they have been hoping for, but he is a stepping stone to the new socialist utopia. [CPUSA Online - Editorial: Eye on the Prize.]
“Barack Obama is not a left candidate. This fact has seemingly surprised a number of progressive people who are bemoaning Obama’s “shift to the center.” (Right-wingers are happy to join them, suggesting Obama is a “flip-flopper.”) It’s sad that some who seek progressive change are missing the forest for the trees. But they will not dampen the wide and deep enthusiasm for blocking a third Bush term represented by John McCain, or for bringing Obama by a landslide into the White House with a large Democratic congressional majority. A broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama’s “Hope, change and unity” campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda. This diverse movement combines a variety of political currents and aims in a working coalition that is crucial to social progress at this point. At the core are America’s working families, of all hues and ethnicities, whose determination to move forward does not depend on, and will not be diverted by, the daily twists and turns of this watershed presidential campaign. They are taking the long view. ...
If Obama’s candidacy represented nothing more than the spark for this profound initiative to unite the working class and defeat the pernicious influence of racism, it would be a transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term. The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path will not end with Obama’s election. But that step will shift the ground for successful struggles going forward. One thing is clear. None of the people’s struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if McCain wins in November.
Let’s keep our eyes on the prize.”
Obama has denied a connection with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) but in fact Obama was in a 1995 lawsuit on behalf of ACORN. Obama's own website and his friendly news media don’t mention the full depth and extent of his relationship with the organization. ACORN has now been discovered to be heavily involved in voter registration fraud so Obama wants voters to ignore his association with this socialist organization lest they become aware of his socialist roots.
Attempts to hide evidence of Obama's involvement with ACORN have included removing reference to ACORN from Obama’s web site but articles were previously publicly accessible and the attempted cover-up failed. For example, Obama's campaign website stated:
“Fact: Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity.”
Unfortunately for Obama an article written by Toni Foulkes, a Chicago ACORN leader, was published in the journal Social Policy and stated:
"Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar (the name of the Republican governor at the time) and we won. Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year. Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5,000 of them). Since then, 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 for State Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends."
As recently as March 2008, the Los Angeles Times also made reference to Barack Obama's involvement with ACORN [incidentally, note the relationship to the current financial crisis]:
"At the time, Madeline Talbot [a pioneer of ACORN's sub prime-loan shakedown racket] was - an activist worked at the social action group ACORN and initially considered Obama a competitor. But she became so impressed with his work that she invited him to help train her staff." (LA Times, March 2, 2008)
In 1995, Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar objected to implementing the federal motor voter law out of concern that letting people register via postcard and blocking the state from pruning voter rolls might invite vote fraud. Barach Obama sued on behalf of ACORN and won. ACORN later invited Obama to train its staff; and when Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, the Woods Fund frequently gave ACORN grants to fund its agenda and voter registration activities.
ACORN has led the fight against voter ID laws and other efforts “to ensure ballot integrity.” ACORN has been implicated in voter fraud and bogus registration schemes in Ohio and at least 13 other states.
Obama also opposes voter ID laws. He believes they disenfranchise voters. Last year, Obama put a hold on the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky for a seat on the Federal Election Commission because as a Justice Department official he had supported a Georgia photo ID law. ACORN and Obama espouse the leftist view that voter ID laws are racist. In addition to subverting American democracy to promote a leftist agenda, the ACORN radical agenda which is followed by Obama amounts to "undisguised authoritarian socialism." wrote Sol Stern in the 2003 City Journal article, "Acorn's Nutty Regime for Cities."
The tie between an ACORN Project VOTE is also something that Obama and others have attempted to deny in recent weeks as ACORN has come under fire for allegations of voter registration fraud.
If you still have doubts about Obama as a “community organizer” working with ACORN, here is what has been reported by Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC. [Note again the relationship with our current financial crisis.]
“WHAT exactly does a "community organizer" do? Barack Obama's rise has left many Americans asking themselves that question. Here's a big part of the answer: Community organizers intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit. In the name of fairness to minorities, community organizers occupy private offices, chant inside bank lobbies, and confront executives at their homes - and thereby force financial institutions to direct hundreds of millions of dollars in mortgages to low-credit customers.
In other words, community organizers help to undermine the US economy by pushing the banking system into a sinkhole of bad loans. And Obama has spent years training and funding the organizers who do it.”
“In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions.”
Investor Business Daily also identified Obama as a socialist.
“During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. ‘I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served,’ he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati. And as president, ‘we'll ensure that economic justice is served,’ he asserted. ‘That's what this election is about.’ Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval. It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series. ‘Economic justice’ simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.
In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state. . . .”
Obama is a disciple of Saul Alinski. Here is Alinsky's strategy to capture the middle class - which Obama is following today:
"The [Middle Class] despair is there; now it's up to us to go in and rub raw the sores of discontent, galvanize them for radical social change. We'll give them a way to participate in the democratic process, a way to exercise their rights as citizens and strike back at the establishment that oppresses them, instead of giving in to apathy. We'll start with specific issues -- taxes, jobs, consumer problems, pollution -- and from there move on to the larger issues: pollution in the Pentagon and the Congress and the board rooms of the mega corporations. Once you organize people, they'll keep advancing from issue to issue toward the ultimate objective: people power. We'll not only give them a cause, we'll make life goddamn exciting for them again -- life instead of existence. We'll turn them on."
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly; that’s what Obama believes and will implement if he can.
Barack Obama entered electoral politics as a member of a radical Marxist group aimed at gaining control of the Democratic Party in order to implement a version of socialism in America. He signed a contract promising to maintain a visible relationship. Obama should be pressed by McCain to reveal that contract and proclaim his adherence to socialist goals before the American people approve him for our highest office.
McCain must make voters understand that in this election they will be asked to choose between the socialist version of “change” and the American way of solving problems and keeping America a great country by the tried and true methods used in the past, capitalism and free enterprise.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
With that in mind, let’s consider how Senator Joe Biden either stretched or actually evaded the truth in the sole debate in which he had to face Sarah Palin.
For starters, here are some of what may be charitably described as misstatements by Fact Check.0rg.
“BIDEN: Complained about ‘economic policies of the last eight years’ that led to ‘excessive deregulation.’
THE FACTS: Biden voted for 1999 deregulation that liberal groups are blaming for part of the financial crisis today. The law allowed Wall Street investment banks to create the kind of mortgage-related securities at the core of the problem now.
BIDEN: Warned that Republican presidential candidate John McCain's $5,000 tax credit to help families buy health coverage ‘will go straight to the insurance company.’
THE FACTS: Of course it would, because it's meant to pay for insurance. That's like saying money for a car loan will go straight to the car dealer.
BIDEN: Said McCain supports tax breaks for oil companies, and ‘wants to give them another $4 billion tax cut.’
THE FACTS: Biden is repeating a favorite saw of the Obama campaign, and it's misleading. McCain supports a cut in income taxes for all corporations, and doesn't single out any one industry for that benefit.
BIDEN: ‘As a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for the health care industry — deregulate it and let the free market move — like he did for the banking industry.’
THE FACTS: Biden and Obama have been perpetuating this distortion of what McCain wrote in an article for the American Academy of Actuaries. McCain, laying out his health plan, only referred to deregulation when saying people should be allowed to buy health insurance across state lines. In that context, he wrote: ‘Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.’
BIDEN: ‘The charge is absolutely not true. Barack Obama did not vote to raise taxes. The vote she's referring to, John McCain voted the exact same way.’
THE FACTS: The vote was on a nonbinding budget resolution that assumed that President Bush's tax cuts would expire, as scheduled, in 2011. If that actually happened, it could mean higher taxes for people making as little as about $42,000.”
Although FactCheck.org described many false remarks by Biden, there are actually more examples that should be known.
When asked how he would “shrink” polarization, Biden gave as example “putting 100,000 police officers on the street, to trying to get something done about the genocide in -- that was going on in Bosnia”; these things sure sound like Biden doesn’t know what shrinking polarization means.
Something that keeps coming up in Obama’s remarks during the current “financial crisis” is that he warned about the coming problem two years ago. Biden echoed this supposition also. When asked about the subject, Biden replied:
“Well Gwen, two years ago Barack Obama warned about the sub prime mortgage crisis.”
The problem with this praise of Messiah Obama as prescient is that the actual warning supposedly issued by Obama is not cited; all they do is make the bald statement without any evidence that this actually happened. If this actually was the case, why wouldn’t they indicate where, when and how this “warning” was issued?
While this is may be not a lie, it has not been proven to be true and it shows how Obama/Biden are willing to mislead the public with broad unproven assertions.
Some other Biden “misstatements”:
Biden said: It's "simply not true" that Barack Obama said he'd meet Iran's president without preconditions.
THE FACTS: Obama was asked if he would in a debate during the primaries, he said yes - a position Biden back then termed "naive."
Biden said he has "always supported" clean-coal technology – however he said last month, "We're not supporting clean coal."
Biden repeatedly said: the US spends more money on three weeks' combat in Iraq than it's spent in Afghanistan since the war began.
THE FACTS: That claim is false; even if he referred to Afghan expenditures merely for US rebuilding efforts he is off by a factor of three, according to State Department numbers. Biden also said that "our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work" there.
THE FACTS: What Gen. David McKiernan really said tribal realities in Afghanistan are very different than in Iraq - requiring a different form of cooperation and that more troops, and more local engagement, are needed; he never said the surge would not work in Afghanistan.
Much has been written about Biden’s lies during the debate but for readers of this blog I wanted to more particularly note Biden’s statements and the facts which show that the man “who would be a heart beat away” from the presidency cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
"Inaction is not an option," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said a few hours before the Senate was to vote. "This is not a bailout for Wall Street. It's a bailout for our country."
When someone is unsure about which side to be on concerning controversial issues, it is usually important to see who are the supporters and opponents. This is especially valid when you find those with whom you most always disagree are trying to convince you their side is the right one.
Perhaps among elected politicians the one who represents the worst of public interest is Senator Harry Reid. This Senate Majority Leader constantly represents the most leftist expression of politics; if Reid is for or against something you can bet the better position for the country is the opposite. Reid is for immediate passage of the so-called “bailout for our country” legislation along with corrupt senators like Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd and the Goldman Sachs representative in government, Democrat Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. They essentially say the financial sky will fall if congress does not act without haste. As is usually the case in such matters, the usual and some unusual suspects on the other side of the isle also agree with socialist Democrats and will vote for passage of socialist legislation without any serious review of the law they will impose on the people they are supposed to represent but who disagree with what they support by huge margins.
You may be unaware that the law they seek to enact is actually an amendment to Section 712 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Section 2705 of the Public Health Service Act and Section 9812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ostensibly “to require equity in the provision of mental health and substance-related disorder benefits under group health plans, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment, and for other purposes.” Imagine - the most extreme government take over of our economy in our history poses as an amendment to an employee retirement security law! However, to make it seem that law makers know what they’re doing, they label the monstrosity the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.”
The law these alarmists want to pass because “inaction is not an option” is 451 pages long. What are the chances each senator and each representative has read the proposed law? Can you picture the barely literate Reid or the unlikely Speaker Nancy Pelosi reading 451 pages of anything? Sad as it is for me to say, I can’t even imagine President Bush, an avid advocate for “doing something”, reading or even being fully aware of everything the bill contains.
The first thing everyone should know is that the bill establishes another bureaucracy, the "Office of Financial Stability" under the Treasury Department. Then consider some of the things in this “rush-to-judgment” bill now passed by the senate.
A boost in the FDIC deposit insurance cap to $250,000 from $100,000
A one-year "patch" to the alternative minimum tax
Optional insurance for mortgage-backed securities, with financial institutions paying premiums
Tax breaks for those impacted by natural disasters
A mental health parity provision providing insurance for mental illness
A Two-year extension of the research-and-development tax credit Although the energy portion of the Senate package was funded through limiting tax breaks to energy companies, other portions of the bill were not funded.
More specifically, some of the "earmarks" added -
TITLE V—ADDITIONAL TAX RELIEF AND OTHER TAX PROVISIONS
Sec. 502. Provisions related to film and television productions.
Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.
Sec. 504. Income averaging for amounts received in connection with the Exxon Valdez litigation.
TITLE III—EXTENSION OF BUSINESS TAX PROVISIONS
Sec. 308. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
Sec. 310. Extension of mine rescue team training credit.
Sec. 311. Extension of election to expense advanced mine safety equipment.
Sec. 312. Deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to domestic production activities in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 314. Indian employment credit.
Sec. 315. Accelerated depreciation for business property on Indian reservations. (Casinos)
Sec. 316. Railroad track maintenance.
Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motor sports racing track facility
Sec. 318. Expensing of environmental remediation costs.
Sec. 321. Enhanced deduction for qualified computer contributions.
Sec. 322. Tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia.
Sec. 325. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds.
Should anyone really familiar with this bill and everything that will become law upon passage vote for this bill? Are such things as the following essential to avoid a financial calamity?
A mental health parity provision providing insurance for mental illness
Provisions related to film and television productions.
Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.
Income averaging for amounts received in connection with the Exxon Valdez litigation.
Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
Extension of election to expense advanced mine safety equipment.
Extension of election to expense advanced mine safety equipment.
eduction allowable with respect to income attributable to domestic production activities in Puerto Rico.
Indian employment credit.
Accelerated depreciation for business property on Indian reservations. (Casinos).
Railroad track maintenance.
Seven-year cost recovery period for motor sports racing track facility.
Expensing of environmental remediation costs.
Enhanced deduction for qualified computer contributions.
Tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia.
Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds.
Not only does the bill contain such anomalous provisions as these, but the core of the bill, and the principal opposition to it, remain the same. This “bailout” would require the government to spend billions of dollars to buy bad mortgage-related securities and other devalued assets held by troubled financial institutions at higher than market prices. The bill does not contain offsetting spending cuts to pay for the increased spending in the bill (now estimated to be over $850 billion).
There are all sorts of “sweeteners” in the bill including plenty of obscure tax breaks to make the bill more palatable and gather support; but are they worthwhile? For example, can anyone explain how provisions added by the Senate to require large companies' health plans to give equal treatment to mental health or addiction if they cover such illnesses will help our credit crunch?
Law makers are duty-bound to know what they are voting on; that’s the least they owe those they represent. Congress should thoroughly explore alternatives to a government take-over of any part of the free market and certainly such a large segment as our financial system. The country will not collapse as advocates claim if law makers take more time to understand what they are doing and develop a law specific to correcting any deficiencies in our financial system without nonsensical provisions that have nothing to do with the matter at hand, add to our bureaucracy and increase government spending.
Vincent Gioia is a retired patent attorney living in Palm Desert, California. His articles may be read at http://www.vincentgioia.com/ and he may be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.
[If you want to get notice when a new article is posted, send an e-mail to email@example.com]
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Want some examples, how about the managers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Three former Fannie Mae executives who contributed to the current financial system debacle are Franklin Raines who was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae, Tim Howard who was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae and Jim Johnson who also was a CEO of Fannie Mae.
Franklin Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae after an audit discovered "severe irregularities" in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. According to the Wall street Journal at the time of his departure - " Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that ‘mistakes were made’ and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years.’ Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion."
Saying "mistakes were made" is like saying about Hitler’s killing millions of people that he made a "mistake"; not of course equating the heinousness of Hitler’s savagery against people with Raines savagery of our financial system but only the absurdity of the characterization. Reports in the press indicate the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books were cooked over a four year period and not in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Fannie Mae had to reduce its recorded surplus by $9 billion.
How was Raines penalized for this inexcusable rape of public money; Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits". The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of his thievery and the accounting scandal became clear.
Regarding the charges made, the government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner." These charges were made in 2006 when the Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits; thus leaving Raines with only $190 million in misbegotten gains.
Tim Howard, one of the former Chief Financial Officers of Fannie Mae, "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie, but he too was cooking the books. The government Investigation determined that, "Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,", another mild characterization of what Johnson actually did.
Richard Baker, R-La., on June 16, 2006, asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's Board of Directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004; thus obviously lying in their testimony. Was Johnson marched out in hand cuffs like a perp; no Howard was rewarded with a Golden Parachute estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson, another Chief Executive Officer of Fannie Mae, also performed as an executive at failed Lehman Brothers. Johnson too was forced out as Fannie Mae CEO. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae says that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public. Fannie Mae said Johnson’s compensation "was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Again, how was Johnson penalized, Johnson received a Golden Parachute estimated at $28 Million?
You might ask where Raines, Howard and Johnson are now; Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor, Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama and Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee?
When deciding who to vote for as President of the United States, why would you vote for Obama; the man who hired the people who abused the trust of the American people and walked away with millions of dollars instead of receiving the jail terms they deserved?
[If you want to get notice when a new article is posted, send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org]