RTCS

Views on the News

November 1, 2008

 

Views on the News:

As much as he wants to obscure his background, Obama is a product of his experiences and associates, having surrounded himself with a succession of radical anti-American Marxists. Barack Obama is a “red diaper baby" who has spent his formative years, literally from the moment of his birth, interacting with members and sympathizers of the communist party, USA.

·        In the ‘50s his mother Ann Dunham has been described by former classmates in Seattle as a "fellow traveler." 

·        In 1961 young Ann fell in love with and married Barack Obama Sr, a socialist from Kenya, who she met in a University of Hawaii Russian language class, and soon gave birth to Barack Jr. 

·        After marrying Lolo Soetoro, Ann and Barack moved to Indonesia where his first years of school were in an Indonesian Muslim school.

·        Returning to Hawaii in 1971, his grandfather Stanley Armour Dunham arranged Obama's mentorship in Hawaii by Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis.    

·        In the ‘70s Barack hung out with politically active black student and Marxist professors.

·        In 1981 he transferred to Columbia where he sought out socialist conferences to expand his knowledge.

·        He maintained his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, the Columbia University Professor and long time apologist for the late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat.

·        In 1985 after Columbia Obama spent three years as a community organizer and as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute.

·        Khalid al Mansour raised money to pay for Obama’s Columbia and Harvard education.

·        His religious mentor and pastor for over 20 years was Reverend Jeremiah Wright, an anti-American black liberation theology minister.

·        From 1993 to 2002 Obama also served with Ayers on the Board for The Woods Fund of Chicago, which funded such groups as ACORN and the Arab American Action Network.

·        In 1995 his political career was kicked off in the living room of William Ayers, the unrepentant domestic radical terrorist and his wife Bernadette Dohrn, another radical SDS leader.

·        From 1995 to 2002 Obama had been chosen by Ayers to be the first chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a public school reform project co-founded by Ayers to advance radical alternative education.

The last time there was a Democrat President, Senate, and House was 1964 which produced the utopian Great Society featuring the audacious War on Poverty spending $5 trillion but did not end poverty. Instead the Great Society eroded social and family bonds; created a chronically dependent class of Americans; and built a huge welfare-poverty industry to go with it. Here is what we can expect from the first days when Obama is reunited with his “Axis of Taxes” with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi:

Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue who is not interested in playing around the edges and seeks "fundamental change," i.e., to remake society. If the Democrats control Congress with super-majorities led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, Obama may get much of what he demands. Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else. The kind of self-righteous self-confidence that has become Obama’s trademark is usually found in sophomores in Ivy League colleges— very bright and articulate students, utterly untempered by experience in real world. For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of “spreading the wealth,” is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries. The equally casual ease with which Barack Obama has talked about appointing judges on the basis of their empathies with various segments of the population makes a mockery of the very concept of law. I can only hope that the common sense and decency of the American people will prove the zealots wrong and the true American voters turn out in large numbers vote for McCain.

 

Republican (Right)

Issue

Democrat (Left)

Individual Freedom

Domestic Philosophy

Identity Victimology

Anti-Abortion

Abortion

Pro-Abortion

Balanced Budget

Budget

Expand Government Scope

Equal Opportunity

Civil Rights

Affirmative Action

Wealth Creation

Economy

Wealth Redistribution

Personal Vouchers

Education

Lower Standards

Supply Independence

Energy

Demand Control

Personal Accounts

Entitlements

Expand Coverage

Male Female

Marriage

Same Sex

Free Market

Healthcare

Universal Coverage

Close, Protect Borders

Immigration

Licenses for Illegal Aliens

Personal Accounts

Social Security

Increase Taxes

Originalism

Supreme Court

Constructionism

Decrease Taxes

Taxes

Increase Taxes

Global Leadership

Foreign Philosophy

Global Community Approval

Results Based

Aid

Buy Diplomacy

Instrument of Foreign Policy

Defense

Instrument of Social Policy

Complete Mission

Iraq

Immediate Withdrawal

Long War

Terrorism

Appeasement

Free Trade

Trade

Protectionism

Advocate for Reform

United Nations

Global Governance

 

 

The closer we get to the election, the closer the political polls become as the polling companies change from predicting who they want to win to predicting who they think will really win. Today less than 19% of adults believe most of what the media is telling them. Almost 24% of Americans say they believe little or nothing that is presented by the Mainstream Media. By a margin of 70% to 9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Barack Obama, not John McCain, win on November 4th with unfavorable stories about McCain outweighing favorable ones by a factor of more than three to one. There have been over 725 national polls with head-to-head matchups of the candidates, with 215 in October alone. Polls have proliferated this year in part because it is much easier for journalists to devote the limited space in their papers or on TV to the horse-race aspect of the election rather than its substance. Thanks to our diligent press corps, we now know more about Joe the Plumber than we know about the leading Democrat candidate for President, Barack Hussein Obama. Polls don't reflect voters' “buyer’s remorse” questioning Obama’s character and qualifications who will go into the voting booth intending to vote for him but won't be able to do it. Election results will be impacted by "The Obama Effect" where undecided voters won’t vote for Obama, and an “Enthusiasm Effect,” leading pollsters to underestimate the turnout of Obama supporters, e.g. African Americans, the young, and the more independent voters. Numerous survey groups of good repute track elections on a regular basis, and a dozen or so of these show McCain running dead even on a national basis and/or leading Obama in battleground states Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, something nobody could ever guess from reading the Washington Post or New York Times. This is the same Mainstream Media that predicted that Hillary winning was a foregone conclusion, too, and the race would be between Giuliani versus Hillary. Only one time in the past 14 presidential elections has a candidate won the popular vote and the Electoral College after trailing in the Gallup Poll the week before the election: Ronald Reagan in 1980. The country may be headed to a 2008 version of the famous 1948 upset election, with John McCain in the role of Harry S. Truman and Barack Obama as Thomas E. Dewey, lulled into overconfidence by inaccurate polls. McCain pollsters do anticipate that turnout could be even higher this year than the robust turnout four years ago, but they also expect that Democratic gains among African American voters and younger voters will be offset by higher turnout among more Republican-leaning voters. The equally casual ease with which Barack Obama has talked about appointing judges on the basis of their empathies with various segments of the population makes a mockery of the very concept of law. The Mainstream Media is using the polls as a weapon selectively to create a bandwagon psychology for Obama and spread defeatism among his opponents… trying to build a "self-fulfilling prophecy." 

 

Obama may claim to be advancing a twenty-first-century agenda, but his ideas about combating poverty and aiding cities ignore the lessons of the nineties’ reformers and remain firmly mired in the War on Poverty’s vision of cities as victims. Obama’s plans likely will be the beginning of the Europeanization of America.:

Despite promises to limit tax increases to those making over $250,000 per year, Senator Obama's plans include four loopholes that are really tax increases: 1) When the Bush tax cuts lapse taxes will increase income taxes; 2) Lifting the Social Security cap will increase the payroll tax for those who make more than $94k; 3) Raise capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent; and 4) Raise taxes on businesses, and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. Obama is bound and determined to repeat the mistakes that FDR made that elongated the short term economic recession into the Great Depression:

Let us also not forget that while FDR was focused on the economy Japan and Germany were growing and expanding, thus questioning whether Obama’s economic policies may enable al Qaeda to rebuild their strength? One reason nobody takes Democrats seriously on matters of national security are statements like those of Representative Barney Frank to the effect that he wants to cut the Defense budget by a mind-numbing 25% in order to reduce the deficit and to pay for programs he and his Democratic colleagues hold near and dear to their hearts. Barack Obama's pledge to rewrite the rules of trade set out in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) caters to a protectionist agenda set on protecting special interests, not promoting America's prosperity. Implementing Obama’s policy ideas would simply expand the tin-cup urbanism that has kept so many cities in despair for so long.

 

There should no longer be any dispute that Barack Obama’s aim is to socialize the American economy, as he vaporously puts it, to bring about “redistributive change.” This Harvard-educated lawyer announced that the United States Supreme Court when headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, was “not radical enough,” in its pursuit of civil liberties, because “[i]t didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.” What Obama is doing here is expressing his opinion that the Court would have better effectuated his definition of “political and economic justice” if it had been willing to ignore the limits placed upon it by the Constitution. At this point, any belief in Obama’s respect for constitutional limits is delusional. If he is so cavalier about the Constitution’s limits upon the power of the judiciary, why on earth would he respect the limits on the power of the Presidency?  Or on Congress?  He says, “generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” The Framers viewed government as a necessary evil: required for a free people’s collective security but, if insufficiently checked, guaranteed to devour liberty. The purpose of the Constitution was not to make the positive case for government but for freedom. Freedom cannot exist without order, and thus implies some measure of government, but it is a limited government, vested with only the powers expressly enumerated. Specifically, other constitutions list certain rights that the government conveys upon the people, or, to put it as Obama did, the things “government must do on your behalf.” Our Constitution, by contrast, has precisely the opposite construction.  We, the people, are presumed to have all the rights, not just those written down in the Constitution.  (And the Declaration of Independence states that these rights are “endowed by our Creator;” not by any government.) Lest this be unclear, the drafters of the Constitution put it in writing.  The Ninth Amendment says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” And the Tenth Amendment goes further, stating explicitly that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” Winston Churchill defined Socialism as "a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Socialism is based on envy and the mandated sacrifice of others. Socialism is the stage between capitalism and communism where private wealth is distributed for the benefit of all. Socialism has come to mean chiefly the extensive redistribution of incomes through taxation and the institutions of the welfare state (Yes, that's Obama's economic plan). Socialism means reduced economic liberties, opportunities and living standards for all. Socialism is centralized power, and that is why socialist movements, which often begin as cults of personality, usually end in fascism: witness Stalinism, Maoism, Castroism, and, yes, Nazism, which stands for "National Socialism." Almost every major society that started with socialism has ended badly. Socialism has been refuted repeatedly, yet that hasn't stopped neo-Marxists, hiding now behind the title "community organizer," from dreaming their dreams of collective sacrifice for collective good. Almost every modern-day invention, from lifesaving drugs to computer software, was inspired by profit, not public welfare, yet everyone shares in the greater efficiencies, cost savings, life expectancies and job opportunities created by the inspiration and perspiration of money-hungry individuals. No system in history has created more wealth, per capita, over a shorter time than unbridled American capitalism. The idea that whole classes of people are exploited or oppressed in this country is a figment of the left's class-obsessed imagination. This fantasy is refuted by Federal Reserve data showing constant income mobility even between the lowest and highest quintiles. Policy shouldn't be built on such fantasy. It is not a coincidence that nearly all of Obama's mentors and close advisers supported Marxism, including: James Cone, Dwight Hopkins, Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, Jim Wallis, John McKnight, Cornel West and William Ayers. It's also no coincidence that Obama devoted his first memoir to the memory of his late father, a communist, who proposed massive taxes and redistribution of income in Kenya. He envisions a bloodless socialism, where IRS agents take wealth and where the Justice Department dictates contracts between labor and management. America promises a chance at success, yet Obama and other neo-Marxists twist that to mean America guarantees success through equal outcomes, and that it's government's role to do the equalizing. The Constitution doesn't exist to empower government, but to empower people… It begins, "We the people," not "We the government."

 

John McCain said "He's running to be redistributionist-in-chief; I'm running to be commander-in-chief. Senator Obama is running to spread the wealth and I'm running to create more wealth. Senator Obama is running to make plumbers successful; I'm running to make everybody successful." As the election approaches, John McCain must hammer key issues that differentiate himself from Barack Obama, while continuing to question Obama’s character and judgment. First, McCain would emphasize what makes America special: limited government, entrepreneurialism, a uniquely American understanding of human dignity rooted in liberty and responsibility. Second, McCain must emphasize his differences from the policies of President Bush, without alienating conservative voters. McCain can say: We need a president who talks with the American people, not another president who talks at them. Third, McCain would return to one of Obama’s greatest vulnerabilities, the well-deserved public perception that he thinks too highly of himself. McCain has an economic program that would definitely contribute to the recovery:

·        Make the Bush income tax cuts permanent.

·        Cut the corporate tax by 10% to 25%.

·        Preserve the 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends.

·        Use dynamic analysis of growth and competitive environment generated by tax cuts.

·        Allow businesses to expense technology and equipment in the same year they buy it.

·        Build nuclear plants.

·        Freeze government spending overall.

Meanwhile a nationwide Pew survey found that 58% of Americans now believe the war in Iraq is going well or very well, and the same percentage now also say that the U.S. will definitely or probably succeed in Iraq. In reality, “Americans are split asunder… cleft in twain by the cleaver of socialism.” The election of a socialist President will complete the great divide of America and render us truly TWO nations with no hope for unity.

 

The $700 billion bailout plan was targeted at rescuing the ailing financial sector, but so far this money has been used to buy banks and insurance companies with no exit strategy. The root cause of the housing meltdown was Democrat use of government regulation to achieve social engineering home ownership to people who could not afford their homes. Congress used the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to force banks to make risky loans to "help" people buy houses they could not afford. As early as 2001, President Bush and Republicans warned that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae's financial house was unstable and could wreak havoc on the economy.

·        Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spent more than $200 million lobbying Congress to ignore the problem.

·        Subservient Democrats, like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, dutifully declared that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were safe and sound and blocked reform.

Between ACORN and the Democrat National Committee we are truly witnessing a culture of corruption. The New York Times reported that ACORN’s activities “...may have led to violations of federal laws… potentially improper use of charitable dollars for political purposes; money transfers among the affiliates; and potential conflicts created by employees working for multiple affiliates.” Democrats added their misguided ACORN slush fund to the Fannie/Freddie bailout that passed the Democrat Congress this summer. At the same time that the FBI is busy trying to put the organization out of business, the Supreme Court decides it’s okay for Ohio’s Democratic governor and attorney general to do nothing about enforcing election laws, pretty much ensuring that Obama will steal that state’s 20 electoral votes. When Congress considered the emergency financial rescue package in September, Democrats once again tried to reward their legally-challenged ally, this time with a 20 percent taxpayer kick-back. Congress needs to resolve the tension at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between shareholder returns and HUD targets. But as they do so, lawmakers shouldn't pin the rap for the larger credit crisis on affordable housing. Contrary to the Obama narrative, it is not free-market capitalism at the root of the current mortgage industry crisis, but rather the very socialism Obama hawks. What once was disparagingly referred to as bailout for Wall Street now looks like a broader bailout of all sorts of troubled businesses, which is either serving the public interest as intended, or whether becoming a taxpayer-financed giveaway to favored firms. United States government now owns stakes in the nation’s biggest banks. It controls one of the biggest insurance companies in the world. It guarantees more than half the mortgages in the country. Finance, the lifeblood of capitalism, has to a substantial degree been taken over by the state. The question is what new direction capitalism should take. The solution will require rethinking the rules of finance. The plan drawn up by Treasury clearly envisions the government selling the stock back to the banks. After three years, a bank can opt to buy back its shares at any time. However all stock buy-back decisions, before and after three years, "shall be subject to the approval of the Qualified Financial Institution's primary federal bank regulator." But the bottom line is that banks are not guaranteed they can buy back their stock. Only time will tell, along with the election results, what will be the final phase of the bailout plan – re-privatization or nationalization?

 

If you are sick and tired of government and politics as usual, read my web site with its individual issue analysis and recommendations at: http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com Remember this site is updated every Saturday. Individual issue updates this week include:

 

This Week’s Best Articles:

 

David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY