| | | |
By Michael Barone
October 11, 2008
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.
That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign emails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Kurtz had been researching Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago -- papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.
Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest emails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.
Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Obama's ties to Ayers.
These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.
To their credit, some liberal old-timers -- like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey -- voted against the "fairness doctrine," in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the "fairness doctrine" to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities.
Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Website and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.
Then there's the Democrats' "card check" legislation, which would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions' strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees' homes -- we know where you live -- and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard.
Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.
Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that used to pride themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.
Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech that they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims that this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.
Neville's Note:-It's actually already happening...consider this from Michelle Malkin at michellemalkin.com
Operation Destroy Joe the Plumber
By Michelle Malkin
October 17, 2008
My syndicated column today reports on Team Obama and the Obamedia's mission to tear down Joe the Plumber. Yes, we are in the midst of a new contagion: Joe The Plumber Derangement Syndrome. JTPDS.
Now, pay close attention to how the MSM rushes to uncover every last bit of gossip and dirt about Joe Wurzelbacher's life. Some of it is relevant to the public policy questions he posed to Obama. Much of it is not. Danny Glover notes the behemoth double standards of the media mavens who call it journalism when they investigate, but consider it "stalking" when those of us on the Right perform the same tasks on Democrat poster families:
"The impulse to learn more about Wurzelbacher is perfectly normal. Readers and viewers are no doubt want to know more about the man now that he is all over the news. I know I do. And speaking as a journalist, let me add that reporters should be curious enough to do some basic background research.
But why is it that political reporters only get curious when a conservative Joe America storms onto the scene? Why aren't they just as curious when liberals trot out, say, a 12-year-old boy to give a national radio address?
It has been almost a year to the day since journalists dropped the ball on telling America more about Graeme Frost, the boy who made the case for sinking billions of dollars more into the State Children's Health Insurance Program. But when Michelle Malkin and other curious conservative bloggers did the legwork the press wouldn't, they earned the scorn of their mainstream colleagues.
This time around, with Joe The Plumber as their target, the MSM is coming out with guns blazing. Maybe they should spend more time telling the bigger story about Wurzelbacher - that he managed to get Obama on the public record as favoring a socialistic redistribution of wealth.
As I note below, there's also a feeding frenzy over Wurzelbacher's tax lien. Patterico wonders where the media hounds are on the story of Obama's treasurer's tax liens. Bet you hadn't heard about that. Bet you never will again.
Here's the NYTimes' latest on Joe vs. Team Obama. Count how many sentences are devoted to Obama's wealth redistribution remarks and how long it takes before they mention them.
No, they don't get it.
The Left declares war on Joe the Plumber
by Michelle Malkin
Six-term Sen. Joe Biden's got some nerve going after citizen Joe the Plumber. But the entrenched politician from Delaware, who fancies himself the nation's number one Ordinary Joe, had no choice. Obama-Biden simply can't tolerate an outspoken citizen successfully painting the Democratic ticket as socialist overlords. And so a dirty, desperate war against Joe Wurzelbacher is on.
The Left's political plumbers are attacking the messenger, rummaging through his personal life, and predictably wielding the race card once again. It's standard operating procedure for the Obama thug machine.
Wurzelbacher, in case you've been in hibernation, is the small businessman from Ohio who questioned Obama this weekend about his tax plan during a Toledo campaign swing. The revealing exchange was caught on tape and broadcast widely across the Internet and TV airwaves. In response to Joe's question about why he should be "taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream," Obama sermonized that Wurzelbacher needed to "spread the wealth around" because "it's good for everybody."
John McCain flung that chilling Marxist mantra back in Obama's face during Wednesday night's presidential debate and repeatedly cited Joe the Plumber's plight. Obama squirmed. The dirt-diggers started Googling. And the next morning, six-term Sen. Biden launched the first salvo against the Ohio entrepreneur on NBC's Today Show, challenging the veracity of his story: "I don't have any 'Joe the Plumbers' in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year."
Under an Obama-Biden administration, they'll make sure no Joe The Plumbers ever earn such a salary. "It's good for everybody," don't you know?
Biden, as is so often the case, twisted the facts about Wurzelbacher. No surprise there. Slick Joe is the one who tells fables about visiting a diner in Delaware that hasn't been open in years; spins yarns about getting "forced down" in a helicopter over Afghanistan because of perilous conditions that turned out to be weather-related, not al Qaeda-related; and continues to slander the family of the man involved in his wife and daughter's fatal car accident (crash investigators cleared the now-deceased driver of drunk-driving, despite Biden's insinuations). But I digress.
Wurzelbacher never claimed to be making $250,000 a year. He told Obama that he might be "getting ready to buy a company that makes about $250,000, $270,000? a year. His simple point was that Obama's punitive tax proposals would make it more difficult to realize his dream.
Obama's followers couldn't handle the incontrovertible truth. Left-wing blogs immediately went to work, blaring headlines like "Not A Real $250k Plumber!" Next, they falsely accused Wurzelbacher of not being registered to vote (he's registered in Lucas County, Ohio, and voted as a Republican in this year's primary).
Next, they called him a liar for identifying himself as undecided. Only registered Democrats and fake Republican tools used in mainstream media stories and YouTube debates are allowed to use that label, you see.
Next, award-winning liberal blogger Joshua Marshall cast Wurzelbacher as some kind of rabid freak for calling Social Security a "joke" - as if no working-class Americans could believe that the federal government's entitlement programs were a rip-off unless they were bought and paid for by the McCain campaign.
Then, suddenly, the journalists who wouldn't lift a finger to investigate Barack Obama's longtime relationships with Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright sprang into action rifling through citizen Joe Wurzelbacher's tax records. Politico.com reported breathlessly: "Samuel J. Wurzelbacher has a lien placed against him to the tune of $1,182.92. The lien is dated from January of '07." Press outlets probed his divorce records. The local plumbers' union, which has endorsed Obama, claimed he didn't do their required apprenticeship work and didn't have a license to work outside his local township.
After Wurzelbacher told Katie Couric that Obama's rhetorical tap dance was "almost as good as Sammy Davis, Jr.," the inevitable cries of "bigotry" followed. (There are now tens of thousands of hits on the Internet for "Joe the Plumber racist.")
Welcome to Joe the Plumber Derangement Syndrome. If you can't beat him, smear him. It's the Obama way.
By Thomas G. Del Beccaro
Posted May 20, 2008
The American system of Government, with its checks and balances, tends to restrict wide policy swings from one Presidency to the next. Over the broad spectrum of American history, the differences of the parties have not always been very pronounced.
Consider the Nixon years when social welfare spending jumped from just over 6% of the economy to over 10% largely at the behest of Republican Nixon. Such occurrences have fostered the words Demopublicans and Republocrats. Contrast that with the British system of Government which has produced broader policy swings when the Labour Party and the Conservative Party change roles.
A Barack Obama victory, however, will likely usher in a stark difference between the parties not unlike the election of Roosevelt in 1932 and Reagan in 1980. Very serious policy implications are likely to follow in just the first two years as the Democrats seek to capitalize on their new found power.
Those are some of the lowlights of just the first two years in office for Obama.
- The House/Senate - Legislation. An Obama victory more than likely means that the Democrats will pick up 10 to 15 or more seats in the House and 3-4 in the Senate. The recent special election losses of House seats and a North Carolina Senate poll showing the incumbent Elizabeth Dole in a tight race forewarns of such an outcome.
- Knowing that their own poll numbers are low - all the while understanding that the first two years of a Presidency are the most productive and that time may not be on their side, the new Democrat President and Congress will likely move quickly to push their agenda. Look for an ambitious legislative agenda with "progressive" legislation on health care, i.e. a huge leap toward nationalized health care, many labor friendly bills including a possible shortened work week, the elimination of secret ballots for union elections/formation, and more (as the Unions cash in after spending a projected $1 billion this fall on behalf of the Dems) as well as the tax increases referenced below - all in the first 100 days.
- The only risk to such an agenda will be the fact that Obama has no management, appointment or policy experience - as a result, he may be slow getting out of the box and run into trouble with his appointments. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, however, will be ready with their agenda and may well have an exaggerated influence on policy the first year.
- The Judicial Implications. In the first 2 years of an Obama term, Ruth Bader Ginsberg (75 years old) and John Paul Stevens (88) will unquestionably resign from the Supreme Court to permit a flush Democrat Congress to appoint like-minded activist judges to tenures likely to last 25 years or more. Justice Breyer (70) and/or Souter (68) may well follow suit, if not in the first two years, before the next election to ensure that a Democrat replaces them - remember Breyer openly professes a belief for an activist judiciary and probably won't want to risk another 8 year Republican Presidency. Justice Kennedy, now 72, may well have to resign during the 4 year term making it possible that a clear 5 – 4 majority for a liberal court could be ushered in for the next 25 years. That is not hyperbole, it is a distinct possibility.
- The High Tax Implications. Obama has promised to “go after the wealthy” as if they are big game to be hunted down. In advance of his swearing in, look for a spate of capital gains sales in late 2008 as investors seek to cash in gains at the 2008 rate of 15% - actually pushing up 2008 tax receipts. Thereafter, Obama will raise the capital gains rate to at least 28% and perhaps higher because Pelosi and the Democrat leadership do not believe that the "rich" should be taxed at a lower rate than the working class (and receipts will fall considerably in 2009 and 2010). Obama will also hike the income tax rates to as high as 52% with the help of the new House and Senate Democrats. Look for 2010 tax receipts from income taxes to fall considerably as well. Income tax receipts for corporations, already falling due to a weak economy brought on by the 2nd highest tax burden in US history, will continue to fall because Obama and the Dems will continue to pile on new taxes and more regulations on corporations.
- The Weak Economy Implications. The US economy is weak principally because we have the 2nd highest overall tax burden in our history. When the tax burden is that high, economies face real trouble and can be tipped into recession rather easily. The housing problems are just that type of straw that weakened the back of the current US economy.
- Obama’s tax hike will put the economy over the edge and we will face significant stagflation (low growth turning to a significant recession and rising Consumer Prices) in 2009 and 2010.
- Consumer prices will continue to rise, as they did under Carter, because Obama and the Democrats will push a pliable Fed to continue its current easy money policies at the same time that oil prices will continue to increase (oil prices will continue to rise because of demand from China and India, Middle East instability (see below), new taxes on oil companies that will be passed by the Democrats seeking to punish companies that "send jobs overseas" as well as tighter regulations).
- In the meantime, the supply/output side of the economy will be choked off because of the tax hikes and the inevitable spate of new regulations which the Obama administration will put into place. Keep in mind that Obama recently said that ""We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. Actually, foriegn countries have no say in whether we do that unless we give them that say. Obama's comment is a strong indication that he will - so watch for a Kyoto like treaties whereby America hands over part of its sovereignty to international watchdogs that will regulate our economic life. The sum result of those regulation will be to drive up consumer prices because our output will fall as a result of higher costs. Such treaties/regulations will harm our economy for years upon years.
- Outsourcing will actually rise, not fall, contrary to Obama's promise to stop jobs from going overseas, because his added regulations and corporate taxes will push up the cost of doing business in America and companies will respond by reducing their American presence even further.
- The housing market and the stock market will not post significant gains as rising interest rates push up money market returns and investors seek guaranteed returns from financial institutions and tax free municipal/government bonds (as opposed to risking their capital in a weak economy with high tax rates) – a dynamic which will further weaken the economy. It used to be that investors jumped into the stock market when Dems were elected because of their easy money policies - but the foregoing will reduce that impulse.
- The deficit will rise as the economy continues to weaken and spending explodes under the Democrat Congress that is responsive to a good portion of the over $1 trillion of new spending offered by Obama so far - that dynamic will give rise to calls for more tax hikes.
- The coffers of state governments will suffer because of the weak economy. Since states can't print money, those that honestly comply with their balanced budget laws will undergo difficult budget battles.
- Immigration Policy Implications. There can be no question that Pelosi will push for an "amnesty bill" in the first 100 days that will go farther than the worst bill that was rejected in the past.
- The Foreign Policy Implications. Uncertainty will set in many hot-spots around the world and a challenge to the new Administration can be expected – much like many new administrations have been tested.
- Obama’s Palestinian sympathies will play out in veiled ways and Hamas and Hezbollah will be emboldened in their overt and covert war against the very existence of Israel. Lebanon will likely suffer the most immediate, negative affect as Hezbollah moves quickly to consolidate its hold over that Country. That "Fall of Lebanon" will mean that Iran ( Hezbollah's supplier) will have a "border" with Israel and Syria will have an even larger border.
- Iran’s bellicose policies will rise, at least in the short term, as a test to see if the Obama administration has any resolve. If Obama is foolish enough to have direct talks with Iran, look for Iran to use it as a theatre for denouncing recent American efforts in the Middle East/Iraq and pronouncing that the Fall of Lebanon was a repudiation of American Middle East policy that favored democratic movements. The end results of the talks, wherein American was scolded and Iran given an equal stage, will be to make America look weak and not to be feared - not unlike the Kennedy/Khrushchev meeting of 1961 which emboldened Krushchev and a year later we had the Cuban Missile Crisis. If Obama is smart, he will listen to his advisors who tell him not to speak to Iran in the wake of the Fall of Lebanon and use Iran's participation in that Fall as an excuse to break with his campaign promise.
- In general, Middle East tensions will rise, not fall, leading to even higher oil prices. Obama also may be tested immediately in Afghanistan or Iraq but it is more likely that our enemies in those theatres will wait to see if Obama keeps good on his withdrawal promise. If Obama does, al Qaida and the Taliban will likely wait to escalate their terror until the US has made significant withdrawals. Russia will take advantage of escalating problems elsewhere to solidify its anti-Democratic trends and control over some of its neighbors.
- Look for Hugo Chavez of Venezuela to escalate his not-so-covert war with Colombia as the Middle East tensions rise and US attention is drawn to that region. Finally, look for China to assert itself vis-à-vis Taiwan amidst all of these challenges to the US around the World.
- Last but not least, look for the US to defer to the UN, if not in practice, perhaps legally as Obama commits the US to act in some way subject to UN oversight.
What happens the next two years all depends.
Not unlike Carternomics in 1980, Obamanomics will leave America worse off. It should be ovbious by then that "in that crisis, government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem." So, the fate of the Republican Party and the prospects of America will depend on whether the Republicans in Congress get that in earnest.
They can begin to prove that understanding by all voting against the Obama/Pelosi tax increases in unison as they did in the early ‘90s when Clinton sought to raise taxes. They must also vote against the spending and regulations referenced above.
If they do so, the Republicans will have a chance to take back the Congress - IF . . . if they learn once and for all that voters want a clear and bold agenda (a) which separates the parties in clear and very obvious ways, (b) which significantly lowers tax rates, and (c) which aggressively reforms and streamlines government thereby saving taxpayers real money and providing better solutions to the problems Americans face.
In sum, Republicans must become the party that truly fosters the conditions by which people, not government, can succeed.
If Republicans don’t, then the next 2 years could be even worse.
Neville's note We thought we would add this from Stephen Baldwin
WHAT VOTERS NEED TO KNOW
Written by Steve Baldwin
Friday, 10 October 2008
Here is what American voters need to know.
The following information has been completed on my own time and not on behalf of any group or organization. It is based upon my own research and uses contacts I have in all branches of the US government, conversations with think tank leaders, policy experts, election law attorneys, sources within the McCain campaign, and top political consultants.
Obama belonged to a Socialist Party. New Information has come out confirming that Obama was a member of a radical socialist political party in Chicago called the "New Party," composed of former Black Panther members. Several documents have confirmed Obama's membership as recently as 1996. Obama's supporters have attempted to "scrub" websites clean of this information but fortunately, researchers made copies of it before it disappeared. So far, the media is refusing to cover this story.
Obama continues to hide his past. Obama has continued to block reporters from gaining access to any and all medical, school, and even legislative records from his state senate days. The media should be screaming about this but they are not. This makes Obama the least known presidential candidate in perhaps American history. All of McCain's records have been made available.
The only thing we do know about Obama's time at Columbia University is that the title of his thesis was "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament" but he will not release it. I wonder why.
Michelle Obama has written a racist thesis. Access to Michelle Obama's senior thesis at Princeton was also blocked until recent effort by researchers to gain access to it. I can understand now why access was initially blocked.
In her thesis, Michelle identifies herself as a black separatist and is clearly hostile to the notion of blacks integrating into the larger society with all the evil whites. This is Farrakhan type racism that could have easily been written by a Klansman from a white perspective.
Do you think if Cindy McCain had written a thesis about white separatism, it would be news?
Illegal foreign contributions are pouring into Obama's campaign at an unprecedented rate. Analysis of Obama's disclosures reveal he has received around $32 million dollars from overseas, much of it from the Middle East. There are 11,500 foreign donations. 520 of the donors list their country as "IR" which is Iran. He received millions from "Palestinians" and others hostile to US policy. Such contributions are illegal and the Republican Party has asked the FEC to investigate.
Even more alarming is that $190 million of his contributions are unidentified. The donor is not listed. Many donors are clearly using fake names such as "Good, Will." The problem is that the FEC has no power to freeze Obama's campaign or even stop him from continuing to receive foreign money.
All that will happen is that Obama will be fined AFTER the campaign is over. With 10% of Obama's money coming from overseas, this means that for the first time in American history, foreigners will influence the outcome of a presidential election.
Anti-American dictators are praising Obama. Just about every anti-American dictator in the world has issued words of praise for Obama: Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro, North Korean ruler, Kim Jong-il, Venezuelan strongman, Hugo Chavez, Libyan dictator, Moammar Qadhafi, and so forth.
Never before in American history have so many enemies of America praised a candidate for the presidency. Not only that, but an array of communist and socialist parties both here and abroad have praised him. Even terrorist groups such as the pro-Al Qaeda HAMAS and the Columbian terrorist group (and heroin producing) FARC have praised him.
And what did Obama promise in return? Such praise and endorsements do not come casually. This means that people representing Obama must have met with these groups and leaders and have promised changes in US policy favorable to them.
Obama's extremist friends go into hiding. The Obama campaign is frantically covering up all Obama's socialist and Marxist connections by keeping his wacko friends away from the press. They just need to keep Americans in the dark for one more month! Moreover, documents that show Obama's work with extremist groups are disappearing. But I don't hear our crack reporters yelling "censorship!"
Forced union dues used for Obama. The unions are gearing up for the largest campaign mobilization in US history. We now know that they have allocated over $100 million dollars of forced union dues to a massive independent effort attacking McCain and supporting Obama. On election day, hundreds of thousands of union workers will mysteriously call in sick and will work on getting the vote out for Obama.
Polls are showing some discouraging trends. They show that people are blaming the fiscal crisis upon the Republicans, even though Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by Democrats and banks were forced by Democrats to make high risk loans to low income people all in the name of "equality" and "compassion".
Indeed, it was Obama's group, ACORN, who played a key role years ago in pressuring these agencies to implement such policies. Three of the key architects of this policy are now involved with Obama's campaign. Moreover, McCain is the one who authored sweeping legislation to reform all of this and it was blocked by the Democrats.
Americans don't know who controlled Congress the last two years. Polls also show that most Americans do not know that the Democrats took power in late 2006 and thus had oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; nor do they know that the Democrats shut down every inquiry into these rogue agencies and ignored every sign of trouble.
Nor do Americans realize that right after the Democrats took control, the economy went south. Except for the foreign policy arena which the Constitution explicitly grants power to the presidency, Bush has been a lame duck for two years in all other policy areas.
Indeed, every economic indicator plunged downward AFTER the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 - inflation, unemployment, job creation, etc, and yet, a misinformed public is blaming Bush, and by extension, McCain for the economy and sadly will be voting based upon ignorance of basic facts.
McCain is not Bush. Most Americans also do not know that McCain fought Bush on Iraq strategy, earmarks, spending, tax policy, education policy, homeland security issues, etc, etc, and that he is by far the most independent member of Congress while Obama never crossed the aisle and was just an isolated far left senator.
It is now clear that we are paying a price for the vulgarization of American culture. We have polls showing many Americans get their "news" from Saturday Night Live, John Stewart, David Letterman, Jay Leno, and even from incoherent ramblings by such popular cultural figures as Alex Baldwin, Whoopi Goldberg, and so on.
Americans engage in less serious reading and far more in entertaining themselves than any previous generation of Americans. This is truly sad and will cost our country in ways we can't even predict.
Obama has hordes of attorneys ready to challenge votes. We now know that the Obama campaign has around 10,000 lawyers volunteering to work on election monitoring. As the Kerry campaign had four years ago, there will once again be an effort to decertify absentee ballots sent in abroad from military personnel, based on petty mistakes often made with such ballots.
Thousands of military personnel were disenfranchised four years ago and since they usually vote Republican, the Obama campaign will repeat this effort.
Obama is registering thousands of illegal aliens. While the Obama campaign works hard to disenfranchise the men and women fighting to protect us from terrorism, at the same time they're working feverishly to register illegal aliens, felons, and the homeless by the hundreds of thousands.
Video clips have already appeared on You Tube showing the Obama campaign registering illiterate homeless people. Most states do not ask for proof of citizenship to register to vote, so hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens will be voting for Obama.
The group that has specialized in registering illegal aliens for a decade is, in fact, Obama's former "community service" group -- ACORN. While ACORN has been in legal trouble repeatedly for this work, the Obama campaign has contracted them out do to "voter registration." Wink, wink.
Lots of felons will be voting. Not by coincidence, democrat governors and democrat legislators are granting felons the right to vote. Just last week, the Virginian Democrat governor gave thousands of felons the right to vote. Remember, crime pays! The Governor claims this action has nothing to do with the coming election. Right.
Democrats are already disqualifying ballots in Ohio. In Ohio, the Democrat Secretary of State is already disqualifying thousands of Republican absentee ballots, claiming they didn't check some obscure box on the absentee forms. The GOP is filing suit here. But expect Republican ballots to be challenged all over the country by the legions of left wing trial attorneys who are volunteering their time to help steal the election just in case it's close.
Taxpayers groups are being ignored by the media. There are four major taxpayer groups in Washington DC that monitor taxation and spending issues full time. All have now rated Obama as one of the worst senators on tax, spending and pork issues, while also rating McCain as one of the best senators on these issues. All have issued press releases but the media has purposely ignored this story.
Obama supports gay marriage. Recently, both Obama and Biden have made false statements about opposing gay marriage. They know the vast majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, but in both private messages and private speeches, the Obama campaign has informed the homosexual community that they favor repealing DOMA.
DOMA is a federal law that if repealed, means all states will have to recognize married homosexuals who move there from states which have already legalized homosexual marriage - like Massachusetts and California. It's a back door way of legalizing gay marriage nationwide and it's why all the radical gay groups have mobilized for Obama unlike any other candidate before.
With the exception of Fox News, none of the above mentioned developments is being covered by the major media in any meaningful way. All have been given this information. We all know, however, that if McCain took millions of dollars from Middle Easterners, was praised by a half dozen foreign dictators, and hid all his medical and school records, there would be huge stories on TV, radio and the newspapers for weeks on end.
The media is protecting this candidate to a degree never before seen in presidential campaign history.
Predictions if Obama Becomes President
I have been asked for my predictions of what will happen if Obama were to win the presidency and take solid control of both houses. Put your seatbelt on:
Jobs will leave America and job creation will decline. The capitol markets are starved for cash due to the credit crisis. What is needed more than anything right now is tax cuts for corporations so they can survive the coming recession. This is the worst possible time to raise corporate taxes as Obama is proposing.
Our corporate tax hikes are already among the highest in the industrialized world and this was killing us BEFORE the fiscal crisis. But Obama doesn't understand how the economy works. He views corporations as a source of funding for his social programs. Period.
If he goes through with his corporate tax hike, look for corporations to 1) Outsource jobs overseas 2) Move the entire corporate headquarters overseas, 3) Delay expansion plans, 4) Lay off workers.
Obama's proposal for a government takeover of health care insurance will send the stock market plunging in regards to health care plans, due to the instability such a proposal would create. Obama's plan will drive private plans out of existence, eventually taking over the entire health care market. Also, as in Canada and other nations with "universal" health care, the good doctors leave the profession, creating a shortage, and waiting lists will be instituted for most procedures.
The doubling of capital gains taxes will bring job creation to a grinding halt. There aren't many economists who argue with this point. But Obama doesn't seem to understand this. If this goes through, look also for the unemployment rate to rise.
There will be a flurry of lawsuits against private Christian schools, churches, etc. on the gay issues, all due to the legalization of gay marriage which creates a legal framework for a full frontal assault on American culture.
With the Obama administration using its power to promote homosexual marriage, gay attorneys will work in tandem with Obama's justice department to chip away at religious freedom, claiming gay rights now trump constitutional rights. Lawsuits will be aimed at forcing private Christian schools to admit gay teachers and to teach gay sex alongside heterosexual sex in sex ed courses.
Similarly, churches that refuse to marry gay couples will be the subjects of lawsuits as well. Indeed, gay legal groups are already laying plans for the final assault on what's left of America's Judeo-Christian culture.
Union power will have a negative impact on the economy. Obama has promised the unions he will remove the secret ballot which means unions will be able to intimidate workers as they did in the 1950s. This means more power, more money, and more demands on industry. This also means more corporations moving offshore or filing for bankruptcy.
The cumulative impact of higher corporate taxes, higher capital gains taxes, and stronger unions - on top of a severe fiscal crisis -- means America will likely have a recession lasting 3-4 years.
Criticism of Obama's agenda will be suppressed. Similarly to the Clinton administration, Obama will use the power of the government to harass opponents with IRS audits. He will also suppress criticism of his agenda by passing the "Fairness Doctrine" which will cause radio stations to remove talk shows. The talk show industry is already preparing for the assault. This is not a joke.
Illegal alien rights will be federalized. Obama has spent much of his career fighting for the "rights" of illegal aliens. There is little doubt he will use his Justice Department to fight for these "rights" which in turn will attract millions of additional illegal aliens. What little gains made in the last few years in fighting for a more secure border will be lost.
The reemergence of bogus race-based rights. Obama believes in wild racial conspiracy theories such as quotas for police arrests and pull overs, reparations for blacks based on the notion all whites are guilty of perpetrating slavery in the past, and that lending agencies based their lending policies on race instead of credit risk.
Indeed, it was the last issue used by Obama's group, ACORN, to fight for high risk lending policies which caused the mortgage crisis we have today.
This worldview will mean that Obama's Justice Department to spend its resources on charging businessmen with racism for not hiring enough minorities, spending millions on federal studies "proving" racism in law enforcement, and going after universities for not implementing race-based admission plans.
Internal Security will be weakened resulting in America becoming more vulnerable to terrorism. Obama has been critical of our internal security apparatus, including the program that monitors the phone calls of foreign terrorists and other elements of the Patriot Act. What most Americans don't know is that Bush's aggressiveness on internal security prevented dozens of terrorist plots, many of which the public never knew about.
Obama's close ties to ACLU type attorneys make it likely that he will weaken internal security measures such as the Patriot Act. This will send an "open season" message to Islamic terrorists.
Just this week, a court has ruled that we must release terrorist prisoners from Guantanamo and grant them all the rights US citizens have. Obama supported this decision. Then we have Obama declaring in his own book (Audacity of Hope), "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
Gas prices will rise. Obama's hostility to drilling and nuclear power means he will rely totally on "alternative" forms of energy to meet our energy needs but there isn't an energy expert alive who will claim this will enable us to meet our energy needs anytime in the next few decades. Coupled with Obama's proposal to increase taxes on an already over-taxed oil industry - which will be passed on to consumers - you can expect to pay steep prices for gas for many years to come.
Welcome to Obama's America.
Steve Baldwin is Executive Director of the Council for National Policy.
By The Wall Street Hournal
October 17, 2008
If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.
The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.
- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.
Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.
The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.
- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.
The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.
- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.
The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.
- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.
- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.
- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.
Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.
- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.
It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.
In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.