Thursday, July 31, 2008

Obama Plans National Draft for ALL Americans


Read the whole thing!

Obama smeared McCain

I agree that the Celeb commercial is pretty weak, but if it’s racist, then Obama has defined the term so far downward as to have no meaning at all. Obama is the one playing on fear; he wants people to be afraid to criticize him at all. He wants to stifle dissent by forcing people to defend themselves against a smear of racism in any and all contexts of criticism, which will have the effect of shutting people up.
That’s not exactly a commendable quality for a President. If we can’t criticize him now without being called racists, what would it be like when he runs the government?
Tapper gets this exactly right. Too bad the

Read the whole thing!

Gas: The difference between Democrats & Republicans

Democrats, including Barack Obama, support increasing taxes and regulatory costs (environmental) on energy producers and consumers (you), limiting exploration for new oil and natural-gas supplies, and mandating conservation. Liberals like Obama have long argued for higher gas prices to force conservation and reduce emissions. The only concern he has expressed recently is that prices have not gone up gradually and that the sudden spike has hit Americans hard.

Republicans, by contrast, favor lower oil and gas prices. Last week, they wanted to offer an amendment to the oil-speculator bill that would allow states to open up areas at least 50 miles off their shores for oil and gas exploration.

Read the whole thing!

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Proof: Obama will turn us into a failed Communist state!

[For corroboration of the article below, check out the charts on todays Wall Street Journal opinion piece "Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession" Here]

An editorial in today's Investors Business Daily was very enlightening about Obama's socialist mentors. Obama's family and teachers have been communists and socialists. From his communist father and relatives, to Socialist Bernie Sanders, from late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities" to Gerald Kellman, a disciple of he late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America, they are people well grounded in the process of taking wealth from those who earned it and redistributing it to those who didn't.

Read this right now!

Monday, July 28, 2008

Socialism: The slide back into feudalism

Business, Government, & Freedom of Association
(after Ayn Rand, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, etc.)

by Prof. Kelley L. Ross

Unspoken assumptions of all socialistic criticism of capitalism, as well as of American court decisions since the New Deal, are that businesses in some sense are an arm of the government, that doing business is a privilege that we need not allow except under certain conditions, and that the public has a right to be served by businesses in certain ways that impose duties on them that we do not impose on other individuals in private association. All of the assumptions are wrong and even self-contradictory. Business is regarded as a privilege because the public "allows" businessmen to make a living and profit. On the other hand, it is an additional unspoken assumption that everyone has a right to a living or a right to the services offered by businesses, which means that the activities which businesses can carry out with our permission are nevertheless things they owe to us. We need both the jobs offered and the services rendered by businesses, therefore we have a right to them. It is a paradoxical right, however, to make someone owe us something that they are under no obligation to offer--since, so far, no one is compelled to go into business. It is also a paradoxical requirement to impose conditions on services offered to us that actually damage the ability of people to offer them well. So we act as though they owe us services that we actually prevent them from doing well.

There is a lurking sterile, negative resentment in all this, that, instead of being grateful for the enterprise that provides abundance and opportunity hitherto unknown in human history, we dislike the persons and motives of those who do the real driving work in the system. By supplying us good things, we think they should be doing it for us instead of for themselves, even while we are busy doing things against them and (we think) for ourselves that inevitably damage their living and their ability to supply us good things. This is the basic craziness of socialist thinking, but, despite the fall of communism and decades of failure of socialist nostrums, it is still strongly with us. What it inevitably leads to is faith in government. If businessmen get disgusted with hassles and recriminations against them, they can just quit or move elsewhere, leaving us with nothing. But it does leave us with government, and presumably government can be compelled to do anything or provide us with whatever we want or need--and it is certainly the obligation of government to do that as it was never the obligation of any businessman. We might even think that was the trouble with businesses: they should have been like government, responding to our needs and rights, but they weren't. Now we can get government to provide all good things in a disinterested and fair way.

Unfortunately, governments existed long before capitalistic business, and governments even existed that believed their purpose was disinterested benevolence for the needs of the people (as in Confucianism or with certain Christian rulers); but those governments never produced the wealth and opportunity that capitalism did, and they all maintained a hierarchy based on the difference between the patronage of the rulers and the vassalage of the ruled. Those forms were reproduced in the neo-feudalism of the Soviet Union; and they are reproduced in our own society whenever anyone from the IRS, the DEA, or social services (or many other government boards, bureaus, and agencies) shows up to remind people of their civil duty, to punish them for doing something in harmless privacy that the government disapproves of, or to minister to their helpless dependency on the benevolence of society. The paternalism of distant authoritarian benevolence becomes the maternalism of smothering, intrusive, petty dictatorship, "for your own good." This is the deeply reactionary nature of socialism: it looks for a society of archaic peonage and dependence. The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions (as Marx himself would have said), but the use of any socialistic assumptions merely produces different degrees of dependence, contradiction, and vassalage.

A basic error in all socialist resentment is that businessmen are always thought of as "them" and not "us." We need "them" for jobs because we never think of "us" as providing our own livelihood. That is the fatal conceit, for it starts us at a disadvantage of dependency already; and if we are to be helplessly dependent on something, it may as well be benevolent government as profit seeking businesses. The key to capitalism, however, is that business is not "them." "Opportunity" does not mean that we can go to "them" to get what we need. "Opportunity" means that we take care of ourselves and that business is just a set of private, free transactions between individuals that have nothing to do with government and that are governed by the same moral rules as any other transactions of private association. This is the principle of Freedom of Association applied to business as much as to private relationships. Capitalism therefore does not mean benevolent government, just government that gets out of the way....but is ready to be called in against force or fraud in business dealings as in any other dealings between persons. Government exists to secure the moral enabling conditions of the free market--the rights of person, property, and contract. Limiting the freedom of business transactions in arbitrary or moralistic ways inevitably gives rise to a "black market" because people continue to trade in ways that they regard as innocent and inoffensive, or at least that they regard as providing things they want, even if the law forbids it.

Business is not "them" most importantly because anyone can start a business. All one needs is a bit of capital. That can be gotten in any number of ways. From savings, from family, from friends, from banks, from investors, etc. Even groups that historically couldn't get loans because of discrimination, especially Jewish, Chinese, and Japanese immigrants in America, were able to start businesses by pooling their small resources into revolving credit associations that could finance businesses one at a time. The result of socialist hostility to business, however, loading it with regulations, licenses, taxes, etc., is to make it increasingly difficult for just anyone to start or run businesses. The fruit of hostility towards "them" is to actually make us more dependent on "them" than ever before. This begins the slide back into feudalism.

Business, Government, & Freedom of Association

Sunday, July 27, 2008

'Global Poverty Act' to cost each citizen $2,500 or more

Obama's $845 billion U.N. plan forwarded to U.S. Senate floor

The U.S. Senate soon could debate whether you, your spouse and each of your children – as well as your in-laws, parents, grandparents, neighbors and everyone else in America – each will spend $2,500 or more to reduce poverty around the world.

The plan sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is estimated to cost the U.S. some $845 billion over the coming few years in an effort to raise the standard of living around the globe.

S.2433 already has been approved in one form by the U.S. House of Representatives and now has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar for pending debate.

Read the whole thing!

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Take a guess!

200,000 . . . or 20,000? Obama's Crowd in Berlin

John Rosenthal | 25 Jul 2008 | WPR Blog

"Obama Addresses 200,000 in Berlin" -- thus ran the AP headline the day after Barack Obama's much-hyped speech in front of Berlin's Siegessäule or "Victory Column." This 200,000 figure has quickly become the standard estimate of the crowd for Obama's speech in both the American and the German media: so standard indeed that it is for the most part not even treated as an estimate.

The estimates given by German public television ZDF actually during the event, however, were as little as one-tenth of that number. ZDF began its special "Obama in Berlin" coverage [German video] at 6:45 p.m. Central European Time: only 15 minutes before the candidate's speech was scheduled to start. At the time, ZDF reporter Susanne Gelhard was out and about on the so-called "Fan Mile" between the Victory Column and the Brandenburg Gate. "The expectations were highly varied," she said in her live report, "from a few thousand up to a million. Those were the estimates. But, now, several tens of thousands have turned out." Barely five minutes before the speech was supposed to start, ZDF Berlin studio chief Peter Frey added, "We do estimate that 20,000 [literally, "a couple of ten thousand"] people have turned out." Frey's tone, like that of Gelhard, reflected the gap between the relatively modest number cited and the lofty predictions that had preceded the event. Moreover, while the ZDF live images showed that the "Fan Mile" was indeed populated from one end to the other, they also appeared to reveal patches of thinness and pedestrian traffic flowing easily on the half of the boulevard closer to the Brandenburg Gate (i.e. furthest from the "Victory Column").

And then: the candidate did not appear at the appointed time. Could his handlers have been disappointed by the turnout? Did they hope to buy time for more spectators to arrive? At this point, ZDF interrupted its special coverage and broke for the nightly news. When the coverage resumed some fifteen minutes later, ZDF host Claus Kleber promptly declared that there were "one hundred thousand" people on the Fan Mile. He then repeated the claim twice more in rapid succession -- now, more precisely, "over one hundred thousand people" -- as if repetition could somehow cover up the glaring discrepancy between this number and the number cited by his colleague Frey only 20 minutes earlier.

Minutes later, Obama was on stage. And a half hour after that, he was gone again. By 8 p.m. -- as the crowd filed out, obediently following the order to disperse given over the loud-speaker system -- the number being cited had grown to fully 200,000. As this German timeline indicates, the original source for the rapidly growing estimates was in fact the rally organizers: i.e. the Obama team. The 200,000 figure would also be attributed to the Berlin police -- which might represent the first time in modern history that the police and the organizers of a political rally agreed on their estimates of crowd size.

As the Berlin-based writer Christian J. Heinrich notes: "During the big anti-Bush demonstration after the fall of Baghdad, there were 250,000 people. And it looked totally different from yesterday. Then, you couldn't move all the way from the Brandenburg Gate to the Technical University [on the western side of Tiergarten park, another kilometer beyond the Siegessäule]."

Obama Overseas-The Ultimate Affirmative Action Candidate

This affirmative action candidate, bereft of any real experience other than being a community "maniactivist", editor of the Harvard Law Review and notching up a couple of years in the senate, most of which has been spent running for president, has benefited from the media being completely in the tank for him.

Read the whole thing!

Sweet Nothings - A close reading of The Speech

By Andrew Ferguson
July 26, 2008

Anyone who wants to understand Barack Obama would do well to stay away from the radio and the TV. Obama is a theatrical presence. That's what it means to be "charismatic": To an unnerving degree his appeal relies on sight and sound rather than sense. Better, in my opinion, to stick to the printed word. On paper (or the computer screen) his words can be thought about and chewed over. You can understand him at your own pace, undistracted by that rich baritone, the regal bearing, the excellent drape of his Burberry suits.

The printed word has its problems too, of course. You really need to be on your toes if you're going to get anything out of a newspaper's election coverage. You've got to tune your ear to euphemism and translate as you go. So last Friday, having missed the television broadcasts of Obama's speech in Berlin the day before, I read the Washington Post with a cocked ear, and when I saw that the speech was described as "broadly thematic" and "sober and serious" I knew exactly what it meant: a boring speech full of blah blah blah.

And so it was. In the Post as elsewhere, as much coverage was devoted to the speech's setting--the sprawling crowds and the dramatic backdrop and the tingling sense of anticipation--as to the speech itself. The paper didn't even bother to print verbatim excerpts, as it usually does with a big-time address. The occasion had been taken as an invitation to deliver a summary of Obama's view of America's role in the world. When his handlers decided to schedule a speech in Berlin, they teed up comparisons with the portentous speeches that Presidents Kennedy and Reagan had delivered there.

Instead, in the heart of Europe, before 200,000 breathless admirers, Obama pulled himself up to his full height, lifted his chin, unlimbered those eloquent hands, and said nothing at all.

Obama's "nothing" is sometimes interesting anyway; there are pointers in the vacuousness, as I saw when I read the full text on his campaign's website. He began the speech, as he often does, with a summary of his own life history, which elided into a history of the Cold War--mixing the two together, with his customary grandiosity. The history was nicely written up but not news. And the lesson he drew from it was, to be kind, idiosyncratic: The West's victory in the Cold War, he said, proved that "there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

This will come as a surprise to anyone who lived through the Cold War or has even read about it. The thing about wars, even cold ones, is that the world doesn't stand as one; that's why there's a war. And in the Cold War the Soviet side was as united as the West; more so, probably. Left out of Obama's history was any mention of the ferocious demonstrations against the United States in the streets of Paris and West Berlin during the 1960s and 1980s, when American presidents were routinely depicted as priapic cowboys and psychopaths. Probably a fair number of the older members of Obama's audience had been hoisting those banners themselves 25 years ago.

So if "standing as one" didn't win the Cold War, what did? Obama didn't stop to answer, since his own reading of history seems to deny the premise of the question. Instead he hustled on to the present moment. Now, he said, "we are called upon again." To do what? Presumably to stand as one all over again, in the face of "new promise and new peril." Included in the latter are terrorism, global warming, and nuclear proliferation. But those perils aren't the worst of it. "The greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another."

The sentence is the heart of the speech and an instance of Obama's big weakness--his preference for the rhetorical flourish over a realistic account of things as they are. Most politicians share the weakness, and the preference has proved wildly attractive to Obama's supporters. But think it through: "New walls to divide us" is just a metaphor, a trope. A trope can't be the "greatest danger of all." A terrorist setting off a nuclear bomb in London--that's a danger. A revolution in Islamabad--that's a danger. A figure of speech is just a figure of speech.

And what will Obama have us do to avoid those nonmetaphorical dangers? He declined to get specific, aside from urging us to "answer the call." Floating along on a cloud of metaphor and generality allows Obama to do what he wants to do, in the Berlin speech and elsewhere. As a public figure he means to rise above any hint of conflict, and to suggest that problems and dangers dissolve when we "come together." And coming together, "standing as one," is simply the logical outcome of every participant's correctly understanding his best interest. What could be more reasonable?

It doesn't matter that human affairs never work out this way, no more in domestic politics than in foreign policy. The assumption that they do is what lends so many of Obama's utterances their greeting-card simplicity and appeal. The effect is almost soporific: "America cannot turn inward," he says. Check. "Now is the time to build new bridges." All set to go. "We must defeat terror." True dat. "Every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday." Roger. "We must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East." Go ahead: Argue.

To pump a little vigor into his limp sentiments, Obama attached them to a hypnotic refrain. "This is the moment," he said in Berlin, repeatedly. But where's the urgency come from? What's the rush? In the long train of platitudes he suggested no discrete, definable policy that needed to be adopted urgently, beyond his call to unity, which isn't a policy but an aspiration. You get the idea that the urgency doesn't arise from an assessment of reality but from a rhetorical need. He's got to keep the folks on their toes somehow.

Obama couldn't come to Berlin and deliver a speech full of portent, as Reagan and Kennedy did before him, and as his publicists suggested he might. For all the talk about this being our time and us being the people, Obama shows no sign of really believing we live in portentous times. This is surely part of his appeal. It's not surprising that when he came to Berlin and said nothing at all, none of his admirers seemed disappointed. After eight years of overheated history, nothing comes as a relief.

Andrew Ferguson is a senior editor at THE WEEKLY STANDARD

One world? Obama's on a different planet - The senator's Berlin speech was radical and naive.

By John R. Bolton
July 26, 2008,0,4549608.story

SEN. BARACK OBAMA said in an interview the day after his Berlin speech that it "allowed me to send a message to the American people that the judgments I have made and the judgments I will make are ones that are going to result in them being safer."

If that is what the senator thought he was doing, he still has a lot to learn about both foreign policy and the views of the American people. Although well received in the Tiergarten, the Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States. In addition, although most of the speech was substantively as content-free as his other campaign pronouncements, when substance did slip in, it was truly radical, from an American perspective.

These troubling comments were not widely reported in the generally adulatory media coverage given the speech, but they nonetheless deserve intense scrutiny. It remains to be seen whether these glimpses into Obama's thinking will have any impact on the presidential campaign, but clearly they were not casual remarks. This speech, intended to generate the enormous publicity it in fact received, reflects his campaign's carefully calibrated political thinking. Accordingly, there should be no evading the implications of his statements. Consider just the following two examples.

First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, "The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together." Having earlier proclaimed himself "a fellow citizen of the world" with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved "that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because "the world stood as one." The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator's own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik -- "eastern politics," a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance -- continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative.

But there are larger implications to Obama's rediscovery of the "one world" concept, first announced in the U.S. by Wendell Willkie, the failed Republican 1940 presidential nominee, and subsequently buried by the Cold War's realities.

The successes Obama refers to in his speech -- the defeat of Nazism, the Berlin airlift and the collapse of communism -- were all gained by strong alliances defeating determined opponents of freedom, not by "one-worldism." Although the senator was trying to distinguish himself from perceptions of Bush administration policy within the Atlantic Alliance, he was in fact sketching out a post-alliance policy, perhaps one that would unfold in global organizations such as the United Nations. This is far-reaching indeed.

Second, Obama used the Berlin Wall metaphor to describe his foreign policy priorities as president: "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn't see all these "walls" as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that "walls" exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.

Tearing down the Berlin Wall was possible because one side -- our side -- defeated the other. Differences in levels of economic development, or the treatment of racial, immigration or religious questions, are not susceptible to the same analysis or solution. Even more basically, challenges to our very civilization, as the Cold War surely was, are not overcome by naively "tearing down walls" with our adversaries.

Throughout the Berlin speech, there were numerous policy pronouncements, all of them hazy and nonspecific, none of them new or different than what Obama has already said during the long American campaign. But the Berlin framework in which he wrapped these ideas for the first time is truly radical for a prospective American president. That he picked a foreign audience is perhaps not surprising, because they could be expected to welcome a less-assertive American view of its role in the world, at least at first glance. Even anti-American Europeans, however, are likely to regret a United States that sees itself as just one more nation in a "united" world.

The best we can hope for is that Obama's rhetoric was simply that, pandering to the audience before him, as politicians so often do. We shall see if this rhetoric follows him back to America, either because he continues to use it or because Sen. John McCain asks voters if this is really what they want from their next president.

John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option."

Obama Sings the Song of Himself - A flat performance in Berlin.

By John F. Cullinan
July 25, 2008

Wagner's music is actually better than it sounds, Mark Twain liked to joke. The same can't be said for Sen. Barack Obama's campaign speech Thursday in Berlin.

Obama's speech fell flat. It amounts to an unforced error, perhaps prompted by the need to score another historic "first," like Obama's embarrassing claim at the outset that "I know that I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city."

As Victor Davis Hanson points out nearby, two distinguished blacks have served as secretary of State, representing the U.S. at the highest diplomatic level in Europe and around the world for the past seven years. But Obama seldom lets facts get in the way of self-congratulation.

As always, there's no lack of self-regard: "Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - what we do with this moment." But there's a complete absence of irony in a phrase that unconsciously recalls Lincoln's modest prediction that "the world will little note or long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they" - the honored dead - "did here."

Obama's speech itself is an unusually restrained and cautious piece of work, crafted for delivery in Berlin and for its impact Stateside. Its aim was to skirt the Scylla of unabashed Europhilia (a la John Kerry) and the Charybdis of American exceptionalism (the Founding Fathers). The result is an intellectual shipwreck.

It does not help that Obama can't quite make up his mind about walls, the metaphor meant to hold the speech together. "The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope," Obama rightly says. "But that very closeness," Obama goes on to say in the next sentence, "has given rise to new dangers - dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean."

But wait. This unwalled, borderless world where transnational threats abound is now threatened by - you guessed it - new walls. And these new walls in turn cut off the ties that bind, while "the burdens of global citizenship" - what's that? - "continue to bind us together." Obama thus concludes: "That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another."

By now most Americans are probably wondering what happened to the sound adage that good fences make good neighbors.

In any case, the speech's metaphorical walls ultimately collapse under the weight of all the mix-and-match platitudes (see Jim Geraghty's quiz) and historical inaccuracies or misjudgments. The latter are more troubling than the former, as their presence suggests that how a phrase reads matters more than whether it makes sense or it's true. Consider this: "Not only have the walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic have found a way to live together." That's just plain wrong: There are now more "peace walls" in Belfast than at the time of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, while residential segregation has increased.

Such carelessness with easily verifiable facts is troubling, given Obama's 300-person mini-State Department and all the former senior Clinton Administration officials along for the ride. Does no one check facts? Or are staff too awed by the One to tell him what he doesn't want to hear? Or do they all think the rest of us are too dumb or awestruck to notice?

Consider also this throw-away line. "In this century - in this city of all cities - we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past." Does Obama mean to suggest that the West bears responsibility for the current frosty relations with Russia? More specifically, are Russian military threats and energy blackmail reasonable responses to Western provocations? Whose "Cold War mind-set" does he mean? Putin's? Or NATO's?

This sloppiness ultimately matters rather more than the silly platitudes ("This is the moment to give our children back their future"). But these were meat and drink for the youngsters who flocked to hear Obama say:

As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking the coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.

This was the mood-music German youths came to hear, never mind the lyrics. How well it goes down Stateside is another matter, since there's no largely post-Christian culture here that favors the growth of a neo-pagan environmental cult.

The upshot is that this speech was an unforced error, another judgment call that Obama got wrong. No one forced him to give the first-ever presidential campaign speech before a mass audience of non-voters overseas. And he can't say he wasn't warned, considering these pointed remarks from the German chancellor's spokesman:

It's unusual to hold election rallies abroad. No German candidate for high office would even think of using the National Mall (in Washington) or Red Square in Moscow for a rally because it would not be seen as appropriate.

In case the freshman Illinois senator missed the point, the chancellor herself later added: "If the candidate - or any other candidate is elected, then (he) is welcome to speak as president before the Brandenburg Gate." Even some American reporters, heretofore Obama's biggest boosters, raised the same concerns about a premature victory lap, as this little colloquy in Politico shows:

"It is not going to be a political speech," said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. "When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.

"But he is not president of the United States," a reporter reminded the adviser.


John F. Cullinan, a lawyer, is an expert on international human rights and religious freedom.

Monday, July 21, 2008

Huge pharmaceutical industry scandal--MUST READ!

UPDATE: Clark has kindly posted a summary analysis for the time-challenged among us which starts on Page 20 of this .pdf file: Click Here

The investigation I call Gallo’s Egg took me from America’s “War on Cancer” (1971-1981) to the early history of HIV and AIDS. It reaches from the cities of West Hollywood and San Francisco to the continents of Africa, Asia, and Australia. It led me to the steps of the National Institutes of Health, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and some of America’s most prestigious universities and research centers. It involves hundreds of billions of dollars of misdirected tax-supported funding and some of the most financially successful pharmaceutical companies in the world.

I have never written about anything more important. This story changed my life, and if you have the time and patience to understand what I have written, it may change yours as well.

If Americans, our courts, and our legislature permit the continued corruption of science and medicine by our pharmaceutical industry, I fear that the 232-year experiment we call “The United States of America” will have failed.

Read the whole thing!

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Simple wisdom from a great president

'Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.'

'The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.'

'Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.'

'I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.'

'The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.'

'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.'

'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.'

'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.'

'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.'

'Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.'

'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'

'If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.'


Bin Laden warns: Convert to Islam or you will be nuked into the Stone Age

Bin Laden Planning Hiroshima-Type Destruction?

Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:26 AM
By: Paul M. Weyrich

Does Osama bin Laden possess nuclear weapons? Has he smuggled these weapons into the United States? Does he have a plan to detonate these weapons in multiple American cities if Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities? Dr. Hugh Cort, president of the American Foundation for Counter-Terrorism Policy and Research, believes the answer to all of these questions is yes.

Cort has assembled a body of evidence which he claims supports the view that bin Laden has a plan for an “American Hiroshima” which will be implemented in the near future. He has sent this material to various U.S. officials, including Robert S. Mueller III, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Cort believes that the government is not doing enough to prevent an attack.

Much of his evidence centers around one Hamid Mir, a Pakistani journalist who has conducted the only interview of bin Laden after 9/11. Bin Laden told Mir that he had acquired 20 suitcase nuclear bombs from the former Soviet Union. Mir told Cort that bin Laden’s men have smuggled these bombs into the United States.

His men supposedly are waiting for bin Laden to give them the signal, then seven to ten American cities will be struck. If true it is little wonder that Iran’s leader confidently predicts that the United States will be bombed back to the Stone Age.

Bin Laden supposedly has fulfilled Islamic law by warning the United States that an attack is coming and offering a truce — convert to Islam and you will not be attacked. Refusal to convert to Islam means that an attack against America is justified. Three weeks prior to 9/11 bin Laden warned that the United States would be attacked in an unprecedented way for its support of Israel.

Already bin Laden has called for all Muslims in the United States to leave. Instead of a mass exodus of Muslims from this country, new mosques are opening every few weeks. Muslim schools also are being established, which suggests that families plan to stay here for the foreseeable future. But Yossef Bodansky, director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism from 1988 to 1998, has testified that bin Laden has obtained nuclear weapons.

He told Congress that “Osama has recruited former Soviet Special Forces (SPETSNAZ) soldiers to teach al-Qaida how to maintain and operate the bombs.”

Mir, by the way, has suggested that most of the nuclear weapons have been smuggled across the border from Mexico. Opponents of illegal immigration long have argued that they want the border monitored and closed for national security purposes.

Proponents of illegal immigration have maintained that opposition to it is “racist.” Clearly, opponents of illegal immigration have the better case; although if Mir is correct, the door may have been open too long.

Ronald Kessler, chief Washington correspondent for, interviewed Mueller, who said that he is very concerned about bin Laden having nuclear weapons in the United States, so concerned that the FBI has surrounded mosques in 10 American cities with nuclear radiation detectors. Cort quotes Steve Coll, president of New America Foundation, as stating that these detectors cannot sense enriched uranium when it is shielded in lead. If Islamists have such bombs, no doubt they are wrapped in lead.

Cort says that Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff does not have a plan in the event that these bombs are detonated. In such a scenario real deaths will come from radiation. If people know how to avoid radiation prior to an attack, there may be many survivors.

If people can devise a radiation-proof shelter in their own homes to survive a detonation, two days later radiation is one, one-hundredth the strength of the initial blast. If people can spend three days in the shelter and then only make brief trips outside once a day, they can defeat radiation. But what credible source has warned people of the potential threat and how they can meet it?

Is all of this just alarmist talk? Has Cort missed something important which would nullify his answers? I have no idea.

It seems more than reasonable that we proceed as if it is true. If it proves to be a false alarm, what have we lost? But if Cort’s research has merit and we are prepared to handle such a situation, we could minimize its terrible impact.

When I asked some U.S. officials why no one in the government is warning people, I was told “we don’t want to unduly alarm people.” Nonsense.

I have great faith that the American people will do the right thing if properly informed. We did in the mid-1950s when told that the Soviet Union could start a nuclear war. We can do so again, but someone with credibility must tell Americans the truth.

Paul M. Weyrich is chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Barack Obama tells "The Race" that U.S. law enforcement officers are terrorists and that communities that enforce immigration laws are vigilantes

La Raza To The Bottom
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Politics: Barack Obama tells "The Race" that U.S. law enforcement officers are terrorists and that communities that enforce immigration laws are vigilantes. But then, that's exactly what La Raza believes.

Obama, the "post-racial" candidate, pandered Sunday to a group of Hispanic activists that calls itself "The Race." The only thing that was missing at the convention of the National Council of La Raza was his wearing a Mexican flag lapel pin.

In Orwellian fashion, defenders of "La Raza" deny that it means "the race." San Francisco Chronicle writer Carla Marinucci says of Obama's appearance before the group's national convention in San Diego that Obama "embraced the ideas reflected in the organization's name, La Raza, loosely translated as 'the people.' "

A very loose translation it is. Why not use "la comunidad" or "la gente" when speaking about the Latino people and community? Because La Raza wants to be called La Raza, and they known exactly what it means to them.

La Raza has ties it refuses to condemn with the likes of MECHa, a group that has spent the last three decades indoctrinating Latino students on American campuses, claiming the states of California, Arizona, Mexico, Texas and southern Colorado were stolen and should be returned to their rightful owners, the people of Mexico.

MECHa's slogan is derived from the rhetoric of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro: "Through the race, everything, outside the race, nothing." Obama hopes the road to the White House leads through La Raza.

The group is not some Hispanic version of the Rotary Club. It supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens and in-state tuition rates for illegal aliens. The open-borders group opposes the border fence and any cooperation between local law enforcement and federal authorities such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement in enforcing U.S. immigration laws. Its goal is not assimilation.

Obama told the group what it wanted to hear, including that "communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids." And he condemned those "communities taking immigration enforcement into their own hands" — like those that have passed state laws or local ordinances to cooperate with the feds or check that the immigrants who are here are in fact here legally.

Former Los Angeles high school basketball star Jamiel Shaw Jr. was a victim not only of a gang crime but of a sanctuary policy La Raza supports. This policy adopted by many major cities has led to increased illegal immigration and increased crime by illegal aliens.

Charged with Shaw's murder is Pedro Espinoza, a member of the 18th Street gang, who'd been released just hours earlier from the Los Angeles County Jail, where he'd spent four months for brandishing a firearm and resisting arrest. Espinoza is an illegal alien. The feds were not told of his release.

This policy is embodied in Special Order 40, a 30-year-old Los Angeles Police Department rule that prohibits police from arresting anyone based solely on their immigration status, or from notifying immigration officials about an illegal immigrant in their custody.

Does Obama support sanctuary cities and Special Order 40? If not, why didn't he tell La Raza that?

Far from midnight raids by storm troopers, work site inspections are done on the order of warrants issued by a federal prosecutor. When a home is raided, it's because a federal judge signed a deportation order. It's all done professionally and legally. It's not true, as Obama claimed, that "nursing mothers are torn from their babies."

Obama told the group that 12 million illegal aliens "are counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling our airwaves" — rhetoric, he says, that "has no place in this great nation."

Is it racist to criticize the policies of La Raza?

He seems to agree with current La Raza President Janet Murguia, who thinks that such "hate speech" should "not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights."

La Raza wants to restore the Fairness Doctrine. Does Obama agree?

Illegal aliens are here illegally, and the companies that hire them do so illegally. ICE is merely enforcing the laws of the United States, laws that Obama will swear to faithfully execute if he's elected president. Unless Obama has really embraced the ideas reflected in the organization's name.

Bill Clinton promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing

Add President Clinton to the long list of people who deserve a share of the blame for the housing bubble and bust. A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place...

The Clinton-era document that Mason cites—“The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream”—was hiding in plain sight on the website of the Department of Housing & Urban Development until last year, when according to Mason it was removed (probably because the housing bust made it seem embarrassing to the department). Mason credits Joshua Rosner of Graham Fisher & Co. with saving a copy of it before it was expunged.

Read the whole thing!

Why did Chuck Schumer (D-NY) cause IndyMac to fail?

"Very few banks, if any, would remain standing for long in the current tense financial environment after a Senator, in effect, told its depositors to run for the exits. In the 1930s, such tipsters were derided as rumormongers and often faced indictment for encouraging depositors to stampede banks."
The Wall Street Journal,"The $4 Billion Senator," July 15, 2008; Page A18

There is some suspicion that this Democratic Senator from New York has a financial and political interest in ruining this bank:

"A suspicious person might think that a network of lefty attack groups proficient in bank bashing and frequently funded by trial lawyers and short-sellers, coordinated their activities with a law firm on the hunt and a Senator who works closely with the network."
CNBC: "How Chuck Schumer Caused the Second Largest Bank Failure in US History"

The following items come from an astute comment from "netguru" on my last post (from The Neville Awards):
"Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) causes run on IndyMac Bank":

"Large Investor decided to pay a few bucks to a Senator in New York to force the issue."(Prospect Mortgage Backed By Sterling Fund--Private Equity Acquired The Mortgage Branches from Indymac before FDIC takeover)

"And do remember that there are many investment bankers located in New York, making them pretty influential constituents of Sen. Schumer."
Pasadena Star-News

"In a Sunday news conference, he said everything in his letter was already known to the public." If it was already known to the public, what is the reason for his public letter? It is contradict to what he said previouly :"I just bring private message to the public. Do not kill the messanger."
CNN: "Schumer: Don't blame me for IndyMac failure"

New York Times reported that hedge fund managers have a new champion in their effort to keep legally dodging the taxes the rest of us pay: none other than New York Senator Charles Schumer. Now you know who is Schumer's friend and why he caused the bank run on Indymac. He truly support hedge fund and private equity because they truly support him.
The New York Times

Chuck Schumer should not be allowed to get away with this!

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) causes run on IndyMac Bank

Shmucky Schumer -- Sen. Chuck Schumer and the IndyMac Failure

By The Neville Awards
Posted July 12, 2008

There is a special place in hell reserved for liberal low-lifes like the "esteemed" senator from New York and Neville Award winner, Sen. "Shmucky" Chucky Schumer.

"Shmucky" (with apologies to Mark Levin) Schumer sent warning letters to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Housing Finance Board and the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco. The letters reportedly said Schumer is concerned IndyMac "may have serious problems with its current loan holdings, and could face a failure if prescriptive measures are not taken quickly."

Chuck the Shmuck is either so stupid that he didn't know his letters to the FDIC would cause a run on the bank or he is so obsessed with having Barack Obama win in November he would deliberately collapse a bank that was already teetering so the failure could be blamed on the Republicans. With the mainstream press already in the tank for Obama the bank failure could easily be blamed on the Republicans.

Well, the letters immediately caused a run on the bank. IndyMac had already racked up almost $900 million in losses as home prices tumbled and foreclosures climbed to a record. IndyMac became the largest OTS-regulated savings and loan to fail, according to the FDIC.

It is very possible that IndyMac might have failed anyway. They were engaged in some very dubious practices like giving “Alt A” loans (loans in which the borrower is not required to provide proof of income).

But there can be no doubt that the immediate failure of IndyMac was caused by the despicable actions of this publicity seeking, grandstanding, lib loser, who, like all liberal politicians, was far more interested in what might be gained politically from the bank’s failure than he was about what the failure might mean to the bank's stockholders, employees, and customers.

Chuck the Shmuck Schumer’s actions were reckless and inexcusable given his position on the Senate Banking Committee and this screams censure and investigation.

Shmucky’s actions brought a strong rebuke from OTS Director John Reich, who said:

"This institution failed due to a liquidity crisis, although this institution was already in distress, I am troubled by any interference in the regulatory process."

Chuck the Shmuck blamed IndyMac's own actions and regulatory failures for the bank seizure.

"If OTS had done its job as regulator and not let IndyMac's poor and loose lending practices continue, we wouldn't be where we are today," Shmucky sniffed in an e-mail yesterday. "Instead of pointing false fingers of blame, OTS should start doing its job to prevent future IndyMacs. Mr. Reich, a political appointee, should be spending less time playing politics and more time doing his job."

What unbelievable arrogance on the part of the "esteemed" senator.

One wonders, beyond the obvious boon to Obama, if Chucky has been selling IndyMac stock short, or if he has had any business dealings with New York based Aurelian Management, LLC or it’s president, Brian Horey. Aurelian was short-selling IndyMac shares to gain from declines in the days prior to this takeover by Federal Regulators.

At this point nothing would surprise us here at The Neville Awards.

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Islamists have the West just where they want us

By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

Try a little thought experiment. What would have happened in this country during the Cold War if the Soviet Union successfully neutralized anti-communists opposed to the Kremlin's plans for world domination?

Of course, Moscow strove to discredit those in America and elsewhere who opposed its totalitarian agenda — especially after Sen. Joseph McCarthy's excesses made it fashionable to vilify patriots by accusing them of believing communists were "under every bed."

But what if the USSR and its ideological soul-mates in places like China, North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Europe and parts of Africa had been able to criminalize efforts to oppose their quest for the triumph of world communism? What if it had been an internationally prosecutable offense even to talk about the dangers inherent in communist rule and the need to resist it?

The short answer is that history might very well have come out differently. Had courageous anti-communists been unable accurately and forcefully to describe the nature of that time's enemy — and to work against the danger posed by its repressive, seditious program, the Cold War might well have been lost.

Flash forward to today. At the moment, another totalitarian ideology characterized by techniques and global ambitions strikingly similar to those of yesteryear's communists is on the march. It goes by varying names: "Islamofascism," "Islamism," "jihadism" or "radical," "extremist" or "political Islam." Unlike the communists, however, adherents to this ideology are making extraordinary strides in Western societies toward criminalizing those who dare oppose the Islamist end-state — the imposition of brutal Shariah Law on Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Consider but a few indicators of this ominous progress:

• In March, the 57 Muslim-state Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) prevailed upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution requiring the effective evisceration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Henceforth, the guaranteed right of free expression will not extend to any criticism of Islam, on the grounds that it amounts to an abusive act of religious discrimination. A UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has been charged with documenting instances in which individuals and media organizations engage in what the Islamists call "Islamophobia." Not to be outdone, the OIC has its own "ten-year program of action" which will monitor closely all Islamophobic incidents and defamatory statements around the world.

• Monitoring is just the first step. Jordan's Prosecutor General has recently brought charges against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. According to a lawsuit, "Fitna" — Wilders' short documentary film that ties certain Koranic passages to Islamist terrorism — is said to have slandered and insulted the Prophet Mohammed, demeaned Islam and offended the feelings of Muslims in violation of the Jordanian penal code. Mr. Wilders has been summoned to Amman to stand trial and, if he fails to appear voluntarily, international warrants for his arrest will be issued.

Zakaria Al-Sheikh, head of the "Messenger of Allah Unites Us Campaign" which is the plaintiff in the Jordanian suit, reportedly has "confirmed that the [prosecutor's action] is the first step towards setting in place an international law criminalizing anyone who insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed." In the meantime, his campaign is trying to penalize the nations that have spawned "Islamophobes" like Wilders and the Danish cartoonists by boycotting their exports — unless the producers publicly denounce the perpetrators both in Jordan and in their home media.

• Unfortunately, it is not just some companies that are submitting to this sort of coercion — a status known in Islam as "dhimmitude." Western officials and governmental entities appear increasingly disposed to go along with such efforts to mutate warnings about Shariah law and its adherents from "politically incorrect" to "criminally punishable" activity.

For example, in Britain, Canada and even the United States, the authorities are declining to describe the true threat posed by Shariah Law and are using various techniques to discourage — and in some cases, prosecute — those who do. We are witnessing the spectacle of authors' books being burned, ministers prosecuted, documentary film-makers investigated and journalists hauled before so-called "Human Rights Councils" on charges of offending Muslims, slandering Islam or other "Islamophobic" conduct. Jurists on both sides of the Atlantic are acceding to the insinuation of Shariah law in their courts. And Wall Street is increasingly joining other Western capital markets in succumbing to the seductive Trojan Horse of "Shariah-Compliant Finance."

Let's be clear: The Islamists are trying to establish a kind of Catch-22: If you point out that they seek to impose a barbaric, repressive and seditious Shariah Law, you are insulting their faith and engaging in unwarranted, racist and bigoted fear-mongering.

On the other hand, pursuant to Shariah, you must submit to that theo-political-legal program. If you don't, you can legitimately be killed. It is not an irrational fear to find that prospect unappealing. And it is not racist or bigoted to decry and oppose Islamist efforts to bring it about — ask the anti-Islamist Muslims who are frequently accused of being Islamophobes!

If we go along with our enemies' demands to criminalize Islamophobia, we will mutate Western laws, traditions, values and societies beyond recognition. Ultimately, today's totalitarian ideologues will triumph where their predecessors were defeated.

To avoid such a fate, those who love freedom must oppose the seditious program the Islamists call Shariah — and all efforts to impose its 1st Amendment-violating blasphemy, slander and libel laws on us in the guise of preventing Western Islamophobia.


It's becoming increasingly clear what the Democratic campaign strategy is going to be this election season: Vote for Obama or you're a racist. I'm not sure I think too much of this approach to bullying the American electorate into selecting a candidate. Aside from the fact that, if you're a Republican, it's always a mistake to let your adversary define you, it also seems to me to free people from certain otherwise laudatory restraints.

As for me, because I'm preemptively being defined as a racist (since I most certainly won't vote for Obama), I've decided to step up to the plate and embrace that definition. From here on in, I've got my mantra.

When I vote against Obama on November 4, 2008:

a.. It won't be because Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq, which I think will weaken America's interests beyond repair; it will be because I'm a racist.

b.. It won't be because Obama thinks that a nuclear Iran is no threat to the Western World, it will be because I'm a racist.

c.. It won't be because I think it's an incredibly stupid idea for the most powerful nation in the world to approach evil totalitarian dictators as a supplicant, it will be because I'm a racist.

d.. It won't be because I hate the idea of a President who will subordinate America's interests to the UN (as he inevitably will), it will be because I'm a racist.

e.. It won't be because Obama has the thinnest resume ever in the history of Presidential candidates; it will be because I'm a racist.

f.. It won't be because I think Obama's Leftist connections (Ayres, Dohrn, Soros, Pfleger, Wright, etc.) show him to be either stupid about or complicit with an agenda antithetical to basic American values; it will be because I'm a racist.

g.. It won't be because Obama consistently chooses as advisers people who have opted for the wrong side in the completely binary debate about Israel's right to exist, it will be because I'm a racist.

h.. It won't be because Obama wants to socialize American medicine, which I believe will destroy the high quality of medical care available to most Americans, it will be because I'm a racist.

I.. It won't be because Obama wants to gut the military and reduce us to a nation with a big target painted on our collective backside, it will be because I'm a racist.

j.. It won't be because Obama wants to gut the Second Amendment and destroy American's Constitutional right to protect themselves from foreign and domestic enemies, it will be because I'm a racist.

k.. It won't be because Obama has already announced loud and clear that he will support activist judges who place their "feelings" above the law, it will be because I'm a racist.

l.. It won't be because Obama supports judicial decisions creating a right to gay marriage, when I think that decision is one for the voters, it will be because I'm a racist.

m.. It won't be because Obama's announced that he will dramatically increase taxes, putting the slow, inflexible, ill-informed government in charge of what should be a quick-reacting, knowledgeable marketplace, it will be because I'm a racist.

n.. It won't be because Obama's record in the Senate (albeit short and undistinguished) has been so liberal he makes Teddy Kennedy look like a reactionary, it will be because I'm a racist.

o.. It won't be because Obama's an open-borders kind of guy, it will be because I'm a racist.

p.. It won't be because Obama has shown himself to be a scarily slow thinker and speaker when released from the teleprompter (which really doesn't bode well for those cozy private chats with Ahmadinejad, Jong-Il, and Assad), it will be because I'm a racist.

q.. It won't be because Obama's wife clearly loathes America and everything it stands for, despite the fact that she's done pretty well out of it, it will be because I'm a racist.

r.. It won't be because Obama was affiliated for more than 20 years with a church that preached white hatred and began to care only when it looked as if it would affect his campaign, it will be because I'm a racist.

s.. It won't be because Obama was good buddies with Tony Rezko, and other sleazy characters (showing again that Obama was complicit or a singularly bad judgment of character), it will be because I'm a racist.

t.. It won't be beca use Obama's a compulsive liar who clearly thinks we in the public are too stupid to catch up with his lies, it will be because I'm a racist.

u.. It won't be because Obama's campaign has proven to be fly-paper for every two bit troofer and anti-Semite in America, it will be because I'm a racist.

v.. It won't be because Obama's promised already to start down the totalitarian path of purging his predecessors through criminal prosecutions, it will be because I'm a racist.

All things considered, when I think about being a racist as I've defined it, not as they have, let me say it loud and let me say it proud:

On November 4, 2008, I am not voting for Obama!

Monday, July 07, 2008

Democrats linked to terrorists...again!

They just can't help themselves can they?

If you thought Pelosi was wrong when she went to Syria (violating the Logan Act???) then look what she's up to now! Gateway Pundit did all the heavy lifting here:

Read the whole thing!

Friday, July 04, 2008

Today's American Revolution

The American Revolution – Part II

Dick McDonald

America was the first country in the world to attempt to cripple “Big Government”. It started a Revolution to free itself from a tyrannical big government - a government headed by a King who had imposed taxes on the American colony to fight a war with France. Taxation without representation was the rallying call of our patriots.

Eleven years after declaring its independence, America signed a pact with itself to be ruled by a constitution - a compendium of laws designed to put the individual in charge of the state. It established rights of individuals and prescribed limited powers to the central government. The Founders realized that a country governed by its people had a better chance for survival and success than any form of totalitarianism.

One of the most important feature of that document was that no taxes were imposed on the income or wealth of the people thereby assuring the population that “big government” would never again emerge to confiscate private property. The Founders believed their Constitution would insure freedom and liberty for all through capitalism. Capitalism was and is the economic discipline used when countries transact business with each other and the Founders made that the economic standard in America in transactions between its citizens.

That was then and this is now. The Constitution has been amended and slowly but surely the American people have ceded their power to the state and become powerless to force the politicians to work on their behalf – exactly what the Founders didn’t want to happen. The majority of Americans find themselves unable to live comfortably, pay their taxes and still save for retirement. Politicians have damaged the American economy with laws that suffocate capitalism. That is particularly true for the poor and middle-class in America. As a result today they are so frustrated by political inertia they are willing to let socialists and Marxist further cripple capitalism by expanding “big government” through punitive taxation on the "rich" members of society in hopes of finding a solution to their dilemma.

Considering that frustration many say that the 2008 election will usher in a new chapter in American history. They conclude that America had its collectivist cycle with FDR that lasted from 1932 to 1968 and the individualist cycle with Reagan that has lasted from 1968 to 2008. Many believe that America is again going to call on big government collectivists to run the American economy in the next term.

We believe that electing Democratic socialists is the worst possible solution to the plight of the ordinary American. It is no solution. The Democrats talk the talk but don't walk the walk - they just promise the American Dream but never deliver it.

In the American Revolution Part II the stakes are a lot higher than electing Democrats or Republicans. America has to reform a good part of its economic system to fix what is wrong – to achieve what the people really want and logic demands. The country is the most successful on the planet but it is only running on one cylinder – the country should be a lot wealthier and every American should be a lot closer to achieving the American Dream of financial independence – a whole lot closer.

History tells us that Democrats and Republicans have done nothing to really improve the lot of the poor and middle-class in America. Sure America has the richest poor people and the biggest middle-class in the world – but why should that be our benchmark. Too many are still poor, have no property and fewer prospects of achieving the American Dream than ever before. Through the combination of the Federal Reserve fueling inflation by printing too much money and the punitive taxes the poor and middle-class have to pay ordinary Americans today have no chance to reach that dream no matter which party is in power.

Common sense suggests that if the poor and middle-class were wealthy they would be able to afford things like retirement, higher education, higher gas, energy and food prices, their own home and the rest of those things promised in the American Dream. So what history can America call on to prove that it can solve this dilemma - solve poverty? We have ample proof that communism, socialism and big governments can’t – they never have. So what will work?

Believe it or not capitalism has proven it can solve poverty. We just need to start with those who became rich using capitalism. In the late 50’s I entered the tax field and the second income tax return I prepared was for the planet’s only billionaire – J. Paul Getty. Earlier this Spring Forbes magazine disclosed the names of over 1,000 billionaires mostly earning that status in the last 25 years. What happened to change the American economy so radically that it was capable of creating so many billionaires (those with over 1,000 million dollars)?

What happened was a massive change in the way the big government taxed the income of Americans. It was the first phase of supply-side economics. I call it the first phase because I hope the American Revolution Part II is the second phase. I consider these phases part of the return to what the Founders envisioned for America – a people free of taxation on income - free to use that money to grow the economy and improve their own living standard. This is what happened.

Twenty-five years ago the top income tax rates were dropped from 70% to 28% allowing the people to keep and invest more of their own money. In 2002 the government dropped dividend tax rates from 35% to 15% making investment even more attractive. Many people took advantage of these breaks invested in the economy and created an absolutely enormous class of wealthy Americans. Ordinary Americans call them the “rich”. By letting them keep their own property capitalism eventually made them rich and the country wealthier.

All of which brings me to the American Revolution – Part II. Let capitalism make the poor and middle-class wealthy too. Empirically capitalism can do it and do it easily. Now in your wildest dreams do you think the majority of the American people would buy into that plan – a plan that will make them wealthy? What are their prospects now?

They have been fooled into further “economic slavery” and an impending era of limits by their supposed advocates in the American socialist movement. Their champion, a street-organizer is a one-solution fits all kind of politician – tax the rich and redistribute that money to the poor and middle-class. Unfortunately his plan won’t work – Democratic socialism never has and never will. The poor and middle-class will never achieve the American Dream for the simple reason – that under Democrat rule they will never get a pool of capital to benefit from capitalism.

If I didn’t make it clear, American history is proof positive capitalism can solve poverty. The surge in America wealth in the last 25 years was triggered because the state stopped confiscating more than half of the income of the American taxpayer. Many invested that extra money and let their profits compound until they became wealthy. Had we kept marginal income rates at those high levels we would still be limping along and much poorer as a country. Unfortunately projections of tax levels under the street-organizer are predicted to rise to pre-Reagan levels - approaching 60%.

Now that the rich are wealthy what about those left behind? How can they get on our capitalist band wagon? What will make the poor and middle-class rich other than redistributing money from the wealthy? The answer is simple. Get them a pool of capital to invest in the stock market that over their working life will compound and make them wealthy too.

A pool of capital is almost too easy to find in America. For starters try privatizing the 15.3% in payroll taxes confiscated by big government from every worker’s paycheck throughout his working life. It is his money and the government is his government. Invested in the stock market for 40 years earning the historical rate of return will make the taxpayer a millionaire capable of funding an affluent retirement and the best medical care on the planet. As this plan would be involuntary just like Social Security and Medicare is today, it would present no hardship.

Today the people are screaming for big government to do something to stop the economic bleeding. Privatizing these entitlements would be a first step in restoring the “crippling of big government” our Founders had in mind. The enactment of private accounts would cut the government’s budget in half by removing entitlement funding. See below to learn how this revolutionary plan would still pay off all obligations under the discontinued plans.

Many of those elite Americans - wealthy and indoctrinated in liberal philosophy - are opting to back the socialists in the Democrat party in 2008 with full knowledge that their own wealth will be untouched by liberal legislation. As hypocritical as it is, this is the America way – selfish and individualistic. Oh they talk about solving poverty but see to it that their government never has that kind of money.

Those elites, the Democrat party and the real socialists along with the Republican party have absolutely no interest or legislative plan to improve the financial strength of the poor and middle-class. Promises to give them a $1,000 tax break and lower income tax rates and preferential education will not make the poor wealthy. In fact when you look up who is trying to make the poor rich on Google you only find several religious articles excusing the church from that responsibility. Oh they will hand out food and provide temporary shelter but attempt to make them rich – forget it. The standard excuse is let them get educated, work hard and get lucky.

There is no single impediment in the way of making the poor rich than the refusal of the political class to give the poor and middle-class back 15.3% of their lifetime income to invest in their own economy for the 40 to 50 years of their working life. As Americans save so little today (it often slips into negative figures) what better way to make America wealthier than to make all its citizens millionaires.

The Democrats derisively called the first phase of the supply-side revolution the “trickle-down” theory. If we made a class of rich people that invested in the economy it would trickle down to the poor. It did just that. However, by comparison to the wealth showered on the “rich” by “trickle-down” a great gap in comparative income and wealth has evolved.

Ordinary Americans are besides themselves because that disparity along with punishing inflation has led them to look for an answer and the only person listening is the street organizer. He understands the plight of the poor and middle-class as he has been schooled in collectivist dogma of the communist, socialist and Democratic socialism movements. Of course he is smarter than to be one of them, he is no doubt a capitalist using populism to get the power needed to employ the only arrow he has in his quiver – taxing the rich. That policy guarantees the continued poverty that underlies the support of his party and his run for office.

So here we are at the cross roads. Unfortunately the American people have been offered only one road – continued economic stagnation. Electing the street organizer will only make it worse but electing his adversary and their party only guarantees a continuation of the inability of ordinary Americans to achieve the American Dream.

The only recourse ordinary Americans have is the power they exhibited in 1776 to fight the totalitarians and recently to preserve their sovereignty by opposing amnesty. It is going to take a grass roots movement on the part of the American people. People on Main Street will benefit by becoming wealthy and people on Wall Street will benefit by making the capital markets explode with a massive source of new capital. The only people scarred by this revolution will be the politicians whose entitlement industry will be dismantled and their ability to dictate how Americans have to suffer an era of limits or other political cruelties will be extinguished.

Americans are not on the cross roads, they are not facing a new chapter in American history in 2008 they are on the precipice of a hill ready to be plunged into socialist punishment in the canyon below. It is not terminal. America is too big and too savvy to let socialism creep too far into their society. Presently the underclass in America don’t have an alternative to their dilemma – they are going to have to start their own American Revolution Part II.

We at the Ownership Society Institute have a website and book promoting this second phase of the supply-side economic revolution – we call it the Rise Up America plan and it can be found at There are tables on the site that illustrate how even a minimum wage earner will end up a millionaire at retirement. There are tables illustrating the explosive growth the economy would realize if it adopts Rise Up.

The standard objection to what most people know will make them wealthy – privatizing entitlements – is that we can’t afford the transition. They ask where are we going to get the money to pay off all the present retirees and those retiring in the near future who don’t have time to accumulate a significant nest egg. The Plan answers that question illustrating how not only to fund private investment accounts and pay off all old program liabilities but in the process increase the value of the US dollar. See here and here and here.

You might want to check out Rise Up America as it promises to:

Make the poor rich
Make America wealthier
Extinguish $45 trillion in unfunded debt
Reduce the Budget by $1.3 trillion
Deliver the largest tax cut in history
Make 100% of Americans capitalists
Increase the value of the US dollar
Make American products competitive
Reduce management-labor difficulties
Cut our national debt from $9 to $5 trillion
Economically emancipate women
Increase retirement benefits

And Much, much more!

Happy Independence Day

Ownership Society Institute
Dick McDonald, Managing Director

Marxist rebels linked to Obama

Note from a friend of Rene Guerra: From my ex-Marxist consultant who almost single-handedly orchestrated the first bloodless coup in Latin America (in El Salvador in 1979) as a Marxist. Who better to know the inner workings of the scourge of civilization than one of their own!
The leftist weasel he is, Barack Hussein Obama, quickly, feignedly congratulated Colombian President Alvaro Uribe for the daring rescue a few days ago of 15 hostages that the Marxist-Leninist guerrilla organization FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) had kept captive in the jungles of Colombia, some of them for up to six years. Three or those ex-captives are American citizens.

A critical question arises: How will BHO explain that congratulatory message to Uribe to William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and the rest of Marxist-Leninists in the friendship circle that he kept for a long time? All in that circle are ideological comrades of the FARC guerrillas. There is no doubt that those in BHO’s exclusive friendship circle must be terribly saddened that the FARC suffered such a monumental setback.

The affinity between the FARC and their ideological colleagues in the USA is such that the FARC honchos came to grow high expectations in their favor upon a prospective BHO Presidency, as discovered in a laptop captured by the Colombian army in a raid between February and early March of this year, on a FARC camp in Ecuador, close to the Colombian border. Read the WorldNetDaily report at the bottom.

Note: The WND report misleadingly refers to the FARC as “narco-rebels”. Alas! The FARC are of an authentic Marxist-Leninist cut, and if they have entered into a symbiotic alliance with the drug cartels, it is only because they both have a powerful common enemy: America. Remember that Carlos Leher, a Colombian drug trafficker now rotting in an American penitentiary, once said that “. . . Cocaine is our neutron bomb; it will kill Americans, but it will leave buildings and the rest intact, and in the process, we will make a fortune.”

(The president of Ecuador, an America-hating leftist, and the rest of leftist heads of state in Latin America -- only Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Colombia are not in leftist hands -- are abuzz at the prospect of BHO winning the Presidency of the United States of America.)

In an attempt to beguile the American electorate, BHO is feigning moving to the ideological-center, for, as unabashedly his campaign operatives publicly state, their only objective now is that BHO capture the White House. They say it openly on national TV; in other words, it all is bait ‘n switch. Once in the White House, BHO would inflict on America the switch part of the trick. That’s exactly what Fidel Castro, a Marxist-Leninist since the mid 1940s, did in Cuba once in power.

By the way, Castro participated in “El Bogotazo” (The Blow on Bogota): A communist putsch in 1948 ordered by Stalin to the international Marxist-Leninist mob to take over Colombia by first taking by arms the capital, Bogotá. The putsch failed, and from it eventually grew what became the FARC and other Marxist-Leninist guerrilla organizations in Colombia. Colombia has been under continuous Marxist-Leninist assault for nearly 60 years.

Back to BHO, we all must alert voters of a non-leftist veneer about the gross deception that BHO is inflicting on America. Don’t expect that McCain will do it; he is a perfect fool. He will keep his idiotic sanctimonious airs in terms of treating that scourge of America, Barack Hussein Obama, “. . . with all respect and consideration . . .”, meaning by that that he, McCain, will let BHO get away with whatever he, BHO, schemes to win the presidency.

Fellow Americans, the horrible reality is that we are trapped between an extreme leftist and an extreme fool.

Laptop Links Obama, Chavez, Colombian Revolutionaries: Narco-rebels say Venezuela aiding them, more help coming from Democrat president

God save America!

Meanwhile, have a most Happy 4th of July,
Rene Guerra