Thursday, October 30, 2008

Obama's Taxes Taxpayers for more Welfare Checks to Nontaxpayers

-In real numbers, 60.7 million people who have no tax burden at all will receive refunds from Obama, while only 33.8 million people, who pay approximately 40 percent of income taxes, will get any kind of refund. Twenty percent[20%] of taxpayers, who pay 87.5 percent of total income taxes, will actually see after-tax income decline under Obama by nearly two percent[2%], according to the Center.

http://www.macpac08.com/2008/10/obamas-tax-lies.html

Oct 16, 2008
Obama's Tax Lies
Interesting article at the Wall Street Journal, outlining how Obama's tax policy is more about wealth redistribution than it is lowering taxes for, as he says "95% of all families."


"For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut."

These refunds are claimed on tax returns and are paid to all taxpayers who qualify for them, regardless of whether they owe taxes or not. These refunds have the ability of reducing a taxpayer’s liability below zero, meaning they can get a refund without actually paying taxes.

In real numbers, 60.7 million people who have no tax burden at all will receive refunds from Obama, while only 33.8 million people, who pay approximately 40 percent of income taxes, will get any kind of refund. Twenty percent of taxpayers, who pay 87.5 percent of total income taxes, will actually see after-tax income decline under Obama by nearly two percent, according to the Center.

Thanks To AFBlue at 7:24 AM

Monday, October 27, 2008

“A Third of all the Obama Voters Live with a McCain Voter"

-Morris suggests a simple plan that could put McCain over the top in votes: “A third of all the Obama voters live with a McCain voter. It’s the McCain voters’ job to read . . . stock up on ammunition, and win the breakfast table conversation!”

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Morris_close_prez_race/2008/10/27/144599.html

Dick Morris Says Presidential Race In 'Tremendous Flux,' with McCain Gaining

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:56 PM

By: Kenneth D. Williams Article Font Size


Dick Morris says the presidential race is now in a state of “tremendous flux,” with McCain gaining anywhere from 3 to 7 percentage points in just the past few hours.


Fox News host Neil Cavuto, interviewing Morris for his “Your World” program today, told Morris that, to him, Obama’s economic plan wasn’t adding up. “And no one knows it’s not adding up!” Cavuto said.


Morris agreed, saying, “It’s ridiculous to think that you can pay for an elaborate spending plan like Obama’s by taxing 10 people who happen to be rich in the United States. It’s ludicrous.”


Cavuto pointed out that Obama said he would raise capital gains taxes by 5 percent, and wondered why anyone wouldn’t sell now and save 5 percent on taxes.


Morris reminded Cavuto that Obama probably would raise capital gains taxes by 13 percent, from the current 15 to a high of 28 percent. “During the primary they asked Obama, ‘How high would you raise capital gains taxes?’ And he said, ‘I wouldn’t go higher than it was under Clinton,’ which was 28 percent. So if you’re going to sell your stock now, you get to keep 85 percent of your [gains]. If you sell it later, you only get to keep 80, and probably 72 percent. ”


For McCain’s part, Morris said he could use a “tax-induced market sell-off” scenario against Obama.


“I think that what McCain needs to do is to challenge Obama to two years of moratorium on capital gains tax increases,” Morris told Cavuto, “and say, ‘With the market plunging a couple of hundred points every single day, from here until Election Day, if the voters believe you’re going to raise capital gains taxes, and they feel you’re going to win, it’s going to send the market into a tizzy. Why don’t we both agree not to raise capital gains taxes?’ And Obama can’t follow him on that, and that puts the declining market over the next six or seven days on the Obama campaign’s doorstep.”


Morris then detailed how close the presidential race had become in a matter of hours.


“I want to report that this election right now is in a state of enormous flux,” he said. “Forty-eight hours ago, there was no sign of any McCain movement. Then Zogby first reported it narrowing from a 12-point Obama lead to 9, and then yesterday to 5. Today Rasmussen, who had [Obama’s lead] at 8 reported it at 5, and Gallup, that had it at 6, now reports it at 5. So you have the three most reliable tracking polls, Rasmussen, Zogby and Gallup, all saying 5.”


Morris suggests a simple plan that could put McCain over the top in votes: “A third of all the Obama voters live with a McCain voter. It’s the McCain voters’ job to read . . . stock up on ammunition, and win the breakfast table conversation!”

Obama Caught on Tape Calling for Redistributing Wealth

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_spread_wealth/2008/10/27/144493.html

Obama Caught on Tape Calling for Redistributing Wealth

Monday, October 27, 2008 12:22 PM

By: David A. Patten Article Font Size




One of the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement is that it failed to lead to income redistribution in the United States, Barack Obama appears to state in an audio excerpt of a Chicago public radio program recorded in 2001.

Obama, who then was an Illinois state senator, also stated that people continue to “suffer” because there is no government program to take money from the rich and redistribute it to Americans who are less well off.

The excerpt, posted on YouTube.com, has set the blogosphere abuzz.

It also caught the attention of GOP presidential nominee John McCain, who is using it to help drive home the Joe the plumber theme. McCain states that Obama’s plan to “spread the wealth around” amounts to income redistribution.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Obama: Jekyll-Hyde

-Jekyll-Hyde case. I imagined the leftist Dr. Barack, having won the nomination, drinking a potion and turning into the centrist Mr. Obama for the final campaign. I had to discard this model because Obama manages to hold conflicting positions simultaneously, like one of those images under ridged plastic that changes back and forth as you tilt it.

-There is something like that in C. S. Lewis' The Great Divorce, wherein one of the damned spirits, an ugly silent dwarf, leads around a large impressive puppet that speaks for him like a ventriloquist's dummy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2096438/posts

The Enigma of Obama
American Thinker ^ | October 03, 2008 | Paul Shlichta

Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2008 11:55:03 PM by neverdem

A school of thought is emerging that Barack Obama has an advanced form of narcissistic personality disorder. I heartily agree with Robert Bowie Johnson and Dr. Sam Vaknin in their shared conclusion, but I reached it from a somewhat different route. I had been trying to write an article comparing our political candidates to circus freaks such as chameleons, phoobs, and contortionists. But I was stumped when I came to Obama, who seems to partake of all of these metaphors.



How can one categorize a man who combines:


-a revivalist's grandiose and extravagant oratory,
-a charismatic talent for swaying crowds for no logical reason that they can explain,
bewilderingly contradictory changes in positions on issues,
-a squidlike ability to befog and blur statements into ambiguous or ominous vagaries,
-an inflated image (and self-image) covering a naïve and meager mental ability,
-a penchant for gaffes and misstatements combined with a dismissal of any corrections as irrelevant or malignant,
-a humorless rigidity, elitist aloofness, and perpetual air of condescension, and
-a thin-skinned aggrievement at being misinterpreted or of having his privacy violated.

It's like trying to cram a three-ring circus into a pup tent. Unlike a chameleon, he maintains a constant personal image; it is only his positions that change. He shares the ignorance and self confidence of megaegos, but they doggedly stick to one set of dogmas while he changes them with the ease of a shapeshifter. Moreover, he maintains conflicting positions with more grace than a contortionist and more rigidity than an india-rubber man.


I tried thinking of him as a Jekyll-Hyde case. I imagined the leftist Dr. Barack, having won the nomination, drinking a potion and turning into the centrist Mr. Obama for the final campaign. I had to discard this model because Obama manages to hold conflicting positions simultaneously, like one of those images under ridged plastic that changes back and forth as you tilt it.


I next thought of Obama as an amoeba [no anagram intended], incessantly changing its detailed shape. to engulf its prey while maintaining a constant overall appearance. This suggested the image of an amoeba splitting in two (one to reassure the liberals while the other woos the centrists) or of Siamese twins or a two-headed man-a perfect freak for my political sideshow.


And then I saw the ads for "The Dark Knight". Of course, Barack Obama is Harvey Dent! Imagine Two Face in the White House, with his subservient aides saying: "Mister President, Iran has just detonated an atomic bomb. Should we attack them or negotiate?" Without a word, the coin flips up and spins in mid-air....


But all this imagery iconizes only one facet of Obama. His penchant for pyrotechnic oratory calls to mind a sideshow barker or snake oil salesman. His charisma suggests a hypnotist, or perhaps the daring young man on the flying trapeze. His pompous humorlessness suggests Victorian icons that I have described elsewhere. But his most prominent trait is the incongruous combination of meager mental resources, as evidenced by his frequent gaffes and childishly naïve pronouncements, with a greatly inflated self-image of his expertise and capabilities.


I then thought of one of those huge balloons in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade.

There is something like that in C. S. Lewis' The Great Divorce, wherein one of the damned spirits, an ugly silent dwarf, leads around a large impressive puppet that speaks for him like a ventriloquist's dummy.

Or like the old man in "Men in Black", who turns out to be a robot operated by a tiny alien sitting at the control panel inside its head.


But these extravagant fantasies are needless excesses. As she occasionally does, Maureen Dowd managed to pinpoint Obama precisely:


He seems more like a child prodigy. Those enraptured with his gifts urge him on, like anxious parents, trying to pull that sustained, dazzling performance out of him that they believe he's capable of; they are willing to put up with the prodigy's occasional listlessness and crabbiness, his flights of self-regard and self-righteousness.


But Dowd did not carry her analysis far enough. As Johnson and Vaknin and others have already pointed out, the traits she hints at would alert a psychologist to the likelihood of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), whose symptoms include


An exaggerated sense of self-importance; exaggerates achievements and talents; expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements
Need for excessive admiration
A sense of entitlement
Selfishness; taking advantage of others to achieve own ends
Lack of empathy
Arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behavior or attitudes.
It is important to realize that NPD is much more dangerous than simple vanity. Even closer to Dowd's precocious-child model is Joanna Ashmun's description of NPD:


"Narcissists have normal, even superior, intellectual development while remaining emotionally and morally immature. Dealing with them can give you the sense of trying to have a reasonable discussion with a very clever six-year-old -- this is an age when normal children are grandiose and exhibitionistic, when they are very resistant to taking the blame for their own misbehavior, when they understand what the rules are (e.g., that lying, cheating, and stealing are prohibited) but are still trying to wriggle out of accepting those rules for themselves."


The Dowd-Ashmum model, which seems to account for all of the Obamic traits listed above, moves us to pity and then horror. A child with NPD is bad enough -- but what if that child had the immense power of the President of the United States? As if to answer that question, Ashmun's website refers to Jerome Bixby's famous short story "It's a Good Life", in which a small boy is omnipotent, to the servile terror of everyone else in his village. A plot summary can be found in Wikipedia. The whole story can be found here.

But I warn you that, if you read it, you will be very anxious until the election is over -- and perhaps even more so in the years to come.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: npd; obama


1 posted on Thursday, October 02, 2008 11:55:03 PM by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: neverdem
He seems like the perfect prez for our modern world of narcissistic nitwits and pudgy-bodied multiculti emotion-based doofuses who think it’s cruel fate that they have to work for a living.



2 posted on Thursday, October 02, 2008 11:58:59 PM by Darkwolf377 (I've got a bracelet, too. From Sergeant..... uuuuuuuhhhhhhh...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: neverdem
Rasputin



3 posted on Friday, October 03, 2008 12:03:47 AM by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds." - Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: neverdem
Thank you for posting this. After reading it carefully, I realized that others had put perfectly in words what I contained within myself in feelings towards this very dangerous man.

It explains so many of his bizarre actions and reactions to me.



4 posted on Friday, October 03, 2008 12:04:48 AM by border bud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: neverdem
Hitler had the same sort of ‘personality’.

Catholic Bishop's Radio Ad could Sink Obama

-To hear and download bishop Gracida’s radio ad at no charge, go to www.randallterry.com. To organize a press conference in your area on Thursday, October 30, go to www.humbleplea.com for instructions.

-Simply contact your local radio station(s), buy 10 or 20 radio ads yourself, and they can download the audio file to play on their radio station. It is truly that simple. Call your radio station(s), tell them you want to buy ads, and tell them to download the mp3 file from our web site: www.randallterry.com. (For those with questions, call us at 904-687-9804.)

-Catholics to Demonstrate against Obama’s Pro-abortion Agenda
Theme: “No Catholic Can in Good Conscience Vote for Obama.”

At 12 Noon, Thursday, October 30, Catholics will hold a one hour demonstration, accompanied by a press conference, echoing Bishop Gracida’s words: No Catholic can in good conscience vote for Obama, because of his radical support of child-killing.

WOW! Bishop Gracida even names names. He stated and says on the radio, for all to hear, that Barack Hussein Obama is a pro-abortion candidate" and a Catholic CANNOT vote for him.

At last a real shepherd who is not afraid to name names. As far as I know, no other bishop has used Obama's name. If only all the bishops had the same "guts," the killing of unborn children would soon be history.

Get involved -- release the radio ad in your area.

Bishop Rene H. Gracida for Pope.

Frank Joseph M.D.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Breaking News: Bishop Rene H. Gracida releases a radio ad that could sink Obama’s campaign. This “political light saber” is in our hands. What will we do with it?

Bishop Rene H. Gracida releases radio ad against voting for Barack Obama; Catholics Plan anti-Obama Demonstrations and Press Conferences Coast to Coast on Thursday, October 30.

By Randall A. Terry

Like millions of the faithful, I have been thrilled by the sudden and forceful rise of various Bishops’ voices against the errors decimating the hearts of the Faithful in this election cycle. I am speaking of the errors stated by Doug Kmiec (and echoed by others) that go like this: “It is time to set the record straight that it violates no aspect of Catholic teaching for a Catholic Voter to endorse, support, or vote for Barack Obama…” (Doug Kmiec, Catholic Attorney and Author, Can a Catholic Support Him?, pg 36, emphasis added.)

Anyone with “an ear to hear” clearly knows that no Catholic can vote for Obama with a clear conscience – no matter what Doug Kmiec, Roman Catholics for Obama, or any other misguided Catholic may declare. As Bishop Martino declared: “This is madness, people.”

But now – perhaps in an eleventh hour answer to prayer – Bishop Rene H. Gracida has released a stunningly clear radio ad concerning Catholics voting for Barack Obama.

He boldly states:

"This is Bishop Rene H. Gracida, reminding all Catholics that they must vote in this election with an informed conscience. A Catholic cannot be said to have voted in this election with a good conscience if they have voted for a pro-abortion candidate. Barack Hussein Obama is a pro-abortion candidate."

Bishop Gracida recorded the radio spot in English and Spanish; it can be heard at www.randallterry.com.

But there is more good news – where you can be a part of defeating this madness – Bishop Gracida has offered this radio spot without charge for all who want to use it. You - an American citizen committed to protecting innocent unborn life in this election – can download the mp3 file, and pay to place this ad on your local radio station(s).

Simply contact your local radio station(s), buy 10 or 20 radio ads yourself, and they can download the audio file to play on their radio station. It is truly that simple. Call your radio station(s), tell them you want to buy ads, and tell them to download the mp3 file from our web site: www.randallterry.com. (For those with questions, call us at 904-687-9804.)

If this ad receives the airplay it deserves – and the unborn so desperately need – it could jolt Catholic voters back to their senses and moorings; Catholic voters who have been seduced into ethical quicksand by partisan supporters of Obama who betray the lives of innocent unborn children.

Catholics to Demonstrate against Obama’s Pro-abortion Agenda
Theme: “No Catholic Can in Good Conscience Vote for Obama.”

At 12 Noon, Thursday, October 30, Catholics will hold a one hour demonstration, accompanied by a press conference, echoing Bishop Gracida’s words: No Catholic can in good conscience vote for Obama, because of his radical support of child-killing.

Right now, cities include:

Cincinnati, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio
Indianapolis, Indiana
Denver, Colorado
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Jacksonville, FL
St. Augustine, FL
Miami, FL
Charlotte, NC
Arlington, VA
Richmond, VA
St. Louis, MO
Kansas City, MO
Joplin, MO

Our message to the press will be simple: “As Catholic voters – who put innocent life ahead or partisan politics – we reject the Obama/Biden ticket, and urge our fellow Catholics to abandon their plans to betray their faith.”

Our beloved late Holy Father, John Paul II, clearly stated: “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.” 73, Gospel of Life”

With our federal system of government, we do not vote for laws; we vote for lawmakers who make laws in our stead. Given the history and intention of Obama to continue the legalized killing of the unborn, to vote for him is to knowingly to participate in his evil acts and intentions, and in a real way to vote for abortion itself.

We will hold these peaceful vigils, and hopefully have some good “face time” with the media. If we do our job right, we could have millions of Catholics hear the truth through the vehicle of the secular media.

We beg the prayers of our compatriots, and invite others to join us.

We have about 15 cities ready to go; we would love to have 50!

If anyone is interested in leading an event in their city, they can go to www.humbleplea.com and look at the plans we have laid out. We will help anyone with a heart to help the babies in this election cycle.

I know that many are discouraged, many are fearful, and many do not know what to do.

Let us invoke our Blessed Mother for a miracle, and then lift up our voices with all our hearts.

Perhaps – just perhaps – the message of bishop Gracida and the growing chorus of bishops correcting the errors of Kmiec & Co. will reach the hearts of the faithful.

And maybe – if the laity ignites an unquenchable fire of truth through demonstrations, press conferences, and letters to the editor; emails, blogs, and a fervent plea to our pastors – maybe we will see a “Hail Mary” victory for the children in this election. Maybe Our Lady – for the sake of the Innocent – will honor the cries and sighs that have touched her Immaculate Heart.

(To hear and download bishop Gracida’s radio ad at no charge, go to www.randallterry.com. To organize a press conference in your area on Thursday, October 30, go to www.humbleplea.com for instructions.)

_______________________________________________


To respond to this email, subscribe, or unsubscribe, please contact Dr. Frank:

drfrank@abortiontruths.net

Thank you.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Powell and Obama's Gay Army

-Colin Powell to help army become gay Col.'s pal?

-Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama. Both men have spoken out against the military's discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

- Michael Guest was the first publicly gay man to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as a U.S. Ambassador. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell explicitly noted the presence of and positively recognized Guest’s same-sex partner, Alex Nevarez, during the swearing-in ceremony. The Human Rights Campaign called Powell’s acknowledgement of Nevarez a “small gesture that spoke volumes.”

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2008/10/colin-powell-to.html

21 hours ago by G-A-Y

Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

10/20/2008

Colin Powell to help army become gay Col.'s pal?

Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama. Both men have spoken out against the military's discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. So what does this melding of the minds mean for the future of this terrible policy? PFLAG's Steve Ralls (who used to toil at the anti-DADT Servicemembers Legal Defense Network) takes a look at that very issue:

What Will Powell's Endorsement Mean for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and Military Families? [HuffPo]
We certainly hope this is more indication that we're moving to a more inclusive day. After all, we're pretty damn sick of seeing the hostile views of those who crassly make jokes about gays and their "colon pals" exalted above those that seek a more peaceful day. It's time we graduate from junior high.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:jPoQpCv6D5sJ:thinkprogress.org/2007/12/04/michael-guest/+Colin+Powell+gays+Michael+Guest&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

Gay Ambassador Resigns Over State Department’s Discrimination Against Gay And Lesbian Employees»

Appointed by President Bush in 2001 to be Ambassador to Romania, Michael Guest was the first publicly gay man to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as a U.S. Ambassador. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell explicitly noted the presence of and positively recognized Guest’s same-sex partner, Alex Nevarez, during the swearing-in ceremony. The Human Rights Campaign called Powell’s acknowledgement of Nevarez a “small gesture that spoke volumes.”

But serving as an openly-gay ambassador under the Bush administration proved not to be as pleasant as his swearing-in. Guest retired recently, and at his retirement ceremony, “he did what few people do — displayed uncommon courage and threw a rhetorical hand-grenade into his own party.” The New York Times reports, “Guest took Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was not present) to task for failing to treat the partners of gay and lesbian foreign service officers the same as the spouses of heterosexual officers.” Guest said that was the reason for his departure:

“Most departing ambassadors use these events to talk about their successes . . . But I want to talk about my signal failure, the failure that in fact is causing me to leave the career that I love,” said Mr. Guest, 50, whose most recent assignment was dean of the leadership and management school at the Foreign Service Institute, the government’s school for diplomats.

“For the past three years, I’ve urged the Secretary and her senior management team to redress policies that discriminate against gay and lesbian employees. Absolutely nothing has resulted from this. And so I’ve felt compelled to choose between obligations to my partner — who is my family — and service to my country. That anyone should have to make that choice is a stain on the Secretary’s leadership and a shame for this institution and our country,” he said.

“Unlike heterosexual spouses, gay partners are not entitled to State Department-provided security training, free medical care at overseas posts, guaranteed evacuation in case of a medical emergency, transportation to overseas posts, or special living allowances when foreign service officers are assigned to places like Iraq, where diplomatic families are not permitted.”

“This is not about gay rights. … It’s about equal treatment of all employees, all of whom have the same service requirements, the same contractual requirements,” said Guest.

While the Bush administration has previously indicated an unwillingness to outlaw employment discrimination, Guest courageously highlights the fact that the administration is also practicing it.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Obama has repeatedly steered taxpayer money to campaign donors

The Case Against Barack Obama
The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate




FREE OFFER! — Get This Book Free, Click Here Now!



More Images

Newsmax Price: $25.95
List Price: $27.95


Quantity


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You Don’t Know Barack Obama Until You Read This Book.

This new book — "The Case Against Barack Obama" is published by the same group that brought you "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" — the book that defeated John Kerry in 2004.

Already the liberal media has condemned "The Case Against Barack Obama" because it could change the outcome of the election.

Make no doubt about it, Barack Obama is the media's darling, the fresh face of the Democratic ticket. But what does Barack Obama really stand for — and will his extreme liberal agenda and complete inexperience in global affairs endanger the country?

That's what David Freddoso, investigative reporter and National Review Online columnist, examines in "The Case Against Barack Obama."

Has any major candidate for president of the United States ever received less critical examination than Barack Obama? Who is this man, who was only elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004?

How did someone with his meager record of accomplishment become the Democratic nominee for president? How did someone with the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate and long-standing relationships with a former terrorist, a racist minister, and the corrupt operators of Chicago Machine politics end up as a supposed beacon of a newer, cleaner, bipartisan politics?

Investigative reporter David Freddoso has the answers. Doing the legwork that the mainstream media has neglected, applying a critical eye while the media swoons before the Obama-messiah, and posing the hard questions that Obama needs to answer, Freddoso reveals a politician as calculating as any other, a far-left Democrat who goes beyond "abortion rights" to supporting de facto infanticide, whose "new politics" amount to Chicago-style hardball overlain with lofty rhetoric, and who, from his positions of power, has helped his patrons.

In "The Case Against Barack Obama", you’ll learn:

How Obama’s friendship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright was no accident, but a carefully thought-out personal and political decision
The inside story of Obama's association with terrorist Bill Ayers wouldn’t matter — an exposé of the insular radical chic of Chicago's Hyde Park politics
The real story of Obama as a puppet of Mayor Daley's corrupt Chicago political machine
What Obama really did for convicted developer Tony Rezko
Debunking the myth of Obama’s "new" politics: how Obama won his first election by throwing all of his competitors off the ballot
The new 'Dirty Politics': how underhanded politics sabotaged Obama's opponents in his 2004 Senate race
A story Obama would like to stay buried in Chicago: how he used his clout as a U.S. senator to save the corrupt Cook County Political Machine when reformers of both parties tried to challenge the entrenched political bosses
How Barack Obama opposed a bill banning infanticide-by-neglect — a stance too extreme even for Nancy Pelosi. (Freddoso has an exclusive interview with the nurse central to the case.)
Why the National Abortion Rights Action League says Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate they have ever backed
How Obama has repeatedly steered taxpayer money to campaign donors
And much, much more.
Sober, fair, and thoroughly researched — and all the more powerful and provocative because of it — "The Case Against Barack Obama" removes the halo from a man less qualified, and more radical, than the mainstream media has let you know.

Find out why electing this man as our Commander-in-Chief could be the most dangerous decision in American history.

David Freddoso covers Capitol Hill for National Review Online, and was previously a political reporter for the Evans-Novak Political Report and Human Events. A graduate of Notre Dame and the Columbia School of Journalism, he lives in Washington, D.C.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Evidence Mounts:Ayers Co-Wrote Obama’s “Dreams”

http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/evidence_mounts.htm

Evidence Mounts:Ayers Co-Wrote Obama’s “Dreams”

© Jack Cashill


AmericanThinker.com
October 17, 2008

Evidence continues to mount that Barack Obama had substantial help from Bill Ayers in the creation of his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, a book that Time Magazine has called “the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician.” The evidence falls into five general categories, here summarized:

The discovery of new matching nautical metaphors from both Ayers and Obama that almost assuredly came from the same source: Ayers, a former merchant seaman.

The discovery of a Bill Ayers’ essay on memoir writing, whose postmodern themes and phrases are echoed throughout Dreams.

A newly discovered book chapter from 1990 that shows clearly and painfully the limits of Obama’s prose style the year he received a contract to write Dreams.

The revelation by radical Islamicist Rashid Khalidi that Ayers made his “dining room table” available for neighborhood writers who needed help.

A refined timeline that shows Ayers had the means, the motive and the time to help Obama when he needed it most.

The timeline

A 1990 New York Times profile on Obama’s election as the Harvard Law Review’s first black president in 1990 caught the eye of agent Jane Dystel. She persuaded Poseidon, a small imprint of Simon & Schuster, to authorize a roughly $125,000 advance for Obama’s proposed memoir.

Obama repaired to Chicago with advance in hand and dithered. At one point, in order to finish the book without interruption, he and wife Michelle decamped to Bali. Obama was supposed to have finished the book within a year. Bali or not, advance or no, he could not. Simon & Schuster canceled the contract. His agent hustled him a new, smaller contract.

Ayers published his book To Teach in 1993. Between 1993 and 1996, he had no other formal authorial assignment than to co-edit a collection of essays. This was an unusual hole in his very busy publishing career.

Obama’s memoir was published in June 1995. Earlier that year, Ayers helped Obama, then a junior lawyer at a minor law firm, get appointed chairman of the multi-million dollar Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant. In the fall of that same year, 1995, Ayers and his wife, Weatherwoman Bernardine Dohrn, helped blaze Obama’s path to political power with a fundraiser in their Chicago home.

In short, Ayers had the means, the motive, the time, the place and the literary ability to jumpstart Obama’s career. And, as Ayers had to know, a lovely memoir under Obama’s belt made for a much better resume than an unfulfilled contract over his head.

Neighborhood assistance

Allow me to reconstruct how Obama transformed himself into what the New York Times has called “that rare politician who can write . . . and write movingly and genuinely about himself.” There is an element of speculation in this, but new evidence continues to narrow the gap between the speculative and the conclusive. One clue comes from an unexpected source, Rashid Khalidi, the radical Arab-American friend of Obama’s and reputed ally of the PLO.

In the acknowledgment section of his 2004 book, Resurrecting Empire, Khalidi writes of Ayers, “Bill was particularly generous in letting me use his family’s dining room table to do some writing for the project.” Khalidi did not need the table. He had one of his own. He needed the help.

Khalidi had spent several years at Chicago University’s Center for International Studies. At a 2003 farewell dinner on the occasion of his departure from Chicago, Obama toasted him, thanking him and his wife for the many dinners that they had shared as well as for his “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases.”

Chicago’s Hyde Park was home to a tight, influential radical community at whose center were Ayers and Dohrn. In this world, the Ayers’ terrorist rap sheet only heightened their reputation. Obama had to know. The couple had given up revolution in 1980 for the long slow march through the institutions. By 1994, if not earlier, Ayers saw a way to quicken that march.

I believe that after failing to finish his book on time, and after forfeiting his advance from Simon & Schuster, Obama brought a sprawling, messy, sophomoric manuscript to the famed dining room table of Bill Ayers and said, “Help.”

Obama’s limited skills

Obama needed all the help he could get. Prior to 1990, he had written very close to nothing. In 1981 Occidental College published two of Obama’s poems—“Pop” and “Underground. Obama calls it some “very bad poetry,” and he does not sell himself short. From “Underground”:

Under water grottos, caverns

Filled with apes

That eat figs.

Stepping on the figs

That the apes

Eat, they crunch.

The apes howl, bare

Their fangs, dance . . .

It would be another decade before Obama had anything in print and this an edited, unsigned student case comment in the Harvard Law Review unearthed by Politico. Attorneys who reviewed the piece for Politico described it as “a fairly standard example of the genre.”

Once elected president of the Harvard Law Review—more of a popularity than a literary contest--Obama contributed not one signed word to the HLR or any other law journal.

In 1990 Obama also contributed an essay to a book published by the University of Illinois at Springfield, an anthology called After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.

Although the essay covers many of the issues raised in Dreams and uses some of the memoir’s techniques, it does so without a hint of style, sophistication, or promise. The following two excerpts capture Obama’s range or lack thereof:

“Moreover, such approaches can and have become thinly veiled excuses for cutting back on social programs, which are anathema to a conservative agenda.”

“But organizing the black community faces enormous problems as well . . . and the urban landscape is littered with the skeletons of previous efforts.”

These cliché-choked sentences go beyond the merely unpromising to the fully ungrammatical. “Organizing” does not “face.” “Efforts” do not leave “skeletons.” “Agendas” do not have “anathemas.” Indeed, the essay is clunky, pedestrian, and wonkish, a B- paper in a freshman comp class.

In “Why Organize” Obama makes use of the fully re-created conversation, a technique used to somewhat better effect in Dreams. Here, his ungainly conjuring of black speech makes one cringe:

"I just cannot understand why a bright young man like you would go to college, get that degree and become a community organizer."

"Why's that?"

" 'Cause the pay is low, the hours is long, and don't nobody appreciate you."

To read “Why Organize” in its entirety is to understand the profound limits of Obama’s literary talent. I am sure he sensed those limits if no one else did.

Postmodern themes

Bill Ayers’ 2001 memoir Fugitive Days and Obama’s Dreams From My Father follow oddly similar rules. Ayers describes his as “a memory book,” one that deliberately blurs facts and changes identities and makes no claims at history. Obama says much the same. In Dreams, some characters are composites. Some appear out of precise chronology. Names have been changed.

Dreams and Fugitive Days are both suffused with repeated reference to lies, lying and what Ayers calls “our constructed reality.” A serious student of literature, Ayers has written thoughtfully on the role of the first person narrator in the construction of a memoir.

In true postmodernist fashion, he rejects the possibility of an objective, universal truth. He argues instead that our lives are journeys, whose “narratives” we “construct” and, if we have the will and the power, impose on others.

Curiously, Obama says much the same in Dreams and in much the same language. “But another part of me knew that what I was telling them was a lie,” writes Obama, “something I’d constructed from the scraps of information I’d picked up from my mother.”

The evidence strongly suggests that Ayers transformed the stumbling literalist of “Why Organize” into the sophisticated postmodernist of Dreams, and he did not so not by tutoring Obama, but by rewriting his text. The Ayers’ quotes that follow come from an essay of his, “Narrative Push/Narrative Pull.” The Obama quotes come from Dreams:

Ayers:

“The hallmark of writing in the first person is intimacy. . . . But in narrative the universal is revealed through the specific, the general through the particular, the essence through the unique, and necessity is revealed through contingency.”

Obama:

“And so what was a more interior, intimate effort on my part, to understand this struggle and to find my place in it, has converged with a broader public debate, a debate in which I am professionally engaged . . . “



Ayers:

“Narrative begins with something to say—content precedes form.”

Obama:

“I understood that I had spent much of my life trying to rewrite these stories, plugging up holes in the narrative . . . “



Ayers:

“Narrative inquiry can be a useful corrective to all this.”

Obama:

“Truth is usually the best corrective.”



Ayers:

“The mind works in contradiction, and honesty requires the writer to reveal disputes with herself on the page.”

Obama:

“Not because that past is particularly painful or perverse but because it speaks to those aspects of myself that resist conscious choice and that--on the surface, at least--contradict the world I now occupy.”

Ayers:

The reader must actually see the struggle. It’s a journey, not by a tourist, but by a pilgrim.

Obama:

“But all in all it was an intellectual journey that I imagined for myself, complete with maps and restpoints and a strict itinerary.”



Ayers:

“Narrative writers strive for a personal signature, but must be aware that the struggle for honesty is constant.”

Obama:

“I was engaged in a fitful interior struggle. I was trying to raise myself to be a black man in America.”

Ayers:

“But that intimacy can trap a writer into a defensive crouch, into airing grievances or self-justification.”

Obama:

“At best, these things were a refuge; at worst, a trap.”



Although I cite one example for each, Dreams offers many more. There are ten “trap” references alone and nearly as many for “narrative,” “struggle,” and “journey.” To be sure, there are other postmodernists in Chicago, but few who write as stylishly and as intelligibly as Ayers and fewer who make their dining room tables available to would-be authors of a leftist bent.

The sea metaphors

A newly discovered anecdote from Bill Ayers’ 1993 book, To Teach, solidifies the case that he is indeed the muse behind Barack Obama’s Dreams From My Father.

In the book, Ayers tells the story of an adventurous teacher who would take her students out to the streets of New York to learn interesting life lessons about the culture and history of the city. As Ayers tells it, the students were fascinated by the Hudson River nearby and asked to see it. When they got to the river’s edge, one student said, ” Look, the river is flowing up.” A second student said, “No, it has to flow south-down.”

Not knowing which was right, the teacher and the students did their research. What they discovered, writes Ayers, was “that the Hudson River is a tidal river, that it flows both north and south, and they had visited the exact spot where the tide stops its northward push.”

In his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, Barack Obama shares a stunningly comparable anecdote about tidal rivers from his own brief New York sojourn. He tells of meeting with “Marty Kauffman” at a Lexington Avenue diner, the man from Chicago who was trying to recruit him as a community organizer.

After the meeting, Obama “took the long way home, along the East River promenade.” This serendipitous journey to the river enables him to tell a story that is transparently fabricated and almost assuredly hatched in the weathered brain of Bill Ayers.

As “a long brown barge rolled through the gray waters toward the sea,” Obama sat down on a bench to consider his options. While sitting, he noticed a black woman and her young son against the railing. Overly fond of the too well remembered detail, Obama observes that “they stood side by side, his arm wrapped around her leg, a single silhouette against the twilight.”

The boy appeared to ask his mother a question that she could not answer and then approached Obama: “Excuse me, mister,” he shouted. “You know why sometimes the river runs that way and then sometimes it goes this way?”

"The woman smiled and shook her head, and I said it probably had to do with the tides." Obama uses the seeming indecisiveness of this tidal river as a metaphor for his own. Immediately afterwards, he shakes the indecision and heads for Chicago.

Even were there no other clues, Obama’s frequent and sophisticated use of nautical metaphors like this one makes a powerful case for Ayers’ involvement in the writing of Dreams. Despite growing up in Hawaii, Obama gives no indication than he has had any real experience with the sea or ships. Ayers, however, knew a great deal about the sea. After dropping out of college, he took up the life of a merchant seaman.

Although Ayers has tried to put his anxious ocean-going days behind him, the language of the sea will not let him go. “I realized that no one else could ever know this singular experience,” Ayers writes of his maritime adventures. Yet curiously, much of this same nautical language flows through Obama’s earth-bound memoir.

“Memory sails out upon a murky sea,” Ayers writes at one point. Indeed, both he and Obama are obsessed with memory and its instability. The latter writes of its breaks, its blurs, its edges, its lapses. Obama also has a fondness for the word “murky” and its aquatic usages.

“The unlucky ones drift into the murky tide of hustles and odd jobs,” he writes, one of four times “murky” appears in Dreams. Ayers and Obama also speak often of waves and wind, Obama at least a dozen times on wind alone. “The wind wipes away my drowsiness, and I feel suddenly exposed,” he writes in a typical passage. Both also make conspicuous use of the word “flutter.”

Not surprisingly, Ayers uses “ship” as a metaphor with some frequency. Early in the book he tells us that his mother is “the captain of her own ship,” not a substantial one either but “a ragged thing with fatal leaks” launched into a “sea of carelessness.” Obama too finds himself “feeling like the first mate on a sinking ship.” He also makes a metaphorical reference to “a tranquil sea.”

More intriguing is Obama’s use of the word “ragged” as an adjective as in the highly poetic “ragged air” or “ragged laughter.” Both books use “storms” and “horizons” both as metaphor and as reality. Ayers writes poetically of an “unbounded horizon,” and Obama writes of “boundless prairie storms” and poetic horizons—“violet horizon,” “eastern horizon,” “western horizon.”

Ayers often speaks of “currents” and “pockets of calm” as does Obama, who uses both as nouns as in “a menacing calm” or “against the current” or “into the current.” The metaphorical use of the word “tangled” might also derive from one’s nautical adventures. Ayers writes of his “tangled love affairs” and Obama of his “tangled arguments.”

In Dreams, we read of the “whole panorama of life out there” and in Fugitive Days, “the whole weird panorama.” Ayers writes of still another panorama, this one “an immense panorama of waste and cruelty.” Obama employs the word “cruel” and its derivatives no fewer than fourteen times in Dreams.

On at least twelve occasions, Obama speaks of “despair,” as in the “ocean of despair.” Ayers speaks of a “deepening despair,” a constant theme for him as well. Obama’s "knotted, howling assertion of self" sounds like something from the pages of Jack London’s The Sea Wolf.

My own semi-memoir, Sucker Punch, offers a useful control here too. The book makes no reference at all, metaphorical or otherwise, to ships, seas, oceans, calms, storms, wind, waves, horizons, panoramas, or to things howling, fluttering, knotted, ragged, tangled, or murky. None. And yet I have spent a good chunk of every summer of my life at the ocean.

If there is any one paragraph in Dreams that has convinced me of Ayers’ involvement it is this one, in which Obama describes the black nationalist message:

“A steady attack on the white race . . . served as the ballast that could prevent the ideas of personal and communal responsibility from tipping into an ocean of despair.”

As a writer, especially in the pre-Google era of Dreams, I would never have used a metaphor as specific as “ballast” unless I knew exactly what I was talking about. Seaman Ayers most surely did.

Why this matters

Obama’s handlers have “constructed” his persona around his presumably superior intelligence. Bill Buckley’s son Christopher, smitten by Obama’s literary skills, is among those who have yielded to this imagery and joined the Obama crusade. Even if someone benign had ghostwritten the book it would present a problem for Obama.

The question is often asked why Obama associated with Ayers. The more appropriate question is why the powerful Ayers would associate with the then obscure Obama. Before Obama’s ascendancy, it was Ayers who had the connections, the clout, and the street cred. Ayers could also write and write very well. By the mid-1990s he had had several of his books published. What Ayers could never do, however, was run for office on his own.

My suspicion is that Ayers saw the potential in Obama, and chose to mold it. The calculation in Dreams is palpable. Nothing about the book would deny a black Democrat the White House. If it were revealed that the ghostwriter is Ayers, it would suggest that Ayers has played a major role all along in the shaping of Barack Obama. It is unlikely that the McCain camp would have invested so much energy in establishing the Ayers-Obama link if they did not think this was the case.

At the end of the day, the observer is left with only two conclusions: either Barack Obama experienced a quantum surge in his writing skills almost overnight; or someone made a major contribution to the rewriting of his book.

The dispassionate observer has to choose the latter—the former has no precedent. If he can endure the consequences, he concedes that that contributor had to be Bill Ayers.



Jack Cashill is the author, among other books, of Hoodwinked: How Intellectual Hucksters Hijacked American Culture. He has a Ph.D. in American Studies from Purdue University.

Obama Bought off by the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street

-But hasn't Senator Obama repeatedly told us in ads and speeches and debates that he wasn't taking money from registered lobbyists? Hasn't the press given him a free pass on this statement?

-The Center for Responsive Politics website allows one to pull up the filings made by lobbyists, registering under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 with the clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and secretary of the U.S. Senate. These top five contributors to the Obama campaign have filed as registered lobbyists: Sidley Austin LLP; Skadden, Arps, et al; Jenner & Block; Kirkland & Ellis; Wilmerhale, aka Wilmer Cutler Pickering.

-Is it possible that Senator Obama does not know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists?

-Or is he making a distinction that because these funds are coming from the employees of these firms, he's not really taking money directly from registered lobbyists?

-That thesis seems disingenuous when many of these individual donors own these law firms as equity partners or shareholders and share in the profits generated from lobbying.

-Far from keeping his distance from lobbyists, Senator Obama and his campaign seems to be brainstorming with them.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=613&Itemid=1

Obama's Money Cartel: How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street
Presidential Politics 2008 - Obama
Wednesday, 07 May 2008
by Pam Martens

The candidate that claims to be the only presidential contender who doesn't take money from lobbyists is in fact the biggest recipient of lobby-related contributions. Barack Obama rakes in millions from law firms serving the interests of Wall Street, including the financial institutions that gave us the subprime lending crisis. Lawyers that work for firms that earn hundreds of millions of dollars for lobbying may technically not be lobbyists, but they share in their colleagues' earnings as influencers of Congress - a legal loophole that allows Obama to claim his hands are clean of lobby loot. "The top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans."

Obama's Money Cartel: How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street


by Pam Martens

This article is the result of a special investigation undertaken by Counterpunch, orignally printed in 2 parts, here and here..


"The top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans."
Wall Street, known variously as a barren wasteland for diversity or the last plantation in America, has defied courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for decades in its failure to hire blacks as stockbrokers. Now it's marshalling its money machine to elect a black man to the highest office in the land. Why isn't the press curious about this?


Walk into any of the largest Wall Street brokerage firms today and you'll see a self-portrait of upper management racism and sexism: women sitting at secretarial desks outside fancy offices occupied by predominantly white males. According to the EEOC as well as the recent racial discrimination class actions filed against UBS and Merrill Lynch, blacks make up between 1 per cent to 3.5 per cent of stockbrokers - this after 30 years of litigation, settlements and empty promises to do better by the largest Wall Street firms.

The first clue to an entrenched white male bastion seeking a black male occupant in the oval office (having placed only five blacks in the U.S. Senate in the last two centuries) appeared in February on a chart at the Center for Responsive Politics website. It was a list of the 20 top contributors to the Barack Obama campaign, and it looked like one of those comprehension tests where you match up things that go together and eliminate those that don't. Of the 20 top contributors, I eliminated six that didn't compute. I was now looking at a sight only slightly less frightening to democracy than a Diebold voting machine. It was a Wall Street cartel of financial firms, their registered lobbyists, and go-to law firms that have a death grip on our federal government.

Why is the "yes, we can" candidate in bed with this cartel? How can "we," the people, make change if Obama's money backers block our ability to be heard?

Seven of the Obama campaign's top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest frauds have left thousands of children in some of our largest minority communities coming home from school to see eviction notices and foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a lifetime.

"How can ‘we,' the people, make change if Obama's money backers block our ability to be heard?"

These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to Wall Street. There are five large corporate law firms that are also registered lobbyists; and one is a corporate law firm that is no longer a registered lobbyist but does legal work for Wall Street. The cumulative total of these 14 contributors through February 1, 2008, was $2,872,128, and we're still in the primary season.


But hasn't Senator Obama repeatedly told us in ads and speeches and debates that he wasn't taking money from registered lobbyists? Hasn't the press given him a free pass on this statement?

Barack Obama, speaking in Greenville, South Carolina on January 22, 2008:

"Washington lobbyists haven't funded my campaign, they won't run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president."

Barack Obama, in an email to supporters on June 25, 2007, as reported by the Boston Globe:

"Candidates typically spend a week like this - right before the critical June 30th financial reporting deadline - on the phone, day and night, begging Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs to write huge checks. Not me. Our campaign has rejected the money-for-influence game and refused to accept funds from registered federal lobbyists and political action committees."


The Center for Responsive Politics website allows one to pull up the filings made by lobbyists, registering under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 with the clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and secretary of the U.S. Senate. These top five contributors to the Obama campaign have filed as registered lobbyists: Sidley Austin LLP; Skadden, Arps, et al; Jenner & Block; Kirkland & Ellis; Wilmerhale, aka Wilmer Cutler Pickering.

Is it possible that Senator Obama does not know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists? Or is he making a distinction that because these funds are coming from the employees of these firms, he's not really taking money directly from registered lobbyists? That thesis seems disingenuous when many of these individual donors own these law firms as equity partners or shareholders and share in the profits generated from lobbying.

Far from keeping his distance from lobbyists, Senator Obama and his campaign seems to be brainstorming with them.

The political publication, The Hill, reported on December 20, 2007, that three salaried aides on the Obama campaign were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations. (The Obama campaign said they had stopped lobbying since joining the campaign.) Bob Bauer, counsel to the Obama campaign, is an attorney with Perkins Coie. That law firm is also a registered lobbyist.

What might account for this persistent (but non-reality based) theme of distancing the Obama campaign from lobbyists? Odds are it traces back to one of the largest corporate lobbyist spending sprees in the history of Washington whose details would cast an unwholesome pall on the Obama campaign, unless our cognitive abilities are regularly bombarded with abstract vacuities of hope and change and sentimental homages to Dr. King and President Kennedy.

"Many of these individual donors share in the profits generated from lobbying."

On February 10, 2005, Senator Obama voted in favor of the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Senators Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and 16 other Democrats voted against it. It passed the Senate 72-26 and was signed into law on February 18, 2005. Here is an excerpt of remarks Senator Obama made on the Senate floor on February 14, 2005, concerning the passage of this legislation:


"Every American deserves their day in court. This bill, while not perfect, gives people that day while still providing the reasonable reforms necessary to safeguard against the most blatant abuses of the system. I also hope that the federal judiciary takes seriously their expanded role in class action litigation, and upholds their responsibility to fairly certify class actions so that they may protect our civil and consumer rights...."

Three days before Senator Obama expressed that fateful yea vote, 14 state attorneys general, including Lisa Madigan of Senator Obama's home state of Illinois, filed a letter with the Senate and House, pleading to stop the passage of this corporate giveaway: The AGs wrote: "State attorneys general frequently investigate and bring actions against defendants who have caused harm to our citizens... In some instances, such actions have been brought with the attorney general acting as the class representative for the consumers of the state. We are concerned that certain provisions of S.5 might be misinterpreted to impede the ability of the attorneys general to bring such actions...."


The Senate also received a desperate plea from more than 40 civil rights and labor organizations, including the NAACP, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Human Rights Campaign, American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Justice and Democracy, Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund), and Alliance for Justice. They wrote as follows:

"Under the [Class Action Fairness Act of 2005], citizens are denied the right to use their own state courts to bring class actions against corporations that violate these state wage and hour and state civil rights laws, even where that corporation has hundreds of employees in that state. Moving these state law cases into federal court will delay and likely deny justice for working men and women and victims of discrimination. The federal courts are already overburdened. Additionally, federal courts are less likely to certify classes or provide relief for violations of state law."

This legislation, which dramatically impaired labor rights, consumer rights and civil rights, involved five years of pressure from 100 corporations, 475 lobbyists, tens of millions of corporate dollars buying influence in our government, and the active participation of the Wall Street firms now funding the Obama campaign. "The Civil Justice Reform Group, a business alliance comprising general counsels from Fortune 100 firms, was instrumental in drafting the class-action bill," says Public Citizen.

One of the hardest working registered lobbyists to push this corporate giveaway was the law firm Mayer-Brown, hired by the leading business lobby group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Chamber of Commerce spent $16 million in just 2003, lobbying the government on various business issues, including class action reform.

According to a 2003 report from Public Citizen, Mayer-Brown's class action lobbyists included "Mark Gitenstein, former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and a leading architect of the Senate strategy in support of class-action legislation; John Schmitz, who was deputy counsel to President George H.W. Bush; David McIntosh, former Republican congressman from Indiana; and Jeffrey Lewis, who was on the staffs of both Sen. John Breaux (D-La) and Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La)".

While not on the Center for Responsive Politics list of the top 20 contributors to the Obama presidential campaign, Mayer-Brown's partners and employees are in rarefied company, giving a total of $92,817 through December 31, 2007, to the Obama campaign. (The firm is also defending Merrill Lynch in court against charges of racial discrimination.)

Senator Obama graduated Harvard Law magna cum laude and was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Given those credentials, one assumes that he understood the ramifications to the poor and middle class in this country as he helped gut one of the few weapons left to seek justice against giant corporations and their legions of giant law firms. The class-action vehicle confers upon each citizen one of the most powerful rights in our society: the ability to function as a private attorney general and seek redress for wrongs inflicted on ourselves as well as for those similarly injured that might not otherwise have a voice.

"Obama helped gut one of the few weapons left to seek justice against giant corporations and their legions of giant law firms."


Those rights should have been strengthened, not restricted, at this dangerous time in our nation's history. According to a comprehensive report from the nonprofit group, United for a Fair Economy, over the past eight years the total loss of wealth for people of color is between $164 billion and $213 billion for subprime loans which is the greatest loss of wealth for people of color in modern history:

"According to federal data, people of color are more than three times more likely to have subprime loans: high-cost loans account for 55 per cent of loans to blacks, but only 17 per cent of loans to whites."

If there had been equitable distribution of subprime loans, losses for white people would be 44.5 per cent higher and losses for people of color would be about 24 per cent lower. "This is evidence of systemic prejudice and institutional racism."
Before the current crisis, based on improvements in median household net worth, it would take 594 more years for blacks to achieve parity with whites. The current crisis is likely to stretch this even further.

So, how should we react when we learn that the top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans? How should we react when we learn that on the big donor list is Citigroup, whose former employee at CitiFinancial testified to the Federal Trade Commission that it was standard practice to target people based on race and educational level, with the sales force winning bonuses called "Rocopoly Money" (like a sick board game), after "blitz" nights of soliciting loans by phone? How should we react when we learn that these very same firms, arm in arm with their corporate lawyers and registered lobbyists, have weakened our ability to fight back with the class-action vehicle?

Should there be any doubt left as to who owns our government? The very same cast of characters making the Obama hit parade of campaign loot are the clever creators of the industry solutions to the wave of foreclosures gripping this nation's poor and middle class, effectively putting the solution in the hands of the robbers. The names of these programs (that have failed to make a dent in the problem) have the same vacuous ring: Hope Now; Project Lifeline.

Senator Obama has become the inspiration and role model to millions of children and young people in this country. He has only two paths now: to be a dream maker or a dream killer. But be assured of one thing: this country will not countenance any more grand illusions.

Pam Martens worked on Wall Street for 21 years; she has no securities position, long or short, in any company mentioned in this article. She writes on public interest issues from New Hampshire. She can be reached at pamk741@aol.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

New Rap Song: NO Bama NO!

My name is Barack, Im heaven sent-
i want to be your president-
Ill take help from anyone I can-
Farrakhan, Oprah or terrorist man

By now everybody knows my name-
Some vote for me out of shame-
and some will vote for what they see-
Ill take any vote, if its for me-

No-bama No!
No-Bama No!
No-Bama No!
No-Bama No!

Ive got no birth certificate-
Now what the heck did i do with it-
and if I can avoid any more detection-/if you dont make the right selection
youre gonna wish there was another election

I'll give all rights to cross dressers,
and all those other gender benders-
My friends in Hollywood and TV
wont let you hear/know nothing bad about me

No-bama No!
No-Bama No!
No-Bama No!
No-Bama No!

I go to a Church where you can hear,
the name in vain said loud and clear-
I take the kids so they will know,
that they can cuss like so and so

Now I believe what I believe
though I get confused about which creed-
Im a man of prayer-a man of faith-
even if I forget what Im supposed to say-


No-bama No!
No-Bama No!
No-Bama No!
No-Bama No!


My name is Barak Im heaven sent
I want to be your president-
Yes, I really want to win this race
So, ACORN, get those voters in place!!

I'm the doctor of death-the sire of slick-
sometimes I even make myself sick.
I've got an agenda that's well hidden-
(I might not even be a citizen)


No-bama No!
No-Bama No!
No-Bama No!
No-Bama No!

Saturday, October 18, 2008

AP/Yahoo shows Obama leading McCain by two points, 44%-42%

Hey, This Race Might Be Winnable
A lot of the state polls look pretty bad for McCain lately, but there's been an interesting shift in the tracking polls.

* Rasmussen’s Presidential Tracking poll now shows Barack Obama leading John McCain by four points, 50 percent to 46 percent. At one point, Obama was up by 8. * Gallup’s national tracking poll of likely voters has Obama leading McCain by two points, 49 percent to 47 percent. * AP/Yahoo shows Obama leading McCain by two points, 44%-42% * The Reuters/C-Span/Zogby national tracking survey shows Obama leading McCain by five points, 49%-44%. * The GW/Battleground tracking poll has Obama leading McCain by four points, 49%-45%.

The other thing is, in most of these, if there's been movement, Obama's been pretty consistent - right around, or just under, 50 percent. McCain's gains have come from undecideds.

It has been argued that this election is a referendum on Obama, and I largely concur. The endless magazine covers, the ubiquitous commercials, the posters, the stadium rally, his own channel on some cable systems, the postponement of the World Series for his half-hour national address... If you see him as a presidential and ready for the job, you're for him; if you don't, you don't and you vote for the other guy.

(Interesting that McCain referred to Obama during one debate as "that one" since to a lot of voters, McCain is "the other one.")

Obviously, I'd rather be up by four or five than down by four or five. But I'm not sure the instant demonization of Joe the Plumber helps Obama with all of those waverers in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

(10/17/2008)
- National Review Online Blogs, NY

Obama Bought off by Registered Lobbyists as Press Attacks Citizen Joe the Plumber

-But hasn't Senator Obama repeatedly told us in ads and speeches and debates that he wasn't taking money from registered lobbyists? Hasn't the press given him a free pass on this statement?

-The Center for Responsive Politics website allows one to pull up the filings made by lobbyists, registering under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 with the clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and secretary of the U.S. Senate. These top five contributors to the Obama campaign have filed as registered lobbyists: Sidley Austin LLP; Skadden, Arps, et al; Jenner & Block; Kirkland & Ellis; Wilmerhale, aka Wilmer Cutler Pickering.

-Is it possible that Senator Obama does not know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists?

-Or is he making a distinction that because these funds are coming from the employees of these firms, he's not really taking money directly from registered lobbyists?

-That thesis seems disingenuous when many of these individual donors own these law firms as equity partners or shareholders and share in the profits generated from lobbying.

-Far from keeping his distance from lobbyists, Senator Obama and his campaign seems to be brainstorming with them.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=613&Itemid=1

Obama's Money Cartel: How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street
Presidential Politics 2008 - Obama
Wednesday, 07 May 2008
by Pam Martens

The candidate that claims to be the only presidential contender who doesn't take money from lobbyists is in fact the biggest recipient of lobby-related contributions. Barack Obama rakes in millions from law firms serving the interests of Wall Street, including the financial institutions that gave us the subprime lending crisis. Lawyers that work for firms that earn hundreds of millions of dollars for lobbying may technically not be lobbyists, but they share in their colleagues' earnings as influencers of Congress - a legal loophole that allows Obama to claim his hands are clean of lobby loot. "The top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans."

Obama's Money Cartel: How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street


by Pam Martens

This article is the result of a special investigation undertaken by Counterpunch, orignally printed in 2 parts, here and here..


"The top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans."
Wall Street, known variously as a barren wasteland for diversity or the last plantation in America, has defied courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for decades in its failure to hire blacks as stockbrokers. Now it's marshalling its money machine to elect a black man to the highest office in the land. Why isn't the press curious about this?


Walk into any of the largest Wall Street brokerage firms today and you'll see a self-portrait of upper management racism and sexism: women sitting at secretarial desks outside fancy offices occupied by predominantly white males. According to the EEOC as well as the recent racial discrimination class actions filed against UBS and Merrill Lynch, blacks make up between 1 per cent to 3.5 per cent of stockbrokers - this after 30 years of litigation, settlements and empty promises to do better by the largest Wall Street firms.

The first clue to an entrenched white male bastion seeking a black male occupant in the oval office (having placed only five blacks in the U.S. Senate in the last two centuries) appeared in February on a chart at the Center for Responsive Politics website. It was a list of the 20 top contributors to the Barack Obama campaign, and it looked like one of those comprehension tests where you match up things that go together and eliminate those that don't. Of the 20 top contributors, I eliminated six that didn't compute. I was now looking at a sight only slightly less frightening to democracy than a Diebold voting machine. It was a Wall Street cartel of financial firms, their registered lobbyists, and go-to law firms that have a death grip on our federal government.

Why is the "yes, we can" candidate in bed with this cartel? How can "we," the people, make change if Obama's money backers block our ability to be heard?

Seven of the Obama campaign's top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest frauds have left thousands of children in some of our largest minority communities coming home from school to see eviction notices and foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a lifetime.

"How can ‘we,' the people, make change if Obama's money backers block our ability to be heard?"

These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to Wall Street. There are five large corporate law firms that are also registered lobbyists; and one is a corporate law firm that is no longer a registered lobbyist but does legal work for Wall Street. The cumulative total of these 14 contributors through February 1, 2008, was $2,872,128, and we're still in the primary season.


But hasn't Senator Obama repeatedly told us in ads and speeches and debates that he wasn't taking money from registered lobbyists? Hasn't the press given him a free pass on this statement?

Barack Obama, speaking in Greenville, South Carolina on January 22, 2008:

"Washington lobbyists haven't funded my campaign, they won't run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president."

Barack Obama, in an email to supporters on June 25, 2007, as reported by the Boston Globe:

"Candidates typically spend a week like this - right before the critical June 30th financial reporting deadline - on the phone, day and night, begging Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs to write huge checks. Not me. Our campaign has rejected the money-for-influence game and refused to accept funds from registered federal lobbyists and political action committees."


The Center for Responsive Politics website allows one to pull up the filings made by lobbyists, registering under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 with the clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and secretary of the U.S. Senate. These top five contributors to the Obama campaign have filed as registered lobbyists: Sidley Austin LLP; Skadden, Arps, et al; Jenner & Block; Kirkland & Ellis; Wilmerhale, aka Wilmer Cutler Pickering.

Is it possible that Senator Obama does not know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists? Or is he making a distinction that because these funds are coming from the employees of these firms, he's not really taking money directly from registered lobbyists? That thesis seems disingenuous when many of these individual donors own these law firms as equity partners or shareholders and share in the profits generated from lobbying.

Far from keeping his distance from lobbyists, Senator Obama and his campaign seems to be brainstorming with them.

The political publication, The Hill, reported on December 20, 2007, that three salaried aides on the Obama campaign were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations. (The Obama campaign said they had stopped lobbying since joining the campaign.) Bob Bauer, counsel to the Obama campaign, is an attorney with Perkins Coie. That law firm is also a registered lobbyist.

What might account for this persistent (but non-reality based) theme of distancing the Obama campaign from lobbyists? Odds are it traces back to one of the largest corporate lobbyist spending sprees in the history of Washington whose details would cast an unwholesome pall on the Obama campaign, unless our cognitive abilities are regularly bombarded with abstract vacuities of hope and change and sentimental homages to Dr. King and President Kennedy.

"Many of these individual donors share in the profits generated from lobbying."

On February 10, 2005, Senator Obama voted in favor of the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Senators Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and 16 other Democrats voted against it. It passed the Senate 72-26 and was signed into law on February 18, 2005. Here is an excerpt of remarks Senator Obama made on the Senate floor on February 14, 2005, concerning the passage of this legislation:


"Every American deserves their day in court. This bill, while not perfect, gives people that day while still providing the reasonable reforms necessary to safeguard against the most blatant abuses of the system. I also hope that the federal judiciary takes seriously their expanded role in class action litigation, and upholds their responsibility to fairly certify class actions so that they may protect our civil and consumer rights...."

Three days before Senator Obama expressed that fateful yea vote, 14 state attorneys general, including Lisa Madigan of Senator Obama's home state of Illinois, filed a letter with the Senate and House, pleading to stop the passage of this corporate giveaway: The AGs wrote: "State attorneys general frequently investigate and bring actions against defendants who have caused harm to our citizens... In some instances, such actions have been brought with the attorney general acting as the class representative for the consumers of the state. We are concerned that certain provisions of S.5 might be misinterpreted to impede the ability of the attorneys general to bring such actions...."


The Senate also received a desperate plea from more than 40 civil rights and labor organizations, including the NAACP, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Human Rights Campaign, American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Justice and Democracy, Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund), and Alliance for Justice. They wrote as follows:

"Under the [Class Action Fairness Act of 2005], citizens are denied the right to use their own state courts to bring class actions against corporations that violate these state wage and hour and state civil rights laws, even where that corporation has hundreds of employees in that state. Moving these state law cases into federal court will delay and likely deny justice for working men and women and victims of discrimination. The federal courts are already overburdened. Additionally, federal courts are less likely to certify classes or provide relief for violations of state law."

This legislation, which dramatically impaired labor rights, consumer rights and civil rights, involved five years of pressure from 100 corporations, 475 lobbyists, tens of millions of corporate dollars buying influence in our government, and the active participation of the Wall Street firms now funding the Obama campaign. "The Civil Justice Reform Group, a business alliance comprising general counsels from Fortune 100 firms, was instrumental in drafting the class-action bill," says Public Citizen.

One of the hardest working registered lobbyists to push this corporate giveaway was the law firm Mayer-Brown, hired by the leading business lobby group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Chamber of Commerce spent $16 million in just 2003, lobbying the government on various business issues, including class action reform.

According to a 2003 report from Public Citizen, Mayer-Brown's class action lobbyists included "Mark Gitenstein, former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and a leading architect of the Senate strategy in support of class-action legislation; John Schmitz, who was deputy counsel to President George H.W. Bush; David McIntosh, former Republican congressman from Indiana; and Jeffrey Lewis, who was on the staffs of both Sen. John Breaux (D-La) and Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La)".

While not on the Center for Responsive Politics list of the top 20 contributors to the Obama presidential campaign, Mayer-Brown's partners and employees are in rarefied company, giving a total of $92,817 through December 31, 2007, to the Obama campaign. (The firm is also defending Merrill Lynch in court against charges of racial discrimination.)

Senator Obama graduated Harvard Law magna cum laude and was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Given those credentials, one assumes that he understood the ramifications to the poor and middle class in this country as he helped gut one of the few weapons left to seek justice against giant corporations and their legions of giant law firms. The class-action vehicle confers upon each citizen one of the most powerful rights in our society: the ability to function as a private attorney general and seek redress for wrongs inflicted on ourselves as well as for those similarly injured that might not otherwise have a voice.

"Obama helped gut one of the few weapons left to seek justice against giant corporations and their legions of giant law firms."


Those rights should have been strengthened, not restricted, at this dangerous time in our nation's history. According to a comprehensive report from the nonprofit group, United for a Fair Economy, over the past eight years the total loss of wealth for people of color is between $164 billion and $213 billion for subprime loans which is the greatest loss of wealth for people of color in modern history:

"According to federal data, people of color are more than three times more likely to have subprime loans: high-cost loans account for 55 per cent of loans to blacks, but only 17 per cent of loans to whites."

If there had been equitable distribution of subprime loans, losses for white people would be 44.5 per cent higher and losses for people of color would be about 24 per cent lower. "This is evidence of systemic prejudice and institutional racism."
Before the current crisis, based on improvements in median household net worth, it would take 594 more years for blacks to achieve parity with whites. The current crisis is likely to stretch this even further.

So, how should we react when we learn that the top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans? How should we react when we learn that on the big donor list is Citigroup, whose former employee at CitiFinancial testified to the Federal Trade Commission that it was standard practice to target people based on race and educational level, with the sales force winning bonuses called "Rocopoly Money" (like a sick board game), after "blitz" nights of soliciting loans by phone? How should we react when we learn that these very same firms, arm in arm with their corporate lawyers and registered lobbyists, have weakened our ability to fight back with the class-action vehicle?

Should there be any doubt left as to who owns our government? The very same cast of characters making the Obama hit parade of campaign loot are the clever creators of the industry solutions to the wave of foreclosures gripping this nation's poor and middle class, effectively putting the solution in the hands of the robbers. The names of these programs (that have failed to make a dent in the problem) have the same vacuous ring: Hope Now; Project Lifeline.

Senator Obama has become the inspiration and role model to millions of children and young people in this country. He has only two paths now: to be a dream maker or a dream killer. But be assured of one thing: this country will not countenance any more grand illusions.

Pam Martens worked on Wall Street for 21 years; she has no securities position, long or short, in any company mentioned in this article. She writes on public interest issues from New Hampshire. She can be reached at pamk741@aol.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view

SMEARS FROM A SEWER

By MICHELLE MALKIN

NY Post, 10/17/08

SIX-TERM Sen. Joe Biden’s got some nerve going after citizen Joe the Plumber. But the entrenched politician from Delaware had no choice. Obama-Biden simply can’t tolerate an outspoken citizen successfully painting the Democratic ticket as socialist overlords. And so a dirty, desperate war against Joe Wurzelbacher is on.

The left’s political plumbers are attacking the messenger, rummaging through his personal life and predictably wielding the race card again.

Wurzelbacher is the small-business man from Ohio who questioned Obama about his tax plan. The revealing exchange was caught on tape and broadcast widely.

In response to Wurzelbacher’s question about why he should be "taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream," Obama sermonized that he needed to "spread the wealth around" because "it’s good for everybody."

John McCain flung that chilling Marxist mantra back in Obama’s face during Wednesday night’s presidential debate.

Obama squirmed. The dirt-diggers started Googling. The next morning, six-term Sen. Biden launched the first salvo against the Ohio entrepreneur, challenging the veracity of his story: "I don’t have any Joe the Plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year."

Under an Obama-Biden administration, they’ll make sure no Joe the Plumbers ever earn such a salary. "It’s good for everybody," don’t you know?

Biden, as is so often the case, twisted the facts about Wurzelbacher. Wurzelbacher never claimed to be making $250,000 a year. He told Obama that he might be "getting ready to buy a company that makes about $250,000, $270,000" a year. His simple point was that Obama’s punitive tax proposals would make it more difficult to realize his dream.

Obama’s followers couldn’t handle the incontrovertible truth. Left-wing blogs immediately went to work, blaring headlines like "Not A Real $250k Plumber!" Next, they falsely accused Wurzelbacher of not being registered to vote - he’s registered in Lucas County, Ohio, and voted as a Republican in this year’s primary.

They called him a liar for identifying himself as undecided.

Award-winning liberal blogger Joshua Marshall cast Wurzelbacher as some kind of rabid freak for calling Social Security a "joke."

Journalists who wouldn’t investigate Obama’s longtime relationships with Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright sprang into action rifling through citizen Joe Wurzelbacher’s tax records. Politico.com reported breathlessly: "Samuel J. Wurzelbacher has a lien placed against him to the tune of $1,182.92." Press outlets probed his divorce records. The local plumbers union, which has endorsed Obama, claimed he didn’t do their required apprenticeship work and didn’t have a license to work outside his local township.

Hang him!

After Wurzelbacher told Katie Couric that Obama’s rhetorical tap dance was "almost as good as Sammy Davis, Jr.," the inevitable cries of "bigotry" followed.

Welcome to Joe the Plumber Derangement Syndrome. If you can’t beat him, smear him. It’s the Obama way.



_______________________________________________


To respond to this email, subscribe, or unsubscribe, please contact Dr. Frank:

drfrank@abortiontruths.net

Thank you.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Ayers/Obama Funded FactCheck.org

-Obama called for an $3.5 million dollar earmark for the Annenburg Foundation that sponsors FactCheck.org.

-Factcheck.org is part of the Annenberg Foundation. Yep, that Annenberg Foundation which also funded the Wm. Ayers/Barack Obama Chicago Annenberg Challenge.


http://redgirlrising.blogdns.net/where-do-you-get-your-facts/

Where Do You Get Your “Facts?”
So add another site to the list of online destinations attached to Obama-nation - factcheck.org

Frequently quoted on mainstream news broadcasts and websites, factcheck.org is part of the Annenberg Foundation. Yep, that Annenberg Foundation which also funded the Wm. Ayers/Barack Obama Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

Check out their adddress to learn more:

FactCheck.org
Annenberg Public Policy Center
320 National Press Building
Washington DC 20045
Editor@FactCheck.org
Telephone: (Annenberg Public Policy Center)
(202) 879-6700

I’ve used factcheck.org in the past and guess that’s stopping today. Adding to the list of places I don’t do research anymore.

National Review and Michelle Malkin broke the story.


http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:dKOuasM6nNEJ:blogs4mccain.com/2008/10/06/obama-ayers-annenburg-factcheckorg/+ayers+FactCheck.org+Annenberg+Public+Policy+Center&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

Obama, Ayers, Annenburg & FactCheck.org
There is a disturbing link between Barack Obama, FactCheck.org, and William Ayers. National Review reports that William Ayers and Barack Obama both served as co-chairs of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge.

Obama called for an $3.5 million dollar earmark for the Annenburg Foundation that sponsors FactCheck.org.

Several FactCheck articles have been viewed as promoting the Obama campaign line instead of truly acting as a fact checkers. Controlling the ‘facts’ is a hallmark of a totalitarian regime, and this is truly an unsettling connection.


Mission statement from FactCheck.org:


The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.
The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.

Requested Anneberg Earmark from Barack Obama - Citation from Answers.BarackObama.com


Obama Requested $3.5 Million For The USC Annenberg Research Network. In 2005, Obama requested $3.5 million for the USC Annenberg Research Network on International Communication, in partnership with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, to support the deployment of pervasive broadband for education and economic development.Funding was for the construction of a large-scale broadband wireless systems in two communities—one in South Los Angeles and the other in small-town Illinois. In each community, broadband network coverage will be provided over a minimum of about a half-square mile area, utilizing leading edge wireless technologies. In Los Angeles, this will include the five schools in USC’s immediate neighborhood, with about 8,000 K-12 students. USC also will provide wireless equipment and access to every family with a student entering the first grade of a new Science Center School, and in Illinois, a similar group of students will be selected to receive wireless equipment and access within the coverage area. The impact of these technologies on the students and their families will be tracked. [Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, Education, 6/7/05]

Obama’s Challenge from the National Review


Let’s first review CAC’s [Chicago Annenburg Challenge] initial setup. In the first year, 1995, Obama headed the board, which made fiscal decisions, and Ayers co-chaired the Collaborative, which set education policy. During that first year, Obama’s formal responsibilities mandated close cooperation and coordination with the Collaborative. As board chair and president of the CAC corporation, Obama was authorized to “delegate to the Collaborative the development of collaborative projects and programs . . . to obtain assistance of the Collaborative in the development of requests for proposals . . . and to seek advice from the Collaborative regarding the programmatic aspects of grant proposals.” All this clearly involves significant consultation between the board, headed by Obama, and the Collaborative, co-chaired by Ayers.

Hat Tip to Death by 1000 Papercuts for first reporting this in their article Obama, Bill Ayers, and FactCheck.Org: All Have Ties To Annenberg Foundation



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clarification: The connection between Obama and Ayers is through
the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that received money from the Annenburg
Foundation, but the Chicago Annenburg Challenge Challenge and the
Annenburg Foundation are not directly connected philosophically. The
earmark Senator Obama requested was for the Annenburg Foundation, which
funded the Chicago Annenburg Challenge and also funds FactCheck.org.
Obama is tied to both groups one via earmark, the other via direct
participation, however, Ayers is not directly connected to
FactCheck.org.

FactCheck.org Lying on Obama’s Second Amendment Record

Unmitigated Garbage from FactCheck.org on Obama’s Second Amendment Record

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:23 am
Xrlq points us to this ridiculous FactCheck.org piece on Obama and gun rights. I am by now completely disenchanted with FactCheck.org and virtually every other “fact checking” site out there, and this piece does nothing to dispel my depression.

The summary version: FactCheck ridicules the NRA in this piece. But the NRA is careful to say: look at Obama’s record and not his rhetoric. And at least two of the NRA claims are backed up by references to Obama’s record. Yet FactCheck.org goes on to minimize or completely ignore Obama’s record on these points, choosing instead to concentrate on citations to Obama’s later campaign rhetoric.

1) FactCheck.org declares “false” the NRA’s claim that Obama plans to ban the possession, manufacture, and sale of handguns. But it emerges that this claim is directly based on Obama’s “yes” answer to a the following question in a questionnaire: “Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?”

FactCheck.org simply faults the NRA for not noting Obama’s later attempts to explain away this answer. But FactCheck.org doesn’t address the fact that Obama falsely denied even seeing the questionnaire, only to have it later emerge that an amended version had his handwriting on it.

2) FactCheck.org calls “supported” the NRA’s claim that Obama would appoint judges who share his views on the Second Amendment. As part of their evidence, FactCheck.org tells us that Obama didn’t contest the Heller decision, which upheld an individual right to bear arms. But FactCheck.org doesn’t mention that Obama’s campaign had initially said of the D.C.’s total ban on handguns in the home: “Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.” (Obama later tried to back away from that statement, but it is part of his record, just like his answers to the questionnaire that he had claimed he had never seen, but that turned out to bear his handwriting.)

The piece is garbage. Details in the extended entry.


First, some context. The piece criticizes the NRA, which encourages FactCheck.org to look at Obama’s record and not his rhetoric. FactCheck.org says it contacted the NRA’s director of public affairs:

He declined to speak to us except to say that the claims are based on Obama’s voting record and statements he has made in the media. “We’re comfortable with what we put on there,” Arulanandam said. “We believe our facts.”

Sounds like he agreed to make a statement; FactCheck.org just didn’t like it. And no wonder: they go on to do an entire piece on the issue that elevates Obama’s rhetoric over his record. Here are just two examples.

First, FactCheck.org ridicules the NRA’s claim that Obama plans to ban the possession, manufacture, and sale of handguns. Here is FactCheck.org’s “analysis”:

The NRA bases its claim on a disputed 1996 questionnaire that Obama’s Illinois state Senate campaign filled out for the nonprofit voting group, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization. On it, somebody filled in the word “yes” in response to the question, “Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?”

Hmm. That seems pretty solid.

But the Obama campaign said that the survey was actually filled out by his then-campaign manager who “unintentionally mischaracterized his position,” adding that Obama never saw the survey.

Oh. Well, we should probably take his word for it, then.

As we wrote previously, an amended version of the questionnaire was later submitted to the group, with Obama’s handwritten notes on it providing more detail on some of the answers. Obama clearly saw and handled this version personally and did not alter the question about banning the sale and manufacturing of guns.

Hmm. That seems pretty solid.

FactCheck.org does not mention the fact that Obama was directly questioned in a debate about his answer on the gun rights questionnaire, and denied that his handwriting was on that particular document. In fact, it was. You can learn this if you click through to one of the FactCheck.org links. But if we’re talking about taking his rhetoric at face value, doesn’t it matter that he publicly claiming something directly relevant to the issue that turned out to be false? Shouldn’t this be in the body of the FactCheck.org analysis? Apparently they don’t consider it to be important.

Nevertheless, his aides maintain that the gun-ban answer was a mistake and didn’t reflect Obama’s true position.

Oh. Well, we should probably take their word for it, then.

Imagine, those crazy NRA people, basing their claims on a questionnaire that Obama personally saw, that he knew represented his position! Why didn’t they take at face value the claims made later by his campaign, after his earlier answers came back to haunt him?

I mean: how dare they?

Second, we have FactCheck mocking as “unsupported” the NRA’s claim that Obama would “Appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment.” FactCheck.org says:

The NRA’s fact sheet points out that Obama has voted against the two newest members of the U.S. Supreme Court. Obama voted against the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005 and Justice Samuel Alito in 2006. They happen to be two of the five justices that voted in favor of the Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s longstanding handgun ban this year. The New York Times has reported that Obama “favored Democratic filibusters to block many Republican nominees deemed too conservative.” But the NRA can point to no statement by Obama calling for a Second-Amendment test for his judicial appointees, and we could find none.

So never mind the justices he has opposed, because he hasn’t explicitly called for a litmus test. But what has he said?

What Obama has actually said about selecting judges is that “[w]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

Very sweet. But what has he said about the Second Amendment?

In any case, Obama says he believes the Second Amendment “creates an individual right” to bear arms. That’s at odds with some strong gun-control advocates who had argued that the Second Amendment limited the right to bear arms to a “well-regulated militia.” The Supreme Court rejected that view in its June ruling overturning the D.C. gun ban. But Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Chief Justice John Roberts joined that opinion. To the dismay of gun-control advocates, Obama did not criticize the ruling. Instead, he said it “will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.”

Really? Is that all he has said about the Heller case?

Once again, if you give primacy to what his recent campaign statements have been, then, by golly, he supports the Second Amendment! But if you look at his record — his past statements — then the NRA is right to be concerned.

Here’s what FackCheck.org doesn’t tell you.

The Supreme Court case in Heller says that the D.C. ban “totally bans handgun possession in the home.” That’s about as clear a Second Amendment encroachment as you can imagine.

And what did Obama’s campaign initially say about that total ban on handguns in the home? The campaign once issued a statement to the Chicago Tribune that said:

Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.

This statement proved to be a political loser, of course — and Obama later ended up trying to distance himself from it. That D.C. handgun law is not the D.C. handgun law he thought he knew.

But it’s part of his record. And if the NRA was truly elevating his record over his rhetoric, they had a completely fair point.

FactCheck.org, at this point, is worse than useless. It is positively misleading voters out there.