Meghan McCain: Another Liberal in Conservative Clothing

A relatively new name has jumped onto the scene, Meghan McCain, She is the daughter of the venerable John McCain who took a left turn somewhere in the last 20 years. Meghan defines herself in a paradoxical manner labeling herself a "Social Liberal Republican." This label is full of contradictions as is her stance on many subjects. She has been given a syndicated radio program to exhort her liberal views disguised as conservative conversation. Further, she has been hired by Fox as a contributor. Nepotism can carry someone so far, the rest is up to the individual. Coming from a wealthy family she is detached from the reality of the working class as her conversations display. Worse her liberal views on immigration and homosexual marriage stand antithetically to the media outlets that engaged her. Sadly I listened to her program several times and found her rambling comments mindful of the town fool. Perhaps Fox should have reviewed her background before hiring the Senator's daughter.

America’s Dilemma: Terrorism at home versus the high moral ground

A young pilot was flying a mission over enemy territory long ago and far away when defense forces badly damaged his plane, forcing him to eject. The ejection was violent, breaking both arms and one leg, and the young pilot landed in water, nearly drowning before enemy soldiers found him, dragged him ashore, crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt, stabbed him with a bayonet, and then hauled him away for interrogation. Badly injured, he was given no medical aid, but instead was put through brutal questioning sessions during which he was beaten.

He spent six weeks in a hospital where he received marginal medical treatment before being sent to another military camp. In a chest cast and being badly emaciated, he was expected not to last a week.

His condition improved slowly as time passed. But while he was ill with dysentery he was again subjected to interrogation and torture that included rope bindings and beatings every two hours, punishment so severe that he tried to kill himself to escape the brutal treatment. Eventually, he reached his breaking point, and cooperated with his captors.

A second story of actual treatment of an enemy involved the capture, interrogation and detainment in military custody that lasted several years. During this time the captive was subjected to sleep deprivation for a period of more than seven days, rectal hydration, forced standing for prolonged periods, and was water boarded five times. Eventually, the captive’s will also broke, and he cooperated with his captors.

While the treatment in the second example would certainly be unpleasant, it is less severe than the experience of the pilot in the first example, inasmuch as the captive’s life was never in danger. Some Americans, however, believe the two equally represent torture.

The pilot in the first example was now-Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., and he was shot down over Viet Nam, captured and tortured by the Viet Cong.

The person in the second example was Khalid Sheik Mohammad, the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, DC, and a foiled attempt likely aimed at the U.S. Capitol building or the White House, claiming the lives of nearly 3,000 innocent people.

Torture is the action of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, and has been practiced through the ages, and has included the most brutal treatment imaginable.

In interrogation sessions, some techniques are clearly torture, and some techniques are clearly not torture. Somewhere in the middle of these extremes, strong interrogation crosses the thin and fuzzy line into torture. Where that point is seems to be a matter of personal preference.

Having released a controversial partisan report on the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques, the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee charges that the CIA’s techniques constitute torture.

The CIA vigorously disputes the Democrat leadership’s report, saying the methods were thoroughly analyzed and approved by legal consultants prior to their implementation, and that Congressional leaders were briefed on them and accepted the program. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., is said to have encouraged the program.

The United States does indeed profess and uphold high-minded ideals, and most Americans oppose torture. And through this $40 million report and comments by individual senators, we are told that torture is always and forever wrong.

But is there never a circumstance where torture is justified?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., thinks not. “In the wake of 9/11, we were desperate to bring those responsible for the brutal attacks to justice. But even that urgency did not justify torture,” states the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “The United States must be held to a higher standard than our enemies, yet some of our actions did not clear that bar.”

We learn that al Qaeda has placed a suitcase nuke in a major city set to detonate in a few hours. We have captured a member of the group and Sen. Feinstein questions him. He refuses to tell where the bomb is. “Okay. Thank you. Have a nice day,” she says. “After all, we are a people of principle and high morals, and won’t stoop to forceful interrogation.”

Who and how many American lives have to be at risk before those like Sen. Feinstein, clinging to the high moral ground, resort to forceful interrogation methods to save lives? Her spouse? Her hometown? Her Capital office? Or would she sacrifice American lives just to maintain the idealistic moral high ground?

You do not have to support routine use of torture to believe that in extreme cases, torture is acceptable. Many Americans believe nothing is too awful to use on an enemy in order to save lives.

So the issue is not that the United States can never use techniques generally agreed to be torture against enemies, but instead to clarify under what circumstances the United States will use those techniques, and how those decisions will be made?

Routine or indiscriminate torture is wrong. Any method used against knowledgeable enemies to save lives must be encouraged. Foolishly clinging to the high moral ground will get Americans needlessly killed.

The Republican Party is NOT too Conservative and Democrats are NOT Moderate

Cross posted from The Lonely Conservative

If I hear one more time that the Republican Party's problems stem from being too conservative and that the Democrat Party is the moderate party I might scream, or throw up, or throw something. Who are these people trying to fool? Do they remember the tea parties that occurred two weeks ago? Imagine the turnout if conservatives didn't have jobs? Good God! They've all lost their minds.

Harry Reid, Shepard Smith, Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham, Meghan McCain - They are all living in some other universe. Or at least another continent. Let's see....hmmm....how about Europe?! If republicans are going to act like democrats - guess what? - we won't need them. They won't matter and unless a third party gains enough momentum - which I don't see happening in the near term - our republic will be completely destroyed.

Yet here we all are, arguing over whether the Republican Party threw Arlen Specter under the bus. How dare conservatives have the audacity to win primaries against republicans? I'll tell them, we've had enough of the RINO's who have destroyed the Republican Party. It's time to weed them out. They haven't stopped the democrats from ramming their agenda down our throats. Quite the contrary. Specter, Snowe and Collins stabbed their party in the back and voted for Porkulus. John McCain is partly responsible for his own loss in the presidential election thanks to McCain-Feingold. George Bush faced backlash from not only his base, but the majority of Americans, over amnesty.

So tell me, please, how on earth is the republican party too conservative? Are they too adherent to the Constitution? Nope! Have they been fiscally responsible? Nope! Oh yeah, some of them actually gave a hoot about keeping us safe. Don't worry, though, Barack Obama and his party will be sure to undo any strides they made in that arena. Were they against expanding the federal government? Hell no! They just expanded it less than democrats.

The republicans took a drubbing in the last two elections because they are too liberal. Was President Bush exalted for his bipartisanship when he worked with Teddy Kennedy to pass No Child Left Behind? Nope. Did he receive praise from AARP for providing seniors with prescription coverage? Nope. He was treated like a leper by democrats and republicans alike.

For those who say the Democrat Party is the party of moderates, I say you are uninformed. Nationalizing health care is not moderate. Robbing workers of the right to a secret ballot is not moderate. Publishing national security secrets for all of our enemies to see is not moderate. Taking over banks and auto companies is not moderate. Using taxpayer money to fund overseas abortions is not moderate. Taking away the right to have an attorney present during interrogations is not moderate. Calling those of us who oppose them "radical right wing extremists" is not moderate. Burdening American families and businesses with cap and trade taxes is not moderate.

Yet, Barack Obama ran as a moderate! He still uses "conservative" language when he reads his little speeches off of TOTUS. News flash: Some people believe what they hear. And for some people, that's all they need to hear and it won't be until they begin to actually feel the effects of Obama's disastrous policies until they begin to see the writing on the wall. The republicans need to oppose him and his party whenever possible. They need to speak up for what's right. They need to point out, over and over again, that his actions do not match his rhetoric. It is not fiscally responsible to spend us into oblivion. It is criminal to rob our children of their future prosperity.

Until members of the Republican Party can find a way to communicate a true conservative message to counter the fake conservative messages delivered by Barack Obama it doesn't matter how many Arlen Specters desert the party to save their own political skin.

Obama Administration Refuses Request for Help on the Border

Cross Posted from The Lonely Conservative

This is incredible, and really demonstrates a lot about President Obama’s priorities.

Mexican drug cartels have displaced the mafia as the “number one organized crime threat” in the United States, Sen. Joe Lieberman said Monday as his Senate committee heard testimony in Phoenix on border violence.

Lieberman, an independent Democrat from Connecticut, and Sen. John McCain, a Republican on Lieberman’s panel, told FOX News that the United States needs to step up the fight against the drug cartels. The two senators were in Arizona, McCain’s home state, to hear from local officials on their advice for dealing with the drug-fueled violence many fear is spilling across the border.

“This is literally a war,” said Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. “They’re fighting for the turf.”

Drug cartels, made up of illegal aliens, fighting for turf on American soil! And
what does the Obama administration do about it?

But Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the Department of Defense has effectively denied her request to send 250 additional National Guard troops to the Arizona-Mexico border to help authorities battle immigrant and drug smuggling and related violence.

The governor told Lieberman’s committee meeting Monday that she was disappointed with the denial of her request to bring the number of troops at her state’s southern boundary up to 400. One hundred fifty troops are already there as part of a long-standing border assistance program.

The Bush administration sent thousands of Guard troops to the border to perform support duties so that federal border authorities would be freed up to focus on border security. Bush’s buildup began in 2006 and ended last year.

We have a federal government that’s reaching it’s tentacles into almost every aspect of American life. They want to be everywhere and do everything, except for where they’re actually needed! In that case it looks like you’re on your own.

Suspending Disbelief

Cross posted from The Lonely Conservative

Taking in politcal news these days is like watching one of those dumb movies where preposterous events occur that would never happen in real life. Those movies are so annoying my husband and I will abandon the show rather than subject ourselves to further insults to our intelligence.

Unfortunately, the goings-on in Washington DC aren’t make believe and they effect not just our lives but also those of future generations. It’s too bad so few of our fellow Americans understand this. It’s not that millions of Americans woke up one day and decided “I want to be uninformed”. It’s just that liberalism has completely taken over and has become the new normal.

There’s a great piece up on Big Hollywood by Andrew Klavan - Why We Fight. He answers those on the right who seem to be giving up and giving in.

Look, the American media are in a bad way, a disastrous way. Movies, TV, literature–instead of illuminating vehicles for art and entertainment, they’ve become like the Matrix, replacing reality with a plausible leftist imitation. Journalists especially have so shamed themselves in their coverage of the last election–hounding Sarah Palin’s daughter and Joe the Plumber while all but ignoring Barack Obama’s ties to Illinois corruption, and his long and deep association with the racist anti-American Jeremiah Wright–that it’s going to take them years to recover. When people shame themselves that badly, they don’t admit it in a hurry. They savage their critics instead and continue their own shameful practices as a kind of defiant denial–anything rather than look in the mirror and confront what they’ve turned
themselves into.

So yeah, we’re on our own for now. But we’re not unarmed and
we’re in no way defeated. We have great politicians like Sarah Palin–who could well be president in not eight years but four–honest newsmen like Bret Baer and genius commentators like Rush–and Ann Coulter, who’s only about ten times smarter, funnier and more talented as a satirist than Jon Stewart or Bill
Maher will ever be. The left can’t out-argue these mind-warriors so they try to ridicule, disdain and isolate them, to make us feel ashamed that we admire and respect them. And they tell us they’re finished, washed-up. Why, just look, it must be true: it’s right there in the newspapers and on TV.

Mr. Klavan knows they’re liars. I know they’re liars and most of you reading this know they’re liars. My guess is that about 47 million Americans know they’re liars. Now we have to prove it.
But we won’t take back our country until we take back the Republican party. George Bush did a lot of good, but the constant verbal assault against the man seems to have taken its toll. He’s abandoned free market principles to avoid being labeled a Herbert Hoover. That’s understandable, but it appears he’s set us up for a complete socialist takeover of our country.

Other Republicans now seem to be embracing this new leftist mentality while the rest appear to be completely emasculated. A few, like Ron Paul, continue to speak out but to no avail. The best John Boehner could come up with today was “Oh my God.”

On a day the country’s experiencing colder weather than we’ve seen in a decade or more, Rep. Henry Waxman is pushing for climate change legislation to be passed by Memorial Day! Haven’t these people gotten the memo telling them we’re headed for an ice age?!? If their theory about carbon is correct, we need more, not less of it! Are there any Republicans left to stand up to this madness? Surely when the legislation makes it to the Senate we won’t be able to count on John McCain to speak for us.

Most Americans are putting our records in order to prepare our income taxes. At the same time, we learn that the man Barack Obama’s chosen to head the IRS “forgot” to pay taxes for four years, even though he received a tax allowance from the IMF and signed an acknowledgement that he would pay his taxes. It looks like the Democrats will give Mr. Geithner a pass because “we need him” to oversee the $825 billion stimulus package proposed by Madame Nancy Pelosi. If the dude can’t handle paying $34,000 in taxes, why should we trust him to oversee the biggest government giveaway in history? Yet we have Republicans telling us it’s okay, because Geithner’s really brilliant. Just look what he did for CitiBank!

If Barack Obama really had a sense of humor, when he finally settles on a dog for his family he will nominate that dog for a high position in the US government. There will be a few meek voices of protest and he will make a statement explaining the reason for appointing the dog. The dog’s confirmation hearings will be a smashing success, as he will undoubtedly make more sense than anything we’ve heard to date. The media will report how appointing the dog was really brilliant and non-partisan while ignoring the Hoovervilles popping up along Pennsylvania Avenue.

2008-What a long, strange year it's been

Cross Posted at The Lonely Conservative

Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals and moderates can all agree that 2008 was an interesting year, to say the least. Who would have thought the New York Football Giants would have bested the New England Patriots in the Superbowl? If you thought that would be the strangest thing to happen this year you don’t follow politics too closely.

2008 kicked off in the midst of the Presidential primary season. Democrats bickered over who cared more about the impoverished and who wanted our troops out of Iraq sooner. Republicans went back and forth, each claiming to be the most conservative, while Republican voters kept wondering how they could channel Ronald Reagan.

It was all but assumed that Hillary Clinton would be the nominee of the Democratic Party while the Republican field was wide open. Mike Huckabee did well with Christians and John McCain did well with Democrats and the New York Times. Some Romney supporters were screaming “It’s the economy stupid!” and “Never nominate the candidate endorsed by the New York Times!” but much to their chagrin, Charlie Crist spoke, John McCain became the Republican nominee and Rudy Giulianni’s Florida vacation came to an abrupt end.

In the mean time New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a hooker. Hillary Clinton was fighting for her life against Barack Obama and the Main Stream Media throughout the spring. She vowed to take things all the way to the convention, and who could blame her? She was going up against a rival who began his presidential campaign almost immediately after being elected to his first term as a US Senator. But just as John McCain was the media’s darling before going up against the New Messiah, Hillary and her supporters finally understood what conservatives have complained about for years. There is media bias! Poor Hillary couldn’t catch a break, and Bubba didn’t help. The media helped propel Barack Obama to the top of the Democratic ticket.

Gas prices soared over the summer while the Democrats and John McCain railed against the obscene profits of oil companies. Showing how little he knows about the economy, Barack Obama swore he would fund his goodies with a windfall profits tax on the evil oil companies. Republicans spent the summer wishing for a primary do-over.

The junior senator from Illinois travelled abroad over the summer where he announced we are all citizens of the world and under his leadership America will soon become a beautiful collectivist utopia. Thousands of German concert goers cheered The One while listening to a free rock concert and swilling beer.

John McCain kept a low profile until the end of August when he announced Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. The world was stunned while conservative rejoiced! Maybe John McCain did have a conservative bone in his body! They finally had something other than his heroic war record to cheer about. Conservatives found a reason to go to the polls in November and wouldn’t even have to be drunk to do so! John McCain actually pulled ahead of Barack Obama in the polls.

McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin was so brilliant that the left was enraged and the media went into a frenzy. Reporters and investigators were air-dropped into Palin’s home town of Wasilla, Alaska to dissect every aspect of the woman’s life. They spent more time digging into Sarah Palin’s past in a week than they did to Barack Obama in two years. Feminists loathed her for not aborting her baby when she learned the child would have Down’s Syndrome.

Yes, Sarah Palin was a conservative dream. A really middle class American who put her money where her mouth is and didn’t just talk the talk. Unfortunately for Palin, she had to go on television and defend John McCain’s record in her early interviews. That would be a hard, if not impossible task for any good conservative. The networks’ editing of her answers didn’t help either. But Sarah Palin didn’t let it stop her. She wasn’t there to please Washington’s elite media.

Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as a running mate really wasn’t a joke and the two went on the stump together. Gaffe after gaffe were ignored by the adoring media, while every aspect of Sarah Palin’s life was put under a microscope. Barack Obama’s “God D*mn America” pastor was ignored but it was reported that Sarah Palin speaks in tongues. Going to 57 US states was suddenly not impossible, yet a corruption-fighting, self-made governor with an 80% approval rating inexplicably became a liability.

The media’s love for their Chosen One grew deeper with each passing day. One famous commentator admitted on live television to a thrilling physical reaction when the debonnaire democrat spoke. This love affair was a sight to behold. William Shakespeare himself couldn’t have conjured up such complete devotion.

After the government rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the resulting failure of Lehman Brothers, John McCain failed to defend his and President Bush’s proven record of urging more oversight of Fannie and Freddie. Instead he blamed the whole mess on greed. Then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson appeared on TV to announce that if we the people didn’t immediately hand over nearly a trillion dollars to him that the economy would immediately collapse.

The strategy of manufactured crisis was coming to fruition right before our eyes and Republicans played right into their hands. President Bush suddenly befriended Democrats even though they persisted in calling him names. John McCain announced he was suspending his campaign until an economic rescue bill agreement could be reached in Washington. He called on Barack Obama to join him. Barack Obama and his staff had high fives all around in celebration of their upcoming victory.

Mr. McCain went to Washington and did…..absolutely nothing! He didn’t insist on an immediate reduction in capital gains taxes to keep capital flowing into the US economy. He didn’t insist on suspending mark to market accounting rules which would have eased the balance sheets of our financial institutions. Heavens no! Had he done that he may have appeared to be conservative. The maverick whose campaign theme was “I am not George W. Bush” went along with George W. Bush and sidekick Hank Paulson like a devoted puppy.

70% of the public was against the rescue plan, so naturally it passed with bipartisan support, save for a few lonely conservative republicans and moderate democrats. The economy immediately went into a tailspin and Americans watched their life savings disappear into thin air. John McCain continued to blast greed while Barack Obama’s poll numbers went up.

Barack Obama kept at it, blaming the economic crisis on the failed economic policies of the past eight years. He and the media forgot all about Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. The drum beat from the Democrats and the media played on and on. It was the Republican’s fault and so what if Fannie and Freddie gave more money to Obama and the Democrats than anyone else? So what if Democrats were complicit in the failure of the GSE’s or made statements that caused a bank to fail and the entire US insurance industry to take a one day stock loss of 30% and up. The public had no need to know that useless information. Heck, they didn’t even know that Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress since 2006.

Yes, it was a good year to be a Democrat. Had it been reported that Republicans failed to stop the Democrats, perhaps things would have turned out differently, but alas, it was not to be.

Then Mr. Obama showed up in the yard of Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher who had the nerve to ask him a question. The media and the left went after Joe the Plumber with a vengeance not seen since Sarah Palin hit the campaign trail. They had to work overtime in their attempts to destroy and discredit two conservatives at the same time. Even coastal conservative elites with ivy league degrees joined the chorus against Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. (Let’s hope those “conservatives” are enjoying the DC cocktail party circuit!)

How dare these two regular people show up and act all normal, middle class and conservative!? What happened to the big tent? The elites even turned on their own moderate maverick John McCain when he started pretending to be conservative. Granted, he was sending mixed messages, like calling Barack Obama a socialist and in the next breath promising to bailout delinquent homeowners. But hey, he was convinced by the media and Colin Powell that Americans only like liberals.

A few maverick reporters had the nerve to ask some tough questions of Obama and Biden. Let’s just say they learned their lesson. Newspaper journalists whose editors failed to endorse Barack Obama were kicked off his campaign plane. They learned their lesson, too. But Obama promised a new transparency in government. As expected, the media lapped it up.

Sarah Palin finally broke free of the McCain campaign’s bubble of suppression at the same time Joe Biden was put in the corner after one too many gaffes. There are only so many ”paying higher taxes is patriotic” statements a politician can make before the voters start to catch on.

Conservatives flocked to McCain rallies to see Sarah Palin. Despite McCain’s mixed messages it seemed there was hope for his campaign.
The stock market rallied just before the election, only to suffer deep losses after the results came in. Job losses in November soared higher than we’ve seen in a generation. Nobody can figure out what investors and business owners know that the media doesn’t.


Barack Hussein Obama will be sworn in as the next President of the United States. The world now knows what most conservatives believed all along, that America is not a hateful racist country that would never vote for a black man who is willing to throw family members and life long friends under the proverbial bus when it suits him. Gay Americans aren’t convinced we’re now a nice nation, but again, sometimes supporters have to be thrown under the bus in the name of unity and hopeandchange.

President elect Obama wasted no time in putting together his new team. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich also got busy trying to sell Obama’s senate seat to the highest bidder. So busy, in fact, that the poor fellow didn’t even have time to visit his barber. Democrats across the land stepped out of character to denounce a fellow Democrat caught up in scandal.

Americans were surprised again when Barack Obama announced he would appoint Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the next Secretary of State. They weren’t surprised that nobody’s concerned about former President Bill Clinton’s funny money dealings with foreigners. No, they were surprised at Caroline Kennedy’s unexpected desire to be appointed to Hillary’s senate seat. But hey, now that we’ve elected the most inexperienced candidate for President the sky’s the limit. So what if she hasn’t held a full time job, she’s a Kennedy!

We’ll have to wait and see how that plays out. The accidental governor of New York, David Paterson has bigger things to worry about. He’s presiding over an enormous budget deficit (unless you compare it to California) and wants to raise taxes on everything from iPods to malt liquor. He’s convinced that new and creative taxes will lure new business to New York State. He should just wait until Obama takes office and then stand in line with his hand out.

Bailouts continue with more to come in 2009. The Bush administration caved in to the UAW, oops…the auto companies, giving about $17 billion to GM and Chrysler to tide them over until the real Santa Claus comes to town in January. And it isn’t just the auto companies who can expect to be stimulated by the stimuli promised by our President elect. He promises to create 3 million jobs by taking money out of the private sector (aka - taxation) and “investing” it in technologies that aren’t profitable for the private sector. Let’s hope it works, since he also said he would bankrupt the coal industry. (Be sure to save your energy bills from 2008, just for the sake of nostalgia.)

Despite scientific evidence that solar activity causes our climate to change, Mr. Obama has promised to spend…oops again…invest billions of taxpayer dollars to combat man made global warming. This after the coldest fall we’ve seen in a number of years. But scientists be damned! Carbon is bad and we must stop it! We’ll have to figure out how to make plants grow without carbon at a later date, after we figure out how to pay for the trillions of dollars we need to spend eliminating carbon and ”saving” our economy.

Things aren’t all bad for conservatives. The surge in Iraq produced results beyond even Barack Obama’s wildest dreams. There are so few Republicans left conservatives no longer have to spend much time defending them. Gas prices are lower now than we’ve seen in years. (Enjoy it while it lasts as any hopes of increased domestic oil production are dashed.) And with any luck Joe Biden will receive enough media coverage to offer some comic relief for the next few years, we’re sure going to need it.

Happy New Year!

Should Colin Powell Endorse Obama?

Rumors are rampant that retired Gen. Colin Powell will announce his support for Sen. Barack Obama on"Meet the Press" tomorrow. Pundits speculate that Powell has a few scores to settle with the Bush administration. Some say revenge; some say remorse.

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol started the rumor back in early August when he wrongly predicted that Powell would endorse Obama at the Democratic National Convention. That didn’t happen.

Howard Fineman of Newsweek wrote Friday that he believes that “racial pride will have something to do with” a Powell endorsement for Obama. Although Powell is personally close to McCain, he has also advised Obama on foreign policy and defense issues.

According to Fineman, moderate Republican Powell has no use for neo-cons.

An endorsement of Obama would be an indirect but powerful way of expressing his resentments and regrets: refusing to support a fellow Republican who has very Bush-like ideas about how to make America more secure in a world of terror.

Yesterday Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post explained “Why the Powell Endorsement (Could) Matter”

Cillizza wrote that Powell has “made little secret of his admiration for the Illinois senator” but has not yet endorsed Obama. Powell’s endorsement of Obama would be the biggest feather in Obama’s cap. It would be the highest symbolic endorsement for several reasons.

According to Cillizza the number one reason is Powell’s revenge, or as Cillizza puts it in more nuanced terms, ‘Turnabout is Fair Play.”

The idea that a high-ranking cabinet official in a Republican administration would come out for the Democrat is simply too juicy a story for the media to ignore.

Cillizza gave three other reasons as to why a Powell endorsement would be great for Obama: (2) Powell is highly popular with a 76% favorability ranking among voters, according to an August Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll. (3) Powell is still smarting from the “blot” on his record for making the case for the invasion of Iraq in front of the U.N. (4) An endorsement of Obama would seal the undecided vote if Powell shows American voters that he believes that Obama is more trustworthy to lead the country than John McCain.

So according to Cillizza’s reckoning, two out of four reasons for Powell’s willingness to support Obama might be revenge-based motivations.

Today Tim Harper of The Toronto Star writes about Oliver Stone’s movie, “W”, and the portrayal of Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. Harper calls Powell a sell-out. Perhaps another Powell motivation to endorse Obama could be remorse? Addressing Powell’s role Harper writes:

. . .the movie reminds us – accurately – of the terrible sell-out this man became in the run-up to the war, questioning and challenging Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld behind closed doors, then meekly jumping aboard the war train in public. . .

In perhaps his best scene, Stone expertly mixes footage of Jeffrey Wright portraying Powell against the backdrop of real television footage as Powell blithely sells a pack of lies to the United Nations in 2003. . .

The appearance of revenge and remorse as motivations to endorse Obama cannot help Powell’s standing among American voters. If Powell endorses Obama, Powell’s image might suddenly tarnish.

Beth Shaw of RightPundits.com wrote that “It’s truly perplexing that a man like Colin Powell would find Obama’s politics anything he could support.” Shaw goes on to point out some of the differences in both men.

On the surface, there is nothing that is readily evident that would link the two men. Colin Powell is a warrior. Barack Obama is not. Powell worked his way through the R.O.T.C. in college to the highest positions in the nation that his military career could take him. He earned his positions through hard work and ability. Obama was selected, courted and groomed through Chicago politics and then onto the national political stage. Powell has honorably and courageously fought enemies of our nation and performed the most noble of duties, commanded men on the field of battle. Obama’s hair turned gray debating Hillary Clinton.

Shaw includes an interesting video interview of Colin Powell by Dianne Sawyer on April 10, 2008. Sawyer asked if Powell would endorse anyone, which he didn’t. Sawyer also asked Powell about Obama’s famous speech on race and the inflammatory comments of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Although Powell found the comments of Rev. Wright “deplorable” and “offensive,” Powell stated that Wright “also made enormous contributions in his community and has turned a lot of lives around.” Powell stated that he admired Obama for handling the issue well, and “he didn’t abandon the minister who brought him closer to his faith . . .”

Will Powell abandon the Republican party; the party that made him the first African-American Secretary of State? Tomorrow may tell us all if Powell applies these same standards to himself, if and when he makes an endorsement on “Meet the Press.”

See also "Will race or conscience drive Powell’s decision about Obama?"

Technorati Tags: Gen. Colin Powell,Colin Powell,Barack Obama,John McCain,Meet the Press,presidential endorsement,endorse,support,Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

African Press Speaks About Michelle Obama's Phone Call

African Press International recently claimed that Michelle Obama telephoned them and made various statements...statements that definitely caught America's attention. If you are not already aware of this story, my advice is, read the following first, and then read the first report that has caused such a firestorm.

The question has been, if Michelle actually did call API, did API record the call? The API article below, published October 17, 2008 (their time) tells us they do have a recording, and their hesitation has been the speculation of a lawsuit against them once the tape is released, as MO was not made aware that the conversation was being recorded. They say they are attempting to give MO time to "come clean" before the release, and they advise her to tell the "American people that she will not discriminate those who are not Obama fanatics if she becomes the first lady."

And...they state why the First-Lady-to-be-maybe, would call API in the first place.

The original API article is quite long, so here are the most compelling alleged quotes from MO, then the latest article:

African press International is supposed to support Africans and African-American view,” and she went to state that, “it is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband. There is no shame in being adopted by a step father. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband’s face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by His step father. The important thing here is where my husband’s heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that My husband loves this country and his adoption never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner; says Michelle Obama on telefon to API.

...many conservative white people and even some African Americans were against her husband, but that this group of blacks were simply doing so because of envy.

API claimed that she offered an inaugural invitation in exchange for a "good story."

As I said in my initial post, I do not know what is true and what isn't. We'll just have to wait and see.

African Press International
October 17, 2008 (no time stamp)

API is disturbed by the way many have reacted to the story on Mrs Obama’s call. Many have shown us by the way they have behaved towards API that they only think of their own interests because they have demanded that the audio recordings should be released immediately. We understand that the tapes should be released, but those who have demanded the release of the tapes seem not take into account that API may become a suing target.

The Recordings:

API has recordings of the conversation between API and Mrs Obama (Shocking development: Mrs Obama decides enough is enough: “My husband was born in Hawaii and adopted by his step father, does that make him unpatriotic; she asks”, on a direct telephone to API., and we confirm that the audio will be released to the public. In the last 24 hours, API has been consulting legal advisers on the way forward in order to avoid being sued by the Obama camp. API has realised that the contents of the tapes if made public may change the political atmosphere in America for ever, especially in the next few days.

Due to enormous reactions received, API now understands the impact of the statements made by Mrs Obama. The American people have reacted in a way we in API would never have expected.

Many have question why Mrs Obama would choose a little known online media group instead of the American media. API was chosen because of a Nairobi contact that did not like the way API was covering Barack Obama using information collected from American media outlets. The Nairobi contact prevailed upon Mrs Obama to talk to API.

The only thing API may have done wrong is not informing Mrs Obama that the conversation was being recorded. This is why it is taking time to release the recording while consulting a legal team because API wants to be legally safe from any Obama camp law suit.

The US Media Outlets:

Since the release of Mrs Obama story, many US media outlets have insisted that API should release the recordings made when Mrs Obama spoke with API. We understand the importance of the recordings in our possession and yet the first thing we are thinking of is not simply to make them public because groups are pressurising API to do so. The release of the information will be done, because we know we have Mrs Obama on tape, but API must do it in a way that does not put API in an embarrassing legal situation.

Die-hard Obama supporters:

A number of Americans who are die-hard Obama followers have tried their best to intimidate API using all kinds of threatening methods when they call in and when they email us. They are implying that API is planning to destroy Obama’s chances to become the next US President. API does not have a direct interest in the US Presidential elections and we want Obama supporters to understand that. However, when someone who may become the next first lady makes such comments as in the story we have published, the public have the right to know. Intimidation directed to the publishers of the story is not the answer.

The delay to make public the recordings is expected to give time to Mrs Obama to come clean and tell the American people that her comments were not meant to harm anyone, but that she was reacting to the media pressure on her husband. She should also come out and tell the American people that she will not discriminate those who are not Obama fanatics if she becomes the first lady.

There's more. Read it here.

Related:

Michelle Obama to African Press: Bribes? and No Law Will Stop My Husband...

Michelle Obama and African Press Update

Shame on American “Exceptionalism”

Shame on Sarah Palin and shame on the failing John McCain campaign for targeting Barack Obama’s association with so-called domestic terrorists. That’s nothing more than race-baiting!

We all know that it isn’t true. Well it is true that Obama knows William Ayres, but only superficially and only because Ayers is Obama’s neighbor and they happened to serve together on a couple of boards. Ok, and Ayres did host a fund-raiser for Obama. What’s the big deal? Racism – that’s the big deal!

Oh yea, those backwoods dying racist Republicans want to make a big deal of something that happened long ago when Obama was only eight years old. Give us a break! They just want to tarnish the amazing image of our first Black President.

Bill Ayres is now a distinguished professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The fact that Ayres and his wife Bernadine Dohrn were once far-left Weatherman terrorists who may or may not have been complicit in several bombings that caused American deaths is old news. What’s that got to do with Obama’s friendship with Ayers today?

You know there’s a lot of self-righteous talk from so-called “American Patriots” about how Ayers and Dohrn’s group bombed United States Capitol in 1971 and then they bombed the Pentagon in 1972. Gee Whiz!!! Talk about myopic American exceptionalism! The Capitol bombing was a heroic protest of the US invasion of Laos, and the Pentagon bombing was a necessary retaliation for the US bombing raid in Hanoi. And when they bombed the U.S. Department of State in 1975 it was a righteous response to the U.S. escalation of warfare in Vietnam.

The other bombings were too numerous to mention but in every case Ayers and Dohrn were true to their Marxist revolutionary values. That’s what counts! But Oh No! That’s not what Joe Six Pack or what that well known Hockey Mom want to see. They want to tarnish Obama for his association with the “unrepentant” Ayres. Why? Get this; they say that a person’s character can be known by the company he or she keeps. Isn’t that a tad bit prosaic???

Today we live in a multicultural society where different languages are spoken by people of many different races and origins. We Americans hold a vast array of cultural as well as political values. There is no “One” American value. All values must be counted as equally valid. America is not exceptional. America is but one of many nations, and we must take the lead for change in this new hopeful world Obama will help to create. If Obama wants to associate with radical extremists who hate America, that’s all to his credit. He can speak their language and appropriately deal with their cries for justice. He will bring Americans to a fuller understanding of what we must give back to the world. Can we really ask for more in a president?

Today, based on a couple of articles at the New York Times, far-right blogs are supposedly revealing more about the Obama/Ayers association. So what? So what if Obama and Ayers had a relationship going back many years, to the 1980s? So what if the far-right offers “detailed visual and written evidence of the longstanding and intimate relationship between Senator Obama and radical anti-American Bill Ayers?”

What do these “revelations” actually tell us? Only that Obama doesn’t see the same America as the dominant culture sees. But, is this really wrong? Obama isn’t really “like us” because there is no “Us.” That’s the illusion Obama hopes to overcome. Obama is a man of the world – a renaissance man – a man of many cultures – not an American exceptionalist!

The far right is trying to show that Obama’s willingness to have many “dangerous” associations represents a pattern of consistent lack of judgment. They are completely wrong. Obama doesn’t have bad judgment. He’s a brilliant man. He knows exactly what he is doing.

More Kool-Aid anyone?

Technorati Tags: America,American exceptionalism,Obama,McCain,Palin,William Ayres,Bill Ayres,Weatherman,terrorism,left,leftist,Marxism

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, http://morewhat.com/wordpress/?p=3247, The World According to Carl, DragonLady's World, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe

Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

Here is documentation that irrefutably chains Barack Obama to the most odious leftist movements in the United States today. Furthermore, it presents conclusive evidence that Obama not only knows of, but has participated in promotion of the Left's apocalyptic strategy of destruction for the United States: the Cloward-Piven Strategy of manufactured crisis. Don't miss the flow chart!

Quote from Saul Alinsky - Rules for Radicals 1989: Make the enemy [Conservative thought] live up to their (sic) own book of rules," When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.

Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
American Thinker, September 28, 2008 by Jim Simpson
Published at the request of Jim Simpson

Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst. His writings have been published in American Thinker, Washington Times, FrontPage Magazine, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune and others. His blog is Truth and Consequences..

America waits with bated breath while Washington struggles to bring the U.S. economy back from the brink of disaster. But many of those same politicians caused the crisis, and if left to their own devices will do so again.

Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama's connections to his radical mentors -- Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama's radical connections since the beginning.

Yet, no one to my knowledge has yet connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama's life comprise a who's who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.

But even this doesn't fully describe the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis

In an earlier post, I noted the liberal record of unmitigated legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress - with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?

Why?

One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.

I submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent - the failure is deliberate. Don't laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation's wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of "crisis" they were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their "rights." According to a City Journal article by Sol Stern, welfare rolls increased from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s as a result, and in New York City, where the strategy had been particularly successful, "one person was on the welfare rolls... for every two working in the city's private economy."

According to another City Journal article titled "Compassion Gone Mad":

The movement's impact on New York City was jolting: welfare caseloads, already climbing 12 percent a year in the early sixties, rose by 50 percent during Lindsay's first two years; spending doubled... The city had 150,000 welfare cases in 1960; a decade later it had 1.5 million.

The vast expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO's Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975. Rudy Giuliani cited Cloward and Piven by name as being responsible for "an effort at economic sabotage." He also credited Cloward-Piven with changing the cultural attitude toward welfare from that of a temporary expedient to a lifetime entitlement, an attitude which in-and-of-itself has caused perhaps the greatest damage of all.

Cloward and Piven looked at this strategy as a gold mine of opportunity. Within the newly organized groups, each offensive would find an ample pool of foot soldier recruits willing to advance its radical agenda at little or no pay, and expand its base of reliable voters, legal or otherwise. The radicals' threatening tactics also would accrue an intimidating reputation, providing a wealth of opportunities for extorting monetary and other concessions from the target organizations. In the meantime, successful offensives would create an ever increasing drag on society. As they gleefully observed:

Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.

The next time you drive through one of the many blighted neighborhoods in our cities, or read of the astronomical crime, drug addiction, and out-of-wedlock birth rates, or consider the failed schools, strapped police and fire resources of every major city, remember Cloward and Piven's thrill that "...the drain on local resources persists indefinitely."

ACORN, the new tip of the Cloward-Piven spear

In 1970, one of George Wiley's protégés, Wade Rathke -- like Bill Ayers, a member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) -- was sent to found the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now. While NWRO had made a good start, it alone couldn't accomplish the Cloward-Piven goals. Rathke's group broadened the offensive to include a wide array of low income "rights." Shortly thereafter they changed "Arkansas" to "Association of" and ACORN went nationwide.

Today ACORN is involved in a wide array of activities, including housing, voting rights, illegal immigration and other issues. According to ACORN's website: "ACORN is the nation's largest grassroots community organization of low-and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country," It is perhaps the largest radical group in the U.S. and has been cited for widespread criminal activity on many fronts.

Voting

On voting rights, ACORN and its voter mobilization subsidiary, Project Vote, have been involved nationwide in efforts to grant felons the vote and lobbied heavily for the Motor Voter Act of 1993, a law allowing people to register at motor vehicle departments, schools, libraries and other public places. That law had been sought by Cloward and Piven since the early1980s and they were present, standing behind President Clinton at the signing ceremony.

ACORN's voter rights tactics follow the Cloward-Piven Strategy:

• 1. Register as many Democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them vote, multiple times if possible.
• 2. Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of deceased, random names from the phone book, even contrived names.
• 3. Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards.

In this effort, ACORN sets up registration sites all over the country and has been frequently cited for turning in fraudulent registrations, as well as destroying republican applications. In the 2004-2006 election cycles alone, ACORN was accused of widespread voter fraud in 12 states. It may have swung the election for one state governor.

ACORN's website brags: "Since 2004, ACORN has helped more than 1.7 million low- and moderate-income and minority citizens apply to register to vote." Project vote boasts 4 million. I wonder how many of them are dead? For the 2008 cycle, ACORN and Project Vote have pulled out all the stops. Given their furious nationwide effort, it is not inconceivable that this presidential race could be decided by fraudulent votes alone.

Barack Obama ran ACORN's Project Vote in Chicago and his highly successful voter registration drive was credited with getting the disgraced former Senator Carol Moseley-Braun elected. Newsmax reiterates Cloward and Piven's aspirations for ACORN's voter registration efforts:

By advocating massive, no-holds-barred voter registration campaigns, they [Cloward & Piven] sought a Democratic administration in Washington, D.C. that would re-distribute the nation's wealth and lead to a totalitarian socialist state.

Illegal Immigration

As I have written elsewhere, the Radical Left's offensive to promote illegal immigration is "Cloward-Piven on steroids." ACORN is at the forefront of this movement as well, and was a leading organization among a broad coalition of radical groups, including Soros' Open Society Institute, the Service Employees International Union (ACORN founder Wade Rathke also runs a SEIU chapter), and others, that became the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. CCIR fortunately failed to gain passage for the 2007 illegal immigrant amnesty bill, but its goals have not changed.

The burden of illegal immigration on our already overstressed welfare system has been widely documented. Some towns in California have even been taken over by illegal immigrant drug cartels. The disease, crime and overcrowding brought by illegal immigrants places a heavy burden on every segment of society and every level of government, threatening to split this country apart at the seams. In the meantime, radical leftist efforts to grant illegal immigrants citizenship guarantee a huge pool of new democrat voters. With little border control, terrorists can also filter in.

Obama aided ACORN as their lead attorney in a successful suit he brought against the Illinois state government to implement the Motor Voter law there. The law had been resisted by Republican Governor Jim Edgars, who feared the law was an opening to widespread vote fraud.

His fears were warranted as the Motor Voter law has since been cited as a major opportunity for vote fraud, especially for illegal immigrants, even terrorists. According to the Wall Street Journal: "After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote..."

ACORN's dual offensives on voting and illegal immigration are handy complements. Both swell the voter rolls with reliable democrats while assaulting the country ACORN seeks to destroy with overwhelming new problems.

Mortgage Crisis

And now we have the mortgage crisis, which has sent a shock wave through Wall Street and panicked world financial markets like no other since the stock market crash of 1929. But this is a problem created in Washington long ago. It originated with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), signed into law in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA was Carter's answer to a grassroots activist movement started in Chicago, and forced banks to make loans to low income, high risk customers. PhD economist and former Texas Senator Phil Gramm has called it: "a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks."

ACORN aggressively sought to expand loans to low income groups using the CRA as a whip. Economist Stan Leibowitz wrote in the New York Post:

In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of "redlining"-claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.

In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications-but the overwhelming reason wasn't racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.

ACORN showed its colors again in 1991, by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. Obama represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively.

As a New York Post article describes it:

A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.

Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with "100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don't report it on your tax returns." Credit counseling is required, of course.

Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." That lender's $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.

The lender they were speaking of was Countrywide, which specialized in subprime lending and had a working relationship with ACORN.

Investor's Business Daily added:

The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical "housing rights" groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama. (Emphasis, mine.)

Since these loans were to be underwritten by the government sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the implicit government guarantee of those loans absolved lenders, mortgage bundlers and investors of any concern over the obvious risk. As Bloomberg reported: "It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit."

And if you think Washington policy makers cared about ACORN's negative influence, think again. Before this whole mess came down, a Democrat-sponsored bill on the table would have created an "Affordable Housing Trust Fund," granting ACORN access to approximately $500 million in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac revenues with little or no oversight.

Even now, unbelievably -- on the brink of national disaster -- Democrats have insisted ACORN benefit from bailout negotiations! Senator Lindsay Graham reported last night (9/25/08) in an interview with Greta Van Susteren of On the Record that Democrats want 20 percent of the bailout money to go to ACORN!

This entire fiasco represents perhaps the pinnacle of ACORN's efforts to advance the Cloward-Piven Strategy and is a stark demonstration of the power they wield in Washington.

Enter Barack Obama

In attempting to capture the significance of Barack Obama's Radical Left connections and his relation to the Cloward Piven strategy, I constructed the following flow chart. It is by no means complete. There are simply too many radical individuals and organizations to include them all here. But these are perhaps the most significant.

The chart puts Barack Obama at the epicenter of an incestuous stew of American radical leftism. Not only are his connections significant, they practically define who he is. Taken together, they constitute a who's who of the American radical left, and guiding all is the Cloward-Piven strategy.

Conspicuous in their absence are any connections at all with any other group, moderate, or even mildly leftist. They are all radicals, firmly bedded in the anti-American, communist, socialist, radical leftist mesh.

Saul Alinsky

Most people are unaware that Barack Obama received his training in "community organizing" from Saul Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. But he did. In and of itself that marks his heritage and training as that of a radical activist. One really needs go no further. But we have.

Bill Ayers

Obama objects to being associated with SDS bomber Bill Ayers, claiming he is being smeared with "guilt by association." But they worked together at the Woods Fund. The Wall Street Journal added substantially to our knowledge by describing in great detail Obama's work over five years with SDS bomber Bill Ayers on the board of a non-profit, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, to push a radical agenda on public school children. As Stanley Kurtz states:

"...the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago."

Also included in the mix is Theresa Heinz Kerry's favorite charity, the Tides Foundation. A partial list of Tides grants tells you all you need to know: ACLU, ACORN, Center for American Progress, Center for Constitutional Rights (a communist front,) CAIR, Earth Justice, Institute for Policy Studies (KGB spy nest), National Lawyers Guild (oldest communist front in U.S.), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and practically every other radical group there is. ACORN's Wade Rathke runs a Tides subsidiary, the Tides Center.

Carl Davidson and the New Party

We have heard about Bomber Bill, but we hear little about fellow SDS member Carl Davidson. According to Discover the Networks, Davidson was an early supporter of Barack Obama and a prominent member of Chicago's New Party, a synthesis of CPUSA members, Socialists, ACORN veterans and other radicals. Obama sought and received the New Party's endorsement, and they assisted with his campaign. The New Party also developed a strong relationship with ACORN. As an excellent article on the New Party observes: "Barack Obama knew what he was getting into and remains an ideal New Party candidate."

George Soros

The chart also suggests the reason for George Soros' fervent support of Obama. The President of his Open Society Institute is Aryeh Neier, founder of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). As mentioned above, three other former SDS members had extensive contact with Obama: Bill Ayers, Carl Davidson and Wade Rathke. Surely Aryeh Neier would have heard from his former colleagues of the promising new politician. More to the point, Neier is firmly committed to supporting the hugely successful radical organization, ACORN, and would be certain back their favored candidate, Barack Obama.

ACORN

Obama has spent a large portion of his professional life working for ACORN or its subsidiaries, representing ACORN as a lawyer on some of its most critical issues, and training ACORN leaders. Stanley Kurtz's excellent National Review article, "Inside Obama's Acorn." also describes Obama's ACORN connection in detail. But I can't improve on Obama's own words:

I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career (emphasis added). Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work. - Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007 (Courtesy Newsmax.)

In another excellent article on Obama's ACORN connections, Newsmax asks a nagging question:

It would be telling to know if Obama, during his years at Columbia, had occasion to meet Cloward and study the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

I ask you, is it possible ACORN would train Obama to take leadership positions within ACORN without telling him what he was training for? Is it possible ACORN would put Obama in leadership positions without clueing him into what his purpose was?? Is it possible that this most radical of organizations would put someone in charge of training its trainers, without him knowing what it was he was training them for?

As a community activist for ACORN; as a leadership trainer for ACORN; as a lead organizer for ACORN's Project Vote; as an attorney representing ACORN's successful efforts to impose Motor Voter regulations in Illinois; as ACORN's representative in lobbying for the expansion of high risk housing loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to the current crisis; as a recipient of their assistance in his political campaigns -- both with money and campaign workers; it is doubtful that he was unaware of ACORN's true goals. It is doubtful he was unaware of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

Fast-forward to 2005 when an obsequious, servile and scraping Daniel Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae spoke at the Congressional Black Caucus swearing in ceremony for newly-elected Illinois Senator, Barack Obama. Mudd called, the Congressional Black Caucus "our family" and "the conscience of Fannie Mae."

In 2005, Republicans sought to rein in Fannie and Freddie. Senator John McCain was at the forefront of that effort. But it failed due to an intense lobbying effort put forward by Fannie and Freddie.

In his few years as a U.S. senator, Obama has received campaign contributions of $126,349, from Fannie and Freddie, second only to the $165,400 received by Senator Chris Dodd, who has been getting donations from them since 1988. What makes Obama so special?

His closest advisers are a dirty laundry list of individuals at the heart of the financial crisis: former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson; Former Fannie Mae CEO and former Clinton Budget Director Frank Raines; and billionaire failed Superior Bank of Chicago Board Chair Penny Pritzker.

Johnson had to step down as adviser on Obama's V.P. search after this gem came out:

An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report^[1] from September 2004 found that, during Johnson's tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998.^[2] A 2006 OFHEO report^[3] found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson's compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million.

Obama denies ties to Raines but the Washington Post calls him a member of "Obama's political circle." Raines and Johnson were fined $3 million by the Office of Federal Housing Oversight for their manipulation of Fannie books. The fine is small change however, compared to the $50 million Raines was able to obtain in improper bonuses as a result of juggling the books.

Most significantly, Penny Pritzker, the current Finance Chairperson of Obama's presidential campaign helped develop the complicated investment bundling of subprime securities at the heart of the meltdown. She did so in her position as shareholder and board chair of Superior Bank. The Bank failed in 2001, one of the largest in recent history, wiping out $50 million in uninsured life savings of approximately 1,400 customers. She was named in a RICO class action law suit but doesn't seem to have come out of it too badly.

As a young attorney in the 1990s, Barack Obama represented ACORN in Washington in their successful efforts to expand Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) authority. In addition to making it easier for ACORN groups to force banks into making risky loans, this also paved the way for banks like Superior to package mortgages as investments, and for the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite them. These changes created the conditions that ultimately lead to the current financial crisis.

Did they not know this would occur? Were these smart people, led by a Harvard graduate, unaware of the Econ 101 concept of moral hazard that would result from the government making implicit guarantees to underwrite private sector financial risk? They should have known that freeing the high-risk mortgage market of risk, calamity was sure to ensue. I think they did.

Barack Obama, the Cloward-Piven candidate, no matter how he describes himself, has been a radical activist for most of his political career. That activism has been in support of organizations and initiatives that at their heart seek to tear the pillars of this nation asunder in order to replace them with their demented socialist vision. Their influence has spread so far and so wide that despite their blatant culpability in the current financial crisis, they are able to manipulate Capital Hill politicians to cut them into $140 billion of the bailout pie!

God grant those few responsible yet remaining in Washington, DC the strength to prevent this massive fraud from occurring. God grant them the courage to stand up in the face of this Marxist tidal wave.