THIS WAS SENT BY A CONSTANT READER AND CONTRIBUTOR. THIS ARTICLE IS OF IMPORTANCE AS IT REMINDS USE THE EFFECTS OF A CONGRESS OUT OF CONTROL AND NOT IN TUNE WITH THE FOLKS. EACH OF THE PARTIES HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEMISE OF THE CONTROLS THAT WERE IN PLACE TO ASSURE THAT LOANS (INCLUDING THE PAYDAY LOAN) WERE EQUITABLE AND THE PERSON GETTING SAID LOAN WOULD NOT GO DOWN THE TUBES WITH OVERBURDEN. SO MUCH FOR CLINTON, CARTER, THAT A..H... BARNEY FRANK AND THE REST TO THE TRIBE THAT NEEDS TO BE DISMISSED F O R E V E R.
Democrats are playing right out of the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kamph.
Written by Jerry Teasley of Pine Mountain , GA former Banker
Most of my friends know, I have tried to stop thinking, but I can't help it
in the wake of all the recent economic news.
My banking career started in 1970 and ended in 1993, but I still keep close ties to the industry. During my banking years I did learn one or two things along the way. The problem with our economy today is from a liberal thinking congress, senators, and presidents, as well as greed and dishonesty. When you put these together it spells disaster in any area of our life.
Ask any banker (just walk in and ask one that has been there for 15 or 20
years) and they will tell you these are the FACTS:
Under Jimmy Carter we received the Community Reinvestment act. This
law says banks have to make loans in low income areas and it has forced many lending institutions to seek to make loans to people in areas that lenders would not normally go because of the risk and low property values. (Sub Prime Loans). This was in 1977. In 1980 President Carter and a Democratic controlled congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act-- The law also removed the power of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors under the Glass-Steagall Act and Regulation to set the interest rates of savings accounts. A Sad fact is we are all still feeling the effects of his policies and decisions 30 years later.
Then in 1995, Bill Clinton, (in between interns) made changes to the
Community Reinvestment Act, that forced an increase in the number of loans to these people and the aggregate dollar amounts loaned.-- Larger loans to people with less income in areas where the collateral value would go down instead of up. (Clinton should have had his mind on the long range effects of this instead of Monica and a good cigar.) This was in response to pressure from 'community organizer.' Can you think of a former Community organizer running for president? Hint - he's a Democrat
In 1999 Mr. Clinton signed to repeal the Glass-Steagall act which
had protected taxpayers since the Great Depression.
In 2003 President Bush tried to propose a change in regulatory
control over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and place both companies under the control of the Department of the Treasury, but was voted down by the liberal democrats led by Barney Frank. Remember the name Barney Frank, he is one of Obama's top two economic advisors/ /the other is Jim Johnson who was the head of Freddie Mac and walked away with $24,000,000.
Now, Mr. Obama and his liberal cronies are spinning the facts so you
will believe that all our financial problems are because of Bush's failed
economic policy. However, OBAMA'S two MOST TRUSTED ECONOMIC ADVISERS TO HIS CAMPAIGN are the very people that were in control of Freddie Mac - Jim Johnson $24,000,000 and Fannie Mae - (Franklin Raines $90,000,000 in 6 years).
In addition, since 1989 their have been several politicians who have
received campaign donations and kick backs from these two failed
institutions. The #1 recipient is Senator Chris Dodd-D RI and the runner
up is none other than Senator Barrack Obama who received the second
largest amount of donations (over $500,000) which is phenomenal
because he has only been in the Senate for 3 years.
When Enron went belly up, we demanded Senate hearings and investigations. Why aren't the Democrats demanding the same with these companies?
But, oh yeah, I forgot. It is Bush's fault! (Yeah, Right, Sure it is).
Just ask a Banker.
October 24, 2008
Obama's Money Won't Be Deciding Factor
Obama's Money Won't Be Deciding Factor
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 8:53 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
Obama sent shock waves through political circles when he announced on Monday that he had amassed $150 million in campaign contributions in September, giving him upwards of $600 million for his campaign.
While his fundraising makes a mockery of McCain's paltry $100 million in taxpayer funded campaign money, the real advantage to Obama in the election is not likely to be decisive.
Obama is, of course, still the front-runner. But McCain is closing hard as the race enters its second to last week.
If Obama ultimately wins, it will have a lot more to do with the Dow Jones than with his level of campaign funding. Even if we assume his October funding brings him to even more dizzying heights, the realities of modern politics will limit the advantage that will accrue to his campaign.
McCain is, of course, funded not just by federal matching funds, but also by direct contributions to the Republican Party and to various independent expenditures, such as www.NationalRepublicanTrust.com. Obama and the Democratic Party will still out raise McCain, federal funds, and the Republican Party, likely by a 2-1 margin. There is, of course, still time for supporters of each candidate to redress or change that ratio.
But on television, where it counts, Obama will probably have no better than a 60-40 advantage over McCain. Much of the good television time in swing states has been purchased months ago.
Extra money can help a campaign run one-minute ads, as opposed to 30-second spots, and can make half-hour or full-hour infomercials possible, but the advantage of these extravagances is not proportionate to their cost.
Obama's lingering problem is that with all his money, he does not have anything new to say. He has been repeating the same mantra for his campaign over and over again ever since the spring. By now, we all know that he wants to extend health insurance to "47 million Americans" (never mind that 10 million are here illegally) and cut taxes for "95 percent of the population" (never mind that half don't pay any taxes to begin with and the "tax cut" is really just a welfare check).
McCain's advertising is powering a bold new message, inspired by Joe the plumber: Obama will use the tax code to redistribute wealth.
The social populist backlash against his proposals is closing the lead that Obama opened up as a result of the financial crisis. With things calmer on Wall Street (our fingers tremble as we write this), voters have two weeks to ponder what the onset of a socialist presidency would mean for Americans.
McCain has enough money to punch his message through. It will not get drowned by a sea of Obama media. But McCain's supporters must realize that this race is far from over. There is a realistic chance that he can win. And if there was ever a time for his supporters to open up their checkbooks, it is now.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 8:53 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
Obama sent shock waves through political circles when he announced on Monday that he had amassed $150 million in campaign contributions in September, giving him upwards of $600 million for his campaign.
While his fundraising makes a mockery of McCain's paltry $100 million in taxpayer funded campaign money, the real advantage to Obama in the election is not likely to be decisive.
Obama is, of course, still the front-runner. But McCain is closing hard as the race enters its second to last week.
If Obama ultimately wins, it will have a lot more to do with the Dow Jones than with his level of campaign funding. Even if we assume his October funding brings him to even more dizzying heights, the realities of modern politics will limit the advantage that will accrue to his campaign.
McCain is, of course, funded not just by federal matching funds, but also by direct contributions to the Republican Party and to various independent expenditures, such as www.NationalRepublicanTrust.com. Obama and the Democratic Party will still out raise McCain, federal funds, and the Republican Party, likely by a 2-1 margin. There is, of course, still time for supporters of each candidate to redress or change that ratio.
But on television, where it counts, Obama will probably have no better than a 60-40 advantage over McCain. Much of the good television time in swing states has been purchased months ago.
Extra money can help a campaign run one-minute ads, as opposed to 30-second spots, and can make half-hour or full-hour infomercials possible, but the advantage of these extravagances is not proportionate to their cost.
Obama's lingering problem is that with all his money, he does not have anything new to say. He has been repeating the same mantra for his campaign over and over again ever since the spring. By now, we all know that he wants to extend health insurance to "47 million Americans" (never mind that 10 million are here illegally) and cut taxes for "95 percent of the population" (never mind that half don't pay any taxes to begin with and the "tax cut" is really just a welfare check).
McCain's advertising is powering a bold new message, inspired by Joe the plumber: Obama will use the tax code to redistribute wealth.
The social populist backlash against his proposals is closing the lead that Obama opened up as a result of the financial crisis. With things calmer on Wall Street (our fingers tremble as we write this), voters have two weeks to ponder what the onset of a socialist presidency would mean for Americans.
McCain has enough money to punch his message through. It will not get drowned by a sea of Obama media. But McCain's supporters must realize that this race is far from over. There is a realistic chance that he can win. And if there was ever a time for his supporters to open up their checkbooks, it is now.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Obama Wants 12 Million Illegals to Get Citizenship
THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT IF THIS SOCIALIST BECOMES
PRESIDENT, YOU CAN EXPECT THE EXODUS OF MEXICO TO THE US, TAXES OUT OF SIGHT, AND THE PASSING OF A ONCE STRONG NATION INTO THE ASHES OF OBLIVION. DAA
Obama Wants 12 Million Illegals to Get Citizenship
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 1:18 PM
By: David A. Patten
A Barack Obama administration would be a “nation killer” if Democrats attain a “supermajority” in the Senate, a leading conservative figure on immigration warned Tuesday.
Obama also has said he wants to make the 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. citizens as soon as he can — an amnesty program that would make them legally entitled to full government benefits, including Social Security and health care.
William Gheen, president of the Raleigh, N.C.-based Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), says Obama’s plan would make it politically impossible to secure America’s borders. He describes Obama and a new Democratic Congress as a “worst-case scenario” for border and immigration security.
“I would paint that scenario as a nation killer,” Gheen, a former campaign consultant and an outspoken advocate for stronger border control policies, tells Newsmax. “I would expect amnesty to pass within a year. That means in the next presidential election, you will have a new voting bloc of 15 million illegal aliens who turn into voters.
“And that voting bloc,” he says, “especially in the Southwest United States, would be enough to take full control of most city, state, and county governments, thus destroying any future hopes for immigration enforcement or border security.”
Although GOP nominee John McCain has rarely confronted Obama during the campaign over immigration — presumably to avoid alienating Hispanic voters — Obama’s record reflects a clear focus on expanding entitlements to undocumented workers.
As a state senator in Illinois, for example, Obama co-sponsored that state’s version of the DREAM Act, which allowed youngsters in the country illegally to receive in-state tuition. He later supported similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.
During a September campaign swing, Obama told the North Carolina Public Radio station WUNC that the children of illegal immigrants should have an opportunity to attend community colleges.
“For us to deny them access to community college, even though they’ve never lived in Mexico, as least as far as they can tell, is to deny that this is how we’ve always built this country up,” Obama said.
According to the NewsObserver.com, the McCain campaign reacted to Obama’s remark by issuing the statement: “John McCain does not support amnesty or benefits for undocumented immigrants. He has consistently opposed giving amnesty or public benefits to undocumented immigrants.”
Obama, who tends to dismiss discussion of his pro-immigration positions as politically motivated “distractions,” has demonstrated no such reticence to expand entitlements for illegals. Specifically:
Obama’s plan for universal health care would include coverage for illegal immigrants, according to political strategist and Newsmax columnist Dick Morris. Morris has warned that covering illegals “adds dramatically” to the cost of universal health care.
In March, Obama voted to table a Senate amendment that would support the withdrawal of federal assistance “to sanctuary cities that ignore the immigration laws of the United States and create safe havens for illegal aliens and potential terrorists.” McCain did not cast a vote.
Obama supported the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform legislation that was defeated in 2006. Since then, McCain has taken the position that securing the borders must precede immigration reform. Obama continues to support a process to “bring people out of the shadows” and eventually obtain legal status (at which point they would be eligible for the federally mandated benefits available to anyone, such as Social Security). Obama also calls for enhanced border security.
The Democratic candidate for president supports, in principle, providing state-funded welfare benefits to legal immigrants. While a state senator, Obama supported allocating state funds to provide Medicaid coverage to some legal immigrants, according to OnTheIssues.org.
Obama has supported increasing the number of work visas issued each year, such as the H1-B visa, especially for applicants with specialized skills. According to OnTheIssues.org, Obama co-sponsored, along with New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a bill that would provide federal funding to help states provide health care and education to non-U.S. citizens.
Obama strongly supports encouraging American children to become bilingual and, at one point in the campaign, appeared to suggest it should be mandatory. In June, he voted against a Senate provision that would declare English the national language of the United States. McCain voted for it.
Edward I. Nelson, the chairman of the nonprofit U.S. Border Control organization, warns that “Welfare and in-state tuition are powerful inducements to illegal immigration, as are free medical benefits.”
Nelson says his organization has awarded both Obama and McCain an “F” on their immigration and border control policies.
Gheen says Obama and McCain both would ultimately favor amnesty for illegals, albeit differently.
“Obama would give in-state tuition and driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, then make them legal,” Gheen says. “McCain would make them legal, and then give them in-state tuition and driver’s licenses.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
PRESIDENT, YOU CAN EXPECT THE EXODUS OF MEXICO TO THE US, TAXES OUT OF SIGHT, AND THE PASSING OF A ONCE STRONG NATION INTO THE ASHES OF OBLIVION. DAA
Obama Wants 12 Million Illegals to Get Citizenship
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 1:18 PM
By: David A. Patten
A Barack Obama administration would be a “nation killer” if Democrats attain a “supermajority” in the Senate, a leading conservative figure on immigration warned Tuesday.
Obama also has said he wants to make the 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. citizens as soon as he can — an amnesty program that would make them legally entitled to full government benefits, including Social Security and health care.
William Gheen, president of the Raleigh, N.C.-based Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), says Obama’s plan would make it politically impossible to secure America’s borders. He describes Obama and a new Democratic Congress as a “worst-case scenario” for border and immigration security.
“I would paint that scenario as a nation killer,” Gheen, a former campaign consultant and an outspoken advocate for stronger border control policies, tells Newsmax. “I would expect amnesty to pass within a year. That means in the next presidential election, you will have a new voting bloc of 15 million illegal aliens who turn into voters.
“And that voting bloc,” he says, “especially in the Southwest United States, would be enough to take full control of most city, state, and county governments, thus destroying any future hopes for immigration enforcement or border security.”
Although GOP nominee John McCain has rarely confronted Obama during the campaign over immigration — presumably to avoid alienating Hispanic voters — Obama’s record reflects a clear focus on expanding entitlements to undocumented workers.
As a state senator in Illinois, for example, Obama co-sponsored that state’s version of the DREAM Act, which allowed youngsters in the country illegally to receive in-state tuition. He later supported similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.
During a September campaign swing, Obama told the North Carolina Public Radio station WUNC that the children of illegal immigrants should have an opportunity to attend community colleges.
“For us to deny them access to community college, even though they’ve never lived in Mexico, as least as far as they can tell, is to deny that this is how we’ve always built this country up,” Obama said.
According to the NewsObserver.com, the McCain campaign reacted to Obama’s remark by issuing the statement: “John McCain does not support amnesty or benefits for undocumented immigrants. He has consistently opposed giving amnesty or public benefits to undocumented immigrants.”
Obama, who tends to dismiss discussion of his pro-immigration positions as politically motivated “distractions,” has demonstrated no such reticence to expand entitlements for illegals. Specifically:
Obama’s plan for universal health care would include coverage for illegal immigrants, according to political strategist and Newsmax columnist Dick Morris. Morris has warned that covering illegals “adds dramatically” to the cost of universal health care.
In March, Obama voted to table a Senate amendment that would support the withdrawal of federal assistance “to sanctuary cities that ignore the immigration laws of the United States and create safe havens for illegal aliens and potential terrorists.” McCain did not cast a vote.
Obama supported the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform legislation that was defeated in 2006. Since then, McCain has taken the position that securing the borders must precede immigration reform. Obama continues to support a process to “bring people out of the shadows” and eventually obtain legal status (at which point they would be eligible for the federally mandated benefits available to anyone, such as Social Security). Obama also calls for enhanced border security.
The Democratic candidate for president supports, in principle, providing state-funded welfare benefits to legal immigrants. While a state senator, Obama supported allocating state funds to provide Medicaid coverage to some legal immigrants, according to OnTheIssues.org.
Obama has supported increasing the number of work visas issued each year, such as the H1-B visa, especially for applicants with specialized skills. According to OnTheIssues.org, Obama co-sponsored, along with New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a bill that would provide federal funding to help states provide health care and education to non-U.S. citizens.
Obama strongly supports encouraging American children to become bilingual and, at one point in the campaign, appeared to suggest it should be mandatory. In June, he voted against a Senate provision that would declare English the national language of the United States. McCain voted for it.
Edward I. Nelson, the chairman of the nonprofit U.S. Border Control organization, warns that “Welfare and in-state tuition are powerful inducements to illegal immigration, as are free medical benefits.”
Nelson says his organization has awarded both Obama and McCain an “F” on their immigration and border control policies.
Gheen says Obama and McCain both would ultimately favor amnesty for illegals, albeit differently.
“Obama would give in-state tuition and driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, then make them legal,” Gheen says. “McCain would make them legal, and then give them in-state tuition and driver’s licenses.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Obama Ignores Credit Card Donation Fraud
Obama Ignores Credit Card Donation Fraud
Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:01 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size
What do Bart Simpson, Family Guy, Daffy Duck, King Kong, O.J. Simpson, and Raela Odinga have in common?
All are celebrities; and with the exception of Odinga and O.J. Simpson, they also are fictional characters. And yet, all of them gave money earlier this month to the campaign of Barack Obama, without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors.
The Obama fundraising machine may owe its sensational success in part to a relaxation of standard online merchant security practices, which has allowed illegal donations from foreign donors and from unknown individuals using anonymous “gift” cards, industry analysts and a confidential informant tell Newsmax.
An ongoing Newsmax investigation into the Obama campaign’s finance reports has exposed multiple instances of campaign finance violations and has been cited in a formal complaint to the Federal Election Commission filed by the Republican National Committee on Oct. 6.
Though many of the known violations include donations in excess of the $2,300 per election limit on individual contributions and contributions from foreign nationals, the extent of the amount of fraud is hidden because of a loophole in federal election law.
Campaigns are not required to disclose contributors who donate less than $200 — and Obama’s campaign refuses to release their names, addresses, and donation amounts. Obama has collected a staggering $603.2 million. Most of the money — $543.3 million — has come from individual contributors, half of it from “small” donors Obama won’t disclose.
The Obama campaign has turned a blind eye to the possibility of donor fraud. Reportedly, during the heated primary battle with Hillary Clinton, the Obama campaign “turned off” many of the security features on its online donor page, allowing any person with a valid credit card number to donate using any name or address.
Typically, card merchants require a cardholder’s name to match critical personal details, such as an address or, at the least, a ZIP code.
Though in recent months the Obama campaign has tightened up security and restored some of the security features used by merchants to weed out fraud, it still has left open easy ways for potential credit card fraud, including techniques similar to those employed by terrorists and drug traffickers to launder illicit funds.
For example, on Oct. 14, an individual using the name “O.J. Simpson” participated in Obama’s latest small-donor fundraising drive, making a $5 donation through the campaign’s Web site.
Giving a Los Angeles address, he listed his employer as the “State of Nevada” and his occupation as “convict.” The donor used a disposable “gift” credit card to make the donation.
The Obama campaign sent O.J. a thank-you note confirming his contribution, and gave him the name of another donor who had agreed to “match” his contribution.
Four minutes earlier, an individual using the name “Raela Odinga” also made a $5 contribution, using the same credit card.
The real Raela Odinga became prime minister of Kenya in April and has claimed to be a cousin of Obama’s through a maternal uncle.
Obama donor “Raela Odinga” listed his address as “2007 Stolen Election Passage” in “Nairobi, KY.” This credit card donation raised no alarm bells in the Obama campaign.
A few minutes earlier, “Daffy Duck” gave $5 to the Obama matching campaign, listing his address as “124 Wacky Way, Beverly Hills, Calif.”
But just as with Odinga’s address, the “Wacky Way” address failed to raise any alarm bells or security traps on the Obama Web site. Daffy Duck also used the same credit card.
Within the hour, three other new donors gave $5 to the Obama campaign. They were:
Bart Simpson, of 333 Heavens Gate, Beverly Hills, Calif.
Family Guy, of 128 KilltheJews Alley, Gaza, GA.
King Kong, of 549 Quinn Street, Capitol Heights, Md.
Newsmax learned of these contributions, which were all made on a single $25 Visa gift card (oddly, the total was $30), from a source that requested anonymity.
Calling himself “Bart Simpson,” the tipster said he had been following the Newsmax investigation of Obama’s campaign finance irregularities “with great interest,” and believed that some of the small donations were coming from gift cards — “you know, the type of disposable debit card you can pick up at Rite-Aid or just about any supermarket.”
[Editor's Note: See "Obama Campaign Runs Afoul of Finance Rules."]
“I tried it myself a few days ago,” he said. “I’m attaching for you proof of the contributions I made in the names of Daffy Duck, Bart Simpson, Raela Odinga, and Family Guy.
“What this means is that the Obama campaign does no verification of the name of the contributor. With a normal credit card, this wouldn’t wor[k], but with these disposable debit cards, no problem!
“This needs to be exposed,” he said.
The tipster attached the confirmation pages from the Obama Web site showing the names of the donors, and in some cases, the names of other Obama donors who had agreed to “match” their contributions.
None of the matching donors’ names appears in the Obama campaign’s public disclosures to the FEC.
Other donors with clearly fictitious names revealed previously by Newsmax, The Los Angeles Times, and blogger Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) include “Dertey Poiiuy,” “Mong Kong,” “Fornari USA,” and “jkbkj Hbkjb.”
Five major companies process the bulk of all credit card transactions made in the United States, industry insiders tell Newsmax. The Obama campaign paid one of them, Chase Paymentech, just over $2 million to process its online transactions.
“We never discuss our relationships with any of our merchants, or customers we work with,” James Wester, a spokesman for Chase Paymentech, told Newsmax.
Newsmax asked whether Chase Paymentech had any security feature that would allow it to identify individuals making contributions using gift cards, but Wester declined to comment.
But other industry analysts, who asked not to be identified by name because of the sensitive nature of the issue, told Newsmax that processors could track gift cards and debit cards “only by the numbers on the cards.”
“There are no names associated with these cards, so as a processor, you have no way of knowing who made the transaction,” one industry analyst said.
Anyone can go into a supermarket or a Rite-Aid and buy a batch of these cards with cash, so there is no trace of the transaction, he added.
“It’s like walk-around money. They could be handing these things out as perks” to newly registered voters or others, “and there’s no way of tracing who is using them.”
Ken Boehm, a lawyer with 30 years of experience in campaign finance law, said that such contributions were clearly illegal.
“Making a contribution in the name of another person is the only part of federal election law that actually carries a criminal penalty,” he told Newsmax. Boehm is the CEO of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.
The Obama campaign has paid Synetech Group Inc. of Charlottesville, Va., close to $2 million to compile all of the campaign contribution data from online contributors, bundlers, telemarketers, campaign events, and direct-mail campaigns, and process it for submission to the FEC.
The sheer scope of the Obama fundraising juggernaut was “never contemplated by the FEC,” a company official told Newsmax, asking not to be quoted by name.
“It’s a lot of data. You’re talking 7 million contributions,” he said.
The campaign itself is responsible for screening out fraudulent donors, not Synetech, he said. “I’ve been doing this for 30 years, and this is as well-managed as any [campaign]. It’s just huge. When it’s this big, any little thing becomes something more than it is.”
One of the biggest problems the campaign faces is fraud, he said. “It’s a colossal problem. They’re paying the campaign with other people’s money.”
Individuals such as “Doodad Pro” and “Good Will” who made hundreds of contributions to the campaign in excess of the legal limits were not working for the campaign, but for themselves, he insisted.
“It’s all fraud. They do it for kicks. Or they’re testing the cards. The campaign doesn’t want this. Why on earth do they want to have all these messy little transactions? It’s a colossal pain.”
However, the campaign itself has solicited these “messy little transactions” in numerous e-mails to supporters.
For instance, just days before the Democratic National Convention in Denver, campaign manager David Plouffe sent an e-mail to supporters, asking them to “make a donation of $5 or more before midnight this Thursday, July 31st, and you could go backstage with Barack.”
Since them, the campaign has run several small donation drives, claiming to “match” donations of $5, $10, or $25 with an equal amount for a previous donor.
Newsmax put a series of questions to the Obama campaign more than a week ago in preparation for this article, such as whether its Internet contribution system automatically matches donors' names and addresses to their credit card numbers, as is common industry practice with online stores.
Newsmax also asked if the campaign uses a similar security screen to match a donor’s name and address to the card number when the donor uses a debit card or a gift card.
Despite multiple requests from Newsmax, the Obama campaign declined to comment for this story.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:01 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size
What do Bart Simpson, Family Guy, Daffy Duck, King Kong, O.J. Simpson, and Raela Odinga have in common?
All are celebrities; and with the exception of Odinga and O.J. Simpson, they also are fictional characters. And yet, all of them gave money earlier this month to the campaign of Barack Obama, without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors.
The Obama fundraising machine may owe its sensational success in part to a relaxation of standard online merchant security practices, which has allowed illegal donations from foreign donors and from unknown individuals using anonymous “gift” cards, industry analysts and a confidential informant tell Newsmax.
An ongoing Newsmax investigation into the Obama campaign’s finance reports has exposed multiple instances of campaign finance violations and has been cited in a formal complaint to the Federal Election Commission filed by the Republican National Committee on Oct. 6.
Though many of the known violations include donations in excess of the $2,300 per election limit on individual contributions and contributions from foreign nationals, the extent of the amount of fraud is hidden because of a loophole in federal election law.
Campaigns are not required to disclose contributors who donate less than $200 — and Obama’s campaign refuses to release their names, addresses, and donation amounts. Obama has collected a staggering $603.2 million. Most of the money — $543.3 million — has come from individual contributors, half of it from “small” donors Obama won’t disclose.
The Obama campaign has turned a blind eye to the possibility of donor fraud. Reportedly, during the heated primary battle with Hillary Clinton, the Obama campaign “turned off” many of the security features on its online donor page, allowing any person with a valid credit card number to donate using any name or address.
Typically, card merchants require a cardholder’s name to match critical personal details, such as an address or, at the least, a ZIP code.
Though in recent months the Obama campaign has tightened up security and restored some of the security features used by merchants to weed out fraud, it still has left open easy ways for potential credit card fraud, including techniques similar to those employed by terrorists and drug traffickers to launder illicit funds.
For example, on Oct. 14, an individual using the name “O.J. Simpson” participated in Obama’s latest small-donor fundraising drive, making a $5 donation through the campaign’s Web site.
Giving a Los Angeles address, he listed his employer as the “State of Nevada” and his occupation as “convict.” The donor used a disposable “gift” credit card to make the donation.
The Obama campaign sent O.J. a thank-you note confirming his contribution, and gave him the name of another donor who had agreed to “match” his contribution.
Four minutes earlier, an individual using the name “Raela Odinga” also made a $5 contribution, using the same credit card.
The real Raela Odinga became prime minister of Kenya in April and has claimed to be a cousin of Obama’s through a maternal uncle.
Obama donor “Raela Odinga” listed his address as “2007 Stolen Election Passage” in “Nairobi, KY.” This credit card donation raised no alarm bells in the Obama campaign.
A few minutes earlier, “Daffy Duck” gave $5 to the Obama matching campaign, listing his address as “124 Wacky Way, Beverly Hills, Calif.”
But just as with Odinga’s address, the “Wacky Way” address failed to raise any alarm bells or security traps on the Obama Web site. Daffy Duck also used the same credit card.
Within the hour, three other new donors gave $5 to the Obama campaign. They were:
Bart Simpson, of 333 Heavens Gate, Beverly Hills, Calif.
Family Guy, of 128 KilltheJews Alley, Gaza, GA.
King Kong, of 549 Quinn Street, Capitol Heights, Md.
Newsmax learned of these contributions, which were all made on a single $25 Visa gift card (oddly, the total was $30), from a source that requested anonymity.
Calling himself “Bart Simpson,” the tipster said he had been following the Newsmax investigation of Obama’s campaign finance irregularities “with great interest,” and believed that some of the small donations were coming from gift cards — “you know, the type of disposable debit card you can pick up at Rite-Aid or just about any supermarket.”
[Editor's Note: See "Obama Campaign Runs Afoul of Finance Rules."]
“I tried it myself a few days ago,” he said. “I’m attaching for you proof of the contributions I made in the names of Daffy Duck, Bart Simpson, Raela Odinga, and Family Guy.
“What this means is that the Obama campaign does no verification of the name of the contributor. With a normal credit card, this wouldn’t wor[k], but with these disposable debit cards, no problem!
“This needs to be exposed,” he said.
The tipster attached the confirmation pages from the Obama Web site showing the names of the donors, and in some cases, the names of other Obama donors who had agreed to “match” their contributions.
None of the matching donors’ names appears in the Obama campaign’s public disclosures to the FEC.
Other donors with clearly fictitious names revealed previously by Newsmax, The Los Angeles Times, and blogger Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) include “Dertey Poiiuy,” “Mong Kong,” “Fornari USA,” and “jkbkj Hbkjb.”
Five major companies process the bulk of all credit card transactions made in the United States, industry insiders tell Newsmax. The Obama campaign paid one of them, Chase Paymentech, just over $2 million to process its online transactions.
“We never discuss our relationships with any of our merchants, or customers we work with,” James Wester, a spokesman for Chase Paymentech, told Newsmax.
Newsmax asked whether Chase Paymentech had any security feature that would allow it to identify individuals making contributions using gift cards, but Wester declined to comment.
But other industry analysts, who asked not to be identified by name because of the sensitive nature of the issue, told Newsmax that processors could track gift cards and debit cards “only by the numbers on the cards.”
“There are no names associated with these cards, so as a processor, you have no way of knowing who made the transaction,” one industry analyst said.
Anyone can go into a supermarket or a Rite-Aid and buy a batch of these cards with cash, so there is no trace of the transaction, he added.
“It’s like walk-around money. They could be handing these things out as perks” to newly registered voters or others, “and there’s no way of tracing who is using them.”
Ken Boehm, a lawyer with 30 years of experience in campaign finance law, said that such contributions were clearly illegal.
“Making a contribution in the name of another person is the only part of federal election law that actually carries a criminal penalty,” he told Newsmax. Boehm is the CEO of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.
The Obama campaign has paid Synetech Group Inc. of Charlottesville, Va., close to $2 million to compile all of the campaign contribution data from online contributors, bundlers, telemarketers, campaign events, and direct-mail campaigns, and process it for submission to the FEC.
The sheer scope of the Obama fundraising juggernaut was “never contemplated by the FEC,” a company official told Newsmax, asking not to be quoted by name.
“It’s a lot of data. You’re talking 7 million contributions,” he said.
The campaign itself is responsible for screening out fraudulent donors, not Synetech, he said. “I’ve been doing this for 30 years, and this is as well-managed as any [campaign]. It’s just huge. When it’s this big, any little thing becomes something more than it is.”
One of the biggest problems the campaign faces is fraud, he said. “It’s a colossal problem. They’re paying the campaign with other people’s money.”
Individuals such as “Doodad Pro” and “Good Will” who made hundreds of contributions to the campaign in excess of the legal limits were not working for the campaign, but for themselves, he insisted.
“It’s all fraud. They do it for kicks. Or they’re testing the cards. The campaign doesn’t want this. Why on earth do they want to have all these messy little transactions? It’s a colossal pain.”
However, the campaign itself has solicited these “messy little transactions” in numerous e-mails to supporters.
For instance, just days before the Democratic National Convention in Denver, campaign manager David Plouffe sent an e-mail to supporters, asking them to “make a donation of $5 or more before midnight this Thursday, July 31st, and you could go backstage with Barack.”
Since them, the campaign has run several small donation drives, claiming to “match” donations of $5, $10, or $25 with an equal amount for a previous donor.
Newsmax put a series of questions to the Obama campaign more than a week ago in preparation for this article, such as whether its Internet contribution system automatically matches donors' names and addresses to their credit card numbers, as is common industry practice with online stores.
Newsmax also asked if the campaign uses a similar security screen to match a donor’s name and address to the card number when the donor uses a debit card or a gift card.
Despite multiple requests from Newsmax, the Obama campaign declined to comment for this story.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
No Time for Obama's on-the-Job Training
No Time for Obama's on-the-Job Training
Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:45 AM
By: Michael Reagan Article Font Size
The media’s almost universal opinion that Sen. Joe Biden simply made just another one of his gaffes when he warned that the election of the untested Barack Obama would inevitably result in a global crisis where our enemies take measure of the man by confronting him and America with a challenge was dead wrong.
It was no gaffe; it was a clear warning that Obama will not only be tested, but also that he will not be up to the challenge and will need help in dealing with something he cannot deal with on his own.
I cannot remember a more frightening scenario, especially since it came from Obama’s own running mate and not John McCain or the Republican Party. I have no doubt Biden was sincere in alerting the nation to a very real threat to our national security — the prospect of a totally inexperienced and naive Barack Obama being confronted by an enemy he would rather talk with.
That the nation isn’t alarmed by this prospect, which Biden guaranteed would surely come about, is simply bizarre.
Here in a post-9/11 world, when America’s foes have proven they’ll stop at nothing to bring America down to our knees, if the polls are correct, voters are on the verge of electing a man to the presidency whose very election will light the spark of an international crisis in a nuclear age.
This is an unprecedented situation, but it’s not the first time the voters have chosen a president who lacked the bona fides required in a leader facing an international threat and a determined enemy.
Unlike Barack Obama, however, John Kennedy had been tested when in harm’s way during World War II, and had shown himself capable of acting with both courage and initiative.
Moreover, he had been a firsthand witness at momentous events during his father’s ambassadorship to war-torn Britain and had even written a book, “Why England Slept,” about the crisis England faced because they failed to recognize the threat Hitler posed to their very existence.
Yet, even with his experience evident when he won election in 1960, the Soviet Union thought he not only should be tested but was convinced he would fail the test.
As a result America found itself facing a nuclear war with the Soviets after Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev met with JFK, saw what he judged to be his weakness, and confronted America with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
It was only after JFK promised to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey and pledged to halt all efforts to remove Fidel Castro from power that Khrushchev agreed to take his missiles out of Cuba.
We cannot afford another such crisis, yet if Joe Biden is correct, that’s exactly what will happen if Barack Obama wins the presidency on Nov. 4. He’s guaranteed it.
We can expect that the challenge to Obama to come from Iran which has already observed him promising to sit down with their leaders without preconditions, thus to meet with them as equals.
Iran has already shown how they react to U.S. presidents who show signs of weakness. They saw weakness in Jimmy Carter, and they seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days.
When my father won election in 1980, Iran had no need to test him; they had already taken his measure and he scared the daylights out of them. As a result, minutes after he took the oath of office the Iranians released the hostages.
A soon-to-be nuclear power, Iran is certain to test what they see as a politician with absolutely no experience. And given his demonstrated willingness to greet hostility with mere words eloquently spoken, we an expect Iran to risk a global crisis by facing him with a direct challenge to his leadership, probably by rattling their nuclear sword.
We had better heed Joe Biden’s warning and vote against an untested politician from Chicago’s rowdy and corrupt political machine.
© 2008 Mike Reagan
Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:45 AM
By: Michael Reagan Article Font Size
The media’s almost universal opinion that Sen. Joe Biden simply made just another one of his gaffes when he warned that the election of the untested Barack Obama would inevitably result in a global crisis where our enemies take measure of the man by confronting him and America with a challenge was dead wrong.
It was no gaffe; it was a clear warning that Obama will not only be tested, but also that he will not be up to the challenge and will need help in dealing with something he cannot deal with on his own.
I cannot remember a more frightening scenario, especially since it came from Obama’s own running mate and not John McCain or the Republican Party. I have no doubt Biden was sincere in alerting the nation to a very real threat to our national security — the prospect of a totally inexperienced and naive Barack Obama being confronted by an enemy he would rather talk with.
That the nation isn’t alarmed by this prospect, which Biden guaranteed would surely come about, is simply bizarre.
Here in a post-9/11 world, when America’s foes have proven they’ll stop at nothing to bring America down to our knees, if the polls are correct, voters are on the verge of electing a man to the presidency whose very election will light the spark of an international crisis in a nuclear age.
This is an unprecedented situation, but it’s not the first time the voters have chosen a president who lacked the bona fides required in a leader facing an international threat and a determined enemy.
Unlike Barack Obama, however, John Kennedy had been tested when in harm’s way during World War II, and had shown himself capable of acting with both courage and initiative.
Moreover, he had been a firsthand witness at momentous events during his father’s ambassadorship to war-torn Britain and had even written a book, “Why England Slept,” about the crisis England faced because they failed to recognize the threat Hitler posed to their very existence.
Yet, even with his experience evident when he won election in 1960, the Soviet Union thought he not only should be tested but was convinced he would fail the test.
As a result America found itself facing a nuclear war with the Soviets after Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev met with JFK, saw what he judged to be his weakness, and confronted America with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
It was only after JFK promised to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey and pledged to halt all efforts to remove Fidel Castro from power that Khrushchev agreed to take his missiles out of Cuba.
We cannot afford another such crisis, yet if Joe Biden is correct, that’s exactly what will happen if Barack Obama wins the presidency on Nov. 4. He’s guaranteed it.
We can expect that the challenge to Obama to come from Iran which has already observed him promising to sit down with their leaders without preconditions, thus to meet with them as equals.
Iran has already shown how they react to U.S. presidents who show signs of weakness. They saw weakness in Jimmy Carter, and they seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days.
When my father won election in 1980, Iran had no need to test him; they had already taken his measure and he scared the daylights out of them. As a result, minutes after he took the oath of office the Iranians released the hostages.
A soon-to-be nuclear power, Iran is certain to test what they see as a politician with absolutely no experience. And given his demonstrated willingness to greet hostility with mere words eloquently spoken, we an expect Iran to risk a global crisis by facing him with a direct challenge to his leadership, probably by rattling their nuclear sword.
We had better heed Joe Biden’s warning and vote against an untested politician from Chicago’s rowdy and corrupt political machine.
© 2008 Mike Reagan
Don't Count McCain Out
Don't Count McCain Out
Friday, October 24, 2008 8:35 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
This weekend will be the last chance McCain has to get back into this race. To understand why, let’s briefly recap what's happened since the conventions.
McCain left the back-to-back conventions with a lead for the first time in the presidential race. His strength was fueled by his designation of Sarah Palin and the enthusiasm she aroused in the Republican base.
The Democrats, caught off guard, attacked her viciously, which only reinforced the perception of a woman being victimized by a sexist left.
Then McCain lost the first two debates. Regardless of what observers think happened (we thought he lost the first and won the second), the fact is that his poll numbers deteriorated after each performance.
The financial crisis extinguished any lead McCain may have had, exacerbated by what must be seen, in hindsight, as the biggest mistake of his campaign — his decision to "suspend" his campaign and return to Washington to work on the bailout.
McCain's subsequent docile support for the package, earmarks and all, destroyed the perception he had carefully built during his convention and subsequently of independence from Bush and of a populist antipathy to greedy Wall Street barons.
As a result of the debates, the crisis, and McCain's ineptitude, Obama surged to a lead of 7-9 points around Oct. 13.
Then, amazingly, McCain won the third debate.
Using a populist appeal and fighting hard, he echoed the complaints of Joe the plumber against Obama's plan to "spread the wealth around." From Wednesday, Oct. 15 through Saturday, Oct. 18, McCain sliced the Obama lead to 5 points — an average of all the polling.
But the effect of the debate began to wear off on Sunday, Oct. 19 and McCain began to fall back again. By now, Obama has an average lead of 7.2 points, according to realclearpolitics.com. (The AP poll showing a dead heat is the only one to show such data, unfortunately.)
Much of Obama's rise this week has been due to his domination of the paid advertising. With his coffers swollen by $150 million raised in September, he can buy any available advertising time. But McCain has considerable resources at his disposal as well.
For the week that started this past Tuesday, Oct. 21, McCain is running about four ads to every five that Obama airs in swing states. Technically, McCain is airing about 2,500 household rating points per week as against Obama's 3,300. One household rating point means that 1 percent of the households are watching the ad.
So 2,500 points in a given week suggests that each household is seeing about 25 ads per week, or about four each day. While Obama is spending more money, the difference between seeing four McCain ads and five Obama spots each day is not significant.
Beginning on Monday of this week, McCain began running an attack ad specifically aimed at the issues first raised by Joe the plumber. Showing footage of his chat with Obama, the McCain ad hammers home the tax issue, noting that Obama's so-called tax cut for 100 million Americans is really a welfare check for the half of them who pay no taxes.
The ad is hard-hitting and effective. More importantly, it is running in the clear without other McCain media to clutter up the message.
So McCain has his best ad on his best issue with as close to financial parity with Obama as he is likely to get. If, in these circumstances, he cannot gain ground during the next few days, the race will be functionally over. But if the Republicans can get traction, it could become a competitive contest again.
Godspeed John McCain.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Friday, October 24, 2008 8:35 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
This weekend will be the last chance McCain has to get back into this race. To understand why, let’s briefly recap what's happened since the conventions.
McCain left the back-to-back conventions with a lead for the first time in the presidential race. His strength was fueled by his designation of Sarah Palin and the enthusiasm she aroused in the Republican base.
The Democrats, caught off guard, attacked her viciously, which only reinforced the perception of a woman being victimized by a sexist left.
Then McCain lost the first two debates. Regardless of what observers think happened (we thought he lost the first and won the second), the fact is that his poll numbers deteriorated after each performance.
The financial crisis extinguished any lead McCain may have had, exacerbated by what must be seen, in hindsight, as the biggest mistake of his campaign — his decision to "suspend" his campaign and return to Washington to work on the bailout.
McCain's subsequent docile support for the package, earmarks and all, destroyed the perception he had carefully built during his convention and subsequently of independence from Bush and of a populist antipathy to greedy Wall Street barons.
As a result of the debates, the crisis, and McCain's ineptitude, Obama surged to a lead of 7-9 points around Oct. 13.
Then, amazingly, McCain won the third debate.
Using a populist appeal and fighting hard, he echoed the complaints of Joe the plumber against Obama's plan to "spread the wealth around." From Wednesday, Oct. 15 through Saturday, Oct. 18, McCain sliced the Obama lead to 5 points — an average of all the polling.
But the effect of the debate began to wear off on Sunday, Oct. 19 and McCain began to fall back again. By now, Obama has an average lead of 7.2 points, according to realclearpolitics.com. (The AP poll showing a dead heat is the only one to show such data, unfortunately.)
Much of Obama's rise this week has been due to his domination of the paid advertising. With his coffers swollen by $150 million raised in September, he can buy any available advertising time. But McCain has considerable resources at his disposal as well.
For the week that started this past Tuesday, Oct. 21, McCain is running about four ads to every five that Obama airs in swing states. Technically, McCain is airing about 2,500 household rating points per week as against Obama's 3,300. One household rating point means that 1 percent of the households are watching the ad.
So 2,500 points in a given week suggests that each household is seeing about 25 ads per week, or about four each day. While Obama is spending more money, the difference between seeing four McCain ads and five Obama spots each day is not significant.
Beginning on Monday of this week, McCain began running an attack ad specifically aimed at the issues first raised by Joe the plumber. Showing footage of his chat with Obama, the McCain ad hammers home the tax issue, noting that Obama's so-called tax cut for 100 million Americans is really a welfare check for the half of them who pay no taxes.
The ad is hard-hitting and effective. More importantly, it is running in the clear without other McCain media to clutter up the message.
So McCain has his best ad on his best issue with as close to financial parity with Obama as he is likely to get. If, in these circumstances, he cannot gain ground during the next few days, the race will be functionally over. But if the Republicans can get traction, it could become a competitive contest again.
Godspeed John McCain.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
October 22, 2008
Marxism's Rebirth?
Marxism's Rebirth?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, October 16, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: America's Communist Party is giddy over current political events, saying its movement has reached a "turning point." There's no mystery why. Their candidate is the White House front-runner.
Part of the Communist Party USA's glee can be attributed to the current economic turmoil. The radicals who make up its membership have long rooted for capitalism to fail.
But it can't be denied that the popularity of Barack Obama, the most far-left candidate to run for president as the nominee of a major party, is a big part of the Communist Party resurgence.
In an article chronicling that revival, Agence France-Presse makes sure that it mentions that "the Communist Party does not endorse Democrat Barack Obama." The fact is, the party does not officially endorse candidates.
Members of its staff, however, are upfront with their support. The AFP story notes that "many" of the workers at the party headquarters in Manhattan wear Obama's image on lapel buttons.
Not enough of a link? How about the party's Aug. 15 Web site editorial that talks of Obama's "transformative candidacy" as one "that would advance progressive politics for the long term."
Obama's election, the editorial continues, will boost "The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path" and "shift the ground for successful struggles going forward."
"None of the people's struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if (John) McCain wins in November," says the editorial, listing issues that sound a lot like the concerns of the Democratic Party's platform.
The Communist Party's dedication to Obama is not new. During the primary season in March, the party noted in a news release that the Obama "campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change."
While America's communists are beaming over the prospect of an Obama presidency, the Illinois senator's biggest fans in Europe — judging by the rock star treatment he got when he spoke in Berlin in July — are moving back to Karl Marx. The media report that sales of "Das Kapital" are on the upswing in Germany.
Again, economic concerns are driving people to desperation. But considering Berlin's warm welcome for Obama, it's easy to make a clear argument that the momentum of his campaign, with all its leftist language and Marxist principles — most recently, Obama's admission that he wants to "spread the wealth" — has inspired Germans to return to Marx.
Voters need to remember on Nov. 4 that when Marx's books are selling well and communists are happy, we are headed for trouble.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, October 16, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: America's Communist Party is giddy over current political events, saying its movement has reached a "turning point." There's no mystery why. Their candidate is the White House front-runner.
Part of the Communist Party USA's glee can be attributed to the current economic turmoil. The radicals who make up its membership have long rooted for capitalism to fail.
But it can't be denied that the popularity of Barack Obama, the most far-left candidate to run for president as the nominee of a major party, is a big part of the Communist Party resurgence.
In an article chronicling that revival, Agence France-Presse makes sure that it mentions that "the Communist Party does not endorse Democrat Barack Obama." The fact is, the party does not officially endorse candidates.
Members of its staff, however, are upfront with their support. The AFP story notes that "many" of the workers at the party headquarters in Manhattan wear Obama's image on lapel buttons.
Not enough of a link? How about the party's Aug. 15 Web site editorial that talks of Obama's "transformative candidacy" as one "that would advance progressive politics for the long term."
Obama's election, the editorial continues, will boost "The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path" and "shift the ground for successful struggles going forward."
"None of the people's struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if (John) McCain wins in November," says the editorial, listing issues that sound a lot like the concerns of the Democratic Party's platform.
The Communist Party's dedication to Obama is not new. During the primary season in March, the party noted in a news release that the Obama "campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change."
While America's communists are beaming over the prospect of an Obama presidency, the Illinois senator's biggest fans in Europe — judging by the rock star treatment he got when he spoke in Berlin in July — are moving back to Karl Marx. The media report that sales of "Das Kapital" are on the upswing in Germany.
Again, economic concerns are driving people to desperation. But considering Berlin's warm welcome for Obama, it's easy to make a clear argument that the momentum of his campaign, with all its leftist language and Marxist principles — most recently, Obama's admission that he wants to "spread the wealth" — has inspired Germans to return to Marx.
Voters need to remember on Nov. 4 that when Marx's books are selling well and communists are happy, we are headed for trouble.
One Day, One Vote
One Day, One Vote
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, October 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Voter Fraud: Remember "Election Day," when you actually had to show up on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November and prove who you were? Making it easier to vote made it easier to cheat.
It's a sad day when a court has to order a state's top election official to take steps to fight massive and orchestrated vote fraud. The full 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has done just that by ordering Ohio's Democratic Secretary of State, Jennifer Bruner, to use other government records to check the thousands of new voters registered by ACORN and others for registration fraud. She must also notify local election officials when fraud is discovered.
Ohio is one of those states employing gimmicks to increase voter "turnout," in this case inviting voters to vote as early as Sept. 30. They can register and vote on the same day if they do so by Oct 6.
What it has increased is voter fraud, inviting activist groups to inundate election boards with bogus and multiple registrations that bog down the system.
This November may make us long for the good old days of hanging chads.
You used to have to provide as much identification to vote as you do to get a library card. Now in some jurisdictions you can show up with an old electricity or phone bill, not necessarily your own. In at least one state, voter "turnout" is an anachronism and you don't have to show up at all. Oregon has done away with polling places entirely. All voting there is by mail.
Registering in person with a photo ID or getting to the polling place once a year is not too much to ask of voters who can get to work or school every day or to the grocery store once a week.
They can get their backsides off the couch to attend rock concerts and sporting events, so why not the local polling place? If it's still too hard, make Election Day a national holiday.
Some voters have legitimate reasons, such as illness or travel, for not showing up, and they should be accommodated. But laziness is not a legitimate reason. Political scientist John Foster of the American Enterprise Institute reports that in 1980 only 4 million ballots were cast before Election Day. In 2004 it was 27 million.
Since Bill Clinton signed the Motor Voter Act, registering to vote in many states has been as complicated as just showing up on Election Day. Eight of the 19 Sept. 11 terrorists, including Mohammed Atta, could have registered to vote in Florida and Virginia while planning their attacks.
Efforts to ensure ballot integrity, to have our elections as honest as the Iraqi elections where millions proudly held up purple fingers, have met with resistance from liberals and Democrats. They claim that verifying identity is racist and an attempt to intimidate the poor and minorities.
Photo IDs are already required for a host of activities from applying for Social Security to getting food stamps and cashing checks at the bank. In Georgia, photo IDs are made available to residents who don't have driver's licenses.
Florida's elections chief, Secretary of State Kurt Browning, acknowledged his staff has failed to purge up to 30,000 ineligible felons because of a shortage of workers and a crush of new, and often fraudulent, registrations in this critical swing state.
Lazy voters are likely to be uninvolved and uninformed voters. Voters who make an effort to vote usually also make an effort to understand the issues and candidates' positions on them. Do we really need vans going around picking up the homeless, and is it really unfair if we don't?
Repeal gimmicky voting laws. If you have to present an ID to rent a video, why should it not be required to vote? If you can't make it to the polls on Election Day, too bad. The only people disenfranchised by photo ID requirements and a single day to vote would be terrorists, dogs, the deceased and people named Jive Turkey.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, October 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Voter Fraud: Remember "Election Day," when you actually had to show up on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November and prove who you were? Making it easier to vote made it easier to cheat.
It's a sad day when a court has to order a state's top election official to take steps to fight massive and orchestrated vote fraud. The full 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has done just that by ordering Ohio's Democratic Secretary of State, Jennifer Bruner, to use other government records to check the thousands of new voters registered by ACORN and others for registration fraud. She must also notify local election officials when fraud is discovered.
Ohio is one of those states employing gimmicks to increase voter "turnout," in this case inviting voters to vote as early as Sept. 30. They can register and vote on the same day if they do so by Oct 6.
What it has increased is voter fraud, inviting activist groups to inundate election boards with bogus and multiple registrations that bog down the system.
This November may make us long for the good old days of hanging chads.
You used to have to provide as much identification to vote as you do to get a library card. Now in some jurisdictions you can show up with an old electricity or phone bill, not necessarily your own. In at least one state, voter "turnout" is an anachronism and you don't have to show up at all. Oregon has done away with polling places entirely. All voting there is by mail.
Registering in person with a photo ID or getting to the polling place once a year is not too much to ask of voters who can get to work or school every day or to the grocery store once a week.
They can get their backsides off the couch to attend rock concerts and sporting events, so why not the local polling place? If it's still too hard, make Election Day a national holiday.
Some voters have legitimate reasons, such as illness or travel, for not showing up, and they should be accommodated. But laziness is not a legitimate reason. Political scientist John Foster of the American Enterprise Institute reports that in 1980 only 4 million ballots were cast before Election Day. In 2004 it was 27 million.
Since Bill Clinton signed the Motor Voter Act, registering to vote in many states has been as complicated as just showing up on Election Day. Eight of the 19 Sept. 11 terrorists, including Mohammed Atta, could have registered to vote in Florida and Virginia while planning their attacks.
Efforts to ensure ballot integrity, to have our elections as honest as the Iraqi elections where millions proudly held up purple fingers, have met with resistance from liberals and Democrats. They claim that verifying identity is racist and an attempt to intimidate the poor and minorities.
Photo IDs are already required for a host of activities from applying for Social Security to getting food stamps and cashing checks at the bank. In Georgia, photo IDs are made available to residents who don't have driver's licenses.
Florida's elections chief, Secretary of State Kurt Browning, acknowledged his staff has failed to purge up to 30,000 ineligible felons because of a shortage of workers and a crush of new, and often fraudulent, registrations in this critical swing state.
Lazy voters are likely to be uninvolved and uninformed voters. Voters who make an effort to vote usually also make an effort to understand the issues and candidates' positions on them. Do we really need vans going around picking up the homeless, and is it really unfair if we don't?
Repeal gimmicky voting laws. If you have to present an ID to rent a video, why should it not be required to vote? If you can't make it to the polls on Election Day, too bad. The only people disenfranchised by photo ID requirements and a single day to vote would be terrorists, dogs, the deceased and people named Jive Turkey.
Obama Campaign Tries to Soften Biden’s Warning
Obama Campaign Tries to Soften Biden’s Warning -- About Obama
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden holds up a baseball jersey with his name on it during a campaign rally at Cheney Stadium in Tacoma, Wash. Sunday, Oct. 19, 2008. (AP Photo/John Froschauer)(CNSNews.com) – On Sunday, Sen. Joe Biden warned that Barack Obama will be tested by an “international crisis” if he’s elected president.
By Tuesday, the Obama campaign was in damage-control mode, sending out surrogates to explain what Obama’s running mate really meant.
Former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, appearing on Fox & Friends Tuesday, tried to minimize Biden’s latest blurt by invoking Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama:
“Well, look, I don’t think anybody in America will be surprised at the notion that the world is going to throw some tests at our next president,” Kaine said. “The next president, whoever it is, is going to face major challenges of national security.”
Kaine noted that Colin Powell, in endorsing Obama on Sunday, had commented on Obama’s “calm and steady judgment.”
What Biden said at a Seattle-area fundraiser on Sunday is raising eyebrows, however:
"Mark my words," Biden was quoted as saying. “It will be not six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember, I said it standing here, if you don't remember anything else I said: Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
Biden offered “at least four or five scenarios,” including those involving the Middle East, Pakistan-Afghanistan, and Russia.
"And he's gonna need help,” Biden said about Obama. “And the kind of help he's gonna need is…we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
"Gird your loins," Biden told the crowd. "We're going to win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride.”
Biden, invoking his own foreign policy experience, said he wasn’t being “falsely humble.” He said said Obama “gets it,” but Biden also said he expects second-guessing as Obama’s presidential term progresses:
“But he’s gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."
According ABC News, Biden spoke for about 15 minutes, then noticed who was standing in the back of the ballroom: "I probably shouldn't have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here," he joked.
“Sen. Biden was just stating the obvious, which is the world is going to throw some challenges at this nation and at the next president. We gotta have somebody who can deal with them,” Kaine said on Tuesday.
According to most opinion polls, Sen. John McCain trumps Obama when it comes to national security issues.
That makes it particularly surprising that Biden would raise an issue on his which boss is perceived as relatively inexperienced and weak raises – just two weeks before the election.
‘Obama won’t have the right response’
Sen. John McCain worked Biden’s comments into a speech in Belton, Missouri, on Monday:
“The next President won't have time to get used to the office,” McCain said. “We face many challenges here at home, and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world. Just last night, Senator Biden guaranteed that if Senator Obama is elected, we will have an international crisis to test America's new President. We don't want a President who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars,” McCain said.
“What is more troubling is that Senator Biden told their campaign donors that when that crisis hits, they would have to stand with them because it wouldn't be apparent Senator Obama would have the right response.
“Forget apparent. Senator Obama won't have the right response, and we know that because we've seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign. He opposed the surge strategy that is bringing us victory in Iraq and will bring us victory in Afghanistan. He said he would sit down unconditionally with the world's worst dictators. When Russia invaded Georgia, Sen. Obama said the invaded country should show restraint.”
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 13 Comments 1 2 3 Next Loading...
mec at 08:30 AM - October 22, 2008
Nobody seems to have noticed, but the outside world is already showing Obama and the people's democratic party who is boss. The Russian move into Venezuela and the Gulf of Mexico shows that the United States is no longer a world power. Al Queda and Hamas are already doing victory dances. The United States was a great nation when it had a national will and ideals based on liberty and justice for all. Nothing lasts forever though. The Empires of Europe and the first Soviet Empire all crashed during the 20th Century. The Reich of A Thousand Years, lasted less than 20 and the Soviet Union lasted a single, not extraordianarily long life span. It would be interesting to see what will replace in the next few months and years.
bellez at 11:07 PM - October 21, 2008
I say give him 5-6 speaking engagements everyday. I beleive Obama picked him on purpose so that we think he is an idiot. I have tried to research everything, I honestly believe Obama is planning to turn Israel loose. He keeps saying he will make sure they have what they need, not we will defend them at every chance like Mccain. Our country will be destroyed by God if we let this radical in the oval office.. I absolutley believe Jesse Jackson. Obama states in his own books he listened and went to Markist speakers and writers he found more comfort there. "I will side with the Muslims if trouble arises" His words.. He already have Obama youth camps that chant "We are the Alpha and the Omega" the beginning and the end..Gods words to discribe himself.. Go look up Saul Alinsky..focus on MIDDLE CLASS..Take your target and hammer hammer and make him insecure..""ERATIC..ERATIC..ERATIC.. Just read Alinsky's first page..he taught Hillary and Bill. Marxism.Radical..Black Theology..Mind Control
rkeyo at 09:36 PM - October 21, 2008
Biden is a subprime moron.On the other hand, he has done a great deal to damage Obummer's campaign. However, I think he's sort of right, that a whole lot of nations will see Obummer as an Islamic quisling, and will "test" him. Unfortunately, we know how he will react when Iran, Russia, and Venezuela collude to raise the cost of oil: he will do nothing, and the price of gasoline will hit $10.00 a gallon. For starters...
orator at 06:29 PM - October 21, 2008
Yeah, he's gonna need a lot of help, but he isn't going to get any from you, Joe. And he's no JFK, either, despite his efforts to link himself with the former President. You two remind me of the three Stooges, except that there are only two of you. Who is the one that pokes his finger in the other's eyes? I would prefer you both get your ball-peen hammer out and start clonking one another on the head. Nah, a two-by-four would be a lot better.
hfrzz002 at 05:51 PM - October 21, 2008
We as a nation cannot feel safe with a party that will do away with The Patriot Act,cut our defense spending,give prisoners of war a civil trial.Obama is a pacifist, when we NEED STRONG LEADSRSHIP!!
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden holds up a baseball jersey with his name on it during a campaign rally at Cheney Stadium in Tacoma, Wash. Sunday, Oct. 19, 2008. (AP Photo/John Froschauer)(CNSNews.com) – On Sunday, Sen. Joe Biden warned that Barack Obama will be tested by an “international crisis” if he’s elected president.
By Tuesday, the Obama campaign was in damage-control mode, sending out surrogates to explain what Obama’s running mate really meant.
Former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, appearing on Fox & Friends Tuesday, tried to minimize Biden’s latest blurt by invoking Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama:
“Well, look, I don’t think anybody in America will be surprised at the notion that the world is going to throw some tests at our next president,” Kaine said. “The next president, whoever it is, is going to face major challenges of national security.”
Kaine noted that Colin Powell, in endorsing Obama on Sunday, had commented on Obama’s “calm and steady judgment.”
What Biden said at a Seattle-area fundraiser on Sunday is raising eyebrows, however:
"Mark my words," Biden was quoted as saying. “It will be not six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember, I said it standing here, if you don't remember anything else I said: Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
Biden offered “at least four or five scenarios,” including those involving the Middle East, Pakistan-Afghanistan, and Russia.
"And he's gonna need help,” Biden said about Obama. “And the kind of help he's gonna need is…we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
"Gird your loins," Biden told the crowd. "We're going to win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride.”
Biden, invoking his own foreign policy experience, said he wasn’t being “falsely humble.” He said said Obama “gets it,” but Biden also said he expects second-guessing as Obama’s presidential term progresses:
“But he’s gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."
According ABC News, Biden spoke for about 15 minutes, then noticed who was standing in the back of the ballroom: "I probably shouldn't have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here," he joked.
“Sen. Biden was just stating the obvious, which is the world is going to throw some challenges at this nation and at the next president. We gotta have somebody who can deal with them,” Kaine said on Tuesday.
According to most opinion polls, Sen. John McCain trumps Obama when it comes to national security issues.
That makes it particularly surprising that Biden would raise an issue on his which boss is perceived as relatively inexperienced and weak raises – just two weeks before the election.
‘Obama won’t have the right response’
Sen. John McCain worked Biden’s comments into a speech in Belton, Missouri, on Monday:
“The next President won't have time to get used to the office,” McCain said. “We face many challenges here at home, and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world. Just last night, Senator Biden guaranteed that if Senator Obama is elected, we will have an international crisis to test America's new President. We don't want a President who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars,” McCain said.
“What is more troubling is that Senator Biden told their campaign donors that when that crisis hits, they would have to stand with them because it wouldn't be apparent Senator Obama would have the right response.
“Forget apparent. Senator Obama won't have the right response, and we know that because we've seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign. He opposed the surge strategy that is bringing us victory in Iraq and will bring us victory in Afghanistan. He said he would sit down unconditionally with the world's worst dictators. When Russia invaded Georgia, Sen. Obama said the invaded country should show restraint.”
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 13 Comments 1 2 3 Next Loading...
mec at 08:30 AM - October 22, 2008
Nobody seems to have noticed, but the outside world is already showing Obama and the people's democratic party who is boss. The Russian move into Venezuela and the Gulf of Mexico shows that the United States is no longer a world power. Al Queda and Hamas are already doing victory dances. The United States was a great nation when it had a national will and ideals based on liberty and justice for all. Nothing lasts forever though. The Empires of Europe and the first Soviet Empire all crashed during the 20th Century. The Reich of A Thousand Years, lasted less than 20 and the Soviet Union lasted a single, not extraordianarily long life span. It would be interesting to see what will replace in the next few months and years.
bellez at 11:07 PM - October 21, 2008
I say give him 5-6 speaking engagements everyday. I beleive Obama picked him on purpose so that we think he is an idiot. I have tried to research everything, I honestly believe Obama is planning to turn Israel loose. He keeps saying he will make sure they have what they need, not we will defend them at every chance like Mccain. Our country will be destroyed by God if we let this radical in the oval office.. I absolutley believe Jesse Jackson. Obama states in his own books he listened and went to Markist speakers and writers he found more comfort there. "I will side with the Muslims if trouble arises" His words.. He already have Obama youth camps that chant "We are the Alpha and the Omega" the beginning and the end..Gods words to discribe himself.. Go look up Saul Alinsky..focus on MIDDLE CLASS..Take your target and hammer hammer and make him insecure..""ERATIC..ERATIC..ERATIC.. Just read Alinsky's first page..he taught Hillary and Bill. Marxism.Radical..Black Theology..Mind Control
rkeyo at 09:36 PM - October 21, 2008
Biden is a subprime moron.On the other hand, he has done a great deal to damage Obummer's campaign. However, I think he's sort of right, that a whole lot of nations will see Obummer as an Islamic quisling, and will "test" him. Unfortunately, we know how he will react when Iran, Russia, and Venezuela collude to raise the cost of oil: he will do nothing, and the price of gasoline will hit $10.00 a gallon. For starters...
orator at 06:29 PM - October 21, 2008
Yeah, he's gonna need a lot of help, but he isn't going to get any from you, Joe. And he's no JFK, either, despite his efforts to link himself with the former President. You two remind me of the three Stooges, except that there are only two of you. Who is the one that pokes his finger in the other's eyes? I would prefer you both get your ball-peen hammer out and start clonking one another on the head. Nah, a two-by-four would be a lot better.
hfrzz002 at 05:51 PM - October 21, 2008
We as a nation cannot feel safe with a party that will do away with The Patriot Act,cut our defense spending,give prisoners of war a civil trial.Obama is a pacifist, when we NEED STRONG LEADSRSHIP!!
'Joe the Plumber' Presents Winning Strategy for McCain
'Joe the Plumber' Presents Winning Strategy for McCain
Monday, October 20, 2008 4:45 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
Ronald Reagan's most important contribution to the American political dialogue was his ability to move the tax issue from an economic-populist issue into a populist, blue-collar one.
Under George W. Bush, however, the issue has switched back to one of class warfare, as increasing numbers of Americans have paid no taxes at all, and the rates on those who did pay taxes fell. Now, a chance encounter with "Joe the plumber" has afforded the Republicans the chance to use taxes as a blue-collar issue.
The opening Joe provided and John McCain skillfully exploited in the third presidential debate gives the GOP ticket its first long shot at victory since McCain punted on the terrible, pork-laden, corporate-giveaway "rescue" bill Congress passed and Bush signed.
Obama's tax plans and spending programs have emerged as the key point of difference between the campaigns. And the Democrat's comment to Joe that he saw his tax policy as a "way to spread the wealth around" underscores the motive behind his program: to redistribute income. Obama might as well have told Joe, "I want to take the hard earned money you make fixing pipes and give it to other people."
If the Republican Party concentrates its fire on the tax issue and the redistributionist impulse behind Obama's plans, it can close the Democratic lead point by point, day by day, until the election. McCain's campaign must resist the temptation to take random shots on other issues and zero in on the tax-and-spend issue, stressing how taxes penalize those who work hard and live right.
In fact, the rich are paying vastly more in taxes than they ever have. "Reality Check: The Unreported Good News About America," by Dennis Keegan and David West, points out that the percentage of income-tax revenues paid by the top percent of the population has almost doubled in the last 20 years; it now pays 40 percent of all income tax. (The bottom half in income pays less than 3 percent.)
Despite the lower rates, the rich are paying more in taxes because they are earning more and more. In the last eight years, real, after-inflation income growth for the top 10 percent of the population has been more than 45 percent.
Essentially, the tax debate comes down to economic populism versus social populism. The Democratic economic populists rail against the rich and demand that they pay more in taxes.
The Republican social populists decry the notion of income redistribution as rewarding failure and penalizing hard work. Until Joe, the economic-populist polarity dominated the presidential race to the detriment of the Republicans. But now Joe has brought the social-populist argument back to life.
Because there always are, there will doubtless be those who see the social-populist approach as a code word for racism, especially because it is directed against the proposals of an African-American candidate. But the dichotomy that social populism exploits is one that separates the most productive members of our work force from the others, in the spirit of Joe the plumber. Race is quite beside the point.
The question is whether McCain has the discipline to pursue the tax issue doggedly for the rest of the campaign. The other targets — from Bill Ayers to ACORN — are so tempting but ultimately appeal to the Republican base and few others. But taxes hit us all.
The core difference between the American working class and its European equivalents is that Europeans are inclined to vote based on their current condition while Americans base their decisions more on their goals and objectives for the future. Americans assume upward mobility while Europeans do not. Each nation's workers are correct in their assessments.
Despite the widening gap between the richest 20 percent and the poorest in the United States, the economic chart is constantly churning. People are always moving out of the bottom fifth and up the scale, their places at the bottom of the ladder yielding to new arrivals, usually from abroad.
So Americans are right to vote their dreams. Obama's European socialist tendency to sabotage growth in the interests of "fairness" merely serves to convert an American model that works into a European one that does not.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Monday, October 20, 2008 4:45 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
Ronald Reagan's most important contribution to the American political dialogue was his ability to move the tax issue from an economic-populist issue into a populist, blue-collar one.
Under George W. Bush, however, the issue has switched back to one of class warfare, as increasing numbers of Americans have paid no taxes at all, and the rates on those who did pay taxes fell. Now, a chance encounter with "Joe the plumber" has afforded the Republicans the chance to use taxes as a blue-collar issue.
The opening Joe provided and John McCain skillfully exploited in the third presidential debate gives the GOP ticket its first long shot at victory since McCain punted on the terrible, pork-laden, corporate-giveaway "rescue" bill Congress passed and Bush signed.
Obama's tax plans and spending programs have emerged as the key point of difference between the campaigns. And the Democrat's comment to Joe that he saw his tax policy as a "way to spread the wealth around" underscores the motive behind his program: to redistribute income. Obama might as well have told Joe, "I want to take the hard earned money you make fixing pipes and give it to other people."
If the Republican Party concentrates its fire on the tax issue and the redistributionist impulse behind Obama's plans, it can close the Democratic lead point by point, day by day, until the election. McCain's campaign must resist the temptation to take random shots on other issues and zero in on the tax-and-spend issue, stressing how taxes penalize those who work hard and live right.
In fact, the rich are paying vastly more in taxes than they ever have. "Reality Check: The Unreported Good News About America," by Dennis Keegan and David West, points out that the percentage of income-tax revenues paid by the top percent of the population has almost doubled in the last 20 years; it now pays 40 percent of all income tax. (The bottom half in income pays less than 3 percent.)
Despite the lower rates, the rich are paying more in taxes because they are earning more and more. In the last eight years, real, after-inflation income growth for the top 10 percent of the population has been more than 45 percent.
Essentially, the tax debate comes down to economic populism versus social populism. The Democratic economic populists rail against the rich and demand that they pay more in taxes.
The Republican social populists decry the notion of income redistribution as rewarding failure and penalizing hard work. Until Joe, the economic-populist polarity dominated the presidential race to the detriment of the Republicans. But now Joe has brought the social-populist argument back to life.
Because there always are, there will doubtless be those who see the social-populist approach as a code word for racism, especially because it is directed against the proposals of an African-American candidate. But the dichotomy that social populism exploits is one that separates the most productive members of our work force from the others, in the spirit of Joe the plumber. Race is quite beside the point.
The question is whether McCain has the discipline to pursue the tax issue doggedly for the rest of the campaign. The other targets — from Bill Ayers to ACORN — are so tempting but ultimately appeal to the Republican base and few others. But taxes hit us all.
The core difference between the American working class and its European equivalents is that Europeans are inclined to vote based on their current condition while Americans base their decisions more on their goals and objectives for the future. Americans assume upward mobility while Europeans do not. Each nation's workers are correct in their assessments.
Despite the widening gap between the richest 20 percent and the poorest in the United States, the economic chart is constantly churning. People are always moving out of the bottom fifth and up the scale, their places at the bottom of the ladder yielding to new arrivals, usually from abroad.
So Americans are right to vote their dreams. Obama's European socialist tendency to sabotage growth in the interests of "fairness" merely serves to convert an American model that works into a European one that does not.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Obama's Money Won't Be Deciding Factor
Obama's Money Won't Be Deciding Factor
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 8:53 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
Obama sent shock waves through political circles when he announced on Monday that he had amassed $150 million in campaign contributions in September, giving him upwards of $600 million for his campaign.
While his fundraising makes a mockery of McCain's paltry $100 million in taxpayer funded campaign money, the real advantage to Obama in the election is not likely to be decisive.
Obama is, of course, still the front-runner. But McCain is closing hard as the race enters its second to last week.
If Obama ultimately wins, it will have a lot more to do with the Dow Jones than with his level of campaign funding. Even if we assume his October funding brings him to even more dizzying heights, the realities of modern politics will limit the advantage that will accrue to his campaign.
McCain is, of course, funded not just by federal matching funds, but also by direct contributions to the Republican Party and to various independent expenditures, such as www.NationalRepublicanTrust.com. Obama and the Democratic Party will still out raise McCain, federal funds, and the Republican Party, likely by a 2-1 margin. There is, of course, still time for supporters of each candidate to redress or change that ratio.
But on television, where it counts, Obama will probably have no better than a 60-40 advantage over McCain. Much of the good television time in swing states has been purchased months ago.
Extra money can help a campaign run one-minute ads, as opposed to 30-second spots, and can make half-hour or full-hour infomercials possible, but the advantage of these extravagances is not proportionate to their cost.
Obama's lingering problem is that with all his money, he does not have anything new to say. He has been repeating the same mantra for his campaign over and over again ever since the spring. By now, we all know that he wants to extend health insurance to "47 million Americans" (never mind that 10 million are here illegally) and cut taxes for "95 percent of the population" (never mind that half don't pay any taxes to begin with and the "tax cut" is really just a welfare check).
McCain's advertising is powering a bold new message, inspired by Joe the plumber: Obama will use the tax code to redistribute wealth.
The social populist backlash against his proposals is closing the lead that Obama opened up as a result of the financial crisis. With things calmer on Wall Street (our fingers tremble as we write this), voters have two weeks to ponder what the onset of a socialist presidency would mean for Americans.
McCain has enough money to punch his message through. It will not get drowned by a sea of Obama media. But McCain's supporters must realize that this race is far from over. There is a realistic chance that he can win. And if there was ever a time for his supporters to open up their checkbooks, it is now.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 8:53 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
Obama sent shock waves through political circles when he announced on Monday that he had amassed $150 million in campaign contributions in September, giving him upwards of $600 million for his campaign.
While his fundraising makes a mockery of McCain's paltry $100 million in taxpayer funded campaign money, the real advantage to Obama in the election is not likely to be decisive.
Obama is, of course, still the front-runner. But McCain is closing hard as the race enters its second to last week.
If Obama ultimately wins, it will have a lot more to do with the Dow Jones than with his level of campaign funding. Even if we assume his October funding brings him to even more dizzying heights, the realities of modern politics will limit the advantage that will accrue to his campaign.
McCain is, of course, funded not just by federal matching funds, but also by direct contributions to the Republican Party and to various independent expenditures, such as www.NationalRepublicanTrust.com. Obama and the Democratic Party will still out raise McCain, federal funds, and the Republican Party, likely by a 2-1 margin. There is, of course, still time for supporters of each candidate to redress or change that ratio.
But on television, where it counts, Obama will probably have no better than a 60-40 advantage over McCain. Much of the good television time in swing states has been purchased months ago.
Extra money can help a campaign run one-minute ads, as opposed to 30-second spots, and can make half-hour or full-hour infomercials possible, but the advantage of these extravagances is not proportionate to their cost.
Obama's lingering problem is that with all his money, he does not have anything new to say. He has been repeating the same mantra for his campaign over and over again ever since the spring. By now, we all know that he wants to extend health insurance to "47 million Americans" (never mind that 10 million are here illegally) and cut taxes for "95 percent of the population" (never mind that half don't pay any taxes to begin with and the "tax cut" is really just a welfare check).
McCain's advertising is powering a bold new message, inspired by Joe the plumber: Obama will use the tax code to redistribute wealth.
The social populist backlash against his proposals is closing the lead that Obama opened up as a result of the financial crisis. With things calmer on Wall Street (our fingers tremble as we write this), voters have two weeks to ponder what the onset of a socialist presidency would mean for Americans.
McCain has enough money to punch his message through. It will not get drowned by a sea of Obama media. But McCain's supporters must realize that this race is far from over. There is a realistic chance that he can win. And if there was ever a time for his supporters to open up their checkbooks, it is now.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
OPEN LETTER TO OBAMA
SENT BY A READER WITH DUE CONCERN ABOUT OBAMA. THANKS BILL.
This election has the potential of changiing America for MANY
years to come with dire consequences for all of us, our children
and grandchildren.
It may speed up the "Fall of the U.S.A.
I know that many of you are sick and tired of all this political BS but if you read just one more thing between now and next month's election, I urge you to read the following editorial.
I do not know who 'Michael Masters' is or what he does, but he does write well.
To Barack Hussein Obama,
The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008, that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008, that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008, about 'race' contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America . While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.
In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without 'preparations' at lower levels ... Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin ... while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered 'I would' to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without 'any' preconditions. While your judgement about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.
On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgement about military strategy as a potential commander-in-chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.
You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal, while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately ... not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim. While your judgement about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.
You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar ... and it failed. The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.
In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a 'Captain' of a platoon in Afghanistan 'the other day' when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan . You lied in that debate.
In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a 'professor of Constitutional law' when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you 'taught a law class' and never mentioned being a 'professor of Constitutional law.' You lied last spring.
You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn ... and he was right .... corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden. You lied to America .
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.
You did not take an active role in the rescue plan. You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the financial problems of today ... and they all made major contributions to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.
You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America .
During your campaign, you said: 'typical white person.' 'They cling to their guns and religion.' 'They will say that I am black.' You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as racist. You divide America .
You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America , but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will cost America $1 trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq ) can pay for it. While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America .
The drain to America ' s economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You are lying to America .
Mr. Obama, you claimed that you 'changed' your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America .
Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA . They eliminated religion from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves ..... not America . Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving America .
Oh, Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else.
Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric. You talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.
1. You lied to America . You lied many times. You distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer.
2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.
3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.
4. You divide America about race and about class.
Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race baiting, and associations to John McCain: War hero. Annapolis graduate with 'Country first.' Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy officer for 22 years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.
Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated. Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.
Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty.
Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? Of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty? Because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are preying on their fears with empty promises ... and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for 'change' like the Germans wh o voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you really are ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.
Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.
Mr. Obama , America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future.
Mr. Obama, you are not the 'change' that America deserves. We cannot trust you.
Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander-in-chief.
Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements. And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race baiting, lack of operational leadership experience, and generally dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention from your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves .... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those men lied about the events ... false witness ... perjury ... your relationships and bad judgements are bad on their own .... but your lies are even worse.
Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in America before it is too late. We need to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are before election day.
Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help America if we deserve you.
Michael Master
McLean, Virginia
This election has the potential of changiing America for MANY
years to come with dire consequences for all of us, our children
and grandchildren.
It may speed up the "Fall of the U.S.A.
I know that many of you are sick and tired of all this political BS but if you read just one more thing between now and next month's election, I urge you to read the following editorial.
I do not know who 'Michael Masters' is or what he does, but he does write well.
To Barack Hussein Obama,
The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008, that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008, that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008, about 'race' contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America . While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.
In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without 'preparations' at lower levels ... Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin ... while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered 'I would' to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without 'any' preconditions. While your judgement about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.
On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgement about military strategy as a potential commander-in-chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.
You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal, while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately ... not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim. While your judgement about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.
You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar ... and it failed. The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.
In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a 'Captain' of a platoon in Afghanistan 'the other day' when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan . You lied in that debate.
In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a 'professor of Constitutional law' when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you 'taught a law class' and never mentioned being a 'professor of Constitutional law.' You lied last spring.
You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn ... and he was right .... corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden. You lied to America .
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.
You did not take an active role in the rescue plan. You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the financial problems of today ... and they all made major contributions to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.
You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America .
During your campaign, you said: 'typical white person.' 'They cling to their guns and religion.' 'They will say that I am black.' You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as racist. You divide America .
You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America , but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will cost America $1 trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq ) can pay for it. While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America .
The drain to America ' s economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You are lying to America .
Mr. Obama, you claimed that you 'changed' your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America .
Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA . They eliminated religion from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves ..... not America . Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving America .
Oh, Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else.
Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric. You talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.
1. You lied to America . You lied many times. You distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer.
2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.
3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.
4. You divide America about race and about class.
Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race baiting, and associations to John McCain: War hero. Annapolis graduate with 'Country first.' Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy officer for 22 years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.
Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated. Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.
Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty.
Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? Of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty? Because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are preying on their fears with empty promises ... and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for 'change' like the Germans wh o voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you really are ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.
Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.
Mr. Obama , America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future.
Mr. Obama, you are not the 'change' that America deserves. We cannot trust you.
Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander-in-chief.
Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements. And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race baiting, lack of operational leadership experience, and generally dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention from your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves .... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those men lied about the events ... false witness ... perjury ... your relationships and bad judgements are bad on their own .... but your lies are even worse.
Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in America before it is too late. We need to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are before election day.
Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help America if we deserve you.
Michael Master
McLean, Virginia
October 21, 2008
More on Obama - FYI. a liar is a liar always.
THIS ALERT FROM A CONSISTANT READER AND CONTRIBUTOR, THANKS GEORGIA
Subject: More on Obama - FYI
TERRY ANDERSON, A BLACK LOS ANGELES TALK RADIO HOST, WENT DOWN A LIST OF THINGS SENATOR OBAMA HAS SAID THAT AREN'T EXACTLY CORRECT.
Obama's Not Quite Exactly:
1..) Selma March Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.
2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.
4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya .. It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Obama, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out the following link for verification of that....and for more.
Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers ! have bur ned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.
6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya , his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro).
7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.
4-3-08 Article 'Obama was 'quite religious in Islam'' http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559
8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).
February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.' This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says 'Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts.'
9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could ever speak the language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn except how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.
11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine
13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTL! Y, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.
16.) Voting 'Present' is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 PRESENT or NO VOTES.
17.) Oops, I Mis-voted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your mis-vote.
18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it or create it.
21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish!
22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear d! onor, Ex elon, from which David Axelrod came.
23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.
24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens . You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.
25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.
26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.
27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.
28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.
29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction off Israel ..
30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.
31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.
33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.
34.) I Don't Take PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take loads of it.
35.) I don't Have Lobbyists - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.
36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple
37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.
38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.
39.) My uncle liberated Auschwitz concentration camp - NOT EXACTLY, your mother had no brothers and the Russian army did the liberating.
So, who EXACTLY is this Obama guy and what is he trying to sell us?
Please get to work now...not enough of your loved ones and friends know about this.
Subject: More on Obama - FYI
TERRY ANDERSON, A BLACK LOS ANGELES TALK RADIO HOST, WENT DOWN A LIST OF THINGS SENATOR OBAMA HAS SAID THAT AREN'T EXACTLY CORRECT.
Obama's Not Quite Exactly:
1..) Selma March Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.
2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.
4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya .. It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Obama, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out the following link for verification of that....and for more.
Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers ! have bur ned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.
6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya , his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro).
7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.
4-3-08 Article 'Obama was 'quite religious in Islam'' http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559
8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).
February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.' This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says 'Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts.'
9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could ever speak the language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn except how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.
11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine
13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTL! Y, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.
16.) Voting 'Present' is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 PRESENT or NO VOTES.
17.) Oops, I Mis-voted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your mis-vote.
18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it or create it.
21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish!
22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear d! onor, Ex elon, from which David Axelrod came.
23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.
24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens . You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.
25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.
26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.
27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.
28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.
29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction off Israel ..
30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.
31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.
33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.
34.) I Don't Take PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take loads of it.
35.) I don't Have Lobbyists - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.
36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple
37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.
38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.
39.) My uncle liberated Auschwitz concentration camp - NOT EXACTLY, your mother had no brothers and the Russian army did the liberating.
So, who EXACTLY is this Obama guy and what is he trying to sell us?
Please get to work now...not enough of your loved ones and friends know about this.
October 20, 2008
A Real Rescue
A Real Rescue
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama admitted to a Toledo plumber that he would raise his taxes to "spread the wealth around." John McCain has a better idea: Cut taxes to generate new wealth and more jobs.
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama can't just support a simple cut in capital gains taxes; it has to be a reduction so narrow that it's a stretch to call it a tax cut. Excluding most investment, it would have little if any economic stimulus effect that would produce new jobs.
Disingenuously talking about cutting capital gains taxes, of course, makes the silver-tongued socialist sound pro-business, but the proposal won't help anyone in need of a job in coming years.
Neither will the other items of Sen. Obama's "Promotional Rescue" (with apologies to the Rolling Stones). They include a government-imposed moratorium on home foreclosures, limited 401(k) withdrawals without penalty, and a Washington bailout for big-spending state and local governments.
And when the radical Southside Chicago community organizer promises to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, he really means welfare disguised as tax credits for the large sector of people not even paying income taxes — negating their payroll tax liability as well in many cases.
When millions more Americans pay zero taxes, it means millions with zero interest in any future tax cuts — a formula for long-term liberal Democratic political ascendancy.
John McCain, on the other hand, this week countered Obama with tax cuts that really are tax cuts. For the next two years, he would slice the capital gains tax in half. He would also quintuple the capital loss offset against ordinary income, raising it to $15,000.
He would lower the tax rate on IRA and 401(k) withdrawals for nearly 9 million seniors to 10% for the first $50,000 withdrawn per year. And his plan features an expanded federal guarantee to all savings account holdings for six months.
Sen. McCain understands what was explained with simple eloquence by Ronald Reagan on election night in November of 1980.
"I aim to try and tap that great American spirit that opened up this completely undeveloped continent from coast to coast and made it a great nation," he said at his victory celebration.
That spirit, Reagan continued, "survived several wars, survived a Great Depression, and we'll survive the problems we face right now."
Nothing could be further removed from that American spirit of which the greatest president of the 20th century spoke than the Marxist-like envy-mongering that is the soul of the Obama campaign. Churchill called socialism "the gospel of envy," and everywhere Obama goes, he preaches it, vilifying corporations as a class enemy and decrying "trickle down," his epithet for tax cuts.
McCain's plan to cut the capital gains tax in half would unlock a fortune in wealth, allowing it to be reinvested in businesses with the most potential for innovation and job growth.
That's a real rescue for millions of Americans — like that Toledo plumber who spoke truth to power when Obama came calling.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama admitted to a Toledo plumber that he would raise his taxes to "spread the wealth around." John McCain has a better idea: Cut taxes to generate new wealth and more jobs.
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama can't just support a simple cut in capital gains taxes; it has to be a reduction so narrow that it's a stretch to call it a tax cut. Excluding most investment, it would have little if any economic stimulus effect that would produce new jobs.
Disingenuously talking about cutting capital gains taxes, of course, makes the silver-tongued socialist sound pro-business, but the proposal won't help anyone in need of a job in coming years.
Neither will the other items of Sen. Obama's "Promotional Rescue" (with apologies to the Rolling Stones). They include a government-imposed moratorium on home foreclosures, limited 401(k) withdrawals without penalty, and a Washington bailout for big-spending state and local governments.
And when the radical Southside Chicago community organizer promises to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, he really means welfare disguised as tax credits for the large sector of people not even paying income taxes — negating their payroll tax liability as well in many cases.
When millions more Americans pay zero taxes, it means millions with zero interest in any future tax cuts — a formula for long-term liberal Democratic political ascendancy.
John McCain, on the other hand, this week countered Obama with tax cuts that really are tax cuts. For the next two years, he would slice the capital gains tax in half. He would also quintuple the capital loss offset against ordinary income, raising it to $15,000.
He would lower the tax rate on IRA and 401(k) withdrawals for nearly 9 million seniors to 10% for the first $50,000 withdrawn per year. And his plan features an expanded federal guarantee to all savings account holdings for six months.
Sen. McCain understands what was explained with simple eloquence by Ronald Reagan on election night in November of 1980.
"I aim to try and tap that great American spirit that opened up this completely undeveloped continent from coast to coast and made it a great nation," he said at his victory celebration.
That spirit, Reagan continued, "survived several wars, survived a Great Depression, and we'll survive the problems we face right now."
Nothing could be further removed from that American spirit of which the greatest president of the 20th century spoke than the Marxist-like envy-mongering that is the soul of the Obama campaign. Churchill called socialism "the gospel of envy," and everywhere Obama goes, he preaches it, vilifying corporations as a class enemy and decrying "trickle down," his epithet for tax cuts.
McCain's plan to cut the capital gains tax in half would unlock a fortune in wealth, allowing it to be reinvested in businesses with the most potential for innovation and job growth.
That's a real rescue for millions of Americans — like that Toledo plumber who spoke truth to power when Obama came calling.
Obamacorn
Obamacorn
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 13, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama lies about his ACORN past while agreeing to let the group shape the policies of his administration. He hopes his community organizer pals will help him make America "less mean-spirited."
As far back as Harvard Law School, Obama dreamed of transforming America in the image of community organizations such as ACORN with whom and for whom he trained.
In the May 3, 1990, edition of Chicago's Daily Herald newspaper, there's an article in which Obama, while attending Harvard Law School, gives his skewed view of American society and his plans for it. "I'm interested in organizations, not movements," the young Obama said, "because movements dissipate but organizations don't."
Through these organizations, Obama hoped that "more and more people will begin to feel their story is somehow part of this larger story of how we're going to reshape America in a way that is less mean-spirited and more generous."
Less mean-spirited? Apparently wife Michelle isn't the only one who thinks America is mean and should be more generous with other people's money. "I hope to be part of a transformation of this country," Obama also said in 1990.
Of course, Obama denies being a trainer for ACORN and its staff of community rabble-rousers now engaged in massive countrywide vote fraud to elect the man who helped lead their effort to force banks to issue loans to people who could not afford them.
Obama's Web site proclaims, "Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity." Then how is it that Chicago ACORN leader Toni Foulkes sang Obama's praises for his work for ACORN in his article, "Case Study: Chicago — The Barack Obama Campaign," which appeared in Social Policy magazine in 2004?
Foulkes said ACORN first recognized Obama's talents as a community organizer when he was organizing on Chicago's far south side with the Developing Communities Project.
Foulkes wrote: "When he returned from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state of Illinois' refusal to abide by the National Voting Rights Act . . . . Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar . . . and we won."
Then Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar balked at implementing the new federal "Motor Voter" law out of concern that allowing people to register via postcard and blocking the state from pruning voter rolls might invite vote fraud. We wonder where he got that idea.
Foulkes says that "Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Mosely Braun to win the Senate that year. Project Vote delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5,000 of them)."
ACORN was so impressed with Obama's work with and for ACORN that, according to Foulkes, "Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office."
Last November, Obama told the group, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran (the) Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."
Obama appreciates ACORN's work so much, and vice versa, that Obama last December promised to implement ACORN's agenda as president. On Dec. 1, 2007, Obama spoke at the Heartland Democratic Presidential Forum organized by Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change. When asked if Obama would sit down with community organizers in the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama said, "Yes, but let me even say before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we'll be calling all of you (community organizers) in to help us shape the agenda."
Obama pledged before leaders of community organizing groups including Gamaliel and ACORN: "We're gonna be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America."
That's what we were afraid of.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 13, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama lies about his ACORN past while agreeing to let the group shape the policies of his administration. He hopes his community organizer pals will help him make America "less mean-spirited."
As far back as Harvard Law School, Obama dreamed of transforming America in the image of community organizations such as ACORN with whom and for whom he trained.
In the May 3, 1990, edition of Chicago's Daily Herald newspaper, there's an article in which Obama, while attending Harvard Law School, gives his skewed view of American society and his plans for it. "I'm interested in organizations, not movements," the young Obama said, "because movements dissipate but organizations don't."
Through these organizations, Obama hoped that "more and more people will begin to feel their story is somehow part of this larger story of how we're going to reshape America in a way that is less mean-spirited and more generous."
Less mean-spirited? Apparently wife Michelle isn't the only one who thinks America is mean and should be more generous with other people's money. "I hope to be part of a transformation of this country," Obama also said in 1990.
Of course, Obama denies being a trainer for ACORN and its staff of community rabble-rousers now engaged in massive countrywide vote fraud to elect the man who helped lead their effort to force banks to issue loans to people who could not afford them.
Obama's Web site proclaims, "Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity." Then how is it that Chicago ACORN leader Toni Foulkes sang Obama's praises for his work for ACORN in his article, "Case Study: Chicago — The Barack Obama Campaign," which appeared in Social Policy magazine in 2004?
Foulkes said ACORN first recognized Obama's talents as a community organizer when he was organizing on Chicago's far south side with the Developing Communities Project.
Foulkes wrote: "When he returned from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state of Illinois' refusal to abide by the National Voting Rights Act . . . . Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar . . . and we won."
Then Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar balked at implementing the new federal "Motor Voter" law out of concern that allowing people to register via postcard and blocking the state from pruning voter rolls might invite vote fraud. We wonder where he got that idea.
Foulkes says that "Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Mosely Braun to win the Senate that year. Project Vote delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5,000 of them)."
ACORN was so impressed with Obama's work with and for ACORN that, according to Foulkes, "Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office."
Last November, Obama told the group, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran (the) Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."
Obama appreciates ACORN's work so much, and vice versa, that Obama last December promised to implement ACORN's agenda as president. On Dec. 1, 2007, Obama spoke at the Heartland Democratic Presidential Forum organized by Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change. When asked if Obama would sit down with community organizers in the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama said, "Yes, but let me even say before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we'll be calling all of you (community organizers) in to help us shape the agenda."
Obama pledged before leaders of community organizing groups including Gamaliel and ACORN: "We're gonna be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America."
That's what we were afraid of.
October 19, 2008
this is why I cannot vote for you.......
I am fully 100% behind the reasons for not voting for a democrat - be it Obama or any other democrat. And, the reasons, as this man says, are not racist at all!!
Subject: Fw: this is why I cannot vote for you.......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a letter by a person who tells Obama why he won't support him. It's a well-written letter with not an ounce of hate or meanness. I think both pro and anti folks will find this interesting.
Please take the time to read this....it is put very well.... it doesn't appear to contain any 'lies' or false info.
Dear Mr. Obama,
It is August 30, 2008. My name is Mark Gregg. I am a 50 something conservative white male. I have followed your campaign closely, including the speeches you and others made at the democratic national convention. I am respectfully providing you with seven simple reasons why I could never vote for you. I believe my opinion is shared by many people. While there may not be quite enough to prevent you from becoming president of this nation, I do think there is an awakening to the fact that you are not a (the) messiah that the media and liberal Hollywood entertainers and Louis Farakan are trying to portray you.
1. I hear your mantra of change, change, change. Yet, you picked a long term, liberal, Washington insider (Joe Biden) to be your running mate. This is NOT change. It is a move that hypocritically refutes the very thing you supposedly stand for. Your campaign then slammed McCain for picking Sarah Palin, apparently, because she is NOT a Washington insider. She is a maverick who cleaned-up Alaska 's quagmire of political scandals. Which way is it, Barack? Is it okay for you to pick a Washington insider under the mantra of 'change', but not okay for John McCain to pick a smart, aggressive, reformer?
2. You have the single most liberal voting record in the senate. This indicates to me and others like me that you may very well be an angry black man seeking to punish our country for sins of a different generation. I am not racist. I have some biases just like you and every other human alive. Unlike the democratic party who claims to be for the minority (but their record heavily refutes this), I will give any person who truly needs help, help. I married a 'minority' girl 35 years ago (she is Hispanic) and have seen the evils of prejudice first hand. However, I have also seen my wife and my children and others in her family throw off the veil of self imposed prejudicial bondage and move ahead. They love our country and do not view themselves any different than I view myself as a citizen of this country. Your lovely wife so disappointed people like me during this campaign when she stated it was the first time she had ever been proud of this country. She apparently never noticed the massive aid we give dozens of other countries. She apparently never noticed the sacrifice of literally millions of veterans who helped make this country a free nation and helped liberate other nations from brutal dictators such as Adolf Hitler. She apparently does not remember that she attended ivy league universities with scholarship money that ultimately (at least some of it) was paid for by our taxes. This troubles me more than you know. She is an angry black woman who appears to not like her country very much. I don't want her representing me to the rest of the world.
3. You claim Christianity but apparently do not realize that the Bible teaches that he who does not work, does not eat. The Bible does not say or even suggest that he who CANNOT work, should not eat. Yet, your liberal policies reward people who are capable of working, but choose to not do so. This bothers me. I know that if you are elected our taxes will spiral upwards. You should heed the words of Winston Churchill: 'We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.' If I like anything about you, it is your campaign promise to balance the federal budget. Unfortunately, we have heard this a huge number of times from a number of different politicians and we realize that when you energize the very liberal Nancy Pelosi , Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, etc, etc, and the many other democrats like them, a balanced budget will never, ever happen on your watch.
4. During your question and answer session with Rick Warren of Saddleback Church your answer concerning the question of where does life begin, stunned me: 'Above your pay grade?' Does this mean when something bad happens as President of this nation that you are going to look at your salary to determine if you can respond? I am sorry, but this was the most serious gaffe I have seen you make. Frankly, it shows me that you are pandering in the most obvious manner. You will choose your words not from your heart, but from an agenda that I believe is still hidden from the American people.
5. If anything stands out about you it is probably your appeasement mentality. In this era of rampant, radical Islamic extremism and with the latest stunt pulled by the re-energized Russian government, I am not sure appeasement is healthy. I again revert to the words of Winston Churchill: 'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.'
6. You and your party tacitly believe that a 13 or 14 year old girl must have the parents' approval to have the school nurse provide them with a Tylenol when they have a headache at school. Yet, this same girl can become pregnant and the school can skirt her off to a clinic and abort the child in her body without the parents knowing or being notified. This scares the hell out of me. You have two little girls. Would you be upset if this happened to them and you were not informed? Then why do you stand for this? It makes no sense to me.
7. My seventh and final point (for now) is your supporters. I have watched the Hollywood entertainers that support you, systematically embrace Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and others like him. I see the continuous smut and garbage produced by Hollywood , the very people who promote you the most vigorously. It is not a positive point to me and others like me to see these over-paid, bizarre, poor examples of human existence fawn over you and push you and your liberal agenda as hard as they do. The way that I see it, when the devil is for you, we should question whether or not we should be against you.
In closing, I just want you to know that you scare me. I cannot vote for you. It is not because of your skin color. It is because of these items and many, many others like them. Do not claim that my dislike for you is race based. It is because I do not feel you have the best interests of this nation at heart.
Respectfully,
Mark A. Gregg
(P.S., no mention is made of the birth records, school records, etc. which are not produced for review, nor is any mention made of Obama's questionable associations.)
Subject: Fw: this is why I cannot vote for you.......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a letter by a person who tells Obama why he won't support him. It's a well-written letter with not an ounce of hate or meanness. I think both pro and anti folks will find this interesting.
Please take the time to read this....it is put very well.... it doesn't appear to contain any 'lies' or false info.
Dear Mr. Obama,
It is August 30, 2008. My name is Mark Gregg. I am a 50 something conservative white male. I have followed your campaign closely, including the speeches you and others made at the democratic national convention. I am respectfully providing you with seven simple reasons why I could never vote for you. I believe my opinion is shared by many people. While there may not be quite enough to prevent you from becoming president of this nation, I do think there is an awakening to the fact that you are not a (the) messiah that the media and liberal Hollywood entertainers and Louis Farakan are trying to portray you.
1. I hear your mantra of change, change, change. Yet, you picked a long term, liberal, Washington insider (Joe Biden) to be your running mate. This is NOT change. It is a move that hypocritically refutes the very thing you supposedly stand for. Your campaign then slammed McCain for picking Sarah Palin, apparently, because she is NOT a Washington insider. She is a maverick who cleaned-up Alaska 's quagmire of political scandals. Which way is it, Barack? Is it okay for you to pick a Washington insider under the mantra of 'change', but not okay for John McCain to pick a smart, aggressive, reformer?
2. You have the single most liberal voting record in the senate. This indicates to me and others like me that you may very well be an angry black man seeking to punish our country for sins of a different generation. I am not racist. I have some biases just like you and every other human alive. Unlike the democratic party who claims to be for the minority (but their record heavily refutes this), I will give any person who truly needs help, help. I married a 'minority' girl 35 years ago (she is Hispanic) and have seen the evils of prejudice first hand. However, I have also seen my wife and my children and others in her family throw off the veil of self imposed prejudicial bondage and move ahead. They love our country and do not view themselves any different than I view myself as a citizen of this country. Your lovely wife so disappointed people like me during this campaign when she stated it was the first time she had ever been proud of this country. She apparently never noticed the massive aid we give dozens of other countries. She apparently never noticed the sacrifice of literally millions of veterans who helped make this country a free nation and helped liberate other nations from brutal dictators such as Adolf Hitler. She apparently does not remember that she attended ivy league universities with scholarship money that ultimately (at least some of it) was paid for by our taxes. This troubles me more than you know. She is an angry black woman who appears to not like her country very much. I don't want her representing me to the rest of the world.
3. You claim Christianity but apparently do not realize that the Bible teaches that he who does not work, does not eat. The Bible does not say or even suggest that he who CANNOT work, should not eat. Yet, your liberal policies reward people who are capable of working, but choose to not do so. This bothers me. I know that if you are elected our taxes will spiral upwards. You should heed the words of Winston Churchill: 'We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.' If I like anything about you, it is your campaign promise to balance the federal budget. Unfortunately, we have heard this a huge number of times from a number of different politicians and we realize that when you energize the very liberal Nancy Pelosi , Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, etc, etc, and the many other democrats like them, a balanced budget will never, ever happen on your watch.
4. During your question and answer session with Rick Warren of Saddleback Church your answer concerning the question of where does life begin, stunned me: 'Above your pay grade?' Does this mean when something bad happens as President of this nation that you are going to look at your salary to determine if you can respond? I am sorry, but this was the most serious gaffe I have seen you make. Frankly, it shows me that you are pandering in the most obvious manner. You will choose your words not from your heart, but from an agenda that I believe is still hidden from the American people.
5. If anything stands out about you it is probably your appeasement mentality. In this era of rampant, radical Islamic extremism and with the latest stunt pulled by the re-energized Russian government, I am not sure appeasement is healthy. I again revert to the words of Winston Churchill: 'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.'
6. You and your party tacitly believe that a 13 or 14 year old girl must have the parents' approval to have the school nurse provide them with a Tylenol when they have a headache at school. Yet, this same girl can become pregnant and the school can skirt her off to a clinic and abort the child in her body without the parents knowing or being notified. This scares the hell out of me. You have two little girls. Would you be upset if this happened to them and you were not informed? Then why do you stand for this? It makes no sense to me.
7. My seventh and final point (for now) is your supporters. I have watched the Hollywood entertainers that support you, systematically embrace Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and others like him. I see the continuous smut and garbage produced by Hollywood , the very people who promote you the most vigorously. It is not a positive point to me and others like me to see these over-paid, bizarre, poor examples of human existence fawn over you and push you and your liberal agenda as hard as they do. The way that I see it, when the devil is for you, we should question whether or not we should be against you.
In closing, I just want you to know that you scare me. I cannot vote for you. It is not because of your skin color. It is because of these items and many, many others like them. Do not claim that my dislike for you is race based. It is because I do not feel you have the best interests of this nation at heart.
Respectfully,
Mark A. Gregg
(P.S., no mention is made of the birth records, school records, etc. which are not produced for review, nor is any mention made of Obama's questionable associations.)
Obama’s Tax Cut is Actually a Spending Increase
Obama’s Tax Cut is Actually a Spending Increase,Says Non-Partisan Group
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
By Matt Cover
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama boards his campaign plane. (AP Photo.) (CNSNews.com) – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plan to cut taxes on 95 percent of taxpayers would effectively increase government spending by an average of $64.8 billion a year and effectively raise income tax rates for many Americans, even on some earning $20-$50,000 per year, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.
The heart of Obama’s tax cut proposal is in his use of refundable tax credits, which the Center describes as “credits available to eligible households even if they have no income tax liability” -- in short, refunds available even to those who don’t pay taxes. These refunds are claimed on tax returns and are paid to all taxpayers who qualify for them, regardless of whether they owe taxes or not. These refunds have the ability of reducing a taxpayer’s liability below zero, meaning they can get a refund without actually paying taxes.
In real numbers, 60.7 million people who have no tax burden at all will receive refunds from Obama, while only 33.8 million people, who pay approximately 40 percent of income taxes, will get any kind of refund. Twenty percent of taxpayers, who pay 87.5 percent of total income taxes, will actually see after-tax income decline under Obama by nearly two percent, according to the Center.
By using these refunds, Obama is able to claim that he is giving a tax cut to 95 percent of households, although only 62 percent of households pay any income taxes at all. This means that Obama’s tax plan calls for giving money to some households that do not pay taxes, including a plan to make community college “essentially free” and pay 10 percent of the interest on all mortgages.
The problem with Obama’s characterization that his proposals are tax cuts is that refundable credits are calculated as outlays, or direct spending, not as reductions in tax rates, according to the Center. This means that, in budgetary terms, some of Obama’s tax cuts are actually spending increases.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that Obama’s spending proposals will be so large that they effectively eliminate income taxes for 15 million households, increasing the percentage of households that pay no taxes from 37.8 percent to 48.1 percent.
Obama’s biggest refund, and the one most likely to go to non-taxpayers, is his Making Work Pay credit, which would give $500-$1000 to everyone making under $200-250,000 a year. This proposal, which the Tax Policy Center says is “intended to offset the regressivity of payroll taxes,” would cost taxpayers $323.4 billion during Obama’s first term, if elected.
The credit would be applied to those making as little as $8,100 per year: the equivalent of working approximately 20 hours per week at $7.25 per hour, the level of the federal minimum wage during Obama’s presidency.
Obama’s second refund is his Universal 10% Mortgage Interest credit, which will automatically refund 10 percent of mortgage interest, up to $800, for taxpayers who do not itemize deductions. Currently, taxpayers who itemize deductions may deduct mortgage interest from their taxes. This new refund would amount to a $13 billion subsidy for taxpayers who do not itemize.
Obama’s third new refund is the American Opportunity credit, which will provide up to $4,000 in refunds to cover the costs of college tuition. The Obama campaign Web site says that this refund is aimed at “making community college essentially free and covering 2/3 of the cost of public 4-year college.” This refund would cost $58.2 billion during Obama’s first term, according to the Center.
Obama also plans to expand the child and dependent care credit, by making it refundable and extending it to cover up to 50 percent of the cost of child care, up to $3,000. This proposal would cost an estimated $10.6 billion during an Obama first term and would disproportionately benefit those who pay little or no taxes, according to the Center.
Obama would also make the Savers Credit refundable, expanding it to “match 50% of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000,” per year, according to the Obama campaign.
The Saver’s Credit is a non-refundable credit which offers low-income taxpayers up to a $1000 refund on contributions they make toward a 401(k) or IRA retirement account.
Combined with his proposals to mandate enrollment in 401(k)s and require employers who do not offer them to establish IRAs for workers would carry a Center-estimated cost of $92.3 billion during Obama’s first term.
Obama would further expand an already refundable credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit, in three ways. The Earned Income Tax Credit is a refundable credit for low-income workers designed to give refunds to people who may have dependents but do not pay income taxes.
First, Obama’s plan would extend the credit’s phase-in range for childless workers, or lower the income level required to qualify for the credit, by increasing to $6,300 the amount of income that can be used to calculate the credit.
Second, he would extend the credit’s phase-out range for childless workers, raising the income ceiling on the credit. Phase-in and phase-out ranges are the maximum and minimum income levels needed to qualify for the credit. Obama would extend the phase-out level to $9,825.
Third, he would increase the size of the refund available by increasing rates from 7.65 percent to 15.3 percent for childless workers, and from 40 percent to 45 percent for couples with more than three children. According to the Center, these expansions would cost an estimated $19.3 billion over four years.
These programs would apply to most workers making less than $200,000 a year for singles and $250,000 a year for couples, but not evenly. Most of the benefits of Obama’s plan would go to the bottom 40 percent of wage earners, a group that, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Tax Policy Center, pays zero percent of the nation’s income taxes.
In fact, Obama’s refunds get smaller as tax burdens get larger, which means that while it is true that 95 percent of workers will receive some form of tax refund from Obama, they will not all receive a full refund, because Obama relies on phase-in and phase-out proposals to target his refunds toward the lowest-earning tax brackets.
It is these phase-out requirements that result in a general decrease of the refunds for people earning over $75,000 per year, according to the Center. This bracket includes nearly 40 percent of all Americans and nearly 20 percent of total income taxes.
When compared with current law, people earning $20,000-$50,000 a year will see their effective tax rates -- the amount of money the taxpayer actually ends up paying the government -- increase on average under Obama’s plan, according to Tax Policy Center figures.
Most households making $30,000-$75,000 will not see a reduction in their taxes under Obama’s plan relative to current law, according to the Center. In fact, the only strata that will see a majority of its effective tax burden reduced under Obama are those making less than $30,000 per year and those making $75,000-$200,000 per year.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
By Matt Cover
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama boards his campaign plane. (AP Photo.) (CNSNews.com) – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plan to cut taxes on 95 percent of taxpayers would effectively increase government spending by an average of $64.8 billion a year and effectively raise income tax rates for many Americans, even on some earning $20-$50,000 per year, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.
The heart of Obama’s tax cut proposal is in his use of refundable tax credits, which the Center describes as “credits available to eligible households even if they have no income tax liability” -- in short, refunds available even to those who don’t pay taxes. These refunds are claimed on tax returns and are paid to all taxpayers who qualify for them, regardless of whether they owe taxes or not. These refunds have the ability of reducing a taxpayer’s liability below zero, meaning they can get a refund without actually paying taxes.
In real numbers, 60.7 million people who have no tax burden at all will receive refunds from Obama, while only 33.8 million people, who pay approximately 40 percent of income taxes, will get any kind of refund. Twenty percent of taxpayers, who pay 87.5 percent of total income taxes, will actually see after-tax income decline under Obama by nearly two percent, according to the Center.
By using these refunds, Obama is able to claim that he is giving a tax cut to 95 percent of households, although only 62 percent of households pay any income taxes at all. This means that Obama’s tax plan calls for giving money to some households that do not pay taxes, including a plan to make community college “essentially free” and pay 10 percent of the interest on all mortgages.
The problem with Obama’s characterization that his proposals are tax cuts is that refundable credits are calculated as outlays, or direct spending, not as reductions in tax rates, according to the Center. This means that, in budgetary terms, some of Obama’s tax cuts are actually spending increases.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that Obama’s spending proposals will be so large that they effectively eliminate income taxes for 15 million households, increasing the percentage of households that pay no taxes from 37.8 percent to 48.1 percent.
Obama’s biggest refund, and the one most likely to go to non-taxpayers, is his Making Work Pay credit, which would give $500-$1000 to everyone making under $200-250,000 a year. This proposal, which the Tax Policy Center says is “intended to offset the regressivity of payroll taxes,” would cost taxpayers $323.4 billion during Obama’s first term, if elected.
The credit would be applied to those making as little as $8,100 per year: the equivalent of working approximately 20 hours per week at $7.25 per hour, the level of the federal minimum wage during Obama’s presidency.
Obama’s second refund is his Universal 10% Mortgage Interest credit, which will automatically refund 10 percent of mortgage interest, up to $800, for taxpayers who do not itemize deductions. Currently, taxpayers who itemize deductions may deduct mortgage interest from their taxes. This new refund would amount to a $13 billion subsidy for taxpayers who do not itemize.
Obama’s third new refund is the American Opportunity credit, which will provide up to $4,000 in refunds to cover the costs of college tuition. The Obama campaign Web site says that this refund is aimed at “making community college essentially free and covering 2/3 of the cost of public 4-year college.” This refund would cost $58.2 billion during Obama’s first term, according to the Center.
Obama also plans to expand the child and dependent care credit, by making it refundable and extending it to cover up to 50 percent of the cost of child care, up to $3,000. This proposal would cost an estimated $10.6 billion during an Obama first term and would disproportionately benefit those who pay little or no taxes, according to the Center.
Obama would also make the Savers Credit refundable, expanding it to “match 50% of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000,” per year, according to the Obama campaign.
The Saver’s Credit is a non-refundable credit which offers low-income taxpayers up to a $1000 refund on contributions they make toward a 401(k) or IRA retirement account.
Combined with his proposals to mandate enrollment in 401(k)s and require employers who do not offer them to establish IRAs for workers would carry a Center-estimated cost of $92.3 billion during Obama’s first term.
Obama would further expand an already refundable credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit, in three ways. The Earned Income Tax Credit is a refundable credit for low-income workers designed to give refunds to people who may have dependents but do not pay income taxes.
First, Obama’s plan would extend the credit’s phase-in range for childless workers, or lower the income level required to qualify for the credit, by increasing to $6,300 the amount of income that can be used to calculate the credit.
Second, he would extend the credit’s phase-out range for childless workers, raising the income ceiling on the credit. Phase-in and phase-out ranges are the maximum and minimum income levels needed to qualify for the credit. Obama would extend the phase-out level to $9,825.
Third, he would increase the size of the refund available by increasing rates from 7.65 percent to 15.3 percent for childless workers, and from 40 percent to 45 percent for couples with more than three children. According to the Center, these expansions would cost an estimated $19.3 billion over four years.
These programs would apply to most workers making less than $200,000 a year for singles and $250,000 a year for couples, but not evenly. Most of the benefits of Obama’s plan would go to the bottom 40 percent of wage earners, a group that, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Tax Policy Center, pays zero percent of the nation’s income taxes.
In fact, Obama’s refunds get smaller as tax burdens get larger, which means that while it is true that 95 percent of workers will receive some form of tax refund from Obama, they will not all receive a full refund, because Obama relies on phase-in and phase-out proposals to target his refunds toward the lowest-earning tax brackets.
It is these phase-out requirements that result in a general decrease of the refunds for people earning over $75,000 per year, according to the Center. This bracket includes nearly 40 percent of all Americans and nearly 20 percent of total income taxes.
When compared with current law, people earning $20,000-$50,000 a year will see their effective tax rates -- the amount of money the taxpayer actually ends up paying the government -- increase on average under Obama’s plan, according to Tax Policy Center figures.
Most households making $30,000-$75,000 will not see a reduction in their taxes under Obama’s plan relative to current law, according to the Center. In fact, the only strata that will see a majority of its effective tax burden reduced under Obama are those making less than $30,000 per year and those making $75,000-$200,000 per year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
