The Obama Phenomena

[objectivist1]

Actually FMD had extensive documented contacts with the Communist Party USA.  Wikipedia is generally of questionable reliability.  Here is some additional detail about Frank Marshall Davis (see the web site www.obamasrealfather.com for much more detail on the evidence that he is Obama's biological father):


Frank Marshall Davis (1905-1987) was a Communist Party USA (CPUSA) propagandist in Chicago and Hawaii, as well as a writer and poet. The FBI had Davis under investigation or surveillance for 19 years, compiling a 600-page FBI file. He was on the FBI's 'Security Index A', meaning he would be arrested in the event of national emergency.
In 1930's Chicago, CPUSA recruited journalists to help spread Soviet influence in American public opinion. Frank Marshall Davis was one of them. A graduate of Kansas State Journalism School, Frank Marshall Davis joined the Communist Party and began writing for The Chicago Star. He was a colleague of journalist Vernon Jarrett, father-in-law of Obama confidant Valerie Jarrett. Davis also taught at Chicago's Abraham Lincoln School, a Communist run training school run by CPUSA. Davis authored three major volumes of poetry, and later an autobiographical sex novel under a pseudonym.
In 1948, the Kremlin ordered CPUSA to facilitate a US withdrawal from the Hawaii as US naval forces were considered an obstacle to Soviet expansion in Asia. CPUSA assigned Frank Marshall Davis to Honolulu where he began writing for the Communist Newspaper, the Honolulu Record in 1948. In his columns, Davis flawlessly mirrored official Soviet propaganda - he blamed American capitalism for starting World War II, denounced the Marshall Plan, preached wealth redistribution, nationalization of industry and government healthcare, while bashing Wall Street. Davis also helped organize the Communist controlled ILWU (union) in a failed effort to take over the Hawaiian government in 1949. The Hawaii NAACP chapter complained to its national office, "Comrade Frank Marshall Davis suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership with the purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line." In 1956, Davis was subpoenaed by the Senate Subcommittee on Un-American Activities and pleaded the fifth. Dreams from My Real Father makes the case that on August 4, 1961, Frank Marshall Davis became the father of the future 44th President of the United States and indoctrinated him with a Marxist ideology during his formative years.
 
 

[Crafty_Dog]

I did not know that about FMD.

Father or not, certainly he was of great importance during the formative years of our President.

[JDN]

FMD is Obama's father?   

Odds are probably better that Romney's real biological father was a Martian.

What garbage in the pursuit of truth.

 

[Crafty_Dog]

MICHELLE OBAMA: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."

[objectivist1]

It's interesting to note that JDN seems to delight in name-calling and ad hominem attacks.  Funny how he never seems to actually engage in a dialogue or actual evidence-based debate.
This forum is populated overwhelmingly by thoughtful, intelligent individuals who are ready and willing to back up their arguments with evidence.  I and many others here choose not to respond to JDN's inanity because, as Mark Twain famously observed:  "Never argue with a fool.  Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

[JDN]

It's interesting to note that JDN seems to delight in name-calling and ad hominem attacks.  Funny how he never seems to actually engage in a dialogue or actual evidence-based debate.
This forum is populated overwhelmingly by thoughtful, intelligent individuals who are ready and willing to back up their arguments with evidence.  I and many others here choose not to respond to JDN's inanity because, as Mark Twain famously observed:  "Never argue with a fool.  Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

ev·i·dence/ˈevədəns/
Noun:   
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Objectivist, Another expression is if it walks like a fool, quacks like a fool, it must be a fool.  That must be you.   

You said;
Frank Marshall Davis - Barack's biological father?

Are you really that stupid?
Or are you just intentionally denigrating yourself?
Because that is what you are doing by posting such garbage.

[Crafty_Dog]

JDN:

It is a notion that has been floating around for quite some time now.

Given the haze around BO's life (even his own book publicist has him listed as "born in Kenya", the matter of the hidden birth certicate, the hidden school records, etc) it's not surprising that people wonder.

[objectivist1]

Dreams from My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception

Posted By Mark Tapson On August 14, 2012 - Frontpagemag.com

Barack Obama the man is more of a mystery to Americans than any president in modern history, thanks to suppressed documents and unexplained gaps in his personal and intellectual life. Now a new documentary seeks to answer the question, “Was the multicultural tale of Obama’s goat-herding Kenyan father only a fairy tale to obscure a Marxist agenda irreconcilable with American values?”

Based on two years of research, interviews, newly unearthed footage and photos, and the writings of Communist Party organizer and propagandist Frank Marshall Davis, Dreams from My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception is an alternate theory to Obama’s autobiography. The 95-minute video from Highway 61 Entertainment weaves together the facts with re-creations and “reasoned speculation” in an effort to solve the mystery of Obama’s origin. As director/writer/producer Joel Gilbert puts it, the conclusion is that “the ‘Birthers’ have been on a fool’s errand. To understand Obama’s plans for America, the question is not ‘Where’s the birth certificate,’ but ‘Who’s the real father?’”

The film makes the case that Davis is Obama’s real father, both biologically and ideologically, and that he indoctrinated Obama during the latter’s formative years with a political grounding in Marxism and an anti-white world view. It asserts, as Gilbert says in an interview, that Obama’s election “was the culmination of an American socialist movement that Frank Marshall Davis nurtured in Chicago and Hawaii, and has been quietly infiltrating the US economy, universities, and media for decades.”

Dreams from My Real Father is narrated over meandering violin-and-piano music by Obama impersonator and voiceover actor Ed Law, who chronicles the president’s life journey from birth to the present as if Obama himself is speaking. Some dialogue is taken directly from Davis and Obama’s writings, while some is “approximated.”

The documentary includes Obama’s indoctrination in Marxism by Davis, his college years, his work as a Saul Alinsky-style community organizer, his close association with the Bill Ayers family and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, even his little-known role in the subprime mortgage crisis, all the way through his campaigns and into the presidency. “My mission in life,” says the Obama narrator, “is to fulfill the dreams of my ‘ideological father’ – to replace capitalism with Communism.”

The film begins with a comparison of the startling physical similarities between Obama and Frank Marshall Davis: facial features, stature and build, even their voices and laughs. It moves on to a description of Davis’ involvement with the Communist Party of the USA, which was founded in Chicago. The CPUSA targeted useful American journalists like Davis, who was deeply involved an astounding number of Communist front groups and wrote for all their publications. He was assigned to recruit blacks into the party – the goal was to target them, rub salt in their wounds, stir up class resentment, and mobilize their discontent to take power. In addition to being a poet and propagandist, Davis started a camera club and specialized in nude photography.

Enter Obama’s “Gramps,” grandfather Stanley Dunham on his mother Ann’s side, who was a “company man” for the CIA, tasked with recruiting black students against Communism. One of those students was Obama’s purported father, Barack Hussein Obama, who arrived from Kenya and was greeted by Gramps himself. The Dunhams later moved to Hawaii, where a very unhappy Ann began hanging out with poet/photographer Davis, who had moved there to recruit blacks for the CPUSA. He ultimately got her to pose nude for him – and eventually, according to the documentary, also got her pregnant.

After his initial shock and anger over the illicit affair, Stanley Dunham realized he would lose his CIA security clearance if it was discovered that his daughter was pregnant by Communist Davis. Abortion, illegal in Hawaii, wasn’t an option. Dunham decided to carry out an elaborate deception. He needed a black man to marry Ann and legitimize the birth, so he turned to Kenyan student Obama, who needed the money. But Obama was already a married man and father, so he agreed to go along with the plan only if the birth certificate stated “Father unknown.”

Months later Ann was granted an uncontested divorce, married Indonesian Barry Soetero and moved to Jakarta. Young Barry grew up there, eventually was told the truth about his real father, and spent some time with “Uncle Frank” Davis in Hawaii during his formative years. By the time Obama went to Occidental College on a full affirmative-action scholarship, he was already a committed Marxist.

Going to school later in Chicago, Obama was influenced by professors like Richard Cloward with his “crisis strategy” of economic sabotage to collapse capitalism. He met terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who realized Obama’s value to their movement, and learned the strategies of “community organization” – or more precisely, “community agitation.”

Thanks to his connections, Ayers’ wealthy father Thomas and black nationalist patron Khalid al-Mansour, Obama was accepted at Harvard Law School and became president of the Harvard Law Review without actually having written a single law review. He moved on to become a training director for the Alinskyite group ACORN.

The documentary goes on to detail Obama’s political life, his involvement with Project Vote and the subprime mortgage crisis, his shady backing from slumlord patron Tony Rezko, and his support from another red-diaper baby, David Axelrod, who ultimately helped him shape his presidential campaign message. Once in office, Obama began carrying out the socialist blueprint – centralizing power in the government

When asked in an interview why it matters who Barak Obama’s father really is, filmmaker Joel Gilbert replied,

Obama sold himself to America as the multi-cultural ideal, a man who stood above politics. His father was a goat herder from Kenya, he would bring people together, so it went… [P]romoting a false family background to hide an agenda irreconcilable with American values is a totally unacceptable manipulation of the electorate.

The closing image of the film is a waving Communist flag, suggesting that Obama’s agenda – to make America socialist without ever realizing how it happened – is flourishing. “These are my dreams,” the Obama impersonator finishes, “the dreams from my real father.”

[ccp]

"Barack Obama the man is more of a mystery to Americans than any president in modern history"

Yes.  It is astounding how the MSM refuse to investigate this guy.

Yet, we already have more digging and publicizing about Ryan in the last few days than we ever had about the brockster.

If not for Fox, and talk radio no one would ever know anything about the present presidents close ties to  marxists, socialists, communists, black racists, anti semites.

Amazing.

Yet the same crowd that likes to place all these revelations into the right wing, crazy conspiracy camp has no problem making the argument that going through Romney's and Ryan's tax records, and every singel detail about everything they ever did or said is relevant and germane.

The hypocracy the double standard is breathtaking to behold.

If the right had the same overt and covert support from the media the election would be a no contest.

I susupect it will wind up being a no contest despite their efforts to buttress their guys.

[For_Crafty_Dog]

Barry The Dope Dealer; one reason Obama's school files are SEALED.

Barry was quite the accomplished marijuana addicted enthusiast back in high school and college. Excerpts from David Maraniss' Barack Obama: The Story "Barry the Dope dealer" with the elaborate drug culture surrounding the president when he attended Punahou School in Honolulu and Occidental College in Los Angeles . He definitely inhaled, a hell of a lot of smoke.

1. The Choom Gang



A self-selected group of boys at Punahou School who loved basketball and good times called themselves the Choom Gang. Choom is a verb, meaning "to smoke marijuana."

2. Total Absorption



As a member of the Choom Gang, Barry Obama was known for starting a few pot-smoking trends. The first was called "TA," short for "total absorption." To place this in the physical and political context of another young man who would grow up to be president, TA was the antithesis of Bill Clinton's claim that as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford he smoked dope but never inhaled.

3. Roof Hits



Along with TA, Barry popularized the concept of "roof hits": when they were chooming in the car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.

4. Penalties



When you were with Barry and his pals, if you exhaled precious pakalolo (Hawaiian slang for marijuana, meaning "numbing tobacco") instead of absorbing it fully into your lungs, you were assessed a penalty and your turn was skipped the next time the joint came around. "Wasting good bud smoke was not tolerated," explained one member of the Choom Gang, Tom Topolinski, the Chinese-looking kid with a Polish name who answered to Topo.

5. The Choomwagon



[Choom Gang member] Mark Bendix's Volkswagen bus, also known as the Choomwagon. � The other members considered Mark Bendix the glue, he was funny, creative, and uninhibited, with a penchant for Marvel Comics. He also had that VW bus and a house with a pool, a bong, and a Nerf basketball, all enticements for them to slip off midday for a few unauthorized hours of recreation...

6. Interceptions



Barry also had a knack for interceptions. When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted "Intercepted!," and took an extra hit. No one seemed to mind.

7. Slippers



Choom Gang members often made their way to Aku Ponds at the end of Manoa Stream, where they slipped past the liliko'i vines and the KAPU (keep out) signs, waded into waist-high cool mountain water, stood near the rock where water rushed overhead, and held up a slipper (what flip-flops are called in Hawaii) to create an air pocket canopy. It was a natural high, they said, stoned or not.

8. Ray The Dealer



He was a long-haired haole hippie who worked at the Mama Mia Pizza Parlor not far from Punahou and lived in a dilapidated bus in an abandoned warehouse. � According to Topolinski, Ray the dealer was "freakin' scary." Many years later they learned that he had been killed with a ball-peen hammer by a scorned gay lover. But at the time he was useful because of his ability to "score quality weed."
...
In another section of the [senior] yearbook, students were given a block of space to express thanks and define their high school experience. � Nestled below [Obama's] photographs was one odd line of gratitude: "Thanks Tut, Gramps, Choom Gang, and Ray for all the good times." � A hippie drug-dealer made his acknowledgments; his own mother did not.

9. Pumping Stations



Their favorite hangout was a place they called Pumping Stations, a lush hideaway off an unmarked, roughly paved road partway up Mount Tantalus . They parked single file on the grassy edge, turned up their stereos playing Aerosmith, Blue Oyster Cult, and Stevie Wonder, lit up some "sweet-sticky Hawaiian buds" and washed it down with "green bottle beer" (the Choom Gang preferred Heineken, Becks, and St. Pauli Girl).

10. Veto



One of the favorite words in their subculture revealed their democratic nature. The word was veto. Whenever an idea was broached, someone could hold up his hand in the V sign (a backward peace sign of that era) and indicate that the motion wash not approved. They later shortened the process so that you could just shout "V" to get the point across.. In the Choom Gang, all V's were created equal.

11. Maui Wowie, Kauai Electric, Puna Bud And Kona Gold:



In the Honolulu of Barry's teenage years marijuana was flourishing up in the hills, out in the countryside, in covert greenhouses everywhere. It was sold and smoked right there in front of your nose; Maui Wowie, Kauai Electric, Puna Bud, Kona Gold, and other local variations of pakololo were readily available.

12. The Barf Couch



The Barf Couch earned its name early in the first trimester when a freshman across the hall from Obama [in the Haines Hall Annex dorm at Occidental College ] drank himself into a stupor and threw up all over himself and the couch. In the manner of pallbearers hoisting a coffin, a line of Annexers lifted the tainted sofa with the freshman aboard and toted it out the back door and down four steps to the first concrete landing on the way to the parking lot. A day later, the couch remained outside in the sun, resting on its side with cushions off (someone had hosed it clean), and soon it was back in the hallway nook.

13. The Annex Olympics



(The main hallway at Haines Hall was called the Annex,) home to the impromptu Annex Olympics: long-jumping onto a pile of mattresses, wrestling in underwear, hacking golf balls down the hallway toward the open back door, boxing while drunk. There were the non-Olympic sports of lighting farts and judging them by color, tipping over the Coke machine, breaking the glass fire extinguisher case, putting out cigarettes on the carpet, falling asleep on the carpet, flinging Frisbees at the ceiling-mounted alarm bell, tasting pizza boxes to the floor, and smoking pot from a three-foot crimson opaque bong, a two-man event involving the smoker and an accomplice standing ready to respond to the order "Hey, dude, light the bowl!


Resources:

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/the-choom-gang-president-obamas-pot-smoking-high-school-days-detailed-in-maraniss-book/2012/05/25/gJQAwFqEqU_blog.HTML

2. http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/10218-for-choom-the-bell-tolls

3. http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/politics-raising-children/2012/may/29/lessons-choom-gang-dont-air-your-dirty-laundry/

4. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-and-his-pot-smoking-choom-gang/

5. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/05/27/the_choom_gang_obama039s_pot-smoking_days_280927.html

6. http://theweek.com/article/index/228490/the-choom-gang-9-juiciest-details-from-barack-obamas-days-as-a-pothead

7. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-top-headlines-about-barack-obamas-pot-smoking-high-school-choom-gang/][url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-top-headlines-about-barack-obamas-pot-smoking-high-school-choom-gang/[/url]

8. http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/a-users-guide-to-smoking-pot-with-barack-obama


WHY WASN'T THIS ALL ON THE NEWS IN 2008 WHEN HE WAS RUNNING FOR OFFICE ??
and WHY ISN'T THE NEWS TALKING ABOUT IT TODAY ??

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.examiner.com/article/2016-obama-s-america-movie-is-hidden-from-public

[objectivist1]

I saw this yesterday and it is SUPERB.  Very well-done and documented.  I strongly encourage all readers of the forum here to go see it and tell your friends.

Of course, certain drones will call it "camel dung," but if all they can do is attack the credibility of the messenger, they have no coherent counter-argument.

Go see it.  Tell your friends.  Spread the word.  Those unfamiliar with D'Souza will be greatly enlightened.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/08/25/obama-bashing-documentary-tops-new-films-at-friday-box-office/

[ccp]

The liberals have figured out how to carry revolution in the US.  Simply increase thier numbers by adding victim groups, the poor, the minorities, gays, now single women and bribe them with taxpayer monies.

They need not lift a gun, fire a shot, send anyone into exile.  Simply confiscate from a smaller and smaller group and use those monies to pay off those who will then in turn keep voting for them.

It can't be any more clear.

The problem is that many are happy to have others pay for them.  You can't "educate" them.  Only bribe them more.

  One difference between Lenin and brockman is Vladimir was the guru and the spokesperson whereas Brock is just the spokesperson.
  One similarity is Lenin was also interested in world wide revolution not just in Russia.  Russia was just the base of operations.   Now the progressives want to spread the one world wide government, get rid of religion, culture, sovereignty with one world wide centralized controlling authority.  The concept of the UN being in charge is only a step in the direction of ONE world government.

Dinesh was on cable the other night and descended a bit into psychobabble, but the overall direction of his conclusions are right on.
  

[Crafty_Dog]

THE PATRIOT POST
Alexander's Column -- August 30, 2012
=================================
On the Web: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/14582/
Printer Friendly: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/14582/print
PDF Version: http://pdf.patriotpost.us/2012-08-30-alexander-bd572251.pdf

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

Obama's America: 2012

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

The Roots of Obama's Radicalism

"The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or
secret war with the rights of mankind." --Thomas Jefferson (1790)

Timed for theatrical release in advance of the Republican National Convention
(http://www.gopconvention2012.com ) to nominate the Romney-Ryan ticket
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/14512 ), Dinesh D'Souza's
(http://www.dineshdsouza.com ) much-anticipated film "Obama's America: 2016" is
earning great reviews and already ranks among the top-grossing political
documentaries of all time. The film encourages the audience to consider where our
country will be in 2016 if Barack Hussein Obama is re-elected.

Frankly, it's a great leap of faith to believe there will be an "America" in 2016 if
Obama is re-elected -- at least one that we recognize. One need look no further than
Obama's America in 2012 to see that most of what was left of our Republican
government (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2009/09/03/essential-liberty-part-1/ )
when he was elected in 2008 has been scheduled for demolition. As I've noted in
previous columns, Obama's strategy (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/3150 ) is to
irrevocably shatter free enterprise (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/6366 ) with a
debt bomb shockwave (http://patriotpost.us/pages/261 ).

Indeed, coinciding with Mitt Romney's keynote convention speech on Thursday, the
acknowledged national debt will hit a mind-boggling $16 trillion. The foundation for
tyranny has already been laid. (To grasp the concept of a trillion dollars, imagine
a stack of $100 bills 678 miles high, or a briefcase full of Franklins that weighs
22 million pounds. Now multiply either of those images by 16.)

D'Souza's film is based on his books, "The Roots of Obama's Rage" and "Obama's
America," in which he asserts that Obama's worldview was shaped most directly by the
anti-colonialist views of his father, and that Obama is now intent on unmaking
American so that he can remake it according to his worldview.

In a 2010 Forbes Magazine editorial on Obama, D'Souza concluded: "[Obama] is trapped
in his father's time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the
dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African
socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his
anti-colonial ambitions, is now setting the nation's agenda through the
reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly
admits he is only living out his father's dream. The invisible father provides the
inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is governed by a
ghost."

He wrote likewise in a Weekly Standard column, "The central tenets of [Obama's
father's] anti-colonial ideology are alive and well three decades later in the White
House. ... We are today living out the script for America and the world that was
dreamt up not by Obama but by Obama's father."

It is understandable how D'Souza, a noted conservative intellectual and president of
The King's College in New York City, would relate most viscerally to Obama's
anti-colonial sentiments. Dinesh was born in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. He arrived
in the U.S. in 1978 as a high school exchange student, and went on to graduate Phi
Beta Kappa from Dartmouth College in 1983. He spent a couple of years as a Reagan
administration adviser and the next two decades working for conservative think
tanks.

However, there's a major difference between D'Souza's roots and those of Obama: The
former was raised by an intact Christian family while the latter most certainly was
not.

Indeed, D'Souza's film captures the tragedy of Obama's childhood
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/3074 ), which stands in stark contrast to the
language of his official White House bio that falsely asserts, "His story is the
American story -- values from the heartland, a middle-class upbringing in a strong
family." It also serves as good background for a case study of Obama's Narcissistic
Personality Disorder (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/13671 ).

Obama's broken childhood, and the insecurity it seeded deep in his psyche, resulted
in a yearning for the security and stability of an unbroken family -- as is the case
with most Leftists who are the product of chronically dysfunctional homes
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2936 ).

But Obama's devotion to the perceived stability of statism, and the roots of his
rage, are most assuredly the direct result of his mentorship by a long list of
avowed socialists and his discipleship under purveyors of hatred
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2766 ).

To that end, "Obama's America: 2016" severely understates the influence of those who
really shaped Obama's worldview and his economic formula: Divide the country,
subtract jobs, add debt, multiply misery, which equals a populist support for
"distributive justice (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/11684 )."

While much about Obama is shrouded in secrecy (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/14381
), what is well documented is his lifelong association with Marxist mentors
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/3047 ).

The film makes scant reference to his association with Communist Frank Marshall
Davis and uber-Leftists Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Bernardine
Dohrn, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, Saul Alinsky, Bob Creamer, Valerie
Jarrett, David Axelrod and many other useful idiots
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2959 ).

Of those gurus, however, it was Davis who played the most formative role, acting as
a "father figure" for Obama from 1971 until his death in 1987. Obama refers to him
as just "Frank" in his memoir, "Dreams from My Father," but according to my
colleague Cliff Kincaid -- who obtained release of Davis's 600-page FBI file, a file
that clearly documents that Davis was an active member of the Communist Party USA --
Davis created a "revolutionary mole" who made it all the way to the White House.

Recall that Maoist terrorists Ayers and Dohrn actually hosted the first fundraiser
to launch Obama's political career -- his successful 1996 Illinois State Senate
campaign -- at their fashionable Hyde Park home, and that his campaign was endorsed
by the Democratic Socialists of America. (Incidentally, the DSA would later note in
a newsletter that State Senator Obama gave the eulogy for socialist Saul Mendelson,
a "champion" of Chicago's "democratic left.")

These days, Obama's policies are vetted by his socialist White House advisers
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/9235 ) Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod, the
handlers of the most dangerous threat to Liberty in American history.

If Obama is re-elected, the Republic as we know it will be all but gone by 2016.
Speaking to the GOP convention, Paul Ryan, Romney's VP candidate, said plainly,
"Before the math and the momentum overwhelm us all, we are going to solve this
nation's economic problems. And I'm going to level with you: We don't have that much
time. But if we are serious, and smart, and we lead, we can do this."

Indeed, if the clock does timeout, I recall the words of George Washington from a
letter to James Madison in 1785: "We are either a United people, or we are not. If
the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation, which has
national objects to promote, and a national character to support. If we are not, let
us no longer act a farce by pretending to it."

Pro Deo et Constitutione -- Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/ )

[ccp]

Harvey Golub the ex ceo of American express was on cnbc this am and I thought he said in a nutshell my conclusions after doing some amatuer reading up on history.

He stated that history is replete with examples that the ONLY political system that works to lift people's lives upward in socio economic class has three components:

1- free markets
2- property rights
3- rule of law

Government control whether communism, socialism, facsism has never worked in creating wealth.

I remember we pondered why in Latin America their is so much more divergence of the classes as opposed to US / Canada.  There was a good documentary on this exact point but i don't recall if it was from channel 13 or Nova.  Anyway it had to do with the difference in landownership.  Those from England who came to the new world to Englished settled colonies were almost all indentured servants.  Howev er they were allowed to work off their debt and purchace and own land.

In Latino settled countries they were not allowed to own land.  They lived as virtual serfs renting from the big land grwoing landowners.

That is why in Latino countries they are controlled by groups of oligarchy families who gained and maintained control over the centuries.

As for communism we only look at the dust bin of history to see the results of that.

We need the rule of law to keep the markets free. 

IMO we don't need more regulation but more enforcement of laws  that we have.

In any case I thought Golub's presentation this AM was spot on and the best summary yet of why Obama, and his radicals must be thrown out.

The little mealy mouth mouse on CNN (soloDAD) was of course asking Chirstine Odonnel if Romney is "radical".  What a joke, obama is the one who is trying to change 200 yrs of tradition in the US and the "mouse" was calling MR the "radical".  Of course ODonnel blew the answer.  I don't know for the life of me why she is on a national program .  I guess CNN libs made certain to put her on the day after the convention to try to undercut the Repubs.

[ccp]

*Plato warned that democratic leaders would “rob the rich, keep as much of the proceeds as they can for themselves and distribute the rest to the people”.*

The lessons of history seem to be lost in the generations.  Friom the Economist.

****Democracies and debt
Voters are now facing a harsh truth
Sep 1st 2012 | from the print edition
Tweet..
 
ALMOST half the world’s population now lives in a democracy, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, a sister organisation of this newspaper. And the number of democracies has increased pretty steadily since the second world war. But it is easy to forget that most nations have not been democratic for much of their history and that, for a long time, democracy was a dirty word among political philosophers.

One reason was the fear that democratic rule would lead to ruin. Plato warned that democratic leaders would “rob the rich, keep as much of the proceeds as they can for themselves and distribute the rest to the people”. James Madison, one of America’s founding fathers, feared that democracy would lead to “a rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property and for any other improper or wicked projects”. Similarly John Adams, the country’s second president, worried that rule by the masses would lead to heavy taxes on the rich in the name of equality. As a consequence, “the idle, the vicious, the intemperate would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them.”

In this section
Hony ahoy
Summertime blues
»Democracies and debt
The anti-Bob
Into another country
Virtual spring
Paint threshold
The geography of poverty
Corrections: Mexico's stockmarket and inflation in India
Reprints

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

Related topics
United Kingdom
Italy
Greece
United States
Democracy may have its faults but alternative systems have proved no more fiscally prudent. Dictatorships may still feel the need to bribe their citizens (eg, via subsidised fuel prices) to ensure their acquiescence while simultaneously spending large amounts on the police and the military to shore up their power. The absolute monarchies of Spain and France suffered fiscal crises in the 17th and 18th centuries, and were challenged by Britain and the Netherlands which, though not yet democracies, had dispersed power more widely. Financial problems contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Nevertheless, with much of the democratic world now in the throes of a debt crisis, it is tempting to ask whether the fears of Madison and Adams have come to pass. Given the rise in inequality in America and Britain over the past 30 years, it is hard to argue that democracies have led to the confiscation of private wealth. Quite the reverse: modern American politicians either need to be wealthy, or need the financial backing of the rich.

But there is a broader problem. Modern governments play a much larger role in the economy than the ancient Greeks or the founding fathers could have imagined. This makes political leaders a huge source of patronage, in the form of business contracts, social benefits, jobs and tax breaks. As the late political scientist, Mancur Olson, pointed out, these goodies are highly valuable to the recipients but the cost to the average voter of any single perk will be small. So beneficiaries will have every incentive to lobby for the retention of their perks and taxpayers will have little reason to campaign against them. Over time the economy will be weighed down by all these costs, like a barnacle-encrusted ship. The Greek economy could be seen as a textbook example of these problems.

One answer could be to take fiscal policy out of the hands of elected leaders, just as responsibility for monetary policy has been handed to independent central bankers. To some extent, that has been happening. Greece was briefly run by Lucas Papademos, an unelected former central banker, and Italy is still ruled by Mario Monti, a former EU commissioner. These technocrats are, it is assumed, more willing to take unpopular decisions.

Another approach, with which America has occasionally flirted, is to pass decisions to a bipartisan commission. (This may be the best answer to the “fiscal cliff” that looms in 2013.) Since the decisions of such a commission, and indeed of technocrats in Greece and Italy, are still subject to a parliamentary vote, democracy is not completely abandoned.

For a long time, there did not seem to be any limit to the amount democracies could borrow. Creditors have been more patient with democratic governments than with other regimes, probably because the risk of abrupt changes of policy (like the repudiation of Tsarist debts by Russia in 1917) are reduced. But this has postponed the crunch point, rather than eliminated it—and allowed stable democracies to accumulate higher debt, relative to their GDP, than many, more volatile countries ever achieved. Governments can, as Madison suggested, confiscate the wealth of domestic creditors via inflation, taxes or default. But however often they vote, democracies cannot make foreign lenders extend credit. That harsh truth is now being discovered.

Economist.com/blogs/buttonwood

from the print edition | Finance and economics .Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2012. All rights res*****

[Crafty_Dog]

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/01/the-idiossey.html

The Idiossey
The Not-Really-That-Epic Poem of Obamacles Revised and Updated

(with Apologies to Homer)

Book the First: A question for the Muse

Speak to me, O Muse, of this resourceful man who strides so boldly upon the golden shrine of Potomac, Between Ionic plywood columns, to the kleig light altar.
Fair Obamacles, favored of the gods, ascends to Olympus Amidst lusty tributes and the strumming lyres of Media; Their mounted skyboxes echo with the singing of his name While Olbermos and Mattheus in their greasy togas wrassle For first honor of basking in their hero's reflected glory.
Who is this man, so bronzed in countenance, So skilled of TelePrompter, clean and articulate whose ears like a stately urn's protrude?
So now, daughter of Zeus, tell us his story.
And just the Cliff Notes if you don't mind, We don't have all day.

Said the Muse:

    I will tell the story of Obamacles through my scribe Iowahawk.
    But this poem is copyrighted, so reproduce at your peril.

Book the Second: Obamacles Meets the Oracle of Doritos

From the land of Kenya beyond Nile, came Obamacles the Elder To the grad school at Oahu, where Ann of Kansas bore him a son.
It would prove to be a hassle, thus he left his baby's mama, who then won favor with Soertoro, who brought them to his far-off island nest.
Young Obamacles was growing, and they shipped him back to Gramma, And the prep school on Oahu. There he trained and studied boldly, Drinking beer and smoking weed: Maui Wowie, paca lolo, sensimilla, blunts and chiva, Thai and chronic, just enough to hone his mellow, in the back of Kyle's TransAm, a line or two of coke on weekends.

In his mellow young Obamacles beheld a vision in the salty snacks at Safeway; There the Oracle of Doritos bade him:

    "Travel the seas to the East, fair Obamacles, for this is where your fortune lies.
    But beware, that way bodes peril if thou are not pure of image and smooth of delivery.
    Seek first the masters of Occidental College, who will train you in the philosophers of Po-Mo."

Replied young Obamacles,

    "Accidental college heh heh heh heh Accidental moxidental taxidental heh heh,"

And Kyle is like,

    "Dude you're totally talking to the Doritos. That is totally bonus."

Book the Third: Obamacles dazzles the masters at the Agora

After Obamacles had completed the perilous sea voyage to LAX and retrieved his bag from the carousel, He entered the agora of Occidental, where wily Obamacles dazzled the masters with recitations:
Fanon, Menchu, Zinn and Chomsky, Saul Alinsky, Eldridge Cleaver, Kurtis Blow.
After two years his masters said,

    "fair Obamacles, we can teach you no more, for your bullshit has surpassed even ours.
    Hie thee now to the Isle of Manhattus, where in the agora at Columbius
    you may study a bullshit so deep and complex and angry it is beyond our philosophies."

Yet bold Obamacles was equal to the challenge. "Give us your thesis," said the masters at Columbius, and Obamacles conjured a mighty paper on Soviet disarmament, double-spaced and expertly margined.
Its beauty was such that the masters wept, and laid a baccalaureate wreath upon him; But the masters ordered the beautiful thesis destroyed that so no mortal would again read it.

Then one day at the Duane Reade on West 123rd, the Oracle of Doritos appeared to him again:

    "You have passed your first test, brave Obamacles, but the peril is yet beginning.
    For now you must travel west to Chicago, the dreaded Isle of Monsters;
    And become yourself a community organizer."

To which Obamacles replied, "I really should cut down on the ganja."

Book the Fourth: Obamacles meets the Jeremiad of Chicago

When Obamacles reached the shores of Chicago, he saw no monsters; Yet its bone-strewn sands announced a land of many unseen dangers.
And though he be clever, Obamacles did not understand his task, set before him by the Oracle; perhaps it was a riddle?
"Community organizer?" he wondered, "What the fuck is that?"
And yet he pushed from house to house, offering to organize the people, But lo, the Southside people shunned him, slamming doors and mocking sad Obamacles.

"O people of Chicago, why do you shun me so?" he lamented.
"I have a bachelor's degree and I am here to organize you."
And then Obamacles heard from behind a voice of such fury and anger that he was frozen in fear for the very first time.
It was the Jeremiad, the fire-breathing Monster of the Pulpit, who roared:

    "You stupid ass foo, it because you white!"

Now, it was known to Obamacles that the Jeremiad had forbade white men from the Southside.
What Obamacles did not know is that the Jeremiad also decided who was a white man.
Although his own hue was darker still than the Jeremiad, he was too clever to argue with the Monster; Instead he said:

    "You are right, fearsome Jeremiad; I am sadly white. And only your magic, my lord,
    can relieve me of my accursed paleness. Cure me, that I may join with the sun people."

The Jeremiad was astonished by the boldness of Obamacles and his clever flattery. He said:

    "You have much bravery for a white man, Obamacles. But to become an authentic brother,
    you must prove your worthiness in the torments of the pews."

Hour after hour, Sunday after Sunday, year after year, Obamacles stood before Jeremiad And the other monsters of the pulpit, Phlegeron and Mekus, withstanding their bellows of fire, Never blinking or flinching, and seldom falling asleep.
the Jeremiad was pleased and and absolved Obamacles of his whiteness, and allowing him to finally organize the community.
Which turned out to be a system for getting money for the Jeremiad.

One day at the Co-op in Hyde Park the Oracle appeared again to Obamacles from an end-aisle display:

    "You have done well, young wayfarer, but further torments lurk in thy destiny.
    Prepare at Kaplan for thy LSATs, for the abyss of uselessness at Harvard Law awaits.
    And then must you return to Chicago to conquer the legion of monsters."


Book the Fifth: Obamacles and Victimia

Having withstood the scorching blasts of the monster Jeremiad at Chicago, Harvard Law proved no challenge for our hero; he was named beloved of the faculty, For at the Isle of Harvard they eat that "community organizer" shit right up.
He returned to the Isle of Chicago with his magic Harvard talisman, Small of heft but able to open any door.

Here he met Victimia, a long and lanky beauty, whose siren songs of woe bewitched; They were wed in the screaming gardens of Jeremiad.
"O Victimia," he sang, "if I could but bottle thy sob stories, the world would be ours."
"Yes, Obamacles beloved," replied she, "but first let me help you conquer Chicago."

The monsters of Chicago were helpless against the duet's laments and dirges; Like a moth to a flame they proved irresistible, and the strange mutant beasts of this Isle of the Damned soon were transfixed by their enchantments:

Ayres, the decrepit conjurer of fireballs; his wife Doron, worshipper of murderers; Rezko, Philistine Lord of the Pits of Slumos; Giannoulis, Bagman of the Mafios; Blago, Governor of the Underworld of Illinus, And all of the monsters of the Pulpit from Jeremiad to Pherekon.

Obamacles had conquered all of the Chicagomon, even Daleos the little retard king, Without once unsheathing his sword; such was his charm.
The monsters realized Obamacles was the perfect front man for federal funding scams, And thus showered our hero with tributes and contributions, Elevating him to Vicelord of the Chicagomon.

Thus exalted did Obamacles train his gaze on the mounts of Tribune and Suntimus, and WGN and WLS and NBC 5, whose anchors splooged in simultaneous ecstasy At his gleaming incisors and crossover appeal. Together they swore their undying liege and to crush all obstacles in his path.
By acclamation he was sent as Chicago's emissary to Senatus.

Book the Sixth: The Rage of Hildusa

In Senatus, Obamacles laid beside the reflecting pool while a coterie of Media fed him grapes.
Again the Oracle appeared to him, this time in the form of a taco salad; it said,

    "You have done well, hale Obamacles, but your torments are not yet complete.
    The toughest test of all awaits, and may the gods have mercy on your soul."

"Do your worst, Doritos," he laughed, "for I am Obamacles, Lord of Illinus, who single handedly conquered the LSATs and disarmed the Chicagomon. What task would you possibly fear me with?"

    "You are to led the Demos back to the White Temple, by vanquishing Hildusa."

At the sound of Hildusa's name even brave Obamacles was driven to wet his toga, For Hildusa, cuckolder of Bubba, was the mightiest of all the gorgons.
From her head grew a writhing nest of asps, and the mere sight of her cankles Would turn a man to stone. Some said she came from Lesbos But others said her only pleasure was torment and sucking the marrow from her victim's bones.
Around her at all times was a phalanx guard of mincing eunuchs, led by Ickis, Wolfsonis, Blumenthalis and Pennis. At her side, an angry force of menopausal PUMAs ready to strike on her command -- for the children.

But Obamacles was only momentarily dissuaded from his task, for he knew the people of Demos longed to return to the White Temple, where they had been banished by the idiot emperor Chimpos II.
Although the Demos knew that Chimpos was the stupidest person in the world, and they were the smartest, they had somehow been unable to defeat him.
Obamacles seized his opportunity. On the Isle of Demos, and said:

    "Citizens of Demos, I am Obamacles of Illinus. I will lead you
    from the wilderness back to the White Temple."

Dispite his gleaming smile the agora laughed at the stranger's folly.
"Fool, our leader is Hildusa," they mocked. "What chance stands a handsome newcomer like you against the mightiest of the gorgons?"

    "For one, I will conjure our Spartans back from Babylonia," said Obamacles.
    "Hilldusa voted with Chimpos. I say it is time to begin the war to end this war."

The words of Obamacles created a murmur in the agora, for on Demos the people wished the Spartans home from war, to face trial for war crimes or be caged as madmen Like in the many tragedies at the Demos Odeon Octoplex.

"We are with you, Obamacles," came the shout of a man, who was turned to marble and struck by lightning before his words could be completed. Obamacles had stoked the terrible rath of the gorgon Hildusa, and the battle was joined.

Book the Seventh: The Battle for Demos

All the torments suffered by Obamacles had steeled him for this epic test.
The cliffs of Demos resounded with the approaching screeches of Hildusa And her army of soul-eating Morpheons, spinning and faxing and conjuring position papers.
But Obamacles was unmoved, and with his right hand summoned the Subterranean Creepos of the Nutroots to do his bidding, Kos and Ariana and Demos Underground.
Hildusa was enraged for she thought them allies, and shot them the stink-eye.
"Destroy Obamacles!" she bellowed at her Eunuchs, But they were retards and got busted for DUI on the chariot ride over.
Then Obamacles shot the arrow of Iowa across abyss of Dukakis, striking Hildusa true in her cankles, no more to freeze men to stone, And all of Demos roared approval.

    "Citizens of Demos," screamed the hobbled gorgon, "fair Obamacles is not what he appears!
    Look, behind him! A phalanx of Chicagomon, the demons from the pits of Illinus!"

When the Demos people saw the Chicagomon they shrugged, but Obamacles was taking no chances for the general battle; He had no more further use for the Chicagomon and thus he summoned Underbus, the destroyer of memes. One by one he disposed them, The Jeremiad and Phlegeron and Ayres, all sacrificed to Underbus.
When Hildusa saw this her eyes boiled with rage, and she summoned her Amazon Pumas But they were too fat and old and employed to battle the snarky college assholes in official Obamacles tunics.

At last Hildusa summoned Bubba, who in principle was her husband.
Though the mightiest god of Demos, he trembled before her gaze; For once she saved his sacred bacon, but yet had him castrated and banished.
"Destroy! Destroy! Destoy!" she bellowed, handing Bubba sharpened talking points, But Obamacles would not yield, and from beneath his tunic withdrew his razor-sharpened race card, filleting Bubba into tiny pieces.

The crowd at Demos was breathless, hardly believing their eyes.
And then winged Media lifted Obamacles across the abyss to where Hildusa lay supine and helpless, and, grabbing her by the asps, took one more mighty swing with his race card, and held her severed head before the cheering crowd.

All of Demos sang in praise, even the severed head of Hildusa as he paraded it around the stage at Invescos and banked it off the glass for three points.
But yet, as he exited the stage amid the cries of the rapture, The Doritos called once more from the Table of Catering:

    "Beware, fair Hero, for one last task awaits thee."

Book the Eighth: The Contest of November

"Who dares challenge me now?" asked Obamacles. "For I am Obacles, vanquisher of Hildusa, of whom all of Demos sing; Make him the mightiest, so that I might find him worthy."

"Your foe will be the grizzled warrior Crustius," said the Doritos, As Obamacles laughed in disbelief; for though brave Crustius had once proved great valor in the tragic war of Namos, He had grown old and addled sailing the Sea of Maverikus.
In years a full score he sailed, seeking the fabled Microphone of Media, Only to crash on its shoals, lured to doom by the flattery of the Sirens.

"Be not hasty in thy hubris, Obamacles," warned the Doritos.
"Although he is old and stranded and beset by mutineers, grizzled Crustius is far craftier than in your imaginings."

True to the prophesy of the Doritos, wily Crustius had a secret trick up his toga.
From his rock-strewn shipwreck he summoned Palina, huntress of Wasilla, Whose fertile loins had many odd-named children bore, Bristol and Trig, Dakota and Algebra, Calculus and Physed, And yet she retained the visage and figure of a goddess.

Palina emerged from the sea, springing fully formed from a clamshell, Brandishing the spear that had slain a thousand antlered beasts.
Once mutinous, the Crustonauts were instantly heartened, For now they and sensed a chance at victory.

Although his pollsters warned of danger, Obamacles was stalwart For he knew just how he got here. "Attack," he beckoned very calmly, And from across the land of Soros, a thousand score of demons answered; HuffPo nutjobs, New York Kronos, the shrieking hags of talk TV, Couric, Fey, Oprah, Behar, the hermaphrodites of NBC.

Palina was undaunted by the minions and thus she battled gamely on.
But at last she was attacked by Crustius himself; For so addled and contrary was the wizened sailor That he had forgotten which side he was on.
Vanquished Palina returned to Wasilla to fight another day, While Crustius sails again, forever seeking the elusive Sirens of Media.

Book the Ninth: Obamacles Ascends to Olympus

Now behold him, brave Obamacles,
Who strides triumphant down Pennsylvania Avenue, With Victimia at his side in a gown of golden brocade, Hewn from the finest hotel draperies.
Behold his ascent to the marble dais to swear his oath, Which Justice Roberts flubs; so dazzled is he by our hero's pure magnificence.

And behold the crowd whose number has grown to a million, Mocking limping Chimpos as he flees to Brazos exile, Tossing their sandals at his edifice, only to stop to hail the conquering hero.

"All hail Obamacles!" they cry, "Master of Bullshit, Vicelord of the Chicagomon, Slayer of Hildusa, Vanquisher of Palina. You are our new and shiny hope, a true god amongst mortals."

And yet once more the Oracle appears to Obamacles, At the Inauguration Bacchanal, brought to you by Doritos.

"What now?" said Obamacles, irked at Oracle's salty impertinence and the interruption of his famous pop 'n' lock. "For I have conquered all, and there is no challenger left in all the Beltway."

The Oracle spoke out from the depths of the guacamole:

    "I bid thee welcome to the White House
    where your true test now begins:

    Markets deaf to happy buzzwords
    Blind to Shepard Fairey's art,
    Heeding laws of economics,
    Not the wishful laws of man;

    A world of of evil filled with monsters,
    who are unmoved by flowery talk,
    Invulnerable to race cards
   or leftwing blogger insults,
    Who Hope for Change in megatons.

    Do not despair! For look before you,
    The noble army who brought you here:
    Thespians and hiphop moguls,
    Graphic artists, hipster twats,
    The academic scribes of Athens,
    basic cable sycophants.

    These are the arrows in your quiver,
    for the coming epic tests;
    Use them well, but first remember:
    They're waiting on those magic tricks.

    Good luck with that, well-spoken hero,
    I think I'll grab a snack and watch."

Obamacles look out onto his drooling throngs, and wept; for then he realized then may be things even gods can't do.

Is this man hewn from Olympus,
Sent by Zeus to save our souls?
Or a plastic dashboard Jesus
In a car he can't control?

Will this Adonis save the planet?
Or is he fleecing golden sheep?
Ask another Muse tomorrow,
Hell if I know, it's all Greek to me.

Burma Shave

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/obama-loyola-speech-leaked-redistribution_n_1894625.html?1348003636&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk1&pLid=207416#slide=1468635

[objectivist1]

This is particularly well stated by Bill Whittle in the last two minutes of the clip - but it is worth watching the entire piece. I couldn't have said it better myself:

www.therightscoop.com/must-watch-trifecta-the-end-of-america-as-we-know-it/

[JDN]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/obama-loyola-speech-leaked-redistribution_n_1894625.html?1348003636&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk1&pLid=207416#slide=1468635

By Jon Healey
September 19, 2012, 5:49 p.m.
Republicans tried this week to help their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, rebound from the drubbing he's received over his secretly recorded remarks about the 47% by unearthing a 14-year-old recording of then-Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama saying, "I actually believe in redistribution."

Note to America: Not only does President Obama have a secret plan to take your guns, he'll grab your piggy bank while he's at it!

The mainstream media hasn't exactly leaped on the recording, in part because we went through a very similar episode four years ago. In other words, this is a dog-bites-man story. Even if you didn't watch the Democratic National Convention, you should know by now that Obama is a fan of the federal programs that redistribute wealth to help people in need.

For the right, though, "redistribution" is a highly charged word. It plays into the "makers vs. takers" construct that has emerged as one of the defining themes of this election. As Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), have noted with increasing frequency, the number of Americans receiving aid from the government is growing, while the percentage paying the government's tab is shrinking.

This theme meshes with the Romney-Ryan argument that the economy can take off again if the government pulls back and scales down, liberating "makers" to expand their businesses and put people back to work. By contrast, the GOP argues, Obama clings to a failed ideology that doling out money to people is a type of "stimulus" that will revive the moribund economy.

As Romney put it in a speech Wednesday, "I believe the way to lift people and help people have higher incomes is not to take from some and give to others but to create wealth for all."

Yet the makers vs. takers dichotomy is misleadingly simplistic. Much of America falls into both camps. Businesses get tax subsidies, loan guarantees and contracts from federal and state governments. Most workers pay into the Social Security and Medicare systems, but there's no way to predict which ones will get more out than they put in. Plenty of states -- mainly Southern and rural ones -- receive more in aid than their residents pay in taxes.

Redistributing wealth, meanwhile, has long been standard operating procedure for the federal government. The income tax has been "progressive" since its inception in 1913, which means high-income Americans pay a higher percentage of their earnings into the federal kitty than their less intrepid (or fortunate, your choice) neighbors. The same system can also be found in numerous states. Even if there was only one tax rate, though, the wealthy would still pay more into the system -- a flat rate of 5% collects 10 times as much from someone making $250,000 as someone making $25,000.

You might argue that this isn't really redistribution; it's just a way of charging the wealthy more for the government services that benefit everyone, such as national defense and food safety inspections. But a portion of the federal kitty pays for the safety net programs whose direct benefits are confined to the unemployed and the impoverished. By funding those programs, government transfers wealth from the rich to the poor.

Granted, saying "I actually believe in redistribution" conjures up the image of the government trying to produce equal outcomes -- hobbling the successful to promote the unsuccessful. There's something vaguely Marxist about that, a "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" kind of thing.

But on the recording from 1998, as well as in his controversial "spread the wealth around" remarks on the campaign trail in 2008, Obama has touted redistribution in the context of promoting opportunities, not outcomes. Here's a telling excerpt from the 1998 recording: "[T]he trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody’s got a shot."

So, how do these comments diverge from the theme of shared responsibility that Obama has been pounding away at on the campaign trail? I don't see a difference, really. He wants high-income Americans to pay more taxes so that the government can bring the deficit under control without cutting as much from either "investments" (student loans, infrastructure, research grants) or entitlements (particularly Medicare and Medicaid).

Romney, meanwhile, wants to reduce taxes across the board and make deeper cuts in just about every non-defense program. And Ryan has proposed dramatic reductions over the long term in spending on safety net programs. But even Ryan accepts that the federal government has a role to play in steering aid to the neediest Americans. His model is time-limited aid, a la the welfare reform law Congress enacted in 1996, not no aid at all. In other words, the GOP's opposition to redistribution is more about the degree than the concept.

Here's a transcript of the 1998 recording, ostensibly of comments Obama made at Loyola University in Chicago. There was no telling Wednesday what Obama said before the excerpt began or after it ended; the only thing that's clear is that he was discussing anti-poverty programs:

"Let me just close by saying, as we think about the policy research surrounding the issues I just named -- the policy research for the working poor, broadly defined -- I think that what we’re going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic, I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a propaganda, campaign against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved. Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policymaking. And neither necessarily have been the Chicago public schools. What that means, then, is as we try to resuscitate this notion that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind. We do have to be innovative in thinking how, what are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live. And my suggestion, I guess, would be that the trick –- and this is one of the few areas where I think there are technical issues that have to be dealt with, as opposed to just political issues -- the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody’s got a shot."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-barack-obama-believes-in-redistribution-20120919,0,7599323.story

[Crafty_Dog]

http://patdollard.com/2012/09/obama-vetting-1979-newspaper-article-by-valerie-jarrett-father-in-law-reveals-start-of-arab-purchase-of-u-s-presidency/

Why would Muslim oil billionaires finance and develop controlling relationships with black college students? Well, like anyone else, they would do it for self-interest. And what would their self-interest be? We all know the top two answers to that question: 1. a Palestinian state and 2. the advancement of Islam in America. The idea then was to advance blacks who would facilitate these two goals to positions of power in the Federal government, preferably, of course, the Presidency. And why would the Arabs target blacks in particular for this job? Well, for the same reason the early communists chose them as their vanguard for revolution (which literally means “change”) in America. Allow me to quote Trotsky, in 1939: “The American Negroes, for centuries the most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated against, are potentially the most revolutionary element of the population. They are designated by their historical past to be, under adequate leadership, the very vanguard of the proletarian revolution.” Substitute the word “Islam” for the words “the proletarian revolution,” and you most clearly get the picture, as Islam is a revolutionary movement just like communism is. (Trivia: it is from this very quote that Van Jones takes his name. Van is short for vanguard. He was born “Anthony”). In addition, long before 1979, blacks had become the vanguard of the spread of Islam in America, especially in prisons.
 
Interestingly, in context with the fact that this article was written by her father-in-law, Valerie Jarrett has an unusual amount of influence over Obama (along with personal security that may be even better than his, another unusual and intriguing bit of business here). And equally interesting is that Obama, who may have been a beneficiary of this Muslim money, and may now be in this Muslim debt, has aggressively pursued both of the Muslim agendas I cited above. And, also equally interesting, is that Obama has paid a king’s ransom for court ordered seals of any such records of this potential financing of his college education, and perhaps, of other of his expenses.

Lastly, it’s very important to note that the main source for the article is Khalid Mansour, “the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.” (Valerie Jarrett, by the way, was born in Iran. The one country protected by Obama from the sweep of the Arab Spring.) Now all of this may seem sensational, but let’s face facts. What makes it most disturbing is that not only is it all logical, but it suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense. – Pat Dollard
 
Excerpted from Daily Interlake: Searching old newspapers is one of my favorite pastimes, and I have tried to use them many times to shed light on current events — or to inform readers about how the past is prologue to our very interesting present-day quandaries.
 
Recently, I came across a syndicated column from November 1979 that seemed to point 30 years into the future toward an obscure campaign issue that arose briefly in the 2008 presidential campaign.
 
Though by no means definitive, it provides an interesting insight, at least, into how Chicago politics intersected with the black power movement and Middle Eastern money at a certain point in time. Whether it has any greater relevance to the 2012 presidential campaign, I will allow the reader to decide. In order to accomplish that, I will also take the unusual step of providing footnotes and the end of this column so that each of you can do the investigative work for yourself.
 
The column itself had appeared in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Evening Independent of Nov. 6, but it was the work of a veteran newspaperman who at the time was working for the prestigious Chicago Tribune and whose work was syndicated nationally. (1)

So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.”
 
Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer — Donald Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.
 
Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the “proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz” in September 1979, and that “the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be announced in December.” Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package funded by OPEC and never found it verified. (Continued after the jump)


(Copy of article by Jarrets dad appears but I am unable to copy it here)

You would think that a program to spend “$20 million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans” would be referred to somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven’t found any other word of it.
 
Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn’t, but what’s particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who “for several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students” was also the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.
 
That tale had surfaced in 2008 when Barack Obama was a candidate for president and one of the leading black politicians in the country — Percy Sutton of New York — told an interviewer on a Manhattan TV news show that he had been introduced to Obama “by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.” (2)
 
This peculiar revelation engendered a small hubbub in 2008, but was quickly dismissed by the Obama campaign as the ditherings of a senile old man. I don’t believe President Obama himself ever denied the story personally, and no one has explained how Sutton came up with this elaborate story about Khalid al-Mansour if it had no basis in fact, and in any case al-Mansour no longer denies it. (3)
 
Back in 2008, while actually supporting Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, Percy Sutton was interviewed on TV and said that he thought Barack Obama was nonetheless quite impressive. He also revealed that he had first heard about Obama 20 years previously in a letter where al-Mansour wrote, “there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”
 
Sutton concluded in the interview, “I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly.”
 
Until now, there really has been no context within which to understand the Sutton story or to buttress it as a reliable account other than the reputation of Sutton himself as one of the top leaders of the black community in Manhattan — himself a noted attorney, businessman and politician. But the new discovery of the 1979 column that established Khalid al-Mansour’s interest in creating a fund to give “financial help to disadvantaged students” does provide a clue that he might indeed — along with his patron, Arab Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — have taken an interest in the “genius” Barack Obama.
 
It also might be considered more than coincidence that the author of that 1979 newspaper column was from Chicago, where Barack Obama settled in 1986 a few years after his stint at Columbia University. It is certainly surprising that the author of that column was none other than Vernon Jarrett, the future (and later former) father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, who ultimately became the consigliatore of the Obama White House.
 
It is also noteworthy that Vernon Jarrett was one of the best friends and a colleague of Frank Marshall Davis, the former Chicago journalist and lifelong communist who moved to Hawaii in the late 1940s and years later befriended Stanley and Madelyn Dunham and their daughter Stanley Ann, the mother of Barack Obama. (4)
 
And to anyone who has the modicum of a spark of curiosity, it is surely intriguing that Frank Davis took an active role in the rearing of young Barack from the age of 10 until he turned 18 and left Hawaii for his first year of college at Occidental College in Los Angeles. (5)
 
It is also at least suggestive that Obama began that college education as a member of the highly international student body of Occidental College in 1979, the same year when Vernon Jarrett was touting the college aid program being funded by OPEC and possibly Prince Alwaleed. The fact that President Obama has studiously avoided releasing records of his college years is suggestive also, but has no evidentiary value in the present discussion. (6)
 
The nature of Vernon Jarrett’s relationship to Khalid al-Mansour is likewise uncertain, but it is very likely they had known each other as leaders of the black civil-rights movement for many years. Under his previous name of Donald Warden, al-Mansour had founded the African American Association in the Bay Area in the early 1960s. He had also helped inspire the Black Panther Party through his association with black-power leaders such as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Seale, of course, had a famous association with Chicago later, when he was part of the Chicago Eight charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. (7)
 
In any case, it doesn’t matter if Vernon Jarrett and Khalid al-Mansour had a personal relationship or not. For some reason, al-Mansour had used Jarrett as the messenger to get out the word about his efforts to funnel Arab oil money to black students and minority colleges at about the same time that Barack Obama began his college career. That doesn’t mean either Jarrett or al-Mansour knew Obama at that time, but eight years later when Obama was a rising star in Chicago, a friend of Bill Ayers and Valerie Jarrett, it is much more likely that he did indeed have the assistance of very important people in his meteoric rise. The words of Percy Sutton about what al-Mansour told him regarding Obama certainly have the ring of truth:
 
“His introduction was there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends back there… Would you please write a letter in support of him? (That’s before Obama decided to run.) … and he interjected the advice that Obama had passed the requirements, had taken and passed the requirements necessary to get into Harvard and become president of the Law Review. That’s before he ever ran for anything. And I wrote a letter in support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them that I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly…” (2)
 
What possible significance could all this have? We may never know, but Vernon Jarrett, back in 1979, thought that OPEC’s intention to fund black and minority education would have huge political ramifications. As Jarrett wrote:
 
“The question of financial aid from the Arabs could raise a few extremely interesting questions both inside and outside the black community. If such contributions are large and sustained, the money angle may become secondary to the sociology and politics of such an occurrence.” (1)
 
He was, of course, right.
 
As Jarrett suggests, any black institutions and presumably individuals who became beholden to Arab money might be expected to continue the trend of American “new black advocacy for a homeland for the Palestinians” and presumably for other Islamic and Arabic interests in the Middle East. For that reason, if for no other, the question of how President Obama’s college education was funded is of considerably more than academic interest.
 
Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton on Obama and Khalid Mansour

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4EcC0QAd0Ug

 
Interestingly, in context with the fact that this article was written by her father-in-law, Valerie Jarrett has an unusual amount of influence over Obama (along with personal security that may be even better than his, another unusual and intriguing bit of business here). And equally interesting is that Obama, who may have been a beneficiary of this Muslim money, and may now be in this Muslim debt, has aggressively pursued both of the Muslim agendas I cited above. And, also equally interesting, is that Obama has paid a king’s ransom for court ordered seals of any such records of this potential financing of his college education, and perhaps, of other of his expenses.

Lastly, it’s very important to note that the main source for the article is Khalid Mansour, “the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.” (Valerie Jarrett, by the way, was born in Iran. The one country protected by Obama from the sweep of the Arab Spring.) Now all of this may seem sensational, but let’s face facts. What makes it most disturbing is that not only is it all logical, but it suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense. – Pat Dollard
 
Excerpted from Daily Interlake: Searching old newspapers is one of my favorite pastimes, and I have tried to use them many times to shed light on current events — or to inform readers about how the past is prologue to our very interesting present-day quandaries.
 
Recently, I came across a syndicated column from November 1979 that seemed to point 30 years into the future toward an obscure campaign issue that arose briefly in the 2008 presidential campaign.
 
Though by no means definitive, it provides an interesting insight, at least, into how Chicago politics intersected with the black power movement and Middle Eastern money at a certain point in time. Whether it has any greater relevance to the 2012 presidential campaign, I will allow the reader to decide. In order to accomplish that, I will also take the unusual step of providing footnotes and the end of this column so that each of you can do the investigative work for yourself.
 
The column itself had appeared in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Evening Independent of Nov. 6, but it was the work of a veteran newspaperman who at the time was working for the prestigious Chicago Tribune and whose work was syndicated nationally. (1)

So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.”
 
Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer — Donald Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.
 
Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the “proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz” in September 1979, and that “the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be announced in December.” Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package funded by OPEC and never found it verified. (Continued after the jump)
 


You would think that a program to spend “$20 million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans” would be referred to somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven’t found any other word of it.
 
Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn’t, but what’s particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who “for several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students” was also the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.
 
That tale had surfaced in 2008 when Barack Obama was a candidate for president and one of the leading black politicians in the country — Percy Sutton of New York — told an interviewer on a Manhattan TV news show that he had been introduced to Obama “by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.” (2)
 
This peculiar revelation engendered a small hubbub in 2008, but was quickly dismissed by the Obama campaign as the ditherings of a senile old man. I don’t believe President Obama himself ever denied the story personally, and no one has explained how Sutton came up with this elaborate story about Khalid al-Mansour if it had no basis in fact, and in any case al-Mansour no longer denies it. (3)
 
Back in 2008, while actually supporting Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, Percy Sutton was interviewed on TV and said that he thought Barack Obama was nonetheless quite impressive. He also revealed that he had first heard about Obama 20 years previously in a letter where al-Mansour wrote, “there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”
 
Sutton concluded in the interview, “I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly.”
 
Until now, there really has been no context within which to understand the Sutton story or to buttress it as a reliable account other than the reputation of Sutton himself as one of the top leaders of the black community in Manhattan — himself a noted attorney, businessman and politician. But the new discovery of the 1979 column that established Khalid al-Mansour’s interest in creating a fund to give “financial help to disadvantaged students” does provide a clue that he might indeed — along with his patron, Arab Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — have taken an interest in the “genius” Barack Obama.
 
It also might be considered more than coincidence that the author of that 1979 newspaper column was from Chicago, where Barack Obama settled in 1986 a few years after his stint at Columbia University. It is certainly surprising that the author of that column was none other than Vernon Jarrett, the future (and later former) father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, who ultimately became the consigliatore of the Obama White House.
 
It is also noteworthy that Vernon Jarrett was one of the best friends and a colleague of Frank Marshall Davis, the former Chicago journalist and lifelong communist who moved to Hawaii in the late 1940s and years later befriended Stanley and Madelyn Dunham and their daughter Stanley Ann, the mother of Barack Obama. (4)
 
And to anyone who has the modicum of a spark of curiosity, it is surely intriguing that Frank Davis took an active role in the rearing of young Barack from the age of 10 until he turned 18 and left Hawaii for his first year of college at Occidental College in Los Angeles. (5)
 
It is also at least suggestive that Obama began that college education as a member of the highly international student body of Occidental College in 1979, the same year when Vernon Jarrett was touting the college aid program being funded by OPEC and possibly Prince Alwaleed. The fact that President Obama has studiously avoided releasing records of his college years is suggestive also, but has no evidentiary value in the present discussion. (6)
 
The nature of Vernon Jarrett’s relationship to Khalid al-Mansour is likewise uncertain, but it is very likely they had known each other as leaders of the black civil-rights movement for many years. Under his previous name of Donald Warden, al-Mansour had founded the African American Association in the Bay Area in the early 1960s. He had also helped inspire the Black Panther Party through his association with black-power leaders such as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Seale, of course, had a famous association with Chicago later, when he was part of the Chicago Eight charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. (7)
 
In any case, it doesn’t matter if Vernon Jarrett and Khalid al-Mansour had a personal relationship or not. For some reason, al-Mansour had used Jarrett as the messenger to get out the word about his efforts to funnel Arab oil money to black students and minority colleges at about the same time that Barack Obama began his college career. That doesn’t mean either Jarrett or al-Mansour knew Obama at that time, but eight years later when Obama was a rising star in Chicago, a friend of Bill Ayers and Valerie Jarrett, it is much more likely that he did indeed have the assistance of very important people in his meteoric rise. The words of Percy Sutton about what al-Mansour told him regarding Obama certainly have the ring of truth:
 
“His introduction was there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends back there… Would you please write a letter in support of him? (That’s before Obama decided to run.) … and he interjected the advice that Obama had passed the requirements, had taken and passed the requirements necessary to get into Harvard and become president of the Law Review. That’s before he ever ran for anything. And I wrote a letter in support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them that I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly…” (2)
 
What possible significance could all this have? We may never know, but Vernon Jarrett, back in 1979, thought that OPEC’s intention to fund black and minority education would have huge political ramifications. As Jarrett wrote:
 
“The question of financial aid from the Arabs could raise a few extremely interesting questions both inside and outside the black community. If such contributions are large and sustained, the money angle may become secondary to the sociology and politics of such an occurrence.” (1)
 
He was, of course, right.
 
As Jarrett suggests, any black institutions and presumably individuals who became beholden to Arab money might be expected to continue the trend of American “new black advocacy for a homeland for the Palestinians” and presumably for other Islamic and Arabic interests in the Middle East. For that reason, if for no other, the question of how President Obama’s college education was funded is of considerably more than academic interest.

[objectivist1]

Obama Shows Contempt for His Oath of Office

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., October 9, 2012 - The Washington Times

Team Obama insists that next month's presidential election is "a choice, not a referendum." It sure seems to be the latter with respect to the two candidates' very different views on the Constitution. Mitt Romney makes plain at every turn his commitment to that document, while Barack Obama's conduct in office has marked him as the post-constitutional president.

Consider just a few examples of President Obama's systematic disregard of, contempt for and deviation from a national charter he swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend:

Mr. Obama has simply refused to uphold federal laws with which he disagrees, including the Defense of Marriage Act and immigration statutes.

After confirming that in the absence of congressional authorization he lacked the authority to give what amounts to an amnesty to young illegal aliens, Mr. Obama went ahead and declared it by executive fiat.

Despite repeated congressional objections to federal purchase of a state prison in Thomson, Ill., to which the Obama administration has sought to relocate jihadists currently held as detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Mr. Obama last week authorized its acquisition for $165 million.

Ever since taking office, the Obama administration has sought to accommodate Islamist demands that freedom of expression be curbed lest it offend Muslims and stoke violence. For example, in 2009, the administration co-sponsored a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution along those lines. In 2011, it launched the so-called "Istanbul Process" to find common ground with proponents of Shariah blasphemy laws who seek to strip us of our First Amendment freedoms.

In September, Mr. Obama announced at the United Nations, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" -- a stance indistinguishable from that of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban and al Qaeda.

A particularly ominous example of Mr. Obama's post-constitutional presidency involves his abdication of his first duty as commander in chief: to secure the common defense. Having successfully engineered two rounds of deep defense budget reductions totaling some $800 billion over the next 10 years, the president is intent on inflicting a further, devastating half-trillion-dollar, across-the-board cut pursuant to a process known on Capitol Hill as sequestration.

There is no getting around it: Cuts of this magnitude are going to result in tremendous disruptions to defense programs and attendant job losses in the associated industries. A federal law known as the Warn Act requires companies with more than 100 employees to give them notice of potential layoffs 60 days in advance. With sequestration due to kick in Jan. 2, this means the mandatory warning of potential pink slips to come would arrive just before the Nov. 6 election.

To avoid such a particularly untimely reminder of the president's dismal stewardship of his economic as well as national security portfolios, in July the Obama Labor Department issued guidance to defense contractors saying that the Warn Act's requirements would not be enforced. The pretext given was that since sequestration's potential effects on particular contracts had not been specified, there was insufficient basis to know the extent of the impact on employment and, therefore, the statute would not apply.

Of course, one reason the potential effects of sequestration are not known with precision less than three months before they are statutorily required to go into effect is that the Obama administration has ordered the Pentagon not to make any plans for implementing that next round of cuts. This directive was reaffirmed Sept. 27.
On Sept. 28, Team Obama advised contractors that, as the Hill newspaper reported: "They would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration -- but only if the contractors follow the Labor [Department] guidance." In other words, the administration now wants the taxpayer to pick up the tab for violations of the law by those it has induced to engage in them.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, all Republicans, have been among those tirelessly warning for months of the catastrophe sequestration will inflict on the U.S. military. They issued a joint statement in response to the president's latest post-constitutional action which said, in part, "The Obama administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis. The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices.

In an important essay published Sept. 24 in the Wall Street Journal, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey called on legislators to put Mr. Obama on notice: If, as widely expected, he proceeds after the election to yield to Islamist demands that he transfer or release the lead conspirator in the first World Trade Center attack, Omar Abdel-Rahman -- presumably to Egypt -- it "could be considered the kind of gross betrayal of public trust that would justify removal from high office." The same should apply to Mr. Obama's palpable contempt for the Constitution -- something sure to be even more in evidence if he secures re-election and, as he says, "more flexibility" in a second term.


Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy (SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for The Washington Times and host of Secure Freedom Radio on WRC-AM (1260).
© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.


Read more: GAFFNEY: The post-constitutional president - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/8/the-post-constitutional-president/print/#ixzz28uXUBwwp
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/barack-obama-and-the-harvard-years-the-interesting-information-we-found-that-you-may-not-have-heard/

[bigdog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/barack-obama-and-the-harvard-years-the-interesting-information-we-found-that-you-may-not-have-heard/

Man, this guy sounds TERRIBLE:

"Brad Berenson, class of ’91, and the rest of the conservative bloc threw their support to Obama over David Goldberg because they saw Obama as more conciliatory and less strident in his liberalism."

“'Obama was not a uniter. To portray him as someone who brought everyone together wouldn’t be accurate,” Berenson told  TheBlaze, “but he was a non-combatant. He was mature and held himself above the fray. He was courteous, decent, and respectful,' says Berenson, even toward conservatives, who were a distinct minority on the law review staff."

"To the more politically left-wing members of the Harvard Law Review, this was too much, says Berenson, and Obama clashed with them on occasion."

“I’m as conservative as they come—I didn’t vote for him in ’08 and won’t be voting for him in ’12—but Obama always treated me well. I liked and respected him.”

[Crafty_Dog]

I dunno about that, THIS is what sounds terrible to me:

BEGIN
After his election to the presidency of the Harvard Law Review, Barack Obama told the Harvard Law Record — the student newspaper of Harvard Law School –  that “he is especially interested in Constitutional law, noting the ways in which issues of race relations and resource allocation ‘are often played out in Constitutional terms,’” according to archives recently viewed by TheBlaze.
 
“His work as a community organizer has given him an appreciation for business law as well,” the article, published after Obama’s Harvard election by Paul Tarrr and John Thornton, says.
 
“Those interested in public policy have to think about how the private sector can be harnessed to promote urban development,” he told the paper.
END

[G M]

Guess you skipped over the Derrick Bell part.

Obama repaid the compliment. “I’m walking through doors other folks broke down,” he told the Record. “A whole bunch of people worked real hard to allow me to be in this position—folks at BLSA, Prof. Bell, Edley, Ogletree and a lot of others. They are the groundbreakers.”

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2175

Founder of “Critical Race Theory”
Longtime professor at New York University
Also taught at Harvard and Stanford Universities
Supporter of affirmative action
Viewed America as an irremediably racist nation
Died in October 2011



See also:  Critical Race Theory   Regina Austin


The late Derrick Albert Bell, Jr. is considered the founder, or at least the godfather, of “critical race theory,” an academic discipline which maintains that society is divided along racial lines into (white) oppressors and (black) victims, similar to the way Marxism frames the oppressor/victim dichotomy along class lines. Critical race theory contends that America is permanently racist to its core, and that consequently the nation's legal structures are, by definition, racist and invalid. As Emory University professor Dorothy Brown puts it, critical race theory "seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective but designed to support white supremacy and the subordination of people of color." A logical derivative of this premise, according to critical race theory, is that the members of “oppressed” racial groups are entitled—in fact obligated—to determine for themselves which laws and traditions have merit and are worth observing. Further, critical race theory holds that because racism is so deeply ingrained in the American character, classical liberal ideals such as meritocracy, equal opportunity, and colorblind justice are essentially nothing more than empty slogans that fail to properly combat—or to even acknowledge the existence of—the immense structural inequities that pervade American society and work against black people. Thus, according to critical race theorists, racial preferences (favoring blacks) in employment and higher education are not only permissible but necessary as a means of countering the permanent bigotry of white people who, as Bell put it, seek to “achieve a measure of social stability through their unspoken pact to keep blacks on the bottom.”[1]

Born in Pittsburgh on November 6, 1930, Derrick Bell earned a bachelor’s degree from Duquesne University in 1952 and a J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh Law School (where he was the only black student on campus) in 1957. Bell began his legal career by taking a job in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department. But when his superiors there instructed him to give up his membership in the NAACP, saying that it posed a conflict of interest, Bell quit the Department. He then worked as an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where he became a protégé of Thurgood Marshall. Bell also taught briefly at the University of Southern California.

In the immediate aftermath of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination in 1968, members of the Black Law Students Association at Harvard University Law School pressured their school to hire a nonwhite minority professor; this led to Bell’s hiring in 1969, and two years later Bell became the first tenured black faculty member in the law school’s history.

From the very outset of his stay at Harvard, Bell was acutely aware of the fact that he lacked the qualifications that traditionally were prerequisites for an appointment there: He had neither graduated with distinction from a prestigious law school, nor clerked for the Supreme Court, nor practiced law at a major firm. Yet Bell mocked such criteria as being nothing more than the exclusionary constructs of a racist white power structure seeking to deny blacks an opportunity to teach at the nation’s elite universities.

It was in the mid-1970s that Bell pioneered the field of critical race theory. He was angered by what he viewed as the slow progress of racial reform in the United States, and he contended that the gains brought about by the civil rights laws of the 1960s were gradually being eroded.

In 1980 Professor Bell left Harvard to become the dean of the University of Oregon School of Law. Five years later he resigned from that position, ostensibly to protest the fact that the school had failed to grant tenure to an Asian female professor. A number of Bell’s colleagues at Oregon, however, viewed his resignation as a contrived, face-saving pretext for leaving a position from which he was about to be fired. They believed that Bell, who had largely become an “absentee dean” known for spending more time on the lecture circuit than at Oregon, was slated for imminent termination.[2]

In 1986 Bell joined the faculty of Stanford Law School and instantly became a source of controversy. Many of his students there complained that he was not using his position to teach principles of law, but rather as a platform from which to indoctrinate his captive audience to his leftwing theories and worldviews. Cognizant of Bell’s glaring deficiencies as a teacher but afraid to openly address them, Stanford quietly instituted a lecture series designed to help his students learn the course material that Bell was not teaching them. Perceiving this measure as a racial affront, Bell left Stanford and returned to Harvard Law School in the fall of 1986.[3]

Soon after his arrival at Harvard, Bell staged a five-day sit-in in his office to protest the University's failure to grant tenure to two professors who espoused critical race theory.

In April 1990 Professor Bell demanded that Harvard Law School hire a black woman—specifically, the visiting professor Regina Austin (who was also an adherent of critical race theory)—as a tenured faculty member. Bell explained that black female law students at Harvard were in desperate need of “role models,” like Austin, with whom they could identify. Though Harvard had a longstanding policy that forbade the hiring of visiting professors during the year of their residence at the school, Bell issued a “non-negotiable demand” that Austin be given a faculty position.[4]  And even though 45 percent of Harvard Law's faculty appointments during the preceding decade had gone to minorities and women, none was both black and female—hence Professor Bell's objection.[5]

When the law school would not cave to Bell’s pressure, the professor protested by taking a leave of absence from his $120,000-per-year teaching post. It should be noted, however, that even if Harvard had agreed to grant tenure to Regina Austin, Bell would not have been satisfied. As he would later write in a law-review article condemning schools for hiring only “token” minorities: “The hiring of a few minorities and women—particularly when a faculty is under pressure from students or civil rights agencies—is not a departure from … this power-preserving doctrine” of white male supremacy.[6]

During his leave of absence from Harvard, Bell in 1990 took a position as a full-time visiting professor at New York University (NYU) School of Law.

In 1991, at the height of the controversy over Professor Austin, then-Harvard Law School student Barack Obama spoke at a well-attended campus rally in support of Bell's position. Obama described Bell as a man known for “speaking the truth” and for an “excellence of ... scholarship” that had not only “opened up new vistas and new horizons,” but had “changed the standards [of what] legal writing is about.”

Since Bell viewed racial minorities as a permanently oppressed caste—and saw racism as a normal, permanent aspect of American life—he reasoned that equality before the law was unfair to blacks, whose moral claims were superior to those of whites. Thus Bell was a passionate proponent of racial preferences (i.e., affirmative action) as a means of minimizing what he viewed as the inevitably harmful effects of white Americans’ inherently racist impulses. In 1991 Bell was among the first critics to condemn the nomination of Clarence Thomas (who opposed affirmative action) to the U.S. Supreme Court, stating: “To place a person who looks black and who, in conservative terms, thinks white, is an insult.”

Bell eventually extended his stint as an NYU visiting professor to two years and then, later still, announced that he planned to spend a third year at NYU. But a third year would have required not only NYU’s waiver of time limits on visiting professorships, but also Harvard’s waiver of its firm policy forbidding professors to be on leave for more than two years. Harvard dean Robert Clark warned Bell that if he did not return to his post, he would lose his place on Harvard’s faculty. Bell refused to return, and thus lost his job at Harvard. After that, he continued to teach at NYU until the end of his life.

In 1992 Bell published his most well-known book, Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism. A few of the book's most notable quotes on the subject of race include the following:

"Despite undeniable progress for many, no African Americans are insulated from incidents of racial discrimination. Our careers, even our lives, are threatened because of our color."[7]  
"[T]he racism that made slavery feasible is far from dead ... and the civil rights gains, so hard won, are being steadily eroded."[8]
"... few whites are ready to actively promote civil rights for blacks."[9]
"[D]iscrimination in the workplace is as vicious (if less obvious) than it was when employers posted signs 'no negras need apply.'"[10]
“It has begun to seem that blacks, particularly black men, who lack at least two college degrees, are not hired in any position above the most menial.”[11]
"We rise and fall less as a result of our efforts than in response to the needs of a white society that condemns all blacks to quasi citizenship as surely as it segregated our parents."[12]
"Slavery is, as an example of what white America has done, a constant reminder of what white America might do."[13]
"Black people will never gain full equality in this country.… African Americans must confront and conquer the otherwise deadening reality of our permanent subordinate status."[14]
"Tolerated in good times, despised when things go wrong, as a people we [blacks] are scapegoated and sacrificed as distraction or catalyst for compromise to facilitate resolution of political differences or relieve economic adversity."[15]
"The fact that, as victims, we suffer racism's harm but, as a people, [we] cannot share the responsibility for that harm, may be the crucial component in a definition of what it is to be black in America.”[16]
“Victimized themselves by an uncaring society, some blacks vent their rage on victims like themselves.”[17]
Racism remains “an integral, permanent, and indestructible component of this society.”[18]
Also in Faces at the Bottom of the Well, Bell described the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as “smart and superarticulate,” calling him “perhaps the best living example of a black man ready, willing and able to ‘tell it like it is’ regarding who is responsible for racism in this country.” In a 1992 interview, Bell elaborated: “I see Louis Farrakhan as a great hero for the people. I don't agree with everything he says and some of his tactics or whatever, but hell, I don’t agree with everything anybody says.”

Many of Bell's writings were in the form of parables wherein he placed legal and social commentary into the mouths of invented characters. One of his best-known parables was “The Space Traders,” which appeared in Faces at the Bottom of the Well. In the story, as Bell later described it, creatures from another planet offer the United States “enough gold to retire the national debt, a magic chemical that will cleanse America’s polluted skies and waters, and a limitless source of safe energy to replace our dwindling reserves.” In exchange, the creatures ask only that America hand over its black population, to be dispatched permanently into outer space. An overwhelming majority of whites accept the offer. (In 1994 this story was adapted as one of three segments in a television movie titled Cosmic Slop.)

In 1992 Bell again articulated to his low regard for white people: “I’ve accepted that as my motto—I liv[e] to harass white folk.”

In August 1993 Bell continued to impugn Harvard Law School—which he said was ever-eager to grant tenure to “the white boys”—for having failed to add “a woman of color” to its tenured faculty.

In 1994 Bell was quoted as having predicted that eventually America would witness the rise of charismatic new black leaders who, in the interests of retributive racial justice, would “urge that instead of [African Americans] killing each other, they should go out in gangs and kill a whole lot of white people.”[19]

In a New York Observer interview published on October 10, 1994, Bell denounced "all the Jewish neoconservative racists who are undermining blacks in every way they can." The very same interview began with Bell stating: “We should really appreciate the Louis Farrakhans and the Khalid Muhammads while we’ve got them.” (Khalid Muhammad was a Farrakhan ally who referred to Jews as “bloodsuckers” whose “father was the devil.”)

Bell endorsed a journal called Race Traitor, whose stated aim is “to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin.” Moreover, the publication's guiding principle is: “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” In 1999 Bell signed on to a Race Traitor article that stated: “If the task of the nineteenth century was to overthrow slavery, and the task of the twentieth century was to end legal segregation, the key to solving this country’s problems in the twenty-first century is to abolish the white race as a social category—in other words, eradicate white supremacy entirely.” Among Bell's fellow signatories were Pete Seeger, Cornel West, and Howard Zinn.

In 2002 Bell said, “I've sometimes wondered whether this society could exist without racism. Because this is a country built on property ownership, and most white people don’t have that much property … you know, land and bonds and money in the bank, what they have is a sense of entitlement based on being white. And that's very hard to give up.”

In 2007 Bell came to the defense of Ward Churchill, the former University of Colorado professor who had lost his job in 2006 because of academic misconduct. Churchill had previously gained notoriety for his 2001 essay, “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.” In that piece, the author disclosed his belief that the 9/11 attacks were logical reprisals for unjust U.S. foreign policy measures vis a vis the Middle East, and for the alleged ravages of global capitalism as spearheaded by America.

Bell authored several books on race and the law, including Silent Covenants: Brown V. Board of Education and the Unfulfilled Hopes for Racial Reform (2004); Ethical Ambition: Living a Life of Meaning and Worth (2002); Race, Racism, and American Law (2000); Constitutional Conflicts  (1997); Confronting Authority: Reflections of an Ardent Protester (1994); Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism (1992); And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice (1989); and Civil Rights: Leading Cases (1980).

Bell died of carcinoid cancer on October 5, 2011.


NOTES:

[1] Derrick Bell, Faces at the Bottom of the Well (New York: Basic Books, 1992), p. 152.
[2] University of Texas at Austin, Dr. Jim Scheurich, “Introduction to Systems of Human Inquiry,” The History of Critical Race Theory Project (Spring 2001), p. 34.  Cited in David Horowitz, The Professors, p. 58.
[3] Ibid.
[4] David Horowitz, The Professors, p. 58.
[5] Fox Butterfield, “Harvard Law School Torn by Race Issue,” The New York Times (April 26, 1990).
[6] David Horowitz, The Professors, p. 59.
[7] Derrick Bell, Faces at the Bottom of the Well, p. 3.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., p. 4.
[10] Ibid., p. 5.
[11] Ibid., p. 15.
[12] Ibid., p. 10.
[13.] Ibid., p. 12.
[14] Ibid., pp. 12, 113.
[15] Ibid., p. 10.
[16] Ibid., p. 155.
[17] Ibid., p. 196.
[18] Source: Faces at the Bottom of the Well (Cited in D'Souza, The End of Racism, p. 17.)
[19] Robert Boynton, “Professor Bell, Sage of Black Rage,” New York Observer (October 10, 1994), p. 1.

[bigdog]

Guess you skipped over the Derrick Bell part.



And you skipped the part where he was courteous to conservatives, to the point where his more liberal colleagues grew frustrated and impatient with him. And, the part where was a pretty moderate liberal, all things considered. I do appreciate the extended discussion of Bell, though. I must have totally missed it on the forum when he died. And when the video of Obama's talk appreciating him made some waves here and such.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2012/10/24/obama-trump-5-million-offer/1654437/

[G M]

Guess you skipped over the Derrick Bell part.



And you skipped the part where he was courteous to conservatives, to the point where his more liberal colleagues grew frustrated and impatient with him. And, the part where was a pretty moderate liberal, all things considered. I do appreciate the extended discussion of Bell, though. I must have totally missed it on the forum when he died. And when the video of Obama's talk appreciating him made some waves here and such.

I think his drug use and general laziness is a better explanation for his "courteousness".

[G M]

“Obama: ‘Deep Down … There’s a Laziness in Me,’” National Journal reports, complete with a hilariously shocked, “unexpected” tone in its lede:

The personality trait President Obama says he most deplores in himself and others is not exactly one you’d expect from, presumably, one of the busiest people in the world: laziness.

“You’re lazy?” Barbara Walters incredulously asked Obama, sitting alongside the first lady, in an interview scheduled to air on ABC on Friday night but previewed ahead of time.

“It’s interesting…. Deep down underneath all the work I do, I think there’s a laziness in me,” Obama said. “It’s probably from growing up in Hawaii, and it’s sunny outside. Sitting on the beach.”

Obama then added the trait he truly most dislikes in others is cruelty. “I can’t stand cruel people,” he said.


http://washingtonexaminer.com/chapter-ii-the-myth-of-the-rock-star-professor/article/2508418

The myth of the 'rock-star professor'
September 19, 2012 | 10:34 pm | Modified: September 20, 2012 at 12:04 am



Obama with his grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, on a park bench in New York City, when Obama was a student at Columbia University. (Associated Press) Time magazine gushed in 2008 about Barack Obama's 12-year tenure as a law lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, saying, "Within a few years, he had become a rock-star professor with hordes of devoted students."

That may have been true during his first two years, when he ranked first among the law school's 40 instructors, with students giving him a rating of 9.7 out of a possible 10.

But law student evaluations made available to The Washington Examiner by the university showed that his popularity then fell steadily.

In 1999, only 23 percent of the students said they would repeat Obama's racism class. He was the third-lowest-ranked lecturer at the law school that year. And in 2003, only a third of the student evaluators recommended his classes.

His classes were small. A spring 1994 class attracted 14 out of a student body of 600; a spring 1996 class drew 13. In 1997, he had the largest class of his tenure with 49 students. But by then, his student rating had fallen to 7.75. Twenty-two of 40 faculty members ranked higher than Obama.

Some former faculty colleagues today describe Obama as disengaged, doing only what was minimally required and almost never participating in faculty activities.

And, unlike others on the Chicago Law School faculty who published numerous articles in legal journals, Obama's byline did not appear in a single legal journal while he taught there.

By comparison, more prominent legal scholars on the Chicago faculty wrote frequently. Federal Judge Richard Posner published 132 legal articles from 1993 to 2004, and federal Judge Frank Easterbrook published 32 legal articles from 1992 to 2004.

Obama has often cited his days at the law school as an important part of his preparation for the presidency. At a March 30, 2007, fundraiser, for example, he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means, unlike the current president, I actually respect the Constitution."

From 1992 until 2004, Obama taught three courses: "Current Issues in Racism and the Law," "Voting Rights and the Democratic Process," and "Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process."

Obama wasn't a professor; he was a lecturer, a position that the Chicago Law School said in 2008 "signifies adjunct status." He was elevated to a "senior lecturer" in 1996, the year he was first elected to the Illinois Senate in Springfield.

The new faculty status put him on par with Posner, Easterbrook and a third federal judge, Diane Wood. As the Chicago Law School explained, senior lecturers "have high-demand careers in politics or public service which prevent full time teaching."

Senior lecturers were, however, still expected to participate in university activities. University of Chicago Law School Senior Lecturer Richard Epstein told The Washington Examiner that Obama did not do so.

Obama, Epstein said, "did the minimal amount of work to get through. No one remembers him. He was not a participant in luncheons or workshops. He was here and gone."

Robert Alt, a former Obama student, echoes Epstein, telling the Examiner that "I think it's fair to say he wasn't engaged in the intellectual life of Chicago outside of the classroom."

Alt is director of the conservative Heritage Foundation's Rule of Law Programs and a senior legal fellow.

Alt said, "When you have faculty giving faculty lectures, you'd literally have packed rooms in which it's not unusual to have just all the big names of the university. It wasn't unusual to see Easterbrook and Posner, and it wasn't unusual to see the Nobel laureates attending as well."

Even so, Alt said, "I never remember ever seeing Obama in the audience."

Obama was also a no-show for the faculty workshops, nonclassroom lectures and moot court cases judged by sitting members of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals of the U.S. Current Chicago Law School professor Lisa Bernstein said faculty lecturers are still encouraged to participate in as many such events as possible.

The pattern of minimal performance at the Chicago campus was not an exception to the rule for Obama. In the state Senate during the same years he was lecturing, Obama voted "present" nearly 130 times, the most of any legislator in the chamber.

When then-Sen. Hillary Clinton made Obama's state Senate voting record an issue in their Democratic presidential primary contest in 2007, the New York Times said it found at least 36 instances when Obama was the lone "present" vote or was one of six or fewer lawmakers casting that vote.

And during his lone term as a U.S. senator, according to Gov Track.us: "From Jan 2005 to Oct 2008, Obama missed 314 of 1300 recorded or roll call votes, which is 24.0%. This is worse than the median of 2.4%."

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ever-wonder-how-obama-got-into-occidental-college-we-may-have-found-the-answer/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/was-obama-once-an-indonesian-citizen-heres-what-we-found-when-we-went-there-looking/

[Crafty_Dog]

FEBRUARY 15, 2013: The Supreme Court of the United States in full conference will review evidence of forged I.D.'s used by the president.
 
From: the Law offices of Orly Taitz
 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States John Roberts scheduled a case by attorney Orly Taitz dealing with Barack Hussein Obama’s use of forged IDs to be heard in conference before the full Supreme Court.
 
The case titled Noonan, Judd, MacLeran, Taitz v Bowen provides a mountain of evidence of Barack Obama using a last name not legally his, forged Selective Service application, forged long form and short form birth certificate and a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS. Additionally, this case provides evidence of around one and a half million invalid voter registrations in the state of California alone.
 
Please, keep in mind, Richard Nixon was reelected and sworn in, but later was forced to resign as a result of Watergate. over 30 high ranking officials of Nixon administration including Attorney General of the United States and White House Counsel were indicted, convicted and went to prison.
 
Obama Forgery gate is a hundred times bigger then Watergate. More corrupt high ranking officials, US Attorneys, AGs and judges were complicit, committed high treason by allowing a citizen of Indonesia and possibly still a citizen of Kenya Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry) Soebarkah, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro to usurp the U.S. Presidency by use of forged IDs and a stolen Social security number.
 
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=375765
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/orly-taitz-birther-
 
supreme-court_n_2443077.html
 (In the search box, check docket files then enter 12A606)
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2976497/posts
 
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=%2Fdocketfiles%2F12a606.htm

[objectivist1]

Valerie Jarrett’s Influence on Obama

Posted By Jamie Glazov On March 26, 2014 @ www.frontpagemag.com

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Dr. Paul Kengor, a professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century. His latest book is 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative.

FP: Paul Kengor, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

I would like to talk to you today about Valerie Jarrett, her background, her relationship with Barack Obama, and her influence in the Obama White House.

Let’s begin first with who Valerie Jarrett is — and her relationship with Barack Obama.

Kengor: Thanks Jamie.

Valerie Jarrett is President Obama’s single most important and influential adviser. No one else in the White or the entire administration is as close to Obama. She has been described as everything from his “right-hand woman” to like a sister and even a mother to Obama. To cite some mainstream/leftist sources: The New York Times says she’s Obama’s “closest friend in the White House,” his “envoy,” his “emissary,” and his “all-purpose ambassador.” The Times calls her the “ultimate Obama insider.” Dana Milbank says her connection to Obama is “deep and personal” and that she’s “the real center of Obama’s inner circle.”

Obama himself calls her one of his “oldest friends” and says “I trust her completely.”

As for Jarrett, she says that she and Obama have a “shared view of where the United States fits in the world.” She says they “have kind of a mind meld.” She’s says that “chances are, what he wants to do is what I’d want to do.”

FP: Ok, so that begs the next question: What is it exactly that they want to do?

Kengor: That’s a very good question. I think the best I can say, which is admittedly at times vague from a policy standpoint, is that both favor some form of leftist “fundamental transformation.”

In domestic policy, we can expect them to desire and pursue the kinds of policies that Obama was able to implement in 2009-10 when he had a leftist Pelosi-Reid Congress. The current Republican majority in Congress gets a lot of heat from conservatives, but at least it has slowed the radical push to the left that occurred under Obama, Pelosi, and Reid during those first two years of the Obama presidency. Those first two years were an Obama-Jarrett policy fest. That what an Obama-Jarrett agenda looks like.

In terms of foreign policy, here again it’s difficult to track down precise ideological statements and actions from Jarrett, though she has said unequivocally that her worldview fully reflects Barack Obama’s. It may even be worse than Obama’s, if the reports of her intervention on Osama Bin Laden are correct.

My sense is that both Obama and Valerie Jarrett prefer a weaker America on the world stage. The pandering to Putin in the first term was probably a reflection of Obama-Jarrett thinking, and thus so is the humiliation at the hands of Putin in the second term.

I’m also suspicious of Valerie Jarrett’s possibly having provided negative input into Obama’s statements on Iran, including his terrible Carter-like reaction to the initial uprising in the Iranian “street” in June 2009. Did Obama’s behavior in that period, which was initially so weak that even Democrats were aghast, reflect Valerie Jarrett’s input? I can’t say, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

FP: How much influence does she actually have on policy?

Kengor: Her influence is highly significant. She has her hands in every major decision, if not every small one. She’s constantly monitoring things, inserting her input and protecting her Barack. I could give a bunch of examples, but here are two.

Valerie Jarrett pushed for the HHS mandate requiring all religious believers and groups, including institutional churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, to fund abortion drugs and contraception. According to the New York Times and Politico, she did so even as the likes of Joe Biden and Obama Chief of Staff Bill Daley urged the White House to carefully consider the backlash from the Catholic Church. Biden and Daley lost out to Valerie Jarrett and Kathleen Sebelius. No surprise. Obama usually sides with Jarrett.

Especially interesting to readers here, it was reported some time ago that Jarrett repeatedly urged Obama not to take out Osama Bin Laden, prompting Obama to cancel the mission as many as three times. That has been reported by a number of sources, most notably in a book by Richard Miniter. About a year before Miniter’s book, I had written a lengthy feature article for American Spectator on Valerie Jarrett. One piece of information that was out there, but I couldn’t confirm, was this Obama-Osama report.

FP: Jarrett is clearly a leftist, but you have stated that some of the mainstream media sources have tried to suggest otherwise.

Kengor: Yes. When I first researched her, trying to pin down her politics was very difficult. The liberal media’s job is to first and foremost protect Barack Obama. They are reporters second and partisan Democrats first. And so, reporters portrayed Valerie Jarrett in soaring, gushing, hagiographic tones, exalting her as Solomon-like in her almost-unearthly wisdom. Her reasoning skills and mind were the world’s finest ever assembled in a woman (other than, perhaps, in the person of Hillary Clinton). When she and Obama sit together in the Oval Office, it’s like having all the accumulated knowledge in human history right there at once. Naturally, too, of course, the same media portrayed her as a centrist, a moderate. Here’s one of my favorite examples, from a February 2011 Chicago Tribune profile: “She is a consensus builder who reinforces Obama’s tendency toward centrism.”

Yes, of course!

I had to really dig to find examples of her early policy influence. Since then, I’ve found more. She’s precisely what we’d expect of someone who is an Obama kindred soul: a leftist.

FP: Speaking of being a leftist, what are her roots?

Kengor: She was born in Shiraz, Iran in November 1956, the time of the Suez crisis. She was born Valerie Bowman to American parents—Dr. James E. Bowman and Barbara Taylor Bowman. Her father was a pathologist and geneticist at a children’s hospital in Shiraz as part of a U.S. aid program to assist developing countries. The family eventually returned to America, specifically Chicago, in 1963. Her mother was a child psychologist who helped establish the Erikson Institute, which (Hillary Clinton-like) specialized in “child advocacy.” The Erikson Institute got funding from the Woods Charitable Fund. If that sounds familiar to readers here, it’s because Barack Obama and Bill Ayers eventually served together as board members at Woods.

Now her Chicago roots are more disturbing — and indicative of her ideology. They also connect her to Obama and his ideological roots.

Valerie’s maternal grandparents were Robert Rochon Taylor and Dorothy Taylor. Robert was the first African-American head of the Chicago Housing Authority. Dorothy, a native of Berkeley, was active in early Planned Parenthood. That’s ironic, given Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project,” her 1926 speech to a KKK rally in Silverlake, New Jersey, and her championing of racial-eugenics. Then again, Sanger’s penchant for “race improvement” has never halted liberals’ veneration of her.

FP: There is a fascinating connection that you’ve detailed between Jarrett’s grandfather and Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s mentor, who you’ve written a book about.

Kengor: That’s correct.

The book is titled, The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. Frank Marshall Davis was an African-American born in Kansas in 1905 who eventually moved to Chicago and joined Communist Party USA. Notably, he joined the party after the signing of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, a time when many American communists, particularly Jewish-American communists, left the party. They left because Stalin’s signing of the pact facilitated and enabled Hitler’s invasion of Poland and start of World War II. Frank Marshall Davis, however, was undeterred. He joined after the pact.

Worse, Davis, in Chicago, worked for one of the most egregious communist fronts in the history of this country: the American Peace Mobilization. Congress called the American Peace Mobilization “one of the most notorious and blatantly communist fronts ever organized in this country” and “one of the most seditious organizations which ever operated in the United States.” The group’s objective was to stop the United States from entering the war against Hitler—again, because Hitler and Stalin were allies. American communists were allows loyal Soviet patriots. They literally swore allegiance to the USSR and its line.

In my book Dupes, I publish the original Soviet Comintern document acknowledging that the American Peace Mobilization was founded on the Comintern’s initiative in Chicago in September 1940. There, the Comintern and Communist Party USA attempted to organize a coalition of leftists and “progressives” who would keep America out of the war and out of any support for Britain or anyone opposing Hitler and Stalin—who, again, were allies.

Okay, how does this involve Valerie Jarrett? Jarrett’s grandfather, Robert Taylor, was involved with the American Peace Mobilization, as was Frank Marshall Davis.

Taylor also served with Davis on another communist front, the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, whose members masqueraded as civil-rights crusading “progressives.” The two served on the board together.

And there’s more. Valerie Jarrett has additional family roots in these things. Both Taylor (Jarrett’s grandfather) and Frank Marshall Davis—who would one day meet and become a mentor to a young Barack Obama in Hawaii in the 1970s—would have often encountered another politically active Chicagoan, Vernon Jarrett. In fact, Vernon Jarrett and Frank Marshall Davis worked together on the very small publicity team (a handful of people) of the communist-controlled Packinghouse Workers Union.

Who was Vernon Jarrett? He would one day become Valerie Jarrett’s father-in-law.

So, to sum up, Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, worked with the literal relatives of Valerie Jarrett—her grandfather and future father-in-law—in Chicago’s Communist Party circles in the 1940s.

FP: Amazing. And it was in Chicago, of course, that Valerie Jarrett and Obama eventually met?

Kengor: They first met in Chicago in the early 1990s. During her stint as deputy chief of staff to Mayor Daley (the second Mayor Daley), Jarrett met a young lawyer named Michelle Robinson, who worked for the firm Sidley Austin. They hit it off. Michelle told Jarrett she should meet another young lawyer named Barack Obama, her fiancé. They agreed, and the rest is history.

By the way, David Remnick, a top Obama biographer, reported that Valerie said of that meeting: “Barack felt extraordinarily familiar.” How so? She said that she and Barack “shared a view of where the United States fit in the world.” As David Remnick translates, this was a more “objective” view of an America that was not “the center of all wisdom and experience.” This was not an exceptional America. Of course it wasn’t.

FP: One final question on the Chicago roots. This gets even crazier. Tell us how David Axelrod’s roots tie into this.

Kengor: David Axelrod is the political consultant who made Barack Obama president. He coined the very terms “hope and change.” He is a native New Yorker who ended up attending college and then working in Chicago in the 1970s and 1980s and on. Like Obama, and like Valerie Jarrett, he found his political calling in Chicago.

In Chicago, Axelrod was mentored by the Canter family, namely David Canter. The Canter family has not only deep communist roots in Chicago but also in Stalin’s Soviet Union. David and his family had lived in Moscow just before coming to Chicago. His father, Harry Canter, had literally worked for Stalin’s government as an official translator of Lenin’s writings. He was a hardcore American Bolshevik. Before going to Moscow, Harry had been secretary of the Boston Communist Party and ran for governor of Massachusetts on the Communist Party ticket.

When this duty to Stalin was finished, the Canter family moved on to Chicago, which was (second only to New York) a hotbed for communism. The American Communist Party was founded in Chicago in September 1919, six months after the Comintern was founded in Moscow.

The Canters got involved in all sorts of Chicago-based communist activities and fronts: big May Day parades, the Packinghouse Workers Union, the communist Abraham Lincoln School, and in the pages of the Chicago Star, the communist newspaper founded and edited by Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. In fact, Harry Canter was one of the small group of board members that bought the Chicago Star from Davis in September 1948 as Davis bolted to Hawaii to do communist work there (and eventually meet Obama). Canter’s group of purchasers was called the Progressive Publishing Company.

Eventually, Harry’s son David Canter, who himself was involved in all kinds of wild far-left activities, met and mentored David Axelrod.

FP: So, all of these folks knew each other in Chicago?

Kengor: Obama and David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett all have common political ancestors who knew and worked with each other in communist activities and fronts in Chicago in the 1940s. The ancestors are, respectively, Frank Marshall Davis, the Canters, and Vernon Jarrett and Robert Taylor. We are today being governed by ghosts from Chicago’s Communist Party haunts of the 1940s. It’s scary.

By the way, then and still today, they call themselves “progressives.”

FP: This information is remarkable. Tell our readers where you have documented all of this.

Kengor: I’m meticulous in tying all these things together. In my books, The Communist and Dupes, especially the former, I provide copies of original materials and documentation. Nothing that I said is exaggerated. Besides, who could make this up?

The American public voted for “change.” This is a change alright.

FP: Ok so crystallize us what the “change” is exactly that Obama and Jarrett have ushered in and are ushering in. And summarize for us: Who is Valerie Jarrett and what is the meaning and significance of her close friendship with, and enormous influence, on the president?

Kengor: I think the “change” is this thrusting of America to the left, this “fundamental transformation.”

Here’s a crucial added insight into Valerie Jarrett’s thinking: There’s a video clip of her on You Tube, from early in the first Obama term, where she’s gushing about Van Jones. She lights up, aglow, as she mentions him—and as the lefties in the crowd howl in approval. She speaks of being “so delighted” with Jones’ “creative ideas” and talks of how her and Obama’s White House hopes to “capture” those ideas. She has a giant smile. That 30 seconds or so of uncensored, unfiltered Valerie Jarrett speaks volumes. At long last, there’s the real Valerie Jarrett, without the doting protection of the mainstream media that coddles her and Barack Obama.



So, in short, the meaning and significance of Valerie Jarrett’s close friendship and enormous influence on the president is an America that increasingly moves left domestically and, I suspect, becomes weaker in the world internationally.

FP: Professor Kengor, thanks for your time.

Kengor: Anytime, Jamie. I thank you, Front Page, and David Horowitz for your time and courage.

[DougMacG]

Obj, Nice work.  I have no idea what the connection is between the President's closest adviser Valerie Jarrett being Iranian born and noting that when the world's number one sponsor of terror Iran suffered a popular uprising during his first year in office he had absolutely no reaction to it.

Paraphrasing Ronald Reagan:  Liberal elites are very smart people, Ivy Leaguers.  Stanford and Univ of Michigan in Jarrett's case - even smarter.  But most of what they know just isn't so.

Jarrett and Obama preferred the idea of talking to neo-holocaust-supporter Ahmadinejad to toppling the regime.

Liberals have an economic view that the rich get rich at the expense of the poor and a worldview that everything would be better if only the US was weaker.  Neither is so.

The roots of Obama's, Jarrett's and Axelrod's leftisms are all interesting, perhaps damning.  Still we need (in my view) to de-personalize this and fight against the policies and underlying philosophies.  We will still be fighting against failed, leftist philosophies long after this current cast of characters leaves the stage.

[MikeT]

This is going to seem a little OT at first...   the recent immigration crisis has sparked a discussion here in Michigan in a little town called Vassar.  Wolverine Services, a juvenile social serrvice provider, has been approached to house illegal Unaccompanied Minors.  According to a YOu tube video of a spokesperson from the company appearing before the town last night, Wolverine was approached by Heartland Alliance, a Chicago non-profit that runs the Heartland Alliance for Refugee Ressettlement-- basically a pro-amnesty/ pro-immigration / pro-"refugee" (their word) group.

The interesting part is, in looking into Heartland, I discovered that several blogs link Heartland to the Woods Fund, where both Obama and Bill Ayers served as members of the Board, but (I understand) at different times.  Woods Fund has made multiple contributions to not only Heartland, but also ACORN, Tides, etc.

Also perhaps interestingly, I came across a Gateway Pundit report from 2009 about the denial of a long-standing grant to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) specifically on the political refugee issue, stating "While the Obama administration extended the contract briefly in March, the bishops were recently notified that it would not be renewed. Instead, Obama officials awarded the grant to three other groups (Tapestri of Atlanta, *****Heartland Human Care Services of Chicago***** and the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants of Washington) — even though the bishops have helped more than 2,700 victims with the funding."

Maybe nothing, maybe something.  All of this is of course HIGHLY circumstantial, but it serves to explain why I would be posting links about Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground in this thread.

And, of course, critics will say 'that all that stuff about Ayers was all a long time ago', and etc.  I have listened to videos of Ayers several times recently.  For the most part, in his speeches, he comes across to me as a fairly 'typical' leftist  professor.  The exception maybe being the recent interviews I saw he gave Megan Kelly.  In his debate with Dinesh D'Souza, for example-- while I disagree with 95% of what Ayers said, he comes across as at least 'lucid' and I thought he managed to comport himself with the same degree of 'articulation of points' as D'Souza, for the most part.  In other words, while I am philisophically inclined toward the D'Souza side myself, I thought the debate was pretty much a 'tie' on points of reasoning.  For the most part, Ayers comes across **TODAY** as 'socially concerned' and 'not especially violent'.  And, for the most part, most Americans today younger than me (1970) have no idea who the Weather Underground even was.  i.e. 'So Obama launched his campaign in the house of some guy named Ayers?  So what.?'

Anyway,  I am a big believer in not taking the spin, but in trying to get as close to first hand accounts as I can.  So I was Googling around today and coame up with what I thought were some interesting links, which I will post in reverse order.

The first is to the WU's 1974 written manfesto 'Prairie Fire', which i found especially interesting as it goes into lengthy detail about the need to "open a new [domestic] front" in "the revolution"; and on the need to work from INSIDE the castle walls, so to speak in an effort to overthrow the government, described as "neo-colonialist", "imperialist", etc..  For instance, descibing "their transitional strategy [SDS to WU} to maintain the militant mass base on the campuses, while we deepened our base among the working class."  Etc.

http://www.sds-1960s.org/PrairieFire-reprint.pdf

If nothing else, a thorugh skim will give you a deeper understanding of the Obama presidency, as , in as far as I can tell, this reads like a play book.

The second is to a declassified FBI report into the WU, which is where I got the name and idea of trying to Google the former and see if there was an extant copy of the floating around on the internet.

http://vault.fbi.gov/Weather%20Underground%20%28Weathermen%29/Weather%20Underground%20%28Weathermen%29%20Part%201%20of%206/view

Other people (D'Souza, for instance) have done a better job than I could  in unpacking the circumstantial evidence regarding a possible relationship between Ayers and Obama.  To me, not really being a conspiracy theorist, it's enough to describe them as "Fellow Chicago Leftists"  But the repeatedly recurring connections are intriguing to me.

Thirty or forty years from now, maybe we'll know.  

[G M]

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/08/obama_i_make_love_to_men_daily_comments.html#comment_thread

[ccp]

The wife of World history greatest human being

has it rough:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/08/27/michelle-obama-even-as-first-lady-white-people-have-treated-me-like-i-dont-exist/

funny , how come a privileged white man like myself can recall people obnoxiously cutting in front of me while standing on line  too?

I guess i can identify .....

[ccp]

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/barack-obama-lindsey-graham-book-034235338.html


"Former President Barack Obama’s new book, “A Promised Land,” hits shelves next week, but the early reviews are already out ― and they cite some eye-popping descriptions of his political rivals.

According to a New York Times review, Obama writes that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has “discipline, shrewdness and shamelessness — all of which he employed in the single-minded and dispassionate pursuit of power.”

I don't know about McConnell but I sure know who that really describes .

I guess O needs to buy few more properties
and Michelle needs a new jet

[G M]

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/391325.php

Sure. It's a mistake, of course...

[G M]

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/07/michelle_obamas_changing_sexual_identity.html

It's a man, baby!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgOIEGz7o_s

[DougMacG]

Long read, explains the background for a lot of what we are going through. The Biden Presidency appears to be just a chapter in the Obama years in some strange way.

The Obama Factor
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/david-garrow-interview-obama

[ccp]

maybe he also reads the forum and liked by name for Obama:

https://news.yahoo.com/sold-soul-devil-barack-obama-113418179.html

[ccp]

Amazing how the professor after 15 yrs since the start of his  Presidency has learned absolutely nothing: roll:

And he still lectures the wrong people!   

Why not lecture Hamas dingbat? Iran? CCP?
Why not lecture Black and Latino gangs?
Why not lecture criminals or drug dealers?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/obama-calls-conflict-in-middle-east-a-moral-reckoning-for-all-of-us/ar-AA1jnA7q?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=6f8a9a26d8ff4afb9d3e0ce8e44cb8e6&ei=53

[Body-by-Guinness]

We see the puppet, who is the puppet master?

He the People

How Barack Obama ended normalcy in American politics

BY
LEE SMITH
JULY 29, 2024

The people have spoken, and last week former President Barack Obama called Vice President Kamala Harris to tell her. His endorsement of her run for the presidency was captured in a short video documenting the candidate’s reaction. “Although you called for an open process,” said Obama, “and you know, Democrats have, have put in place an open process, it appears that people feel very strongly that you need to be our nominee.”

But without a primary, without a popular referendum, without even the open convention that Obama was rumored to favor, how did the people make their will known, and strongly? Was it social media influencers? Mass rallies across the country? Media chronicling the excitement surrounding a Harris candidacy? No, it was nothing like that. Obama is the people. The people are Obama.

The endorsement was more than five years in the making. Obama had long wanted her in that spot. Their families are old friends. Like him, Harris is progressive, multiracial, physically attractive, nominally hip, a child of academics—in other words, according to Obama-friendly media, she’s a “female Barack Obama.” He directed donors to support her 2020 presidential campaign, Capitol Hill sources told me at the time. More billionaires, 47, backed her campaign than any other candidate’s—with Obama strongholds in Hollywood (Steven Spielberg and George Lucas) and Big Tech (Reid Hoffman, Laurene Powell Jobs, Craig Newmark, etc.) leading the way.

Obama got her the vice presidential nod even when she was forced to drop out of the primary race after hitting just 3 percent in the polls. Jill Biden objected—Harris had called her husband a racist! The First Lady’s reported recent tantrums show that even after four years, she never fully grasped the arrangement the party had made with her husband. Biden was just an imperfect placeholder for Obama, and it was only a matter of time before the superior avatar would be slotted in.

Mainstreaming the psychological modalities and media techniques of the Manson family is not normal in America. But then again, as Obama’s biographer David Garrow explained, ‘He’s not normal.’

The question is when, exactly, did it become clear to Obama that it was time for Harris to finally replace Biden? Was it after Biden’s disastrous debate with Donald Trump? After the attempted assassination of Trump? No, it seems the countdown officially began Oct. 7. The Palestinians’ murderous assault on communities in southern Israel exposed Biden’s limited ability to represent the interests of the party he was tapped to temporarily preside over. It didn’t require an especially refined moral sensibility to be appalled and terrified by the carnivalesque depravity of Oct. 7—but to give Biden credit, he evidently was. And that was the signal his time was up.

He‘s no John Fetterman. Biden is not a particularly courageous friend of the Jewish state, nor does he appear to much value the strategic importance of an ally that lessens America’s burden in a region vital to U.S. interests. When it comes to Israel, the 81-year-old president is just a normal late-20th-century Democrat who likes the country well enough, recognizes Jews as an important albeit small voting bloc and a crucial source of campaign funds, and performs ritualistic contempt for Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

But last Wednesday’s pro-Hamas riots in Washington, D.C.—in which domestic left-wing extremists linked arms with Middle East terror supporters and other foreigners to burn the American flag, deface monuments, and brawl with police, all in the name of protesting Netanyahu’s speech before a joint session of Congress—was only the latest evidence that the crux of Biden’s Oct. 7 problem was not that Michigan and Minnesota’s voter rolls are swollen with advocates of Muslim and Arab terror. The issue was not a party constituency at all, but rather the party itself and its leader. Barack Obama fundamentally reshaped the party when he struck the 2015 deal legalizing the nuclear weapons program of Hamas’ sponsor, Iran. By legitimizing the apocalyptic foreign policy aims of the world power that embodies Jew hatred, Obama sidelined the Jews and other centrists and made the progressive, anti-Israel faction the party’s new center of gravity.

The media did yeoman’s work obscuring the details and purpose of the agreement, but the fact is, by putting Iran’s bomb under a protective American umbrella, Obama was arming an American adversary to make it his own ally. The Iran deal was the first clear sign that Obama was not a normal U.S. commander in chief. When Biden extended even half-hearted, halting support to Israel’s response to Oct. 7, he crossed the only real red line Obama has ever had. Harris—who, unlike Biden, has no foreign policy beliefs or instincts of her own—never will.

Like friends, our favored allies reflect back to us the qualities we are flattered to find in ourselves. For instance, when Netanyahu spoke of the lions of the IDF, the elected representatives of the American people were stirred not only by the thought of Israeli boys and girls on the front lines but also—in fact, primarily—by the image he implicitly evoked: the image of our best and brightest, our lions, risking their lives to serve America. When he spoke of the God of Israel, the Americans might as well have struck their chests like patriarchs and shouted, “That’s us, too, brother—America also has a covenant and with the same God!”

How did aligning with Iran, a threshold nuclear power that threatens to destroy Israel, change the Democratic Party? It means, for instance, that political analysts speak openly on TV about how Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s Jewishness makes him a problematic number two pick for Harris. Nominating a Jew, the media reports, will split the party. And what partnership with an anti-American regime means for America as a whole was illustrated when violent rioters pulled down the American flag in the U.S. capital and replaced it with the banner of a terror enclave that has been holding American hostages for more than nine months.

What we saw outside Union Station is Obama’s faction. Local, state, and federal bureaucrats, as well as minorities, single women, academics, labor unions, and even Jews are all still welcome to vote Democrat. But the party’s vanguard, its true believers, its street fighters and enforcers, are allied with the terror gang that broadcast its campaign of rape, torture, and murder on Oct. 7. Mainstreaming the psychological modalities and media techniques of the Manson family is not normal in America. These are not normal times in America. But then again, as Obama’s Pulitzer-winning biographer David Garrow explained, “He’s not normal—as in not a normal politician or a normal human being.”

Proof that the mob outside Union Station is protected is that the few who were arrested were swiftly released—even those who assaulted police officers. The opposition was quick to compare law enforcement’s treatment of the death-cult auxiliaries who marched on the Capitol to Jan. 6 defendants, thousands of whom were rounded up, detained for months, charged, and convicted with sentencing enhancements that will keep some, like Proud Boys’ leader Enrique Tarrio, behind bars for two decades.

It’s a two-tier system of justice, say Trump supporters: We get jail time and they have get-out-of-jail-free cards. But that’s not accurate. A two-tier system of justice is one in which Black teenagers can’t afford the legal representation available to white kids with wealthy parents. The current system is rather one in which law is an instrument the regime uses to punish political opponents. In the current system, everything is licit for the ruling party. That is, the current system is lawless.

The end of normalcy in American politics has left Americans in a daze, unable to accurately grasp the new reality or to recognize its alien features. Some say Biden was toppled in a coup, but that’s wrong. It was never truly his presidency in the first place. He was serving in a ceremonial role on behalf of a politburo, and thus his executive authority owed less to his total 81 million votes, 58 percent of which were mail-in ballots harvested on his behalf, than to his former boss who saw him as the most plausible vehicle through which to exercise power. But Oct. 7 and the aftermath showed that Biden couldn’t be trusted to balance the appearance of normalcy with the psychopathy of the faction’s priestly warrior class. So his time was up.

It was Obama’s voice you heard when Harris spoke after her meeting with Netanyahu. One day after pro-Hamas mobs desecrated the American flag, Harris lectured Americans on the dangers of “Islamophobia.” But what does that mean? No one is going to the streets to beat up Muslims or burn Palestinian flags or celebrate the slaughter of Arab infants. “Islamophobia” is a made-up concept, designed to give cover to the terror adjuncts laying waste to American cities and college campuses. Criticize them or their historic cause—i.e., murdering Jews—and you’re Islamophobic. And that, as Obama likes to say, is not who we are as Americans.

Harris’ speech was filled with Obamaisms: pairing antisemitism with Islamophobia and “hate of any kind,” foisting responsibility for “Palestinian self-determination” on Israel, and urging Americans not to see the war in Gaza as a “binary issue.” That is, Americans should forsake the moral clarity that comes naturally to them because, as Obama said in November, we have to “admit” that “nobody’s hands are clean.” Americans have to take in “the whole truth.” See, it’s nonbinary.

Harris is ridiculed for her vacuous rhetorical style, but Biden was never a good stand-in for Obama’s gaseous speechifying, and the dissonance has long unnerved the new Democratic base. Never mind the habits and ticks that stuck to the old man after nearly half a century in Washington; by 2020, he could barely string two sentences together no matter who typed his speeches into the teleprompter. With Harris, however, Obama has an ideal instrument through which he can speak directly and in his preferred prose. She’s an empty vessel. What listeners hear in her is the immediacy of Obama, which is precisely what the party—the people—crave.

The opposition, meanwhile, is struggling to recognize the contours of the new political anatomy. Those who can are often hesitant to call it what it is, for fear of being called a bigot for recognizing that normalcy in American politics came to an end with Barack Obama, who happened to also be the country’s first Black president. Discretion is laudable, up to a point. But when Obama lieutenants leak to the media that Obama is calling the shots, as they have been since the debate, it’s clear that fear of being called a racist has nothing to do with it. The failure to frankly identify the source of our political abnormality is a cause for concern.

We are now in the second decade of a phenomenon previously unknown in American politics. Instead of identifying it, dissidents have devised formulations to avoid naming it, like the deep state or wokeness or DEI, etc. But these are just the adornments of a deracinated regime, and to cast an amorphous leviathan in the role of adversary is to commit to a never-ending and ultimately unwinnable struggle. It is in this space where people lose hope, for it’s a vacuum that engenders the culture of the conspiracy theory—elaborate and colorful accounts of despair explaining that we have no control over our lives, our fate, the future of our families, communities, or our country because of hidden forces that are too big and too entrenched.

The truth is that an American political faction is employing third-world tactics—surveillance, censorship, election interference, political prosecution, and political violence—to put the United States under the thumb of a single party led by a man who in his mind has become the people.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/barack-obama-ended-normalcy-american-politics

[Crafty_Dog]

That was deep.

[ccp]

Yup.   Colin Powell “watched” Barack and decided he was transformative and voted for him.   He did not live to see the results of this transformation.   
 
No leftist historian will give Obama his just due along the lines of this piece.

They keep telling how he belongs up there with greatest presidents of all time . And if you don’t agree you are:  ****st!