WHO IS THIS MAN BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AND WHAT WOULD HIS RE-ELECTION MEAN

The average voter knew very little about Barack Obama when he was campaigning in 2008.  So they listened to the man and judged him by what he said.  The fact that he was black also won him some extra votes.  The fact the public elected a man with such a negative opinion of America could be considered a fluke, a gigantic mistake, but one that could be corrected in the following election.  This time there are many things the voters have come to know about the man.  Powerline blog lists just a few.

Obama came of age, over a period of decades, in an environment that can charitably be described as hard-left. His father and mother were both socialists or worse. His maternal grandfather selected a mentor for young Barry who was a long-time member of the Communist Party USA. The socialist New Party listed him as a member. His friend, colleague and fundraiser Bill Ayers is a terrorist who says he wishes he had set off more bombs. His college professor Edward Said was the leading intellectual voice of those who want Israel destroyed. His law school mentor Roberto Unger was too far left for Brazil’s socialist party, and was sent back to Harvard, where he declined all interviews lest he endanger Obama’s electoral prospects. The minister who converted him to Christianity was Jeremiah “God damn America” Wright. You can go on and on.

Obama’s vision for the country is now readily available for all to see and it is the antithesis of what made this country great.  If a man with these credentials is elected a second time to lead the nation, then the America that was born in 1776 will have chosen death in 2012.  Many conservative writers warn that Obama would turn the United States into some sort of North American Europe.  They needn’t look so far afield.  His vision is more like that of Fidel Castro than Andrea Merkel.

RADICAL IN CHIEF – ACORN part II

 

This post continues the series of chapter summations of Radical-In-Chief by Stanley Kurtz.  Today we cover the mid portion of Chapter 6.  President Obama had a close working relationship with ACORN.  Their affiliation came naturally.  Their objectives and methods were the same, their constituency was the same and they both focused their activities in Chicago.

*****

RADICAL IN CHIEF
Chapter 6  ACORN part II
Obama’s alliance with ACORN arose from his choice of “asbestos” as the issue over which to organize and his selection of the Altgeld Gardens Housing Project as the place to do it. Altgeld also was the focus of the Chicago arm of ACORN. Their program was called ATU (Altgeld Tenants United).  The issues that ATU was working weren’t as productive as the asbestos issue that Obama had chosen, so ACORN’s ATU joined forces with Obama’s DCP and they worked together.  Barack Obama worked closely with ACORN from the very beginning.

Housing was the major focus of ACORN’s work from 1992 to 1995. During this period, Barack Obama was supporting ACORN with money from the two foundations on whose boards he sat. Obama also personally trained leaders for ACORN and represented ACORN in a lawsuit relating to the “Motor Voter” bill.

ACORN leaders knew that minority applicants were being turned down for mortgages due to a lack of down payment and poor credit histories.  Therefore the goal was to force banks to lower their lending standards.  The method was to level charges of racism, both explicit and implied, against banks that did not conform.  Activities included:

Filing actions against banks for failing to “meet the needs of the community” asmandated by the CRA.
Demonstrations in lobbies of banks that refused to lower their lending standards
Establishing an ACORN Housing Corp to acquire distressed properties from banks.
Selling houses to “homesteaders” with ACORN keeping title to the land.
Requiring homesteaders to attend at least 5 demonstrations against the banks.
The Chicago Tribune called the program “affirmative-action lending”.

But there was a line below which the banks could not go.  That line was the standards set at the time by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two GSEs (Government Sponsored Entities) supplied the money for the loans.  ACORN knew they would need to get their standards lowered. Charges of racism would not work here, but working through the political system might yield results.  ACORN was “informally deputized” by the Chairman of the House Banking Committee to draft affordable housing rules that became the foundation of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992.  The new law imposed quotas on the GSEs that could only be met by lowering their credit standards.

Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama denied having any close relationship with ACORN.  His involvements were actually quite extensive.  In 1992 he accepted an invitation from Madeline Talbott, head of the ACORN Chicago office, to train organizers for her staff.  As head of Project Vote, Obama coordinated voter registration drives with ACORN.  Speaking at an ACORN meeting in 2008, Obama said:

When I ran Project Vote, the voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it.  Once I was elected there wasn’t a campaign that ACORN worked on down in Springfield that I wasn’t right there with you.  Since I have been in the United States Senate, I’ve always been a partner with ACORN as well. I have been fighting with ACORN, along side ACORN, on the issues you care about my entire career.

Then on October 15th during the third presidential debate Obama said this:

The only involvement I’ve had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a Motor Voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs.

When ACORN launched the voter registration drive called Project Vote, Obama was appointed director for the state of Illinois. The members of his steering committee were ACORN’s Chicago chief Madeline Talbott, the head of SEIU Local 880 Keith Kelleher, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, Midwest Academy leader Kim Bobo and 17 lesser known individuals from the Chicago area.

The primary players in Chicago’s Project Vote, in addition to Obama who directed it, were the SEIU and ACORN, effectively one organization in Chicago. Although they had separate phone lines they shared the same headquarters, the same staff and participated jointly in demonstrations.  The campaign against the banks ran full steam in conjunction with Obama’s Chicago Project Vote.

 

IF BARACK OBAMA WINS

 

Kim Strassel, writing for the Wall Street Journal had his to say about Barack Obama/s program for his second term, should he win one.

President Obama has a reputation for talking, but not necessarily for saying much. He has achieved new levels of vagueness this election season. Beyond repeating that he’s in favor of making the “rich” pay for more government “investment,” he hasn’t offered a single new idea for a second term. This is deliberate

Hope and Change meant whatever the hearer imagined them to mean.  After 4 years in office, Obama can hardly campaign on Change.  Neither can he appeal to the voters on his record of accomplishment.  That leaves little option other than tearing down the opposition.  One needs to look no further to see why this campaign is so vicious.

The choice is between Change, which in this case means Romney, or more of the same.

The same is – high levels of unemployment, diminishing prosperity of the middle class, diminishing world status of the United States, by passing Congress to rule by regulation and executive order, more crony capitalism, closed government and more class warfare.  If Obama wins this election there is nothing new he needs to do to solidify the socialist position.  America will have chosen it.  The President will be free to carry out his socialistic agenda more openly and that is what he will do.  But comparisons to Europe are misplaced.  Financial policies will be more like those of Fidel Castro than Angela Merkel.

PAVAROTTI

http://youtu.be/rTFUM4Uh_6Y

IT IS ONLY IN WASHINGTON WHERE SAVINGS ARE AN EXPENSE AND AN EXPENSE IS NOT AN EXPENSE BUT AN INVESTMENT

It is interesting to observe how an entire political faction will change the words it uses to further its agenda. Advocates move in unison as though some central agreement had been published forbidding the use of the prior term. For example, using consistent sources for measurement our planet’s warmest year in recent history was in 1998. That’s fourteen years ago and long enough to weaken the political case for global warming. So the “global warming” mantra is dropped in favor of the term “climate change”. It’s a safe bet that the warmers cause will never be threatened by climate stability in the future. Climates simply aren’t stable.

On another point, have you noticed the Democrats are no longer in favor of raising taxes? The public doesn’t take kindly to having taxes increased. Raising taxes on the other fellow is ok of course, but not on me. Democrats now talk about revenue increases.
And the Dems aren’t spenders anymore either. They have given that up. Now they invest. They invest it in things like food stamp programs, stimulus plans and corporate bailouts. It takes a willful suspension of disbelief to call spending “investment” but willful suspension is what they do.

There is however, one thing Democrats do call spending. And that is saving. When the government allows you to save more of your own money than they allowed in the past, it’s called a “tax expenditure”. Confused? Let me explain; your mortgage deduction is called a government expense, the Bush tax relief was called a government expense. Anything that allows you to keep more of your earnings than the government would like you to keep is called a government expense (actually the preferred word is “expenditure”). If you listen carefully you will hear it.

The mindset that views your mortgage deduction as a government expense is a mindset that believes your money belongs first to the government. How else could you explain that a reduction in what the government takes away from you could considered to be a government expense?
You can not stop the world from choosing words inappropriately to distort your thinking, but you can learn to recognize and guard against it when it happens.

OBAMA’S SINKING SUPPORT

The crowds are not coming out.  The money is not coming in.  The aura of omnipotence is gone.  Cracks in the liberal media are beginning to show.  The liberal leaning Newsweek covered the latest issue with “We Need a New President.”  Unemployment is higher longer than at any time since the Great Depression.  The President has revealed some very unpopular beliefs with statements like “You didn’t build that… “.  However, the polls don’t reflect the decline.  Why is that?

It’s a tough thing for any person to admit they were very wrong; that’s a fact of human nature.  Answering a pollster commits you to nothing while it allows you to defer a decision you are loathe to make.  But what happens in the voting booth stays in the voting booth.  It’s private.  For better or for worse, when the chips are down voters vote their pocketbook.  As Walter Cronkite famously said, “It’s the economy, stupid.”  That does not bode well for Obama.

If the theory is correct, remaining vestiges of it will show up in the exit polls as some voters will be reluctant to admit they voted against their one time hero and a black man.

The Obama team could garner a few more votes if they spread the fear that Big Brother can tell how you voted.  Let’s hope they don’t think of it.

JUSTAPHOTO

 

NEWSWEEK MAKES THE NEWS

The cover of Newsweek Magazine blares out “HIT THE ROAD, BARACK. Why We Need a New President” In the article behind the cover Niall Ferguson expresses the sentiments of many people with this comment.

Despite having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool, hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign organization.

Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.

Actually the sad truth is Obama has delivered on his promises.  He promised in a speech to union members that he would establish us on the road to single payer (government only) healthcare, and he did.  He promised the folks at ACORN that he would put their interests first and he did.  He promised to completely transform America and he has made progress on that front too.  He may very well complete the job if re-elected.  He never did say he would get it all done in the first term.

There were, of course some promises he did not keep.  The oceans have not changed their habits.  The coal industry still exists.  He has not created a domestic police force larger than the military.  He didn’t bring the troops home immediately from Afghanistan as he said he would and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did not get to see New York City.

Why are so many people disappointed in his jobs performance?  Obama’s economic policies are what you should expect when you put a socialist in charge.  He said in his book that he only had one job in the private sector and he considered it to be “working for the enemy.”  Did you think he would focus on helping the enemy create jobs?  In his campaign he stressed his experience as a community organizer.  An organizer’s job is to agitate one group so they will be angry enough to confront another group.  Did you think he would be a uniter?  I think I know why you are disappointed.  You didn’t do your homework.

RADICAL IN CHIEF – ACORN

 

This post continues the series of chapter summations of Radical-In-Chief by Stanley Kurtz.  Today we cover the first third of Chapter 6.  The bad economy that Obama inherited occurred in large part as a result of the excessive sub-prime lending that ACORN and Obama worked together to promote in the President’s community organizing days.  His influence was small to be sure, nevertheless he fought for the policies that led to the crisis and not against them.

*****

Chapter 6
ACORN

ACORN was well known for its aggressive voter registration activities, however the organization’s assault on the banking industry was never as well publicized.  ACORN charged banks with a social obligation to lend money to low income mortgage applicants without regard to the high credit risks.  By confronting banks publicly for failure to conform to ACORN’s demands, they succeeded in coercing some banks to lower their lending standards.  Citibank was a prime example.

But targeting banks publicly was just the first half of a two part strategy outlined in a paper written by Peter Dreier called “The Case for Transitional Reform”.  Drier argued for  establishing quasi socialist institutions in the heart of capitalist society; then influencing these institutions to inject “unimaginable strains into the capitalist system, strains that precipitate an economic and/or political crisis” which would lead to a “revolution of rising entitlements” that “cannot be abandoned without undermining the legitimacy of the capitalist class”. Dreier continued, “The process leads to expansion of state activity and budgets, and to fiscal crisis in the public sector” which will open the door to socialism as the solution.

Applying that strategy, the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC), led by Michael Harrington, captured about one quarter of the seats on the Democratic Party’s platform committee.  And in 1980 ACORN succeeded in getting the provisions of their “People’s Platform” incorporated into the national platform of the Democratic Party. Harrington’s approach was to establish socialism in the United States through the political process rather than by militant revolution.  His plan was working.  The DSOC and ACORN formed an alliance to shape a program for growing socialism within Democratic Party.

Chicago ACORN.  The US Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued an investigative report on ACORN in February 2010.  The report found “There is no real separation between ACORN and its affiliates. ACORN is a single corrupt corporate enterprise composed of a series of holding companies and subsidiaries that are financially and operationally dependent on the main corporation.”

 

DISHONORABLE DISCLOSURES

When Osama bin Laden was killed, I gave a modicum of credit to Barack bin Obama for authorizing the hit.  I was wrong; he didn’t deserve a whit.  How much credit do you give a burglar for using a comfortable rope to tie up his victim?

It has come out since that he denied the operation more than once before finally allowing it.  In his rhetoric he repeatedly took the credit for having accomplished the feat but he did not initiate it; he did not plan it and he did not carry it out.  President Bush initiated the search; our military carried it out. It just happened on Obama’s watch and all he did was try to stop it and even in that, he failed (thankfully).

All of that is manifestation of political opportunism,  poor judgement and lack of respect for those who risk their lives for the rest of us.  It gets worse, much worse.  Watch the video.  It’s not short, so allow time for it.