Page loading...

Page Redirection If you are not redirected automatically, please visit our Facebook page

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Why Not to Elect Barack Obama

I woke up this morning and realized that America up and vanished on me like a fart in the wind. In the year 2008, we are on the cusp of electing the most unqualified candidate that has come to the plate in decades.

We’re on the verge of electing a candidate who advocates blatantly socialistic policies he describes as, “spreading the wealth,” policies “based on fairness” rather than personal liberty.

We are literally standing at the rim of a precipice, staring into an abyss that looks a whole lot like communism and not at all like free market capitalism.

Not only does the Democratic Nominee and Junior Senator of Illinois not have enough experience to lead, but he regularly and willfully lies, blatantly and openly deceives Americans about his dangerous past associations, and hides his suspiciously shady past.

I turn on my t.v. and the deafening bleating of the Obama Sheeple makes me want to ram my head through a cement wall. Never in my wildest dreams had I ever thought that the American populous was so ignorant, so unwilling to look at the facts, so easily swayed by sweeping generalizations and stump speeches that we would elect a socialist, Marxist, communist, racist, and unqualified candidate like Barack Hussein Obama.

What am I to do? The most I can do at this stage of my life is lay out the comprehensive case against Obama, as I see it, and hope that my voice, along with the millions of other dissenting voices in America, speaks loudly and truly enough to convince just enough people to help us overt this disaster in American history.

Why would electing any president be a disaster in an American system of government where we have a checks and balance system in place? Because there will be no check or balance on Barack Obama if he is elected President. Congress, who usually keeps the president's power in check, is being run by two of the most liberal politicians Washington has ever seen: Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House of Representatives) and Harry Reid (Majority Leader of the Senate).

These two talking heads have been in lock step with Obama since he announced he was running for the presidency and should Obama get elected, there will be nothing to stop his socialist agenda from wrecking American domestic policy, foreign policy, and our economy. Not only would there be no check on the radically liberal policies of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, but polls suggest that there won’t even be enough Republicans in the house to filibuster. This means that the items of the liberal agenda can pass, unchecked and unfettered.

Join me as we push the mute button on the liberal media for a while, and do some independent thinking of our own in an attempt to discover the truth about Barack Obama. This piece will be rather lengthy, so you might want to set aside enough multiple chunks of time to fully digest what follows. Keep in mind that this is a commentary on Barack Obama and his campaign. I will write a separate commentary on John McCain and his bid for the presidency in the coming days.

I will not be able to cover the endless number of inaccuracies projected by the Obama campaign in this one piece of writing. I will, however, do my best to cover the salient points.

Politicians are renowned for their tendency to deceive, mislead, and misrepresent the facts about their campaign proposals. Senator Obama is no different, he’s just better at it than most. No one has ever been so good at saying absolutely nothing as Barack Obama. And when he does say something, it’s usually false.

.:The Economy:.

Because the economy appears to be the number one issue on voter’s minds, let’s start with a discussion on Senator Obama’s economic policies.

Tax Policy:

Obama’s tax policy in his own words:

“It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

If you feel that Obama just misspoke when addressing the newly famous “Joe the Plumber,” here he is explaining his tax policy in the democratic primary:

Here he is explaining his theory that it was a tragedy during the civil rights movement that the Constitution was not ratified to force redistribution of WEALTH.

You’ve heard me call Obama’s policies socialist, and here is why. The dictionary defines socialism in the following way:

Socialism: (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

What are collectivist principles?
Adjective: Subscribing to the socialistic doctrine of ownership by the people collectively
Noun: A person who belongs to the political left

Simply put, socialism is a term referring to the political school of thought where national wealth is considered the property of the collective, to be distributed by the federal government. Such a school of thought isn’t just a transition to Communism, it is Communism.

Wikipedia put it well when it defines Communism in the following ways:

Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general… Communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism, a broad group of social and political ideologies, which draws on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution. Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems believed to be inherent with capitalist economies and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Communism states that the only way to solve these problems is for the working class, or proletariat, to replace the wealthy bourgeoisie, which is currently the ruling class, in order to establish a peaceful, free society, without classes, or government. The dominant forms of communism, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism are based on Marxism.

Here is obama’s tax policy as compared to John McCain’s.

Notice that Obama increases taxes on the top tax brackets, yet McCain provides tax cuts for EVERY American. Senator Obama loves to say that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. That sounds swell, but the fact of the matter is that Senator McCain’s plan provides extra tax cuts on TOP of the Bush tax cuts for EVERY American, not just 95%. Let us not forget the fact that between 30-40% of Americans don’t even pay an income tax and Obama’s plan would send checks to tens of millions of tax filers who pay no personal income taxes - payments that look suspiciously like welfare and blatantly like socialism.

As Obama says, “Let’s be clear,” The top 1% in this country already pays 38.89% of the nation’s income tax. The top 5%, the group Obama wants to tax more, currently pays 60.14% of the nation income tax. The bottom 50%, pay 2.99% of the national income tax, but the bottom 40% of the nation pay 0% of the national income tax. To be fair, the lower 40% does pay income taxes (10% of their checks), but they get that money back and then some with their tax returns. Meanwhile, those in the income bracket that will see tax increases from Obama, already pay more than 30% of their income to the federal government (not to mention higher estate, property, and capital gains taxes).

The cold hard truth is that, despite what Democratic VP Candidate Senator Joe Biden has said, those with more money ARE doing MORE than their part. The point is that the higher tax brackets are paying 10-25% MORE of their income than the lower tax brackets. "Well, they still have a lot of money left after that" isn't a sufficient argument because that extra money, as history has shown, usually gets invested and/ or is used to expand business which creates more jobs. As JFK said, “A raising tide floats all boats.”

Which is a point that seems to escape Barack Obama. Obama proposes handing lower income brackets a small tax credit/ rebate/ welfare/ “whatever you want to call it” check instead of providing them job opportunities. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, provide him the opportunity to fish himself and he can feed himself. It's a pretty straight forward philosophy. It is outright socialism to take money from people simply because they earn more, consequentially “bringing them down” by reducing their earned wealth, to “raise up” the poor.

Nowhere in our Constitution or Bill of rights is an American citizen guaranteed equal property and wealth. What we are guaranteed, rather, is equal OPPORTUNITY for equal property and wealth. The government exists to provide a basic and fundamental safety net for American citizens such that our rights are always protected. Equal wealth amongst citizens is NOT an American right, it’s a Communist tenant of liberal philosophy based on ill-conceived notions of “fairness.”

Generally speaking, people earn their money, and in this society ought to be allowed to keep the money THEY earn – at least as much of their money as any other citizen gets to keep. If an individual citizen wants to give an excessive amount of their income to charity, it ought to be up to that citizen’s discretion which charity will benefit from his/her hard-earned money. This is not a prerogative granted to the Federal Government by any American law.

The Washington Times summarizes Obama’s tax plan succinctly:

“Mr. Obama's campaign promise, which he has repeated in his speeches and in the presidential debates, stems from his ‘Making Work Pay’ tax cut that will give a $500 refundable tax credit to every worker or $1,000 to each working couple. But because this provision in his economic-recovery plan is ‘refundable,’ a large number of middle- to lower-income workers who have no income-tax liability after taking tax credits and deductions the that Internal Revenue Service allows, will be given the equivalent of the tax cut in the form of direct payments from the U.S. Treasury - funded by higher-income taxpayers.

Because the IRS says that nearly 46 million tax filers - one-third of all filers - had no tax liability in 2006, there is the question of how millions of Americans can receive an income ‘tax cut’ when they pay no taxes.

‘It's got to raise alarm bells when you claim you are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of working families when more than 40 percent of them pay no income taxes,’ said Phil Kerpen, policy director at Americans for Prosperity, a grass-roots free-market advocacy group.

‘What he (Obama) is really talking about doing is mailing a check, and to me, that looks more like a welfare program than the kind of real tax relief that would encourage work, savings and investments,’ Mr. Kerpen said.”

Now, all of these criticisms are only valid if you take the junior senator at his word, and believe that he will stick to his campaign promises. If history has taught us anything, it is that we should be skeptical of Democratic candidates who promise tax cuts.

When running for president, Bill Clinton said, as Barack Obama is saying now:

“...I’ve offered a comprehensive plan...[that] starts with a tax cut for the middle class.”
-Bill Clinton, in his first campaign ad, January 1992

“We will lower the tax burden on the middle class...”
-Bill Clinton, in Putting People First, September 1992

“I will not raise taxes on the middle class.”
-Bill Clinton, October 19, 1992

“From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the press thought the most important issue in the race was the middle class tax cut. I never did meet any voter who thought that.”
-Bill Clinton, January 14, 1993

So what happened? After taking office, the 1993 Clinton tax hike was the largest tax increase in the history of public finance in the United States or anywhere else in the world. This should concern voters given that Obama has regularly compared his tax policies to those of Bill Clinton.

There is one distinct difference between what Bill Clinton did and what Barack Obama proposes to do. The 1990s experienced the largest economic boom in our nation’s history in direct response to the market innovations created by computer technology and the dot com boom. Currently, in Obama’s own words, "We are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.” Clinton raised taxes when the economy was booming, Obama proposes to do it while we are in a recession. The last president that did that was, as Senator John McCain points out, Herbert Hoover.

The lesson we learned from Hoover’s tax increase was that increasing taxes when in a recession is perhaps the quickest way to start a depression. The Revenue Act of 1932 was, at the time, the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. The top tax brackets began paying a tax rate that went from 25 percent to 63 percent – a shockingly similar number to the tax rates that would nail New Yorkers and Californians should Obama’s proposed tax increases take hold. Economists agree this was one of the worst, ill-informed things Herbert Hoover did during his presidency.

But, again, all of this is only relevant if you just take Obama at his word. So as bad as the case is, even as Obama presents it, it may be even worse. Obama has never, in his entire legislative career, proposed an all-around tax decrease. Of the rare times when he has supported any form of tax decreases, those same proposals also called for tax increases on the wealthy. Whether or not he voted exactly “94 times to increase taxes,” is irrelevant. I don’t care what the exact number is, what I care is that Obama has consistently voted to support tax increases or against tax decreases. On the rare occasions when he has actually supported some marginal level of tax decrease, it has been in keeping with his socialist principles whereby those who pay little-to-no taxes get a decrease in their rate (or an increase on their welfare check depending on how you look at it) and those who pay a disproportionate amount of their taxes would experience an even greater increase in tax rate.

And this is all just in relation to Obama’s income tax proposal. He also supports “raising the cap” on the capital gains tax and payroll tax, has proposed a “global poverty tax,” increasing the estate tax, death tax, property tax, corporate tax and social security tax. He also supported a cap and trade bill on carbon emissions which, by EPA and Energy Information Administration estimatations, would raise gas prices by at least $1.50 a gallon and energy prices by $325 a year, while decreasing the GDP by about 3 TRILLIOn dollars. It’s no wonder that on days when Obama increases his lead in the polls, those with a vested interest in capital gains begin to sell their stocks to protect them from his excessive tax policies – policies which propose a near doubling of the current rate.

^ Source

It’s also no surprise that American companies are outsourcing when this country taxes corporations more than any other country except Japan – yet Obama wants to increase these rates further. The average combined federal and state corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.3 percent while Japan’s combined rate of 39.5%. In addition, Obama Opposes free trade agreements and wants to re-negotiate NAFTA—the same anti-free-trade approach that helped start the Great Depression.

If you support the oxymoron of “building the economy from the ground up,” consider this: A couple hundred dollars, garnered from Obama’s tax cuts, used by a citizen to pay bills and buy groceries sounds nice. What doesn’t sound nice is the hike in the unemployment rate which will result from the excessive taxes (income, corporate, and otherwise) that Obama would impose on the majority of people who create jobs. What he proposes is a method of redistributing wealth that is intended to appear Robin Hood-esk, but is really more Marxist.

The idea that the lower tax brackets spending their rebate/ welfare money on common goods (while we are in a recession) will be enough to offset the losses suffered by companies as a result of the excessively disproportionate tax structure advocated by Obama, is not only ludicrous, but it’s inherently false. Clinton was only able to increase taxes in the 1990s because the economy was experiencing an innovation boom and, as a result, was strong enough to off-set the corporate losses. As soon as the 1990s innovation boom receded, the economy under President Clinton began receding as well at the end of his term (before President George W. Bush took office). President Hoover offered us a dramatically poignant and relevant example of what happens when taxes, of any kind, are increased during a recession. I can think of no better analogy to address the flawed logic of Obama’s tax policy.

The History of Socialism and why it Never Works:

President Ronald Reagan discusses the difference between socialism and capitalism:

Mark J. Perry of the Foundation for economic Education summarizes the flaws and history of socialism up beautifly here.

“Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!

Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don't matter!

In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China. At the time of our debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it, I asked him, that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the "evil capitalist empire" when they were only 50 miles from the "workers' paradise" of Cuba?

The Marxist admitted that many "socialist" countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing "pure" socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn't work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.

If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system--socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism--would work perfectly.

However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources. In a world of scarcity it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to promote economic efficiency. The real choice we face is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available.

The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.


The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don't appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency.

For example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s, oil prices rose dramatically. The higher prices for oil and gasoline transmitted valuable information to both buyers and sellers. Consumers received a strong, clear message about the scarcity of oil by the higher prices at the pump and were forced to change their behavior dramatically. People reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil. In addition, higher oil prices gave producers an incentive to explore and develop alternative fuel and energy sources.

The information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource.

The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price.

Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed. As Milton Friedman pointed out at the time, we could have eliminated the lines at the pump in one day by allowing the price to rise to clear the market.

From our experience with price controls on gasoline and the long lines at the pump and general inconvenience, we get an insight into what happens under socialism where every price in the economy is controlled. The collapse of socialism is due in part to the chaos and inefficiency that result from artificial prices. The information content of a controlled price is always distorted. This in turn distorts the incentives mechanism of prices under socialism. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses. Market prices are the only way to transmit information that will create the incentives to ensure economic efficiency.

Profits and Losses

Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.

By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.

Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated.

Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.

Private Property Rights

A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a "tragedy of commons" on a global scale.

The "tragedy of the commons" refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.

When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement.

Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the "common ownership of the means of production," the failure of socialism is a "tragedy of the commons" on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights.

As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto remarked, you can travel in rural communities around the world and you will hear dogs barking, because even dogs understand property rights. It is only statist governments that have failed to understand property rights. Socialist countries are just now starting to recognize the importance of private property as they privatize assets and property in Eastern Europe.

Incentives Matter

Without the incentives of market prices, profit-and-loss accounting, and well-defined property rights, socialist economies stagnate and wither. The economic atrophy that occurs under socialism is a direct consequence of its neglect of economic incentives.

No bounty of natural resources can ever compensate a country for its lack of an efficient system of incentives. Russia, for example, is one of the world's wealthiest countries in terms of natural resources; it has some of the world's largest reserves of oil, natural gas, diamonds, and gold. Its valuable farm land, lakes, rivers, and streams stretch across a land area that encompasses 11 time zones. Yet Russia remains poor. Natural resources are helpful, but the ultimate resources of any country are the unlimited resources of its people--human resources.

By their failure to foster, promote, and nurture the potential of their people through incentive-enhancing institutions, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of full development. Socialism fails because it kills and destroys the human spirit--just ask the people leaving Cuba in homemade rafts and boats.

As the former centrally planned economies move toward free markets, capitalism, and democracy, they look to the United States for guidance and support during the transition. With an unparalleled 250-year tradition of open markets and limited government, the United States is uniquely qualified to be the guiding light in the worldwide transition to freedom and liberty.

We have an obligation to continue to provide a framework of free markets and democracy for the global transition to freedom. Our responsibility to the rest of the world is to continue to fight the seductiveness of statism around the world and here at home. The seductive nature of statism continues to tempt and lure us into the Barmecidal illusion that the government can create wealth.

The temptress of socialism is constantly luring us with the offer: "give up a little of your freedom and I will give you a little more security." As the experience of this century has demonstrated, the bargain is tempting but never pays off. We end up losing both our freedom and our security.

Programs like socialized medicine, welfare, social security, and minimum wage laws will continue to entice us because on the surface they appear to be expedient and beneficial. Those programs, like all socialist programs, will fail in the long run regardless of initial appearances. These programs are part of the Big Lie of socialism because they ignore the important role of incentives.

Socialism will remain a constant temptation. We must be vigilant in our fight against socialism not only around the globe but also here in the United States.

The failure of socialism inspired a worldwide renaissance of freedom and liberty. For the first time in the history of the world, the day is coming very soon when a majority of the people in the world will live in free societies or societies rapidly moving towards freedom.

Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.

The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.”
Socialism, like Barack Obama, promises the world. It offers the hand of righteous equity to smite oppressive unfairness. It suggests that the fat cats of society do not do their part to pay back the society that allowed for their success. This all sounds spiffy, in theory. However, socialism has never, ever succeeded and there is a reason for this: it does NOT work.

Say what you will about the short comings of capitalism, but for as much as capitalism may or may not be to blame for the periodic yet infrequent recessions in our economy, it has everything to do with what had made America the msot successful economic country in the world.

I've had friends tell me that I’ll “just have to get over it,” that somehow, we’re “going to have to incorporate socialism anyway.” I say, the day we become a socialist society is the day we stop being America. The day we look a man or woman in the eye, who has made every effort to succeed and say, “Congratulations, you’ve done well. Now give me the fruits of your labor and sacrafice so that I can reward someone who hasn’t earned it,” is the day we spit in the faces of every person that has died to keep this country free and out of the hands of an oppressive government.

“But Seth,” you might say, ”socialism isn’t evil. It’s quite well intentioned. There’s nothing wrong with trying to help those who cannot help themselves.” To which I would respond: So let me get this straight. Someone who has not succeeded gets a chunk of the income of someone who has. And this is fairness because… why? Because if everyone shares the national wealth we’re all equal? Human beings are NOT equal my friend. We have equal rights and equal opportunity, but the great promise of America is not that we will all walk away with an equal piece of the pie, but that any one American citizen, boy, girl, young, old, educated, uneducated, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, European, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, gay, straight, handicapped or otherwise has an equal opportunity to get as much of the pie as any other American.

Human beings are NOT equal in their capacity for success. The most a government should do, an American government anyway, is provide an equal chance for success. Socialism doesn’t create equality of opertunity to the struggling, its nothing more than the modern-day equivalent of the Roman Games held in the coliseums, whereby the impoverished masses were tricked into forgetting their plight through temporary entertainment and free hand outs of food tossed into the stands. The Roman people loved their emperor during the games, they felt entertained and their bellies were full from the free bread tossed at them like scraps tossed to a pack of dogs. But when the games were over, and the Roman people went home, there life was no better. They ate for free for a day or two, but they still had no work, no source of income, and no way of improving their state of living after the games were over.

Socialism is no different. It offers temporary hand outs to the impoverished masses to trick them into thinking that their state of living will be improved. It neglects to point out that in a world where everyone owns everything, no one owns anything. It fails to mention that when you punish success and effort, there’s no reason to succeed or try. It refrains from telling the people that the free bread for which they have begged so incessantly will come at the cost of jobs and personal freedom.

What of the “fat cats?” Can they not afford to do more? Sure… for a period of time; until they are no longer fat cats themselves and unable to sustain their means of success. Then they, like those they have “helped,” are tossed down into the masses to beg for scraps from someone else’s table. This is why socialism has always worked in its initial stages, but eventually crashes and burns on an epic level before it's all said and done.

What if you succeed and you decide that you don’t want to give more of your money to someone who didn’t earn it? What if you want to keep what you made and spend it on what you want to spend it on, donate where you want to donate, and save where you want to save? Well, then the government will come, at the point of an IRS and police-enforced gun and throw you in jail for tax evasion.

Some have claimed that they don't support socialism, per say, but more of an inclusion of socialist principles into our economic approach. We already have a "mixed system of government." The top 5% pay 60% of the income tax. We have excessive taxes on every sort of success in this country already. That sure isn't fundamentally capitalist... and Obama promises to make the taxes on success even higher. Any more "mixing" of socialism into our economic approach and we cease to be either capitalist or "mixed," we will have an outright socialist economy on our hands. The concern here isn't that Obama is going to "mix in socialism" with our economy, but that he and the democratic congress would move our economy even closer to a fundamentally socialist approach - a model which has been proven to fail.

If this doesn’t scare you, if this doesn’t seem wrong or misplaced to you, what are you doing in America? Why in the world would you chose to live in one of the only relatively capitalist societies in the world, when there are any number of socialist ones from which to chose?

When America sneezes the rest of the world gets a cold. Why? Because we are the hub of global economics. Why? Because of our capitalism, where any amount of success is possible and REWARDED. If you take away a huge part of what it is that makes America unique, and replace it with the failed theories of socialism, we are no longer America. We are sacrificing our personal freedom, liberties, and success for the temporary and empty promise of “fairness.”

Spending and National Debt:

The term “tax and spend liberal,” is an old adage that has been applied to democrats since before JFK. Let us look at the spending of our federal government on an annual basis to investigate this claim.

Suppose you want to spend more money this month than your income. This situation is called a "budget deficit". So you borrow. The amount you borrowed (and now owe) is called your debt. You have to pay interest on your debt. If next month you don't have enough money to cover your spending (another deficit), you must borrow some more, and you'll still have to pay the interest on the debt. If you have a deficit every month, you keep borrowing and your debt grows. Soon the interest payment on your loan is bigger than any other item in your budget. Eventually, all you can do is pay the interest payment, and you don't have any money left over for anything else. This situation is known as bankruptcy.

Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than its income. The Treasury Department has to borrow money to meet Congress's appropriations. The total borrowed is more than $10,000,000,000,000 and growing. Even when government officials claim to have a surplus, they still spend more than they get. We continue to pay interest on that huge debt.

Since Nixon, Republican President's have had 17/ 27 years of Democratic Senate, and 21/27 years of a Democratic House opposing their reduced spending agendas. That means that, around 2/3 of the time, Democrats have been there mucking up the works for Republican presidents, petitioning for big bill spending. This all falls on the point John McCain has been making about partisanship - that each party, especially the democrats (who, with control of the senate have the lowest approval rating of any federal government branch in American history) are more concerned with getting credit and glory for their party than they are in benefitting the country. Politicians don’t like approving the proposals of a president of another party because they simply don't want to make it look like the opposing party is doing something right. It's handicapping our entire government and has been for decades.

Now, that aside, if you want to look at government spending, adjusted for inflation, per presidential term/ year, you'll see a few things regarding the time period you referenced. 1) wars are part of government spending 2) spending has gone up, per capita, generally, each year - this makes sense because more people require more strain on government spending 3) the increase in spending has steadily inclined, regardless of Presidential party, year after year. These are our standards.

Now, to the facts: Clinton's policies were very effective at the time because of the innovations (internet/ dot com boom) and market booms taking place during the 1990s. As soon as the economy settled, however, our surplus took a hit and we went into a recession right before Bush took office. In good times, you can afford to kill corporations with heavy taxes because there are more jobs than people. In a recession, or in tight times, Reganomics is the way to go - it's just an economic fact. In the year where Nixon "stepped down" because of his scandals and Ford stepped up, we experienced the largest % rise in spending that we would see from 1969 to present day. Most feel that this is because Ford was ineffective in fighting the Democratic house and congress of his time. In either case, it's only the 4th largest increase overall in government spending. Democratic presidents have the highest three increases.

Aside from that, I think the best indication of party policy is to look at those instances where each party held the presidency, house and senate and then look at their spending. In the 19 times the democrats have managed this trifecta since 1947, they have increased government spending FOURTEEN times for a grand total of 93.03% (this averages in the couple years of decreased spending and is adjusted for inflation and set per capita). By comparison, there have only been two years in the same time period where republicans have held all three branches, but they had a total spending CUT of 13.68%. In other words, for every year that the Democrats have controlled the senate, house, and presidency they have increased government spending by an annual average of 4.9% and Republicans have cut spending by an average of 6.84%. That's nearly a 12% swing.

Let's now take the last 5 presidencies of each party and compare them shall we? I'd do more but I only have stats going back to 1947 and FDR ended his term in 45 - also keep in mind that I only have stats to 2003 as well, so this doesn't include all of G.W. Bush's info either. The last 5

Republican presidents were:
George W. Bush (just 2 years of recorded spending per capita, adjusted for inflation)
George H. W. Bush (4 years)
Ronald Reagan (8 years)
Richard Nixon / Gerald R. Ford (8 years)
Dwight D. Eisenhower (8 years)

The last 5 Democratic presidents were:
Bill Clinton (8 years)
Jimmy Carter (4 years)
John F. Kennedy (3 years)
Lyndon B. Johnson (5 years)
Harry S. Truman (6 years of recorded government spending per capita, adjusted for inflation)

30 republican Presidential years, 26 democratic.

During the 30 Republican years, there was a total of 42.26% in increased spending (with 4 more years factored into this than the democrats mind you), that's just a 1.44% increase per year that a Republican held the presidency, including 4/5 of the largest spending cuts recorded in this period.During those 26 Democratic years, there was a total of 107.19% in increased spending, that's a 4.5% increase in spending per year that a Democrat held the presidency, including the THREE highest spending increases outright during this period.

Of the seven highest spending increases since 1947, A democratic president has been behind SIX (6/7) of them. Once again, that's 1.44% average increase per year for a Republican president, and an average 4.5% increase in spending per year for a Democratic president. So no, it isn't just republican "rhetoric" to say the Democrats “tax and spend.” A republican president = less government spending = less deficit = a better chance at decreasing national debt.These recent Bush wars, and all wars in general, cost an exponential amount and increased national debt. However, people are forgetting the comparative party facts.

Of particular relevance to this election is the statistic relating to instances where the democrats held the presidency, house and senate – a situation we would face should Barack Obama be elected. Historically, statistically, factually, empirically… when a democratic president is put in place with a democratic house and senate, spending goes through the roof. This extends beyond simply asking for an excessive amount of pork barrel earmarks as a senator. This feeds directly into the idea that Barack Obama wants to increase taxes during a recession, but also proposes nearly a trillion dollars in new spending proposals for his presidential term. This, by definition, makes him a “tax and spend liberal.”

At a time when we are over 10 trillion dollars in debt to countries that are also suffering through tough economic times themselves, big government spending represents a serious security and stability risk to our economy. Should China, for example, decide to call in our debt, many American companies and interests will find themselves foreign-owned. Which would only create a self-perpetuating cycle of debt as the return on our exports would necessarily depreciate.

Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 36. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.5%. In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%. In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.2% per year. However, war spending directly correlates to government borrowing. Until the wars of the 60s, the two parties were virtually even in their debt increase rates. So, the most that can be said of national debt being related to Republican presidents is that in the past 50 years, Republicans have held the presidency when America is at war. Therefore, the debt association is indirect at best and excludes the consideration of which party actually held the purse strings while sitting in congress.

What is of concern, however, is an exacerbation of the current national debt problem. While war spending/ borrowing is massive at this point in American history, the Iraq war is tapering off and it will soon be dramatically reduced. Irrespective of this, even if the war spending stayed exactly the same, Obama’s spending policies are far greater than the sum of the cost of the Iraq war and the amount he expects to collect in taxes (not to mention the GDP hit we’ll experience when his tax increases take effect in the same ways that Hoover’s did before the Great Depression).

One TRILLION dollars in increased spending, on top of our existent spending, will not be covered by Obama’s tax proposals (which unto themselves will only hurt the economy) nor the ending of the Iraq War. There is nothing in Obama’s proposals to suggest that he would decrease the national debt, and in fact all estimates suggest that he will increase the national debt by 3.5 trillion. But this is just at face value, it does not take into affect the negative impact Obama’s tax policies will have on the economy unto themselves.


There’s been a lot of fuss from Obama stating that the “failed economic policies of George Bush, supported by John McCain,” are responsible for the recent economic problems. I will offer a video that addresses the current economic crisis in a later section, but what I would like to discuss here is the idea posited by Barack Obama that “We just can’t afford more of the same,” specifically as it pertains to the unemployment rate.

Under Bush, the economy produced 6.6 million new jobs from January 2001 through December of 2006 based on nonfarm payroll figures collected by the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics. The US has also gained 4.6 million jobs since 2003. Jobs HAVE been created, and there is not the mass exodus that many leftist media outlets would have you believe.

The Bush unemployment rate has been lower, ON AVERAGE, throughout his 8 years than it was during Clinton's 8 years. And that's an empirical fact, no amount of slant or bias can change it. Even with the recent spike in unemployment, Bush STILL has a lower average unemployment rate, per year, than Clinton. The Bush administration has not produced as many jobs as the Clinton administration, but, yet again, there is something to be said for their different circumstances. Clinton did not oversee a major war and had the luxury of the dot com boom and computer innovations to bolster his economic success. A high school student could have run a successful economic campaign in the 1990s.

The most anyone can really do with respect to the unemployment rate is look at each presidency, the difficulties or benefits experienced by that presidency, and then judge that presidential term's average unemployment rate based on those factors. Given that Bush has had worse conditions with which to deal, but has maintained a lower level of unemployment, we can, in the very least, say that he has done a good job in regards to unemployment. Especially when you consider that our economy is producing more jobs than it ever has.

Therefore, when Mccain came out and said that the “fundamentals of the economy are strong,” the Obama campaign jumped all over the statement, labeling McCain as “out of touch” and “four more years of the same.” First, McCain has said that what he meant was that American innovation and work ethic are the fundamentals of our economy and he considers those to be strong despite what happens to the stock market. Second, Obama is merely fear mongering and using the current economic strife as a political launch pad for his campaign. The long and the short of the matter is that our unemployment rate is steady and under control despite Obama’s appeal for the need for “change.” In truth, the recent steady (albeit gradual) increase in unemployment did not start until a couple months AFTER the democrats took over Congress in 2006; hence why congress has an even lower approval rating than Bush.

^ Source

The Current Economic Crises:

"Community Redevelopment Act"… enough said…

These videos do a marvelous job of explaining the facts and figures, let me add some context.

Let’s look at this plainly. This economic crisis has been a God-send for Obama. He was trailing in the polls – despite the dramatic American dislike of the incumbent Republican Party – but as soon as the stock market took a dive, Obama took the lead in the polls. Why? As I have shown above, it clearly is not because he has sounder economic policies. No, it’s much simpler than that.

When there is trepidation in the population, they want to be reassured. Throwing numbers, percentages, and trends at them does not reassure them. What does reassure them is pointing the finger of blame, and promising them the world. Obama understood this and acted in accordance with masterful skill. Ignoring the actual history of housing and loan regulation, he came out with a blanket argument that was simple and easy to understand: “It was Republican deregulation, supported by George Bush and John McCain, that caused our problems.” Sounds simple enough, right? And then he promised to “fix the problem,” “help hurting families,” and “create jobs.” When the stock market takes a dive, people panic. They want quick responses that feel good. No one makes simple-to-understand, yet empty and generalized promises as well as Barack Obama.

In contrast, the republican response was, as the above video shows, far more complex and thoughtful. As a result, it took far longer for the general populous to digest. It seems, however, as the gap in the polls close, that Americans are finally starting to see through the Obama smoke screen.


If elected, Barack Obama would be the least qualified president in the history of the United States of America. His thin resume is bad enough, but the history behind his thin record is even worse.

Obama’s Inexperience as a Legislator:

Before announcing his bid for the presidency, Obama’s political experience consisted of two years in the U.S. Senate, seven years in the Illinois Senate, and one loss in a primary election for the U.S. House of Representatives. That’s it.

What SIGNIFICANT bill, legislation, or reform has he written in any political capacity that would qualify him to be president of the United States? If you could answer that, you should work for his campaign because it’s a question they’ve been dodging since he decided he would run for president.

To be fair, though, his name does appear on quite a bit of legislation. If you take just this latest session of congress, as most Obama supporters like to do, Obama’s name actually appears on far more legislation than McCain’s (130:38). And if you look at all four years of his senator term, he’s proposed around 265 bills. Sounds good right? Well, that’s the thing with Obama. He tends to make things that aren’t good sound as if they are.

Of the 265 bills Obama has proposed, how many were formally passed? JUST TWO. 2/265.

He sponsored the ''Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2005." The bill was passed in 2006. Sound significant for improving America? No? That’s probably because it isn’t.

The second time a bill “proposed” by Obama passed, was when he co-sponsored the “Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act.” What does it mean to co-sponsor a bill? It means someone else writes the bill, you like what they wrote, and you offer to help get it pushed through congress. For your efforts, your name gets tacked onto the bill as a “co-sponsor.” The fact of the matter is that this bill would have passed with or without Obama.

In some instances “co-sponsor” means that multiple legislators put their heads together to write a bill collectively. This was not the case with this transparency act. Senator Tom Coburn wrote and proposed the bill, Obama co-sponsored ex-post facto.

And so concludes the accomplishments of Barack Obama’s legislative career. One bill that he wrote, and another he co-sponsored; neither of which significantly improved America.

But, in fairness, a legislator doesn’t just write bills, they vote on them too. As a state legislator, Obama voted “present” once out of every 31 votes he cast (for a total of 130 times) to avoid being held accountable for controversial votes. In the 110th congress alone, he has 309 “No Votes.” That means that he has not voted on the issues presented in the senate in this past year over 46% of the time. It seems his meticulously ambiguous nature extends beyond his non-answers on the campaign trail.

In terms of his claims that he has a “record of reaching across the aisle,” as a US senator, he voted with the Democratic Party 96% of the time. That was on just 46 occasions. He voted “present” more times as a state senator than he voted against his party as a US senator. By comparison, McCain, who has been painted by Obama as, “Four more years of the same failed policies,” only voted with the Republican Party 88% of the time. Only eight other senators have voted with their party more than Obama, one of them is Joe Biden (96.7%). One can easily make a strong argument that such a partisan ticket is dangerous for the well being of a country that will have an overwhelming democratic majority in both the senate and the house.

On top of all of this, on six different occasions in the US senate, he has cast a vote, realized the measure had enough votes to pass without his vote, and then had his vote stricken from the record so that he would not be held accountable in either direction. So much for “accountability and transparency…”

What was his justification for needing to have his vote stricken? He said, “I was trying to vote yes, and I was recorded as voting no.” As a senator, you have three buttons in front of you. One for “yes,” one for “no” and one to “abstain.” Are we really going to give the ability to push the “big red button” to a man who has pushed the wrong one three separate times? That is his job for christ’s sake! That’s what he is there to do, push one of those three buttons, or write something for other people to push buttons/ vote on.

He’s only written one bill that’s been passed into law, he has only ever co-sponsored one bill that has been passed into law, he has not voted 46% of the time, when he does vote he either just votes with his party or he casts a vote and says it was an accident.

So, I ask you yet again, what has Barack Obama ever done as a politician to qualify him to be the President of the United States? There is not a single remarkable aspect about his political record. We are about to elect a man into the highest political position in the country, and he has literally done NOTHING in the legislative arena… nothing.

And, in addition to all his outright failures as a legislator, he also broke the law as a state senator. Under Illinois State Ethics law, a state senator is not allowed to accept payment for public speeches. On his tax returns during the time period when he was a state senator, there are at least three instances were he notes have received money for speaking. Here is some more information about this.

Obama’s Inexperience as an Executive:

If one wants to speak about Obama’s executive experience, he has three main executive references on his resume. I’ll address five to be generous. Here they are in order of importance.

1) He was hired by domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, to serve as Chairmen of the Board for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 1999:

This was Obama’s first “real” job straight out of community organizing. He started working for Ayers three years after Sarah Palin started her work with her city council. It would seem odd to most that Obama, with no other prior executive or political experience, would be elected the chairman of a board which was designed to distribute more than $100 million. He literally went from college, to community organizer, to chairman of a multi-million dollar board with no stesp in between. Yet Obama discounts his relationship with Ayers, who hired Obama to the position, as merely “working on a board together.”

The Wall Street Journal did a wonderful piece on the Ayers/Obama/ Chicago Annenberg Challenge connection. Here is an excerpt:

Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.

The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home.
Did anyone else notice that Obama started his political career in Ayers’ home at the same time that Ayers had just given him his first job? I just thought I’d point that out. Back to the WSJ article:

The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I've recently spent days looking through them....

The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto....

CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Mr. Obama once conducted "leadership training" seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama's early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement....

Sorry to interrupt again, but does this connection ring any bells? Is it not odd that Obama would go on from working with Ayers, who gave money to radically left organizations like Acorn, to working for Acorn, to running for president and having ACORN illegally register fraudulent forms in an attempt to false boost his perceived “favor” in the American public in an attempt to discourage McCain voter turn out? Yet, Obama claims to have no ties to Acorn or Ayers.

Mr. Ayers's defenders claim that he has redeemed himself with public-spirited education work. That claim is hard to swallow if you understand that he views his education work as an effort to stoke resistance to an oppressive American system. He likes to stress that he learned of his first teaching job while in jail for a draft-board sit-in. For Mr. Ayers, teaching and his 1960s radicalism are two sides of the same coin....

The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming "guilt by association." Yet the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.
Oh but it gets better. Stanley Kurtz of the National review online had this to say of Obama’s first executive job:

The Obama camp denies CAC’s radicalism by pointing to the fact that this foundation was funded by Nixon Ambassador and Reagan friend, Walter Annenberg. Moderates and Republicans often support Annenberg activities, it’s true. Yet the story of modern philanthropy is largely the story of moderate and conservative donors finding their funds “captured” by far more liberal, often radical, beneficiaries. CAC’s story is a classic of the genre. Ayers and Obama guided CAC money to community organizers, like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and the Developing Communities Project (Part of the Gamaliel Foundation network), groups self-consciously working in the radical tradition of Saul Alinsky. Walter Annenberg’s personal politics don’t change that one iota.

The fact that Ayers and other tenured radicals hold power at our universities is in no way negated by the presence of Republican appointees on university boards of trustees. Ayers’s radicalism is undeniable. He remains unapologetic for his bombings of the 1960s. Even now, he refuses to rule out violence as a resort. His education writings are deeply politicized and filled with exhortations to “resist” America’s racist and oppressive social system. In 2006 — along with his wife and fellow former-terrorist, Bernardine Dohrn, and Jeff Jones — Ayers released, Sing A Battle Song, a collection of intensely radical writings from the Weather Underground. Ayers makes it clear in that book that, while he is embarrassed by some of the Weather Underground’s rhetoric, he still adheres to the same ideas. Beyond its strictly historical interest, Ayers and his co-editors make a point of hoping that their old writings would be “of use to new generations of militant activists and organizers.” By directing CAC funds to groups like ACORN and the Developing Communities Project of the Gamaliel Foundation, Ayers was supporting just such militant activists and organizers....

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge stands as Barack Obama’s most important executive experience to date. By its own account, CAC was a largely a failure. And a series of critical evaluations point to reasons for that failure, including a poor strategy, to which the foundation over-committed in 1995, and over-reliance on community organizers with insufficient education expertise. The failure of CAC thus raises entirely legitimate questions, both about Obama’s competence, his alliances with radical community organizers, and about Ayers’s continuing influence over CAC and its board, headed by Obama. Above all, by continuing to fund Ayers’s personal projects, and those of his political-educational allies, Obama was lending moral and material support to Ayers’s profoundly radical efforts. Ayers’s terrorist history aside, that makes the Ayers-Obama relationship a perfectly legitimate issue in this campaign.
2) He was a “community organizer” (Rezco, Alinsky):

Obama got this position by answering a help-wanted ad for the position of community organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago. Obama was 24 years old, unmarried, and according to his memoir, “searching for a genuine African-American community.”

In terms of actual accomplishments while in this position, Obama and “hundreds of other organizers” were not able to transform the South Side neighborhoods for which they were charged with “organizing.” They did not bring in new industries to provide jobs, as they promised. Obama’s most commonly cited achievement was that the group for which he worked managed to convince the city of Chicago to begin testing for asbestos in all city apartments. When asked about his performance as a community organizer, Obama said, “I can’t say we didn’t make mistakes, (or) that I knew what I was doing.”

Meanwhile, as Obama claimed to be keeping fat cats honest and accountable to their communities, he was accepting campaign funding from Antoin Rezko, who wasn’t paying utility bills for his tenents, many of whom lived in Obama’s IL state senate district. This is, of course, the same Rezko that Obama lives next door to, and the same Rezko who purchased his house on the exact same day as Obama at a similarly suspicious discount price. Within a mile of the two next-door neighbors lives Ayers. But, again, Obama claims that these are all just people he has happened across in the Chicago political landscape.

As an article on the American Thinker pointed out, “Both the CCRC and the DCP were built on the Alinsky model of community agitation, wherein paid organizers learned how to ‘rub raw the sores of discontent,’ in Alinsky's words.” What has Obama done in this election but “rub raw the sores of American discontent” with Bush? His entire campaign hinges on the idea of “change,” which carries within it a certain intrinsic suggestion that anything is better than what we’ve had. And while this is obviously not true for multiple reasons (experiencing the highest ever GDP in American history a year ago and not suffering a single domestic terrorist attack since 9/11 to name a couple examples), Obama has explicitly said, “anything is better than what we’ve had.” Rub raw the sores of discontent indeed! No wonder Obama says his days as a community organizer are “the best education he ever got.”

Obama’s first mentor was an organizer named Mike Kruglik, who says Obama was “the best student he ever had.”

Said Kruglik of Obama, “He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards….he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.”

Obama has said that one of the lessons he drew from his organizing days is that in politics, what really moves things isn’t public interest or grand principles, but “money and votes and power.” That should speak volumes about the type of politician Barack Obama is, and if you don’t think he adheres to this type of policy, look at the type of campaign he has run. He has merely thrown money in every direction in overwhelming and record-breaking amounts, spending more than any politician in history. When both Obama and McCain were behind in their respective primaries, they both agreed not to take public financing. When things got rough for Obama, he reversed his position on that promise to expedite his political career. McCain has stuck with his word, for better or worse. The point is (besides that Obama is a liar who doesn’t keep his promises) is that he equates political power to getting votes, and he thinks you can get votes if you throw enough money an advertising at people. That, my friends, is precisely my point. He has simply been throwing money and empty verbiage around like its candy and this country is so desperate to have someone who isn’t W. in the white house that we’re eating it up.

So despite the fact that he accomplished absolutely nothing as a community organizer, he was promoted to state senator by the radical friends and associates. It’s no wonder that Obama cites his community organizing days as most important to his career, those were the days when he made the associations that would launch his political career and found his political philosophies.

3) He has overseen his political campaign:

I almost can’t even bring myself to fully dissect this point…
let’s forget that Obama accepted the second most from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of any senator and that one of his campaign advisors was a Fannie Mae CEO,
let’s forget all the ties to Acorn and voter fraud and that his campaign gave them $800,000 rather recently,
let’s forget that three political aides on Obama’s payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign,
let’s forget that Obama promised not to accept money from PACs and lobbiests but Obama's campaign finance records show that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant,
let’s just forget the multitude of broken campaign promises, flip flops, position reversals and revisions,
and let’s forget the fact that if “running a political campaign” were a legitimate qualification for the presidency, anyone who ever ran would be qualified merely by virtue of running.

It speaks volumes that he has to cite his campaign as one of his top three executive experiences. If you listen closely you can hear what it says. Sh! Wait for it…. “He has no executive experience!”

4) Harvard Law School and the Harvard Law Review (Khalid Al-Mansour):

After his stint as a community organizer, Obama went to Harvard Law School, where he graduated magna cum laude. This is perhaps Obama’s best and only major accomplishment. Too bad it’s all tainted by the fact that it seems that the only reason Obama got into Harvard was because Khalid Al-Mansour petitioned the school to let him in. Civil rights activist Percy Sutton (at one time, one of the most powerful people in New York) has said that he was solicited by Khalid Al-Mansour to write a letter of recommendation to help Obama gain acceptance into Harvard Law.

"I was introduced to him [Obama] by a friend who was raising money for him and the friends name was Dr. Khalid Al-Mansour from Texas,” Sutton said. “He is the principle adviser to one of the world's richest men. He told me about Obama. He wrote to me about him and his introduction was 'there is a young man that has applied to Harvard and I know that you have a few friends left there because you used to go up there to speak, would you please write a letter in support of him?'...I wrote a letter in support of him to my friends at Harvard saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I sure hoped they would treat him kindly."

So what? Right? Letters of recommendation are a part of any college application. That’s not the problem. Who is Dr. Khalid al Mansour? Here is a taste:

Al-Mansour said, “White people don't feel bad, whatever you do to them, they deserve it, God wants you to do it and that's when you cut out the nose, cut out the ears, take flesh out of their body, don't worry because God wants you to do it."

Wow… doesn’t this seem shockingly similar to the preachings of Rev. Wright and the Trinity church, where Obama went for 20 years, got married, and had his children baptized? Are you beginning to see a trend in the types of people with whom Obama associates? He didn’t just bump into them on the streets of Chicago, they all share the same political and sociological philosophies, the same philosophies apparent in Obama’s speeches and proposals if you would just look hard enough to see through the fireworks and propaganda.

But Al-Mansour didn’t just help Obama get into Harvard Law School, he helped him finance it as well. Sutton specifically said, "I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend's name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour.” Of course, the Obama campaign has refused to comment on this, just like it won’t release Obama’school records, or all of his state voting records, or all of his citizenship/birth information. How it is that anyone can believe anything that comes out of this deceit machine is beyond me.

And just to finish painting the picture of who exactly Khalid al-Mansour is (as if the above video didn’t do that well enough), there was a great article written in the Canadian Free Press which offered a brief bio:

He is well known within the black community as a lawyer, an orthodox Muslim, a black nationalist, an author, an international deal-maker, an educator, and an outspoken enemy of Israel.

A graduate of Howard University with a law degree from the University of California, al-Mansour sits on numerous corporate boards, including the Saudi African Bank and Chicago-based LaGray Chemical Co. LaGray, which was formed to do business in Africa, counts former Nigerian President General Abdusalam Abubakar on its advisory board.

He also sits on the board of the non-profit African Leadership Academy, along with top McCain for President adviser Carly Fiorina, and organized a tribute to the President of Ghana at the Clinton White House in 1995, along with pop star Michael Jackson.

But his writings and books are packed with anti-American rhetoric reminiscent of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s disgraced former pastor.


In the 1960s, when he founded the African American Association in the San Francisco Bay area, he was known as Donald Warden.

According to the Social Activism Project at the University of California at Berkley, Warden, a.k.a.Khalid al-Mansour, was the mentor of Black Panther Party founder Huey Newton and his cohort, Bobby Seale.

Newton later had a falling out with Warden, who was described in a 1994 book as “the most articulate spokesperson for black nationalism” at the time.

The falling out wasn’t purely political, according to author Hugh Pearson.


Al-Mansour’s more recent videotaped speeches focus on Muslim themes, and abound with anti-Semitic theories and anti-Israel vitriol.

“Today, the Palestinians are being brutalized like savages,” he told an audience in South Africa. “If you protest you will go to jail, and you may be killed. And they say they are the only democratic country in the Middle East. ... They are lying on God.”
He accused the Jews of “stealing the land the same way the Christians stole the land from the Indians in America.”

The Saudi Connection

But al-Mansour’s sponsorship of Obama as a prospective Harvard law student is important for another reason beyond his Islamic and anti-American rhetoric and early Black Panther ties.

At the time Percy Sutton, a former lawyer for Malcolm X and a former business partner of al-Mansour, says he was raising money for Obama’s graduate school education, al-Mansour was representing top members of the Saudi Royal family seeking to do business and exert influence in the United States.

In 1989, for example — just one year after Obama entered Harvard Law School — The Los Angeles Times revealed that al-Mansour had been advising Saudi billionaires Abdul Aziz and Khalid al-Ibrahimin their secret effort to acquire a major stake in prime oceanfront property in Marina del Rey, Calif., through “an elaborate network of corporate shells in California, the Caribbean and Europe.”

At the same time, he was also advising Prince Alwaleed bin Talal in his U.S. investments, and sits on the board of his premier investment vehicle, Kingdom Holdings.


Although al-Mansour glosses over his ties to the Saudi mega-billionaire in some of his public talks, he has represented the Saudi’s interests in the United States, in Britain, and in Africa for more than a quarter century, according to public records.

He told Newsmax that he has personally introduced Prince Alwaleed to “51 of the 53 leaders of Africa,” traveling from country to country on the Saudi prince’s private jet.

He knows virtually every black leader in America, from the business community, to community activists, to the worlds of politics and entertainment.

When Michael Jackson was on the ropes in the mid-1990s following a series of lawsuits by the parents of children accusing him of sexual abuse, al-Mansour introduced him to Prince Alwaleed, whose Kingdom Entertainment signed a joint venture with Jackson in 1996.

“Jackson and Alwaleed became pals in 1994, when a mutual friend from Alwaleed’s college days in California arranged a lunch meeting aboard the prince’s yacht in Cannes,” Time magazine reported about the new partnership in 1997.

The mutual friend was al-Mansour....
You have to ask yourself, why would people life Pfleger, Wright, Rezko, Al-Mansour, and Ayers be so interested in making sure Obama succeeded? If he truly did not have the same idealologies as them, what possible reason would they have for trying to help his career? Can it really just be a coincidence that each of these radicals can so easily be tied to Obama? Oh, and one more thing, that upscale neighborhood where Obama, Rezko, and Ayers live… Al-Mansour lives there too. Just another coincidence though, I’m sure.

Barack Obama has claimed to be the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review, and if it were true, he deserves credit for breaking that barrier. But, like virtually everything else Obama says, this is not true. Charles Hamilton Houston graduated from Harvard Law School in 1922. Houston was the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review, not Obama.

Obama was, however, the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, but as president Obama did not write a single article. In fact, Obama did not write a single article specifically for the Harvard Law Review ever. He had one article published as a regular student, but that was a paper he had written for another class and later submitted to the law review. The topic? It was a hypothetical law case about abortion. The Harvard Law Review severely edited his submission and then included it in one of their publications but omitted his name due to the amount of edits that were needed. This was the only article ever written by Obama that appeared in the Harvard Law Review. Obama has a tendency to get appointed to a position and then do nothing once appointed, wouldn’t you say?

5) Head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs:

Since being names the head of this committee, Obama has not called a single meeting. The committee has stagnated due to inaction and his poor leadership. It might as well not even exist while he heads the group. To be perfectly honest, this is a perfect example of how he uses political opportunities to pad his resume. There are politicians who do, and then there are those who want to say they have done so they can get a better position. Relative to his performance in any of the above mentioned executive or legislative capacities, which would you say Obama is?

.:Personal Character:.

It goes without saying that when you vote, you should vote for the man, not the party. In Obama’s instance, I would say that you should not vote for the man simply because his party is different than Bush’s. If one shouldn’t vote for a politician simply because of their party, then certainly one should not vote for a politician because they aren’t in a particular party. That’s like saying, “Well, you may be a rapist, but you aren’t a member of the KKK so I’m ok with you.” It makes no sense. Moreover, the Republican Party is not exclusive to George Bush. The mistakes and gaffs made by Bush, while reflecting on the overall party, do not necessarily and/ or exclusively paint the whole picture of John Sydney McCain III. Point being, one ought not vote for Obama simply because he isn’t in the same party as George Bush. Being a member of one party or the other says nothing of one’s voting record, service and personal character.

That being said, I would like to discuss Obama’s personal character. It seems that the best method for measure a man’s character would be to explore his past, his associations, and his record as a politician.

Racist/ Afrocentric Church:

You’ve probably seen this video by now, but I’m going to show you again anyways:

The man speaking here is Reverend Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ. Obama attended this church founded on "black liberation theology" for 20 years, he was married there, he had his daughters baptized there, and he cited Rev. Wright as his “spiritual mentor” in his book. The Trinity United Church was founded on black liberation theology and the writings of James Cone. Obama's books and his speeches (before he became the official democratic presidential nominee) all suggest that his philosophy and policies are in line with Black Liberation Theology. does an amazing job of tracking back the dangerous socialist and communist history black liberation theology, and explains how it was incorporated in Obama’s church and remains incorporated in his policies and actions to this day. If you have time to read it, please do. If not, allow me to briefly summarize the afrocentricity of Obama’s church of 20 years in an attempt to highlight the kind of racist culture of which he was a part.

What were the main philosophies of the church? Why do I say they were afro-centric (focused on african Americans and neglecting the concerns of a collective, holistic American community)? Here are their principles:

Commitment to God
Commitment to the Black Community
Commitment to the Black Family
Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

To be a member of this church in good standing, one had to sign a pledge to the above values. Barack Obama and his wife were members in good standing at Trinity.

Moreover, ask yourself this: If we replaced "black" with the word "white," and said that McCain went to a church with those principles which advocated for the success of whites above blacks, would McCain even have gotten his party's nomination? I think not.

Of course these values, and all the other incriminating literature was quickly ripped down from the website when this all got out during the democratic primary and Obama started to drop in the polls. But someone archived the website here.

When Reverend Wright of Trinity was asked to explain black liberation theology, and explain why Trinity followed it. He cited James Cone. James Cone's definition of Black Liberation Theology (found in James Cone's book):

Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love”

Meanwhile, if you click on the "books" link on the left, you'll see the church promoting a book called "Africentric and Christian," and then just to the right of that is Obama's book!

Obama sat in the pews of a church founded on racist principles for 20 years, got married in that church by the hateful Reverend Wright, let Wright baptize his daughters, had Wright over for dinner regularly, mentions Wright regularly in his book, cited Wright as his "spiritual mentor," named one of his books after one of Wright’s speeches... but Obama said he never heard any of the "bad" things Wright said... and then he denounced them. So… we must believe Obama and forget that politicians will say what they must to get elected?


One can't lead a country as diverse as America when it's apparent that one's personal interests are entirely focused on the needs and success of just one subsect of American culture.

.:Personal Associations:.

Sean Hannity, bias as he may be, did a wonderful documentary on the shady and dangerous past of Barack Obama. In his special, Hannity presented a far better case against Obama’s personal character and judgment than I ever could. Allow me to share with you this documentary:

And a video which further explains the philosophy of the church Obama attended for over 20 years, where he and his wife were wed, and where his daughters were baptized:

In addition, there was another particularly effective video that further explained Obama’s association with Ayers here:

The idea that Obama simply never heard Rev. Wright say the hateful things caught on tape is blatantly disrespectful to the American public’s intellect. I find it shocking that Obama made it out of the democratic primary. The fundamental philosophy of his church of choice for more than two decades must have been clear. There was a obvious and present afro-centric agenda based on black-liberation theology. Whether or not he heard the speech given by Rev. Wright after 9/11 is irrelevant. What Americans ought to be concerned with is that Obama would even attend such a hateful and inherently racist church in the first place. In Obama’s book, he makes it quite clear that he had a close relationship with Rev. Wright, far closer than Obama let on after the incriminating videos of Wright’s hateful sermons were released.

There is a clearly observable trend in Obama’s response to evidence of his past associations. In each instance where evidence emerges, Obama waits to distance himself from his radical associations until it is expedient for him to do so. If Obama felt it fitting to distance himself from Rev. Wright AFTER the videos emerged, how was it he attended the Reverend’s sermons for 20 years prior to that? Are we honestly to believe that someone as seemingly intelligent as Obama sat in a church for 20 years, had Wright over regularly for dinners, and named his book after one of Wright’s speeches but was completely oblivious of Wright's black-liberation theology beliefs? How is it that in every interview held with Wright after the release of his hate sermon, he mentioned “black-liberation theology” and the work of Cone… but Obama never heard any of this for 20 years? It’s simply not possible. There is even a quoted conversation where Wright tells Obama that should he make it past the primary, he would have to disown Wright for political expediency. Obama concurred, suggesting that they were both fully aware of their radical beliefs and how they would appear to the American people. Moreover, this conversation suggests a willingness to deceive the American people.

The trend is apparent with Ayers. When Obama’s past is carefully scrutinized, we see that Ayers was heavily involved in Obama career from the beginning. Are we really to believe that Ayers selected Obama to serve as the Chairmen of the Board for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, when Obama had no experience outside of his community organizing, simply because of his credentials (or lack there of)? Are we really to believe that Obama had no personal connection with the man who gave him the only job which would constitute some minor level of executive experience? Are we really to believe that Ayers would move into the same neighborhood as Obama and then host Obama’s first ever political fund raiser, but Obama did not know of his terrorist past? Are we really to believe that they were anything less than friends? It’s simply not plausible.

The trend is apparent with Resco. They purchased their houses right next to each other on the same day at below-market value through “sweet-heart deals” which were handled under the table. Yet, Obama claims they just live in the same neighborhood, and that is the extent of their relationship.

The trend is apparent with Father Pfleger. In Obama’s book, he lists Reverand Wright and Father Pfleger as some of his mentors. On several occasions, Obama has given “shout outs” to Phleger, citing him as a friend. Their relationship dates back to when Obama was a community organizer. Phleger contributed to Obama’s campaign when he was a state senator. Obama steered a $100,000 earmark to Pfleger. And, at one point, Father Pfleger was a member of Obama’s advisory committee. Yet when Pfleger’s controversial comments became common knowledge, suddenly Obama “hardly knew the guy” and he was “not part of (his) campaign.”

The trend is apparent with ACORN. Not only did Obama serve a lawyer for ACORN one time years ago, he also served as a tutor for the program. He also gave 800,000+ to the program to aid it’s “Get out the vote,” initiatives which have been aimed specifically at getting Obama supporters registered to vote. When pressed about his relationship, he said, “I’ve had interactions with them,” and he cited the one case he worked for them 13 years ago. He said nothing to condemn the registration fraud being conducted by the organization, nor did he fully disclose his whole relationship with them.

Strong Ties to the Socialist Political Party Known as "New Party":

When Barack Obama successfully ran for the Illinois State Senate in 1996(as a Democrat) he was endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). A Marxist organization, Chicago DSA was joined by the Chicago branch of the New Party. Two organizations formed the backbone of the New Party: The Democratic Socialists of America and Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). As we all know by now, Obama is tied to and has worked for ACORN in several capacities.

According to the Pittsburg-Tribune Review:

“Prior to law school, Barack Obama worked as an organizer for their affiliates in New York and Chicago. He always has been an ACORN person -- meeting and working with them to advance their causes. Through his membership on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago and his friendship with Teresa Heinz Kerry, Obama has helped ensure that they remain funded well.

Since he graduated from law school, Obama's work with ACORN and the Midwest Academy has ranged from training and fundraising, to legal representation and promoting their work.”
In Obama’s hometown of Chicago, the “New Party” consisted mainly of ACORN, DSA and the Committees of Correspondence (CoC). A breakaway from the Communist Party of America, the CoC worked closely with the DSA for years.

The New Party began endorsing Obama in 1995, and its members continued doing so years after the party officially dissolved. Hence the overwhelming support for Obama from organizations like ACORN. Among New Party members was linguist and radical activist Noam Chomsky.

Obama's campaign has responded to these allegations, denying that Obama was ever a member of the New Party. But, as if being the only major presidential candidate to have ever sought and received the political endorsement of a communist organization wasn't bad enough, the New Zeal blog dug up print copies of the New Party News, the party's official newspaper, which show Obama posing with New Party leaders, list him as a member of the New Party member and include quotes from him.

Image proof here, Commentary here, here, and here.

Chalk up Obama's association with the New Party as just another reference in his already long list of radically liberal associations. This shows that all of these issues are NOT just "guilt by association." Oh no, there is a clearly traceable and disturbing trend of Barack Obama to align himself with socialists and radicals. These aren't just people he happened to know, these are people who have helped him build his entire political career. It isn't just a coincidence that he has consistently aligned himself with socialists. There’s no feasible way that a non socialist would surround himself with socialists throughout his career, only to come out “moderate” on the other side. There is a reason he was deemed the most liberal US senator in 2007 by the National Journal. He doesn’t just “seem” radically leftist by coincidence, he IS radically leftist.

.:Domestic Issues:.

As with everything else about Barack Obama, you have to look beyond his decorated words to see the truth of the matter about his policies. There are numerous examples of how his extremely liberal school of thought has affected his flawed decision making. However, let me just address a couple key issues that have come up in this campaign.

Federal (Universal) Health Care:

This month (October), Obama’s birth state of Hawaii decided to drop the only state universal child health care program in the United States just seven months after it launched. According the CBS News:

“A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.

‘People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free,’ said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. ‘I don't believe that was the intent of the program.’

. . .

State health officials argued that most of the children enrolled in the universal child care program previously had private health insurance, indicating that it was helping those who didn't need it.”

How is this relevant? Well, this failed Hawaiian healthcare system is almost identical to the one proposed by Barack Obama. It’s easy to see how we ought to look to Hawaii as the model for how universal healthcare, if enacted in the United States, would fail. Hawaii isn’t alone in offering this model; Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and California each tried their own forms of universal healthcare – each failed.

Even if universal healthcare wasn’t an utter disaster and an abomination on capitalism, Obama couldn’t enact his healthcare plan without instituting massive tax increases to pay for it. You can’t make coverage healthcare “universal” and still keep the costs low, not without prohibitive tax increases. Lowering cost and increasing access to healthcare, in other words, are separate and irreconcilable issues. Once the taxes are hiked accordingly, most citizens end up paying more in taxes to cover their universal healthcare system then they would have, had they paid for their own service individually.

Jay Redding summarized another flaw in the universal healthcare system:

“Universal health care has a basic and fatal flaw, you can’t simultaneously reduce the cost of a service and increase access to it. If you have universal access, you have to find a way of paying for people to get that access, which raises costs. If you want to keep costs down you can only economize so far before you have to restrict access. Universal health care is a bit like a perpetual motion machine—it would be wonderful in theory, but it can’t actually exist in reality.

What inevitably ends up happening is that governments cut costs first—which requires them to cut off access. This is how Britain’s NHS and the Canadian system work. You end up either waiting in line or having a government bureaucrat deny your request for treatment. That’s why the healthcare systems in those countries are having such trouble managing costs without drastically cutting back on services—and why both are more and more turning to private agencies to provide services they cannot.”

And the UK and Candada ARE turning away from their universal healthcare models more and more. Source.

Obama’s socialist approach to healthcare will fail as badly as his socialist approach to taxation. He should stop watching Michael Moore movies, and pick up an economics text book.

Social Security:

Here is the summary of the above video from

“In addition to several other tax increases, Senator Barack Obama wants to increase the Social Security payroll tax burden by imposing the tax on income above $250,000. This would be a sharp departure from current law, which only requires that the tax be imposed on the amount of income needed to "pay for" promised benefits. But more important, at least from an economic perspective, the Senator's initiative would increase the top tax rate on productive behavior by as much as 12 percentage points - and this would be in addition to his proposal to kill the 2003 tax rate reductions and further boost the top rate by 4.6 percentage points. This mini-documentary explains why a big tax rate increase on highly productive people would be very damaging to America's prosperity, especially in a competitive global economy. Simply stated, pushing top tax rates in the United States to French and German levels means at least some degree of French-style and German-style economic stagnation.”

Andrew G. Biggs, of the Wall Street Journal further explains:

“Imagine this: Barack Obama proposes a Social Security payroll tax cut for low earners. Workers earning up to $8,000 per year would receive back the full 6.2% employee share of the 12.4% total payroll tax, up to $500 per year. Workers earning over $8,000 would receive $500 each, with this credit phasing out for individuals earning between $75,000 and $85,000.

This tax cut would make an already progressive Social Security program even more redistributive. Under current law, a very low earner receives an inflation-adjusted return on his Social Security taxes of around 4%. That's a good return, given that government bonds are projected to return less than 3% above inflation. A high-earning worker, on the other hand, receives only around a 1.5% rate of return. Under Sen. Obama's proposal, returns for very low earners would rise to around 6% above inflation -- about the same return as on stocks, except with none of the risk. Compounded over a lifetime's contributions, the difference in the "deal" offered to workers of different earnings levels would be extreme.

While Social Security has always been progressive, many would say this plan goes too far and risks turning Social Security into a "welfare program." Low earners receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes -- meaning their "net tax" is already negative -- and Mr. Obama's plan would increase net subsidies from the program.

Moreover, this payroll tax cut plan would reduce Social Security's tax revenues by around $710 billion over the next 10 years. If made permanent, the Obama tax cut would increase Social Security's long-term deficit by almost 60% and push the program into insolvency in 2034, versus 2041 under current projections.

To fill the hole in Social Security's finances, Mr. Obama would increase income taxes on high earners and pour that money into Social Security. This would be the first time that income tax revenues have been used to finance Social Security, which has always relied on its own dedicated payroll tax to differentiate itself from other government programs. Filling the gap with higher taxes on high earners would further increase Social Security's progressivity, pushing it closer toward a welfare-program approach.

Now, you haven't heard Mr. Obama describe anything like this plan. If you had, it's likely you wouldn't support it. But it's almost exactly what his headline "tax cut" would do. The Obama campaign took the idea described above and made it much more complicated.

Under the plan, which he claims would cut taxes for 95% of Americans, provides an income tax credit worth 6.2% of earnings up to $8,000, for a maximum credit of $500 per worker or $1,000 per couple. The 6.2% figure is important, because it matches the employee share of the Social Security payroll tax. Because around a third of Americans currently pay no income taxes -- a fraction that would rise to almost half under Mr. Obama's plan, according to the Tax Policy Center -- Mr. Obama's tax credits would be refundable, meaning you could collect the credit even if you paid no income taxes.

While Mr. Obama calls his plan "Making Work Pay," under standard economic assumptions his plan would actually discourage work for anyone earning over $8,000 per year. The tax credit itself would increase workers' take-home pay, an "income effect" that reduces incentives to work. Moreover, for workers in the $75,000 to $85,000 income range, where the tax credit is phased out at five cents for each dollar of additional income, this would add five percentage points to their marginal tax rate.

So Mr. Obama has in essence proposed cutting Social Security taxes for low earners, which would shift the system toward a "welfare" approach and sharply increase its long-term deficit. To fill the funding gap, he will raise taxes on high earners and funnel the money into Social Security, making the system even more progressive and breaking a long tradition against funding Social Security with income taxes.

The complex way in which Mr. Obama structures and describes his plan would make it harder to administer than a straight payroll tax cut. But it is also more difficult for the typical American to understand. This may explain why he chose complexity over clarity.”

In plain terms, Social Security is already progressive to the point of being down right unfair. Citizens who pay much more in social security, get much less from it. Social Security was never meant to cover workers for decades. In the 1930s the retirement age was set at 65 and the average woman lived to 62, the average man to 58.

The fact of the matter is that the system, which was initiated under FDR in 1935, has become antiquated. Instead of addressing the fact that baby boomers are creating more of a strain on social security than can be relieved by the rest of the population, Obama does what he always does: taxes the people who create jobs because he assumes they can afford it. His social security policy, like his general tax policy, will discourage success and incentives, and encourage reckless spending and government dependence. His policy won’t help prolong social security, it will bankrupt it.

Record on Abortion:

To be fair, Obama has said that his votes were such as they were because he felt that there were already laws in place to avoid infanticide and that voting differently than he did would be out of line with the ruling of Roe v. Wade. That said, I cannot respect a man who would vote for any legislation, despite his ex post facto platitudes, that would allow partial birth abortions and the execution of born alive abortions. There is simply no excuse for this. It's murder and infanticide, plain and simple. The woman no longer has a "right to choose" when the living baby is outside of her body. She may have a right over her own body, but her birthing a child (or rather failing to abort a child) does not give her ownership over the child's life. Once the child is out of the mother there can be no debate of rights, the child has a right to life, pure and simple.

The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama:

I am not Jewish, nor will I pretend to be an expert on Jewish affairs. Ben Shapiro is, however, a nationally syndicated journalist with an expertise in Jewish Affairs. I will defer to Shapiro to make this case for me:

"Barack Obama is the most dangerous candidate for the State of Israel since its creation in 1948. He is not, as Professor Alan Dershowitz recently put it, a "true friend of Israel" any more than Jimmy Carter was. He is certainly not "much better for Israel" than John McCain, as potty-mouthed comic dunce Sarah Silverman put it.

Any American Jew who votes for Obama ought to be ashamed of him or herself. He is not in line with a single authentic Jewish principle. (Authentic Judaism, by the way, believes the veracity of the Torah, Oral Torah and Talmud, not bagels, lox, Woody Allen and a copy of the Sunday New York Times.) On abortion, Obama is radically pro-choice. He is radically pro-gay rights, celebrating court-ordered gay marriage in states like California. Authentic Judaism is against abortion unless the mother's life is in danger, and against homosexual activity altogether.

And then there's Israel. Professor Dershowitz believes that American Jews should not vote based on "which party or which candidates support Israel more enthusiastically. They should vote based on more general considerations about what is best for America, the world and the values that they hold dear." I largely agree. I believe, however, that any candidate who does not support Israel demonstrates a disturbing lack of allegiance to our only democratic ally in the Middle East and a perverse moral relativism that will hurt America, not merely Israel.

I do feel, however, that American Jews have a special stake in the State of Israel. Israel does not just represent a family connection for Jews. It represents the ultimate protection for Jews the world over. When Arab nations expelled over 800,000 Jews in the aftermath of the birth of the State of Israel, Israel took the vast majority of them in -- as opposed to the Arab nations, which keep Palestinian Arabs in refugee camps to this day. Israel has saved Jews from South America to Russia to Ethiopia. Israel remains the last refuge for all Jews, and a guarantor of their safety, even abroad.

The future of Israel, then, matters to all Jews. By all indicators, it does not matter to Barack Obama, as detailed in a YouTube video counterpart to this column, "The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama".

Obama's foreign policy advisors have been almost uniformly anti-Israel. Samantha Power, one of Obama's earliest supporters, has suggested that American troops be placed on the ground in Israel to protect Palestinian Arabs against "human rights abuses." Power was a senior foreign policy advisor to Obama until she was forced to resign after calling Senator Hillary Clinton "a monster" in March 2008.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, serves as a foreign policy advisor to Obama. He believes that the Jewish lobby forces America into pro-Israel policy, and he defends Carter's anti-Semitic book, "Peace, Not Apartheid."

General Merrill McPeak, Obama's campaign co-chair, agrees with Brzezinski that the Jewish lobby, based in "New York City, Miami," controls America's Middle East policy.

Robert Malley, who served on President Clinton's National Security Council, has stated that America ought to simply impose its Middle East solution on Israel. He served as an advisor to Obama until the media discovered that he was holding regular meetings with Hamas.

Obama's friends, too, are far too anti-Israel for comfort. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor of 20 years, has blamed America's pro-Israel policy for 9/11. Wright is close with notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, who has proclaimed Obama "the Messiah."

Obama is also friends with former Palestine Liberation Organization spokesman Rashid Khalidi, an ardent foe of the Jewish State. Khalidi held a fundraiser for Obama in 2000. In 2003, he told a Palestinian Arab crowd, "You will not have a better Senator under any circumstances."

Obama himself has demonstrated his ambivalence about Israel. Before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in July 2008, he stated that he supported an undivided Jerusalem. After pressure from Palestinians, he backtracked within 24 hours. He also declares that he will meet the leaders of Iran without preconditions, despite the fact that Iran wishes to turn Israel into radioactive wasteland.

Barack Obama is no friend to American Jews. I challenge Professor Dershowitz to a debate, any time, any place, on that question. I would challenge Sarah Silverman as well, but she will undoubtedly ignore the challenge.

Most of all, I challenge American Jews to hear the true facts about Obama before voting. In Barack Obama, they find a Democrat in the mold of Jimmy Carter, not Harry Truman. Jews -- and Americans more broadly -- cannot afford another Jimmy Carter."
^ Source

Suffice it to say, Barack Obama has strong anti-Semitic political ties, ties that bind. One reason Obama's afro-centric church association is so scary, so threatening, is because it shows an inherent tendency to neglect the diversity of America. America has a population more diverse than any other nation. We are not a country comprised of only a single ethnicity, and so we cannot have a president who’s moral and religious philosophies are tied to a theology that purports the power of one race over all others. If the civil rights movement showed us nothing else, it should be that leaders who have only their own ethnicity’s interest at heart are bad for America.

The Jewish community has been a strong and active participant in the American landscape for about as long as any other. Obama not only neglects their concerns, he represents a threat to them as a people. Being a minority does not give Obama a free pass to neglect and abuse other minorities. He has brushed his anti-Semitic ties under the rug with everything else that might condemn his campaign – calling the charges against him “ridiculous,” but not elaborating but instead seeking legal action behind closed doors to silence those that would oppose him. For those who do not fear the socialist and communist tendencies in his economic policies, perhaps the fascist tendencies in the next section might bring everything together for you.

Inconsistent Stance on Policies: and are two sites with records of Obama’s frequent inconsistencies, flip flops, and lies.

To name a few, he’s changed his position at least once on such topics as: offshore drilling, Cuban embargo, Ronald Reagan, free trade, defense spending, the troop surge, single payer healthcare, Israel's undivided capital in Jerusalem, public financing, meeting dictators without preconditions, branding Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, illegal immigration, decriminalization of marijuana, running for president in 2008, NAFTA, clean coal, Ayers, ACORN, and Jeremiah Wright.

There are actually very few issues on which Obama has kept a consistent stance, yet somehow the media has labeled McCain as the “erratic” candidate. Somehow, people still believe in Obama's catch phrases of “Hope,” and “Change.” Hope and change for what? We have absolutely no clue who or what Obama stands for. What little voting record we have to judge him on is dilluted by his making "Yeah, but" statements, his having voted "present" or having his record stricken from the record.

He says and does only and exactly what he must to get the votes he needs to continue his fast-track political career.

When someone starts to raise a question about his thin resume, his brief yet controversial voting record, his dangerous personal associations, his radical religion, or anything else that SHOULD matter… the media and the Sheeple that support him somehow come to the conclusion that the criticisms are unfair. Ask yourself this: If Obama ware a 60 year old, white, straight, Christian male with all the same policies, speeches, and associations as Barack Obama, would he even be the democratic nominee for President? No, he wouldn’t.

Stifling Free Speech when it Criticizes Him:

Again, Ben Shapiro makes the case for me here, so there’s no sense in re-typing what has been said to precisely.

Barack Obama poses as a champion of true American values. He sees himself as "a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
In reality, though, Barack Obama is just another in a long line of Chicago-style, free speech-squelching political thugs springing from the festering pit of Democratic machine politics.

His rhetoric quashes debate. For all his talk about Americans uniting, he's not afraid to attribute opposition to his candidacy to xenophobia -- people who think he has a "funny name" or that he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills."

His supporters run roughshod over legitimate criticisms of Obama. "I want you to argue with them and get in their face," Obama tells his backers. They listen. In August, Obama encouraged his followers to shut down the WGN Chicago radio appearance of National Review reporter Stanley Kurtz. Obama's supporters were issued talking points and told to call into the station in order to plug the lines. They dutifully did so. Obama's minions duplicated the feat with David Freddoso, author of "The Case Against Barack Obama." Spurred to action by a mass e-mail from the Obama campaign -- an e-mail labeling Freddoso a "vicious" slanderer specializing in "hate-mongering" -- the Obama supporters jammed the WGN phone lines, forcing the show to a standstill.

Most importantly, though, his legal team threatens anyone who doesn't support the One with lawsuits and prosecution.

This week, two state prosecutors in Missouri proclaimed that they were joining an Obama "truth squad." Jennifer Joyce and Bob McCulloch, the top prosecutors in St. Louis, city and county, respectively, announced that they would "respond immediately to any misleading advertisements and statements that might violate Missouri ethics law." The Obama camp claimed that Joyce and McCulloch were not threatening prosecution -- but the invocation of Missouri ethics law says otherwise. Use of such law to prosecute political opponents would be blatantly unconstitutional.

This is hardly the first time the Obama campaign has attempted to trample the First Amendment by unleashing the subpoena squad.

In August, the American Issues Project released an ad tying Obama to American terrorist Bill Ayers. Obama's team responded by calling on the Justice Department to begin "an investigation of the American Issues Project; its officers and directors; and its anonymous donors, whoever they may be." The next day, Obama's legal advisors sent another letter to the Justice Department, this time demanding that Harold Simmons, the chief funder of the AIP, be prosecuted for "knowing and willful violation of the individual aggregate contribution limits."

In September, the National Rifle Association aired an ad targeting Obama for his opposition to the Second Amendment. Obama's legal team sent letters to stations airing the ad, stating, "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement."

Obama says he opposes the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which would force radio stations to air both liberal and conservative viewpoints, essentially shutting down talk radio, or turning it into NPR. But should the American public believe he won't reverse himself on the Fairness Doctrine to shut down his political critics? Obama has been known to "reconsider" positions in his time: offshore drilling, Israel's undivided capital in Jerusalem, public financing, meeting dictators without preconditions, branding Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, illegal immigration, decriminalization of marijuana, running for president in 2008, NAFTA, clean coal and Jeremiah Wright, to name just a few. In fact, it is difficult to name a single position Obama has not parsed.

Except for one position, that is: Barack Obama fervently believes that Barack Obama must never be attacked for any reason. All criticism is illegitimate. Furthermore, it should be illegal.

Liberals have told us for eight years that President Bush is a Hitlerian tyrant intent on stopping political debate. For eight long, unceasingly acrimonious years, liberals have called Bush a murderer and a traitor. They have that right -- and the fact that Bush has not sought to undermine that right demonstrates his commitment to the First Amendment.

Obama's commitment to the First Amendment, by contrast, extends only to those who agree with him. He'll use any means at his disposal to stop his opponents. If Barack Obama has his way, all criticism of his presidency will end on January 20, 2009. The Messiah must not be questioned.
There's no refuting that Obama did the things that Shapiro mentions above. He absolutely did. What you should be concerned with is not so much that Obama did them, but that you probably never heard that he did them. Why? Because the media simply won’t report it. Firstly, because most media are in the bag for any democratic candidate to begin with. Secondly, because the media are especially in the beg for Obama. And finally, because any media that do seek to criticize Obama are immediately silenced through the above mentioned methods. This type of thing does not happen by accident, these sort of initiatives or carefully and masterfully orchestrated.

Maybe you’re asking yourself, “So what? So he’s good at running his campaign and getting his point across. What’s the big deal?” The worry hear isn’t that Obama is running an effective campaign, it’s that he has systematically sought to discredit and or silence any medium which would object to his becoming president.

For another example, not mentioned by Shapiro, think of this: Have you noticed that FOX News has been making its way into Obama’s speeches and interviews on a daily basis lately? Why would he do that? It’s simple, really. The only television medium not supporting Obama or providing favorable coverage of Obama is FOX News. He’s clearly not going to silence the highest rated cable news network on television, and so he seeks to discredit FOX as a news organization and make a joke of it. He went so far as to say, if not for FOX News, he would have three or more points more in the polls. Well… if not for CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, BBC, AP, New York Times, LA Times, and the Washington Post, I think McCain would be 10 points up in the polls. Obama even called FOX News out at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial dinner, asking if FOX counted as “news” and if it was “part of” Senator McCain’s campaign.

These mentions from Obama about FOX News aren’t mere jests made in passing; they’re systematic attempts to silence the only television medium which does not support him. The entire purpose of the first amendment was to make sure that the press/ media were free to criticize our government – to facilitate the idea that the American people were better off if both sides of the argument were vigorously defended and made readily available. A man who scoffs at this fundamental element of American society should worry anyone who values the social rights and liberties we enjoy today.

The question then becomes: what kind of culture does this create? Below is frightening scene captured at this year's Democratic Convention when FOX News reporters tried to pass through a crowd of Obama supporters. Remember that the worry here is not the Obama was directly responsible for such actions, but that his own disregard for the sanctity of the first amendment leaves room for this type of hateful culture to fester and grow.

WARNING: The following video contains graphic language which might be unsuitable for children:

Obama recently kicked several publications off of his campaign tour, saying that there was no longer room for them. The publications he kicked off had not endorsed his bid for the presidency.

Media Bias:

Even if you want to close your eyes to everything else Obama is, was, and falsely promises to be, there is no denying the media bias towards him and its direct effect on polls. One sort of "watch dog" site which has kept a good pulse on the media pandering for Barack Obama, is NewsBusters.

There are independent agencies that objectively monitor and measure media bias, the most prominent of such companies is probably Media Tenor is an independent organization that tracks the lean of the media (print, radio, television, and internet) via a complicated matrix content analysis. I could get into the details of how this works, but suffice it to say it’s very formulaic and it involves a quantification of positive and negative media mentions relative to frequency and context. Media Tenor has, through their research, found that Obama has received consistently more media support (even including talk radio which leans to the right) than McCain except for the week of the GOP convention.

In the days when the media supports Obama, he leads in the polls. When the media ceases to provide overwhelming support, Obama’s Gallop polling numbers decrease. As the media goes, so too do the polls follow. So you can shrug off all the claims of the leftist media as “conspiracy” if you want, but the cold hard facts are that there HAS been a liberal lean in support of Obama throughout this election.

What’s wrong with the media supporting Obama? Look at everything I have been able to say in this blog. How much of everything I’ve outlined here has gotten real media coverage? The concern is that Obama is getting a free pass from the mainstream media when there are countless arguments that could and should be aired out against him. John M. Blust wrote an article here that summarized this concern well:

"It has been almost 20 months since Barack Obama announced his bid for the presidency. Candidates for president of the United States of America are usually heavily vetted – the public learns all but the most intimate details of their lives. However, very little is still known about Barack Obama this late in the game. His most fervent supporters do not even want to know. They become agitated at any suggestion that Obama is not exactly who they think he is and that he might not truly be in favor of exactly the latest thing he says about any issue – even when he says something at variance with what he said or did before. In February 2008, at a campaign rally in Dallas, thousands applauded when Obama stopped and blew his nose.

To question the Obama narrative is to invite scorn and invective – even if you are Bill or Hillary Clinton. It is enough that Obama represents change – and that change must simply be taken by faith to be good change. But change can be change for the worse. That is why anyone seeking the most powerful office in the world should be carefully scrutinized.

For some reason, the mainstream media has taken Obama as an almost mythical figure to whom the normal vetting should not apply. Perhaps MSNBC's Chris Matthews summed up the feelings of the mainstream media about Obama when he said Obama "sent a tingling up his leg." Said Matthews of Obama: "I've never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. He comes along, and he seems to have all the answers. This is the New Testament." To paraphrase Winston Churchill, when it comes to the mainstream media and Obama, never have so many been so uninterested in so much.

The Clinton camp was very frustrated by this media adulation of Obama in the primaries and never quite figured out how to respond. Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton advisor, said the mainstream media "was totally in the tank for Obama." Quite often, one candidate will get frustrated when they know there are facts about the other candidate that are not being reported and will finally go negative and put out the information. Then the press will pontificate about how that candidate is resorting to negative attacks. When it comes to Obama – any information put out is quickly labeled as an unfair smear – a "swift-boating."

After nearly 20 months, several critical questions still need to be asked about Obama – with follow-ups. Not only have his positions on several issues been changing from time to time and audience to audience, but there are huge gaps in his past about which very little is known or has been reported. Just who is this man and what would he really do if he achieves his desire to become president? Again, to paraphrase Churchill, Obama, at this late date, still remains a mystery, wrapped inside a riddle, surrounded by an enigma.

What makes this more curious and more suspicious is that Obama is a man who wrote not one, but two, autobiographies before he was even 45 years old. How can so much be written about so little with so much still unknown?

Some of the questions that need to be answered are why Obama would write things about episodes in his past that have turned out to be embellished or even false. Some of these wouldn't seem important enough to matter, yet Obama was not truthful while trying to establish the exact narrative about his life he desired. The critical question is, what does this reveal about his character?

For example, in Dreams of My Father, Obama wrote about how after he graduated from Columbia University he started working on Wall Street. He claims in his book that he wore a suit and tie to work each day, had his own office and own secretary and that his work would require him to meet with German and Japanese bankers. His narrative is that he started feeling guilty, making all that money, while knowing that his true calling was to be a community organizer and work for change for little pay. But interviews with former fellow workers in 2005, shortly after Obama was elected to the US Senate, revealed that Obama wasn't a big securities analyst, as he claimed, but merely a copy editor for a small newsletter. His former colleagues said no one there wore suits and that Obama usually wore blue jeans. Nor did Obama have his own office and secretary – there was only one secretary in the place – the boss's. Obama would never have met with German and Japanese bankers. Had Obama not written a book years later that made false claims, this episode might not be important. Why did Obama feel the need for the false narrative about his life?

Another example is the claim in Obama's book that he won his first run for office for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 because the voters really connected with his message of hope and change. But Obama completely leaves out of his books the most critical facts about his 1996 effort to win a seat in the Illinois Senate. An election law expert from the Chicago/Cook County political machine used the most excruciating loopholes to have every single candidate other than Obama kicked off the ballot for that seat. That is how Obama achieved the first step along his path to the presidency. Yet to Obama, this episode is proof of how much the voters embraced his message of hope.

Talk to some Obama supporters and find out if they have any idea that Obama got his start and his advancement in politics as a loyal foot soldier in the Chicago political machine. It is unlikely they will know. This has not been reported in the mainstream media, even though the facts are readily available. Obama's loyalty to the machine continued through 2006, even after he was in the US Senate and was becoming a national figure. In the most recent elections, Obama endorsed Todd Stroger and Mayor Richard Daley, political bosses of Cook County and Chicago, respectively, against reform candidates seeking to clean up Chicago-area government. I challenge someone to tell me why a self-proclaimed agent of change and champion of reform would back these two political bosses.

There are many more examples from Obama's past that need to be looked into. What was his relationship with Tony Rezko, the convicted felon who helped the Obamas purchase their Chicago mansion and for whom Obama did political favors? Why did Michelle Obama get her salary tripled at the public hospital where she works in public relations after Obama was elected to the Senate? Why would Obama hold the organizational meeting for his first campaign at the house of someone who once bombed the United States Capitol and the Pentagon and who said in 2001 he wished he had done more? Why would Obama stay in the church where Pastor Wright preached his rantings for 20 years? Why won't mainstream media reporters ask questions about these things? Have the few statements Obama has made been truthful?

The questions do not just have to be asked about matters in Obama's past that may help answer the question of just who this man is and what he has done. The unasked questions concern the issues also. Why did Obama vote present 130 times in only eight years in the Illinois Senate to avoid casting some tough votes? Obama can take whatever position he wants at the moment, but the most likely indication of one's future actions comes from what one did in the past. Why isn't the mainstream media telling us more about Obama's voting records in the Illinois Senate and in the US Senate? Are some of his current policy positions at variance with his current statements? The American people deserve a thorough airing of these questions.

One example of Obama's proclivities came in February when he took a hard stance against NAFTA in a nationally televised debate to blunt the success Hillary Clinton was having among union members. Shortly thereafter, an Obama aide was dispatched to Canada to assure the Canadian government that Obama really didn't mean what he was having to say during this campaign about NAFTA. This leaked to the press even though it got little coverage and hasn't been mentioned since – but it is very instructive.

Another example of shifting positions was Obama's iron clad joint pledge with John McCain when both were running way behind in their respective primary campaigns that they would each participate in public financing if they became their party's nominees.

There are many, many more such shifts in many of Obama's positions, some within mere hours. Now anyone can change a position over time based upon new data and on experience. But if genuine, such shifts usually occur over years, not hours or even months. Shouldn't the press delve much deeper into some of these? What good are the debates if the candidates are not held accountable for their statements?

The mainstream media has gone on a rampage against Sarah Palin since McCain chose her as his running mate. Some of the matters they have pursued have been fair game, some have not been. Shouldn't the mainstream media show at least one-half of the curiosity and eagerness toward finding things out about Obama, the Democrat nominee for president, as they have about Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president?"
Whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, you should always be scrutinous of the information provided to you by the media and, in many cases, even more scrutinous of the information NOT provided to you. There is simply no excuse for the current Obama fanfare. As the Media Tenor research has shown, this adoration for Obama is directly linked to the media. And it seems clear from everything I am presenting to you here that the only reason the media is able to bring about such adoration is because they are simply refusing to seriously cover the issue that would be damaging to Obama’s chances of winning this election. The only other alternative would be that Americans simply don’t care about the issues I’ve brought to bear here… which seems unlikely.

Under the table earmarks, sweet heart deals, and questionable funding:

I mention elsewhere in the blog that Obama lived right next to Tony Rezko, a now convicted felon. They purchased their homes on the same day. The real estate deal between them allowed Obama to purchase his mansion at a reduced price because Rezko bought an adjacent vacant lot, saving Obama hundreds of thousands of dollars on a technicality. Obama the turned around and did Rezko a favor by purchasing a small strip of Rezko’s lot for an above-market price. This was borderline legal, but certainly unethical as the politicians used their Chicago connections to skirt around technicalities and provide one another with “sweet heart deals” on their houses. Good friends will do that for one another, and one could certainly say of Tony Rezko, a man who funded many of Obama’s campaigns and was involved in Obama’s career from the start, that he was a good friend of Barack Obama’s.

Obama returned the favor, of course, steering state contracts to Rezko’s businesses in exchange for fundraising assistance and campaign contributions. Obama even let the son of one of Rezko’s business associates intern for his office.

In addition to less than ethical methods used to benefit his personal life, Obama has also used his US Senator Position to grant favors to those close to him, including his wife. Of the nearly one BILLION he requested in earmarks in just three years (nearly a million dollars a day he was in office) as a US senator, Obama managed to the hospital where his wife worked one million of that. Oddly enough, Michelle Obama had her salary nearly tripled shortly after Obama was elected. Shortly after that, Barack Obama petitioned to get the hospital a million dollar earmark.

As for slipping his supporters some earmark funding under the table, Obama secured $1.3 million for a high-explosive technology program for the Army’s Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The program was overseen one of Obama’s top supporters, James Crown - a member of Obama’s national finance committee. Obama also got a $750,000 earmark for renovation of a space center named for Crown’s grandfather, Henry Crown, at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.

Obama also got several million dollars for a project at Chicago State University. Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones Jr., a close personal friend of Obama’s and one of his benefactors, has been a strong supporter of Chicago State for years. Other earmarks secured by Obama include more than $10 million for a military arsenal in Rock Island, several million dollars for research on soybean disease and livestock genes, and $100,000 for after-school programs at the Chicago Jesuit Academy.

In the past several years, Obama’s church of 20 years (Trinity United Church of Christ) received around $15 MILLION in federal funding.

In addition to this frivolous and questionable spending and allocating of funds, Obama is also guilty of accepting funds unethically. By now, most of you probably know that he and John McCain swore to campaign differently, accepting only public funding. Here is Barack Obama said in 2007:

"In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge."

When it became clear to Obama that he would take his party’s nomination, he reneged on this promise and began taking private funding. McCain has since stuck to his word, but suffered dearly for it. Obama has outspent McCain by a margin of about 5:1 on advertisements and get out the vote efforts. Barack Obama was even able to purchase 30 minutes of uninterrupted air time on several network television channels so that he could broadcast his own infomercial in the closing week of the election – something he was only able to afford because he broke his promise on financing. As a result of his broken pledge, Obama has raised and spent more money on his campaign than any other politician in history. This lie, like so many others issued by Obama during his campaign, has gone relatively unnoticed by the Sheeple who follow him like lemmings.

More than that, there are allegations that Obama has received funding from illegal foreign donors. As with every other claim laid against the Obama campaign, they scoff at any questions on the matter, label them as false, and offer no proof to the contrary. Obama, as a US Senator, also received the second most of any other senator from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He received dramatically more per year than any other senator, but he had only been in office for a few years before those businesses collapsed in failure. He also provided over $800,000 to ACORN in financing to help their get out the vote initiatives, which, coincidentally, strongly favor him given the demographic ACORN targets.

Let’s not forget the long list of radical benefactors he’s had in his career as well (Ayers, Rezko, Khalidi, Wright, Pfleger, etc.). No matter how you spin it, Obama is as crooked a Chicago politician as has ever been seen. But for some reason, Americans seem unwilling to accept the cold hard facts of the matter.

Obama Broke Ethics Law as State Senator:

This is a rather recent news break, is I’m just going to link this and copy/paste the article for your review. According to NewsBusters, Barack Obama broke Illinois State ethics law by accepting payment for public speeches made when he was a state senator.

"The media were quick to dig into Joe Wurzelbacher's personal and private information such as tax records, and trumpet it to the world in an attempt to discredit someone that dared question Barack Obama's tax plan. Lets see if they even report on this when they don’t have any digging to do whatsoever.

Apparently, on Obama’s released tax records, he discloses income from speaking fees. The problem? Accepting payment for speaking fees when you’re a legislator is against Illinois state law.

Apparently, as an Illinois state legislator through 2004, Barack was prohibited from taking honoraria for speaking under the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act But what about Barack Obama’s 2000 and 2002 tax returns?

2000: On his 2000 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported that he received $16,500 as a “Foundation director/Educational speaker.”

2001: On his 2001 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported $98,158 from a Chicago law firm, Miner, Barnhill, for “Legal services/attorney” (and nothing for speaking)

2002: On his 2002 Schedule C, Barack reported $34,491 for “LEGAL SERVCES / SPEAKING FEES.”

These “speaking fees” are in addition to the amounts that Barack was paid as an employee, a lecturer at the University of Chicago, reported on the first page of his 1040s.

That’s not change we can believe in.

Just to sum up, the media can find Joe the Plumber’s tax woes within 24 hours of his having dared to question The One’s narrative, but they can’t find a clear ethical violation in the released records of a man who has been campaigning for President for two years now.

Another truth-telling moment brought to you by our fair and objective news media. Why isn’t this a major headline at CNN? I think we all know the answer to that question. Laws only apply to Republicans."

Sex Education for Kindergarteners:

Much has been made of the education bill supported by Obama which advocated “age-appropriate” sex education for kindergarteners. The references have all been to Illinois State bill SB0099. Though he did not sponsor the bill, he did fight for the bill on the Illinois Senate floor. The bill would have lowered the age at which students would begin, what the bill termed, "comprehensive sex education," to include kindergarten-aged children.

What was this “comprehensive sex education” to include? In the opening paragraph of the bill, it says, “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.” Obama has stressed that this education was to be “age appropriate.” The bill does, on the 12th and 13th lines of the second page, that all “course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.”

This is, of course, a ridiculous addendum to the bill because if the government is willing to teach sex education, on any level, to kindergarteners, then they are simultaneously saying that THEY decide what “age appropriate” is. In passing a bill that says “teach kindergarteners comprehensive education,” it creates an infinite regress to also say “but make it age appropriate. That’s like saying, “Clean your room, but do with your room what you think is appropriate.” It’s simply a thinly veiled attempt by the legislators who supported this law, like Barack Obama, to cover their political rears. In signing this bill, Obama has told us what he sees as “age appropriate” – “comprehensive sex education.”

This comprehensive sex education was to include “statistics based on the latest medical information citing the failure and success rates of all contraceptive methods in preventing unintended pregnancies and HIV and other sexually transmitted infections,” “the latest medically factual information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all forms of contraception, including the success and failure rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV,” and “a discussion of the possible consequences of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.”

There were 15 criteria set forth in the bill, and the 11th one on the list is the one Obama says he wanted to teach kindergarteners: “Course material and instruction shall teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one's judgment.”

Clearly, after being called out for his support for this overtly liberal bill, Obama sought to justify his actions by citing just one of the 15 criteria and saying that it was the ONLY one he wanted to teach to kindergarteners in their “age appropriate” “comprehensive sec education” courses. However, the bill makes no such distinction and, in large part, is why it ultimately failed to pass into law.

In the rare instances when a nonpartisan interviewer has been allowed to make this point to Obama, Barack has squirmed out of the discussion by pointing out that the bill allows for a student’s parents to have permission to remove their child from class on days where this sex education is taught. This is flawed logic for a couple of reasons. First, if the classes were insignificant enough for the school to allow a parent to opt their child out of them – they clearly aren’t worth the time they take in the first place. Second, removing a select few students from a class would only serve to make them pariahs amongst their peers. Third, allowing the parents the option to decide what the student should be taught relies far too heavily on the involvement of the parents. If the parents fail, for whatever reason, to take an interest in the content of their child’s kindergarten class… their child is left with a strange adult telling them about sex.

When did telling a kid to stay away from strangers stop being effective? When did the government decide it has the right to supersede a parent’s right to teach their kid about sex at the age of FIVE? You can take Obama at his word, and assume that he only supported this bill because he thought that, as it pertained to five year old kindergarteners, they would only be taught about inappropriate touching in an age-appropriate manner, out of which the parents could opt if they so chose. Or you can take this decision in context with the hundreds of others mentioned in this blog, and see it for what it really is: Part of Obama’s radically liberal philosophy.

Obama Might not be a Natural-Born Citizen and, Therefore, May be Ineligible for the Position of President:

Again, a documentary has already been done, so there’s no sense in me typing what has already been turned into a youtube video:

I don’t know how much I buy into the conspiracy theory that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. But the question remains, if he is… why has he not publically released all of his records?

.:Foreign Policy:.

Senator Barack Obama did not visit the Middle East for 900 days until after he had won his party’s nomination for President. How is it Americans expect him to have any comprehensive understanding of the issues that face us in our wars, when he has had little-to-no exposure to the commanding generals and troops fighting in them, is beyond me. Obama currently heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs, but hasn’t convened a single policy hearing since he took over two years ago. I believe in college we refer to that as “padding your resume.” Even democratic senator John Kerry admits, Obama’s foreign policy experience is entirely limited to “traveling abroad”


President George W. Bush made a critical error when declaring war on Iraq and explaining its reasons to the American people. He said many of the right things in his address to the nation March 17, 2003 where he extended an ultimatum to Hussein. He also said many things which time has shown to be false. Allow me to site the appropriate reasons for war that he actually listed, which have since been lost in the shuffle because of his inaccurate claims of WMDs and Iraq/ Al-Qaida links.

“My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has
uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over
the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived…

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in… Iraq.

Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th,the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm…

All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near…

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.

Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end…

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

Good night, and may God continue to bless America.”

Of course, there is still speech of “disarmament,” even after my suggested cuts. However, all Bush needed to emphasize, though he touched on it briefly, was that there were multiple resolutions in place giving America the authority to use force in response to Iraq’s unwillingness to comply with UN inspectors. It doesn’t matter if there were or weren’t weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, what mattered was that the regime in Iraq was not complying with the US and the UN to the extent that our binding resolutions required. That’s it. End of story.

But because Bush, in an attempt to garner support for the war, assured the American people that there were WMDs and that there were terrorist links to Hussein, the legal justification and cassius belli for our war in Iraq has been lost in the mix.

With that said, Obama has said that he opposed this war from the start because there were no weapons of mass destruction and because there were no terrorist links. While it’s certainly plausible that a person might have reasonable objections to the war in Iraq, Obama's objections don’t hold water because we didn’t go into Iraq because of WMDs or terrorists, we went to enforce the decade’s worth of resolutions with which the Iraqi Regime refused to be compliant, and it was within our authority and legal justification to do so. Obama’s philosophy of the war reveals two things. First, that he doesn’t understand the original terms and context of the war, but instead has a media-interpreted view of our cassius belli. Second, that he’s merely pandering to a war-weary American public to rally support. His lack of depth and understanding on this issue is appalling and it’s demeaning to the American public to suggest that we don’t understand the full context of our reasons for being in Iraq.

When McCain has pointed out that Obama was wrong on the surge, Obama fires back saying that he “opposed the war from the start” because there were no WMDs or terrorist links. As, I’ve shown, this is a shallow and misleading answer. Therefore, his rebuttal of McCain’s point about the surge is moot.

Though, let the record show that when Obama and the democrats were pushing for more withdraws and refusing to offer funding to the troops without timetables, Republicans, lead by John McCain, pushed for more troops. Sure enough, one surge and one year later, violence and casualties are dramatically down in Iraq and some serious headway is being made in helping them get back on their feet.

Moreover, let’s think about this holistically. Obama is still pushing for immediate, or dramatically expedient withdraw from Iraq (despite our recent successes). So who will fight the terrorists and protect the innocent civilians of iraq when the American’s withdraw? The Iraqi military? But they need training and resources to do it. So, to get our troops out of there, we’ll need to train Iraqi’s and stock them with the tools they need to defend themselves. Doing anything other than this leaves a vacuum for terrorism and war lords. Our country should have learned this lesson by now. There is more to liberating a nation’s people than simply killing the bad guy. We must make certain that the positive change we have fought for in Iraq is capable of being sustained by Iraq itself.

To look at the war from Bush’s point of view: We had four options.

1) We could have refrained from using force in Iraq and risked allowing a very verbal, genocidal enemy to hide weapons of mass destruction, possibly distribute said WMDs to nearby anti-American terrorists, and continue to disobey decades of binding resolutions. In so doing, we would also have risked making America appear weak and further encouraging and emboldening our enemies in the Middle East. Worst case scenario, Hussein was hiding WMDs and planning to sell them to terrorists to use against the US and our allies.

2) The second option was to go into Iraq and put the hammer down until democracy took hold and solid political and military infrastructure were put into place. In so doing, we risked domestic and international unrest as thousands of people died in a costly war that’s bankrupting our country.

3) Or, we could have gone in, half-assed the job, ravaged the country, left it worse than when we went in with more enemies than we had previously. Only to have the finger pointed back at us in the future for creating our own monster after the vacuum we created filled with warlords and terrorists.

There was really was no winning option for Bush at the time.

That said, this current election doesn't have the luxury of having a debate where the next president will get to decide between these three options. We’re already in Iraq, for better or worse. The first option has been off the table since 2003. After several years, it would seem illogical to support the third option after all we’ve invested into stabilizing Iraq. Why accept anything other than total victory at this point?

Despite the fact that Obama has said he would pull troops out of Iraq “immediately,” a closer look at his plan suggests that he actually supports more of a 13 month time table for withdraw from Iraq. Given that we’ve already satisfied 15 of the 18 benchmarks for the Iraq war as of July this year, this isn’t a bold stance to take. As usual, Obama is telling his constituency what they want to hear, but his words are empty.

Suffice it to say, we'll be out when Iraq is capable of stabilizing itself – which will coincide with our satisfying the final three benchmarks. All this banter over which candidate will get us out sooner is irrelevant. Despite what Obama would have you think, he won’t be withdrawing our troops from Iraq any sooner than John McCain.

There will always be casualties of war, but the cost of freedom is great. However, let us hope that we see through our promises to train Iraqi soldiers and implant Iraqi democracy so that they can govern themselves and THEN we can leave.


Obama has said that he wants to pull troops from Iraq and rededicate them to Afghanistan which, conveniently enough, was the plan of the "Surge" all along (to stabilize Iraq and then focus on Afghanistan). Obama has continued to say that Afghanistan is and always has been the central front on the War on Terror. Yet both Osama bin Laden and General Petraeus have been quoted as saying that Iraq, not Afghanistan, was the central front.

Regardless, Obama can say that he wants to increase troops in Afghanistan until he’s blue in the face but he’s not saying anything unique or interesting. The plan all along was to stabilize Iraq (where we were suffering far more casualties than in Afghanistan), and then reposition troops in Afghanistan. Obama’s “plan” is nothing more than a regurgitation of the existing strategy. Point blank, Obama’s “war strategy” is/was really just an attempt to look at the current inevitable path of this war, and put a spin on it to make it look like it was his idea. What’s comical here is that the same surge principles Obama opposed in Iraq, he now supports for Afghanistan.


Barack Obama has repeatedly said that, if elected president, he would “order US forces to strike Al-Qaeda inside Pakistan, if President Pervez Musharraf failed to act first.” His remarks prompted the Pakistani government to caution presidential candidates against using terrorism for "point-scoring."

He has also said, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," referring to intelligence reports Al-Qaeda had regrouped in Pakistani tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

This stance is problematic for an obvious reason. You do not say, for the purpose of acquiring votes, that you will disrespect the sovereignty of an ally nation to accomplish your own political goals. You might hint at it, you might think it, you might even talk about it in closed circles, but you don’t say it on national television. It’s disrespectful to our Pakistani allies, and it shows Obama naiveté.

Meeting with the Leaders of Rogue Nations Without Preconditions:

Obama has, in the above debate and others, openly said that he, as PRESIDENT would meet separately and personally with the leaders of rogue countries. His defense of this claim is that, “the idea that we’re punishing them by not talking to them is ridiculous.” The point of not meeting with nations without preconditions on the PRESIDENTIAL level is far more complex than simply “punishing” them. As usual, Obama has over-simplified an idea and generalized a feel-good response to garner votes.

There are multiple reasons why the PRESIDENT, himself, does not personally sit down with the leaders of rogue nations in face-to-face negotiations without preconditions. The first, and most basic reason for anyone who understands politics, is that in order to sit down and “negotiate” there must be terms desired by either side. If you're meeting to "negotiate," then there must be something that each side wants from an exchange. The entire point of establishing “preconditions” is to say, “Look, of the terms we would want to ‘negotiate’ with you, these here are nonnegotiable. If we’re going to work with you, you have to do these things and if you don’t, then there’s no point in even talking.” Another term for “preconditions” might be “prerequisites.” When you think of preconditions in this way, it makes far more sense than the “just-so” punishment explanation put forth by Obama.

But let’s say for a moment that the President, for whatever reason, has no idea what terms he might deem nonnegotiable ahead of time, and so he agrees to meet with the leader of a rogue nation, without preconditions (and let’s just ignore how scary the prospect is that the leader of the free world has no idea what principles might be nonnegotiable when meeting with rogue nations…). What then? Our President and a leader that has denounced America and/ or our allies get together for a photo-op. What comes of this? Suddenly, around the world, our allies and our enemies see pictures of our president smiling and shaking hands with someone who has denied the first Holocaust, but has called Israel a “Stinking Corpse” and said that it should be "wiped off the map." What type of message does this send to our allies, who have sent troops to die in our wars?

Meeting at the presidential level, without preconditions, legitimizes rogue leaders by saying that, regardless of how evil you may be, regardless of how many times you have spit in our face or the face of our allies, regardless of which race you’ve threatened genocide on, our President will make time to talk with YOU! That isn’t the type of message we need to be sending to the world. Yes we need to have talks with other world leaders, and we’re already doing that. But providing a PR stunt one-on-one meeting with rogue leaders only aids their cause and hurts our relationships with our allies.

There is also an element of danger for the President to sit down across the table from another world leader who has called for his head. It might seem like a situation that should be easy to contain, but is it really worth the risk? What can be said between our president and the leader of a rogue nation that cannot be said through our secretary of state (whose job it is to relay such messages)? What can be said in person at a one-on-one meeting that cannot be said on the telephone? Nothing. Which is precisely why we already use these alternative methods of negotiation and communication. The fact that Obama does not understand this time-tested theory of foreign relations speaks volumes about his inexperience.


In summary, Barack Obama is one of the most inexperienced candidates for President this country has ever seen. He has strong and undeniable ties to an afro-centric and racist church founded on black-liberation theology. His entire professional and political career has been supported and surrounded by radical leftists who support socialist and communist agendas. Scarier still is the prospect that the American public is on the verge of being fooled into electing Obama into office where, in tandem with Pelosi and Reid, the "gang of 3" will have no check or balance to slow their socialist agenda.

His economic, domestic, and foreign policies are riddled with flawed logic brought about by his relative inexperience. The only reason Obama has received the Democratic nomination is because he was able to rally, consolidate, and receive votes from a large and previously untapped minority voter base. This is the only measurable positive attribute that distinguishes Obama from any other, more qualified Democratic candidate.

How was he able to acquire such support? At a time when Americans are upset with the incumbent President, Barack Obama presents sweeping feel-good generalizations in opposition to the statuesque, and the left-leaning media, who love his biography and entertainment value, have facilitated his presidential bid full force. In keeping with this theme of media influence, I would like to close with a quote from one of Barack Husein Obama’s other idols, Malcolm X – a quote Obama seems to understand all too well…

"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses."

Brawler's Search