How McCain Can Pull a Truman Win with Sarah's Help
Palin Press Conference Exposing Obama’s Corruption
The media is filtering McCain's Obama message. The only media event they will allow to get through the filter is a Palin press conference.
They think she is dumb and they can destroy her.
She showed in the Biden debate that she is more than a match for them if McCain lets her be herself.
McCain's redistrubutionist Obama taxing taxpayers theme is starting to get through, but he needs a jump start to get it through with only four days left.
Sarah Palin’s huge viewer numbers at the convention, debate and the mock press conference on Saturday Night Live proves a live press conference is a chance to turn the election around with an unfiltered message.
Sarah exposes Obama’s corruption especially on taxes. (Below are a few short examples under Dick Morris' How McCain Can Pull a Truman)
Fred
http://www.newsmax.com/morris/mccain_truman_morris/2008/10/26/144298.html
How McCain Can Pull a Truman
Sunday, October 26, 2008 8:11 PM
By: Dick Morris Article Font Size
The most reliable surveys put McCain five to seven points behind Obama as we enter the last week of this interminable campaign. But in a race that will be famous for years afterwards for its volatility, it is not too late for the Republican to pull out a victory.
For Harry Truman in 1948, the presidential race shifted dramatically in the final week, and it's happened three more times in the past 30 years. In 1980, Reagan came from eight points behind to a solid victory by winning his sole debate with Carter in the last week of October. In 1992, Clinton, who had fallen behind in the polls because of the pounding he was taking over his liberalism and propensity to raise taxes, surged ahead of Bush when Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh announced that he was indicting Defense Secretary Casper (Cap) Weinberger, an indication of Bush's possible complicity in the Iran-Contra scandal. And in 2000, Bush's three-to-four point lead in the polls was erased over the final weekend when reports surfaced that he had been cited for DWI 20 years before and had not revealed the fact to the public. Bush still won the election, of course, but Gore won the popular vote by half a point.
What does McCain have to do to pull off a similar shift this time?
1. Use the stock market crash to highlight the tax issue. With the Dow Jones dropping each day by hundreds of points, this election is being held against a backdrop of economic fear unlike any since the Depression. Almost every reputable economist agrees that it would be catastrophic to add to the economy's woes by raising the capital gains tax. But Obama is on record as favoring an increase from 15% to 20% and suggested during the primaries that he would consider hitting 28%.
McCain should jump on the issue and challenge Obama to agree to a two-year moratorium on increases in the capital gains tax. If Obama agrees, McCain will score points for leadership. If Obama refuses, or ignores the challenge, McCain can attribute much of the drop in the market to the fear of increased capital gains taxation once Obama takes over. After all, its pretty obvious that if you keep 85% of your capital profits right now but stand only to keep 80% or 72% once Obama takes over, it's prudent to unload now. This pressure to sell is exactly what the markets do not need, and McCain can hammer the point home.
McCain can say that Obama's refusal to join in supporting a moratorium on capital gains taxation increases shows his commitment to class warfare - and that big government exceeds any concern he might have for stock market stability or the value of 401Ks or retirement pension funds.
McCain has already scored mightily with his invocation of Joe the Plumber and, polls show, he won the third debate by using the issue of taxes and small businesses. By early this coming week, his advertising will have achieved sufficient levels of frequency to have an impact on the polling.
2. Bring back Rev. Jeremiah Wright. For reasons that are beyond me, John McCain has vowed not to make an issue out of Rev. Wright's extreme anti-American statements. But that should not stop independent expenditure and 527 groups from raising the issue.
A good advertisement would alternate footage of Wright saying "God damn America" and 9/11 was just the "chickens coming home to roost" with an announcer explaining the relationship between the two men. The narrator might remind voters that it was Rev. Wright who married Barack and Michelle Obama and that Obama himself sat in the pews at Wright's church for 20 years as sermons like these were being given. It should point out that Obama only distanced himself from Wright a month after his remarks scandalized all Americans and cost him his momentum in the polls.
McCain is likely fearful that the establishment media would condemn him for running the ads. Their very effectiveness would ensure that the liberal media would fall all over themselves to denounce the tactic. But independent groups who want to prevent a leftist takeover of the government should not let liberal organs dictate their campaign tactics or their message.
3. Warn voters of impending socialism in America. The recent bailout legislation puts the United States government inside the ownership, management and direction of many of our major companies and financial institutions. The bureaucrats have entered as firefighters, trying to extinguish the blazes that threaten to consume these companies. But once the flames are put out, will the firefighters go home or will they set up shop and give the United States a socialist economy akin to that of Western European nations? Will the bureaucrats relinquish the power they are being given in a time of crisis?
McCain needs to point out that bureaucrats never let go of power unless they have to. He should say that with an Obama Administration and a highly Democratic Congress, we could face a long and perhaps permanent period during which entrepreneurial, private-sector capitalism disappears and loan applicants must win government approval for their financing.
Many people have become concerned with the growing power of foreign sovereign wealth funds in major American businesses. Will these funds use their influence and power to alter the financial policies and lending practices of America's leading banks and investment houses? But now the danger comes not just from abroad but from government intervention at home. The sovereign wealth fund that might be most influential in distorting our private capitalist system is the United States Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board.
Under conservative, pro-capitalist Republican management, we can, presumably, trust these institutions to exercise their power benignly and to turn control over to the private sector as soon as possible. We can count on their taking a hands-off policy toward the investment of the banks and financial firms in which they acquire an equity position. Except to control abuses like subprime mortgages and making marginal loans, we can expect that these federal institutions will act in our interest.
But if Obama's appointments take over the Treasury and the Fed, can we be as sure? McCain needs to point out that it was political meddling by liberals that led Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to encourage subprime mortgage loans in the first place. Were it not for the pressure in the Clinton Administration to expand home ownership to poor people and minorities, Freddie and Fannie would not have relaxed their down payment policies and would not have been willing to guarantee mortgages without proof that the borrowers had sufficient income to repay the debts.
McCain needs to point out that it is precisely this sort of liberal pressure which led to the disaster and to warn that the power the bailout legislation gives the next president is so potent that it could destroy our concept of a private economy.
If the Dow continues to terrify investors and distract voters from the election, it will continue to bolster Obama's candidacy and his lead. But if there is some stability in the final week before the election, there is every chance that voters will take another look at Obama and decide that he is too risky. By stressing the tax issue and the potential of an Obama regime to subvert our free enterprise system, McCain can harness the crisis and warn voters of the impact of a decision to elect the most radical candidate for president in our nation's history.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Obama’s Corruption from ACORN to Taxes
Obama's Lie on Taxes
During the first Debate:
JOHN MCCAIN: "But again, Senator Obama has shifted on a number of occasions. He has voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year."
BARACK OBAMA: "That's not true, John. That's not true."
Record
Barack Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats' FY 2009 Budget Resolution That Would Raise Taxes On Those Making Just $42,000 A Year. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)
· In March 2008, Obama Hailed His Vote For The Budget As Making "Significant Progress In Getting Our Nation's Priorities Back On Track." Obama: "The budget passed by the Senate tonight makes significant progress in getting our nation's priorities back on track. ... We need change in this country, and this budget is an important step in helping bring it about." (Sen. Barack Obama, "Obama Statement On The Senate's Passage Of The FY 2009 Budget," Press Release, obama.senate.gov, 3/14/08)
FactCheck.org: Barack Obama Did Vote For Higher Taxes On People Making $42,000 Despite Saying The Opposite. "Obama denied voting for a bill that called for increased taxes on 'people' making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers." ("FactChecking Debate No. 1," FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 9/27/08)
· "Yes, As We’ve Said Before, Obama Did In Fact Vote For A Budget Resolution That Called For Higher Federal Income Tax Rates On A Single, Non-Homeowner Who Earned As Little As $42,000 Per Year." ("FactChecking Debate No. 1," FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 9/27/08)
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:r2GD__EUSckJ:ncgop.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-fact-check-on-tax-increases.html+obama+voting+record+on+taxes+%2442,000+per+year.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
Obama's Lie on ACORN
In third Debate Obama said:“The only involvement I’ve had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department.”
Obama's Website: Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee. Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive[http://fightthesmears.com/articles/20/acornrumor] Barack ran in 1992.
Record
Toni Foulkes, a Chicago Acorn leader wrote:
Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992...Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5000 of them)...
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. Thus, it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. [Actually, the congressional race was in 2000, SK] By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTNiN2YwMmQ4Njc2MzE4ZDUxYWVlYTA1NzZlMmY3YmM=
Obama's Lie on Same-Sex Marriage
Obama said:
-Obama had previously said he opposes same-sex marriage but that each state should make its own decision.
[http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:jsCGxB36hzEJ:www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html+obama+prop+8&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]
Record
Obama record:
-Perhaps, it’s because in his first Illinois senate race, Obama is listed by a Chicago gay-lesbian publication as “supports same sex marriage”. Obama’s stand on same sex marriage was one reason he got the endorsement of Outlines, a Chicago-based gay paper that merged with the Windy City Times in 2000.
[http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:_cYvgDcUsqYJ:deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/10/obama-same-sex-marriage-obama-supported-same-sex-marriage-as-ill-state-senator/+obama+I+will+tell+you+that+I+don%27t+believe+in+gay+marriage,+but+I+do+think+that+people&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]
-"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts [Proposition 8] to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote.
[http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:jsCGxB36hzEJ:www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html+obama+prop+8&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]
Obama's Lie on Abortion
In the third debate Obama said:
-Yes, let me respond to this. If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true.[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08101601.html]
Record
Obama in the Illinois Senate said:
-"I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions," said Obama, "because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."
-Obama said near the beginning of the discussion, "the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb."
-For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her.
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/10/the_obama_debat.html
Obama's biggest Lie on hailing himself as the champion of the the middle class
Record
Obama's Church Tenet: "Disavowal of the Pursuit of 'Middleclassness'”
-8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
- But the tenets of that church during Obama's attendance are well documented. They were on the church website earlier this year and served as the church's tenets for the entirety of the time Obama worshiped there. As they are part of the "Black Value System", they were as follows:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
http://thebigfeed.blogspot.com/2008/10/what-obama-really-thinks-of-middle.html
WHAT OBAMA REALLY THINKS OF THE MIDDLE CLASS: WHAT EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO KNOW
This is a repost.
Barack Obama is spending much of time hailing himself as the champion of the the middle class. He has made his promise of help for the middle class the center of his campaign. But how does he really feel about the middle class?
Truth be told, Barack Obama has spent much of his adult life worshiping in a church that had as one of its basic tenets the "disavowal of the pursuit of middleclassness". What does that mean? Well, If I have to tell you what "middle class" means, please, spend your time at CNN.com. As for the term "disavowal"...It means (and this is solely for your benefit because I have a big brain and already know what it means) "to disclaim knowledge of, responsibility for, or association with". It should be clear to you now what Obama's church meant by "disavowal of the pursuit of middleclassness".
Here is the point that I would normally direct you to Obama's church's website and let you view its basic tenets for yourself. Just so you can see that I'm not BSing you. Alas, that web page listing those tenets has been removed (The work of Obama's "truth squad"?). But the tenets of that church during Obama's attendance are well documented. They were on the church website earlier this year and served as the church's tenets for the entirety of the time Obama worshiped there. As they are part of the "Black Value System", they were as follows:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.
Number 8, the one at issue, is no longer one of the stated tenets of the church. It has been removed. But it did exist. Again, it served as one of the points of the church for the entire time Obama worshiped under Jerimiah Right, his spiritual mentor. Here's proof. And here's even better proof.
Now, if you take Obama's worship at a church that has as one of its basic points the "disavowal of the pursuit of 'middleclassness'", and you throw it in a pot with the thoughts of his communist mentor Frank Davis and his and his socialist associate Saul Alinsky, and then you add a dash of resentment and condescension for bitter, bible clinging, gun toting types, you really start to get a better picture of exactly what Obama thinks about the middle class. Which is, that he doesn't believe it should exist.
America! Here is a man who is running around the country telling anyone who will listen that HE is the one who is fighting for the middle class. Which, given the above, comes as quite a surprise. After all, he had 20 years to get point 8 removed from his own church's tenets. He did nothing. He had 20 years to tell his congregation that killing the middle class is not such a good idea. Instead, he showed up to church on Sundays and said nothing. And we're now supposed to believe he is our greatest defender? Wolf...sheep's clothing. Y'all know the story. Don't get eaten.
Same-Sex Marriage Obama's Letter Opposing Proposition 8
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/01/MN8J11I731.DTL
Obama's letter opposing same-sex marriage ban
The text of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club in San Francisco:
Dear Friends,
Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pride Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.
As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.
For too long. issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.
Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
Obama Taxes:$250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $120,000 $42,000
Obama Taxes:$250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $120,000 $42,000
-Gov. Richardson:"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the Middle Class"
[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/low-richardson-pegs-middle-class-making/]
-Last week Biden identified the level as $150,000. This is interesting since both had no problem taxing folks who earned $42,000. So, what is the real amount going to be? Who exactly can expect a tax increase??
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1996353&referrerid=93883
$250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $42,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is it? Obama keeps talking about anyone whose income falls below a certain level will not see a tax rise, but the level keeps changing. First it was $250,000 and below, yesterday in his 30 minute commercial it was $200,000 (guess he thought no one would notice the extra $50,000), and last week Biden identified the level as $150,000. This is interesting since both had no problem taxing folks who earned $42,000. So, what is the real amount going to be? Who exactly can expect a tax increase??
Gov. Richardson:"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the Middle Class"
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/low-richardson-pegs-middle-class-making/
How Low Can It Go? Richardson Pegs Middle Class as Those Making Under $120,000
For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class.
FOXNews.com
Friday, 2008-31-305
For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class -- leading Republicans to question whether he'll stick to his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.
The latest hiccup in the campaign message came Friday morning on KOA-AM, when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson pegged the middle class as those making $120,000 and under.
Gov. Richardson:"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the Middle Class"
Click here to listen to Richardson talk about Obama's tax plan.
"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those," Richardson said in the interview, according to a clip posted on YouTube.
There's no indication that Obama has changed his tax policy, which states that anyone making under $200,000 would get a tax cut under his administration, and nobody making under $250,000 would be hit with a tax increase. Richardson actually recited that part of Obama's plan correctly earlier in his radio interview.
But Sarah Palin accused Obama of shifting the threshold Friday afternoon at a rally in York, Pa.
"So now we're down to less than half of the original income level," she said, citing Richardson's interview. "We can't let this happen."
And the Republican National Committee quickly blasted out an e-mail saying, "At this rate, it won't take long until Obama is again raising taxes on Americans making as little as $42,000 a year."
"When Barack Obama comes to your door this Halloween, there will be no treats -- just taxes," the e-mail said.
Joe Biden caused headaches for the campaign Monday when he told a Scranton, Pa., TV station that Obama's tax break "should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year."
John McCain said the tax threshold was "creeping down," while the Obama campaign accused him of lying about Obama's tax policies
Gov. Richardson:"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the Middle Class"
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/low-richardson-pegs-middle-class-making/
How Low Can It Go? Richardson Pegs Middle Class as Those Making Under $120,000
For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class.
FOXNews.com
Friday, 2008-31-305
For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class -- leading Republicans to question whether he'll stick to his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.
The latest hiccup in the campaign message came Friday morning on KOA-AM, when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson pegged the middle class as those making $120,000 and under.
Gov. Richardson:"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the Middle Class"
Click here to listen to Richardson talk about Obama's tax plan.
"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those," Richardson said in the interview, according to a clip posted on YouTube.
There's no indication that Obama has changed his tax policy, which states that anyone making under $200,000 would get a tax cut under his administration, and nobody making under $250,000 would be hit with a tax increase. Richardson actually recited that part of Obama's plan correctly earlier in his radio interview.
But Sarah Palin accused Obama of shifting the threshold Friday afternoon at a rally in York, Pa.
"So now we're down to less than half of the original income level," she said, citing Richardson's interview. "We can't let this happen."
And the Republican National Committee quickly blasted out an e-mail saying, "At this rate, it won't take long until Obama is again raising taxes on Americans making as little as $42,000 a year."
"When Barack Obama comes to your door this Halloween, there will be no treats -- just taxes," the e-mail said.
Joe Biden caused headaches for the campaign Monday when he told a Scranton, Pa., TV station that Obama's tax break "should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year."
John McCain said the tax threshold was "creeping down," while the Obama campaign accused him of lying about Obama's tax policies.
McCain Surges Among Young Voters
http://www.newsmax.com/morris/morris_obama_mccain/2008/10/31/146501.html
McCain Surges Among Young Voters
Friday, October 31, 2008 5:23 PM
By: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann Article Font Size
A massive shift in younger and older voters is roiling the presidential race, according to new data from the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll concluded October 28-29. Younger voters — under 45 — once Barack Obama's base, now are evenly divided between the two candidates. But voters over 65 have shifted sharply to the Democrat in the past week.
Voters under 45 supported Obama by 52-38 in the Fox News poll of October 21-22. But this week's survey indicates that they now break evenly with 45% supporting Obama and 46% backing John McCain. On the other hand, voters 65 and over, who had backed Obama by 46-42 last week have now shifted decisively in his favor and he now leads McCain among seniors by 54-39. Middle aged voters — aged 45-64 — are largely unchanged in their views. Last week they backed Obama by 48-40 and this week they still support him by 48-43.
[Help the GOPTrust PAC Expose Obama And Rev. Wright In Key Swing States -- Watch The Ad That Will Run In Battleground States -- Go here now.]
Overall, the Fox News survey shows McCain narrowing Obama's lead from 49-40 (9 points) to 47-44 (3 points) over the past week.
The shift in the attitudes of young people may be directly related to the tax issue, brought home by a McCain advertisement featuring Joe the Plumber. Younger voters, trying to make their way in their careers, are more sensitive to changes in taxes than older people, many of whom has retired from the labor force. By attacking Obama for wanting to "spread the wealth around", the McCain camp seems to have struck a nerve among those who are entering the most productive years of their employment history.
On the other hand, seniors may be more comfortable with Obama than they have been previously and might be more accepting of his candidacy. Obama's attacks on McCain over Social Security, always a sensitive topic for the elderly may also be hitting home driving seniors into the Democratic column.
The Fox News/Opinion Dynamics survey was conducted on October 28-29 and surveyed 924 likely voters nationwide. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
2.9M Hispanic Voters get Anti-Obama Email from Hispanic Bishop (English Version)
-A Catholic cannot say that he/she voted in this election in good conscience if he/she votes for a candidate in favor of abortion.
Barak Hussein Obama is a candidate in favor of abortion."
WASHINGTON, October 31 /Christian Newswire/ -- Randall Terry and William Greene are available to comment on this project and the recent drop in Catholic support for Obama.
Randall Terry says: "Bishop Gracida's radio ad is causing a massive uproar and major defection from Obama in the Catholic Community. This may be the first time in American history that an election is determined by Hispanics and a Catholic Bishop."
The letter was sent in Spanish. The following text and audio clip From Catholic Bishop Rene H. Gracida was sent this morning (Friday, October 31) to 2.9 Million Hispanic Voters via email.
Bishop Gracida's ad is running on radio and TV in swing states. Here is the English Translation of the Spanish text that was sent to 2.9 million Hispanic voters.
Dear Friends:
We only have days left before a critical election to elect a new president. In this moment, like no other moment in history, Hispanic votes will decide the future of the United States. That means that we have a great weight of responsibility.
During this election, there are many Catholics who have told the Catholic people that it is ok to vote for Obama for president.
That is simply not true. Unfortunately, it is a lie.
Please, read the words of a beloved Hispanic bishop, Bishop Rene H. Gracida, who has faithfully served the Hispanic Catholics of Florida and Texas.
"I am Bishop Rene A. Gracida, reminding all Catholics that they need to vote in these elections with an informed conscience.
A Catholic cannot say that he/she voted in this election in good conscience if he/she votes for a candidate in favor of abortion.
Barak Hussein Obama is a candidate in favor of abortion."
This magnificent message of our dear Bishop is available as a radio ad that can be aired on Hispanic radio stations. Click here to listen to this ad. (Haga clic aquí para escuchar este anuncio.) If you are interested in spreading this message to other Hispanic voters and if you want to give us a donation so that other Catholics can listen to Bishop Gracida, please give what you can as soon as possible. Click here to contribute to our cause. (Haga clic aquí para contribuir a nuestra causa.)
When we enter the voting booth, we must not forget that Obama supports the killing of unborn babies even until the day they are to be born. This, in the eyes of God, is murder.
We must not help someone who has the intention of killing babies - especially Hispanic babies. It is a fact that Obama has used our tax dollars to place abortion clinics in Hispanic neighborhoods.
Remember that our loyalty to our Lord Jesus Christ is much more important than any political party.
It is your decision for whom you want to vote. There are many candidates that are against the culture of death, who support life and who love the United States and our people, but as Bishop Gracida said - We cannot vote for Obama with a clear conscience.
Again we ask you to give a gift if you can so that more people can listen to Bishop Gracida’s ad, and we also ask for your prayers for this cause in defense of life.
And we ask you to send this message to your friends and your family.
As Catholics, we understand that we owe everything to our God and our Mother, the Virgin of Guadalupe.
May God bless you and whatever happens, remember the words of Bishop Gracida when you enter the voting booth this Tuesday.
Sincerely,
Norma Nelly Vielma
Paid for by the RightMarch.com PAC. Not endorsed by any candidate or campaign committee. Contributions are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes.
Christian Newswire
Obama Taxes:$250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $120,000 $42,000
-Gov. Richardson:"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the Middle Class"
[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/low-richardson-pegs-middle-class-making/]
-Last week Biden identified the level as $150,000. This is interesting since both had no problem taxing folks who earned $42,000. So, what is the real amount going to be? Who exactly can expect a tax increase??
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1996353&referrerid=93883
$250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $42,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is it? Obama keeps talking about anyone whose income falls below a certain level will not see a tax rise, but the level keeps changing. First it was $250,000 and below, yesterday in his 30 minute commercial it was $200,000 (guess he thought no one would notice the extra $50,000), and last week Biden identified the level as $150,000. This is interesting since both had no problem taxing folks who earned $42,000. So, what is the real amount going to be? Who exactly can expect a tax increase??
Gov. Richardson:"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the Middle Class"
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/low-richardson-pegs-middle-class-making/
How Low Can It Go? Richardson Pegs Middle Class as Those Making Under $120,000
For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class.
FOXNews.com
Friday, 2008-31-305
For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class -- leading Republicans to question whether he'll stick to his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.
The latest hiccup in the campaign message came Friday morning on KOA-AM, when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson pegged the middle class as those making $120,000 and under.
Gov. Richardson:"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the Middle Class"
Click here to listen to Richardson talk about Obama's tax plan.
"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those," Richardson said in the interview, according to a clip posted on YouTube.
There's no indication that Obama has changed his tax policy, which states that anyone making under $200,000 would get a tax cut under his administration, and nobody making under $250,000 would be hit with a tax increase. Richardson actually recited that part of Obama's plan correctly earlier in his radio interview.
But Sarah Palin accused Obama of shifting the threshold Friday afternoon at a rally in York, Pa.
"So now we're down to less than half of the original income level," she said, citing Richardson's interview. "We can't let this happen."
And the Republican National Committee quickly blasted out an e-mail saying, "At this rate, it won't take long until Obama is again raising taxes on Americans making as little as $42,000 a year."
"When Barack Obama comes to your door this Halloween, there will be no treats -- just taxes," the e-mail said.
Joe Biden caused headaches for the campaign Monday when he told a Scranton, Pa., TV station that Obama's tax break "should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year."
John McCain said the tax threshold was "creeping down," while the Obama campaign accused him of lying about Obama's tax policies
Obama Purge:SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE
http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/the-big-purge-skeptical-reporters-tossed-off-obama-plane/
THE BIG PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE
October 31, 2008 — budsimmons
PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE
Fri Oct 31 2008 08:39:55 ET
NY POST, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, WASHINGTON TIMES TOLD TO GET OUT… ALL 3 ENDORSED MCCAIN
**Exclusive**
The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states — and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president!
The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS have all been told to move out by Sunday to make room for network bigwigs — and possibly for the inclusion of reporters from two black magazines, ESSENCE and JET, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Despite pleas from top editors of the three newspapers that have covered the campaign for months at extraordinary cost, the Obama campaign says their reporters — and possibly others — will have to vacate their coveted seats so more power players can document the final days of Sen. Barack Obama’s historic campaign to become the first black American president.
MORE
Some told the DRUDGE REPORT that the reporters are being ousted to bring on documentary film-makers to record the final days; others expect to see on board more sympathetic members of the media, including the NY TIMES’ Maureen Dowd, who once complained that she was barred from McCain’s Straight Talk Express airplane.
After a week of quiet but desperate behind-the-scenes negotiations, the reporters of the three papers heard last night that they were definitely off for the final swing. They are already planning how to cover the final days by flying commercial or driving from event to event.
Developing…
Why does Obama Lie, and Lie, and Lie...
Obama’s Jekyll Rhetoric and Hyde Record from ACORN to Taxes
Obama: Jekyll's Rhetoric and Hyde's Record on Raising Taxes
Rhetoric
During the first Debate:
JOHN MCCAIN: "But again, Senator Obama has shifted on a number of occasions. He has voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year."
BARACK OBAMA: "That's not true, John. That's not true."
Record
Barack Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats' FY 2009 Budget Resolution That Would Raise Taxes On Those Making Just $42,000 A Year. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)
· In March 2008, Obama Hailed His Vote For The Budget As Making "Significant Progress In Getting Our Nation's Priorities Back On Track." Obama: "The budget passed by the Senate tonight makes significant progress in getting our nation's priorities back on track. ... We need change in this country, and this budget is an important step in helping bring it about." (Sen. Barack Obama, "Obama Statement On The Senate's Passage Of The FY 2009 Budget," Press Release, obama.senate.gov, 3/14/08)
Even Obama's FactCheck.org: Barack Obama Did Vote For Higher Taxes On People Making $42,000 Despite Saying The Opposite. "Obama denied voting for a bill that called for increased taxes on 'people' making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers." ("FactChecking Debate No. 1," FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 9/27/08)
· "Yes, As We’ve Said Before, Obama Did In Fact Vote For A Budget Resolution That Called For Higher Federal Income Tax Rates On A Single, Non-Homeowner Who Earned As Little As $42,000 Per Year." ("FactChecking Debate No. 1," FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 9/27/08)
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:r2GD__EUSckJ:ncgop.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-fact-check-on-tax-increases.html+obama+voting+record+on+taxes+%2442,000+per+year.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
Obama: Jekyll's Rhetoric and Hyde's Record on ACORN
Rhetoric
In third Debate Obama said:“The only involvement I’ve had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department.”
Obama's Website: Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee. Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive[http://fightthesmears.com/articles/20/acornrumor] Barack ran in 1992.
Record
Toni Foulkes, a Chicago Acorn leader wrote:
Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992...Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5000 of them)...
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. Thus, it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. [Actually, the congressional race was in 2000, SK] By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTNiN2YwMmQ4Njc2MzE4ZDUxYWVlYTA1NzZlMmY3YmM=
Obama: Jekyll's Rhetoric and Hyde's Record on Same-Sex Marriage
Rhetoric
Obama said:
-Obama had previously said he opposes same-sex marriage but that each state should make its own decision.
[http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:jsCGxB36hzEJ:www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html+obama+prop+8&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]
Record
Obama record:
-Perhaps, it’s because in his first Illinois senate race, Obama is listed by a Chicago gay-lesbian publication as “supports same sex marriage”. Obama’s stand on same sex marriage was one reason he got the endorsement of Outlines, a Chicago-based gay paper that merged with the Windy City Times in 2000.
[http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:_cYvgDcUsqYJ:deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/10/obama-same-sex-marriage-obama-supported-same-sex-marriage-as-ill-state-senator/+obama+I+will+tell+you+that+I+don%27t+believe+in+gay+marriage,+but+I+do+think+that+people&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]
-"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts [Proposition 8] to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote.
[http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:jsCGxB36hzEJ:www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html+obama+prop+8&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]
Obama: Jekyll's Rhetoric and Hyde's Record on Abortion
Rhetoric
In the third debate Obama said:
-Yes, let me respond to this. If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true.[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08101601.html]
Record
Obama in the Illinois Senate said:
-"I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions," said Obama, "because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."
-Obama said near the beginning of the discussion, "the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb."
-For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her.
[http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/10/the_obama_debat.html]
http://www.unitypublishing.com/Government/America'sHitler.htm
What is Narcissism?
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) describes narcissism as a personality disorder that “revolve around a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and sense of entitlement. Often individuals feel overly important and will exaggerate achievements and will accept, and often demand, praise and admiration despite worthy achievements.”
The third and fourth editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of 1980 and 1994 and the European ICD-10 describe NPD in similar language:
An all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy, usually beginning by early adulthood and present in various contexts. Five (or more) of the following criteria must be met:
Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion
Is firmly convinced that he is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special, unique, or high-status people (or institutions)
Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation, or failing that, wishes to be feared and notorious (narcissistic supply)
Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favorable priority treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his expectations
Is “interpersonally exploitative” i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends
Is devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others
Is constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same about him or her
Is arrogant, has haughty behaviors or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted
Obama inebriated with the fantasy of unlimited success.
Pathological narcissism, is not akin to typical narcissism—someone with a hedonistic or self-centered sense of self —but rather someone with a very weak sense of self. Obama’s narcissism is pathological.
Narcissists seek power. That is the whole purpose of their existence. Power for them is the elixir of life. Those who know about NPD can’t help but notice it in Obama’s posture, the tone of his voice, his demeanor and particularly his grandiose claims and unscripted adlibs.
Narcissim has degrees. When it is extreme it shows in the posture and the way the narcissist walks and talks. Obama's posture, exudes haughtiness. He is all puffery. Compare his posture to those of Hitler, Stalin and Saddam.
According to Vaknin, Obama displays the following behaviors, which are among the hallmarks of pathological narcissism:
- Subtly misrepresents facts and expediently and opportunistically shifts positions, views, opinions, and "ideals" (e.g., about campaign finance, re-districting). These flip-flops do not cause him overt distress and are ego-syntonic (he feels justified in acting this way). Alternatively, refuses to commit to a standpoint and, in the process, evidences a lack of empathy.
- Ignores data that conflict with his fantasy world, or with his inflated and grandiose self-image. This has to do with magical thinking. Obama already sees himself as president because he is firmly convinced that his dreams, thoughts, and wishes affect reality. Additionally, he denies the gap between his fantasies and his modest or limited real-life achievements (for instance, in 12 years of academic career, he didn't publish a single scholarly paper or book).
- Feels that he is above the law.
- Talks about himself in the 3rd person singluar or uses the regal "we" and craves to be the exclusive center of attention, even adulation
- Has a messianic-cosmic vision of himself and his life and his "mission".
- Sets ever more complex rules in a convoluted world of grandiose fantasies with its own language (jargon)
- Displays false modesty and unctuous "folksiness" but is unable to sustain these behaviors (the persona, or mask) for long. It slips and the true Obama is revealed: haughty, aloof, distant, and disdainful of simple folk and their lives.
- Sublimates aggression and holds grudges.
- Behaves as an eternal adolescent (e.g., his choice of language, youthful image he projects, demands indulgence and feels entitled to special treatment, even though his objective accomplishments do not justify it).
Obama sublimates aggression. Can he be trusted as the leader of the free world?
Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People’s Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers’ souls, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it it too late.
One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse. “Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations,” says Vaknin. “Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then, his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia: a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995.”
In Vaknin’s words, “Pathological narcissism is a reaction to prolonged abuse and trauma in early childhood or early adolescence. The source of the abuse or trauma is immaterial: the perpetrators could be dysfunctional or absent parents, teachers, other adults, or peers.”
The pathological narcissist has a very weak sense of self. He compensates his devalued and injured self with pomposity and by projecting a false image of majesty and authority. He retreats into a bubble universe of fantasy, in which he is loved, respected and omnipotent. All children create such a world. Narcissists simply don’t leave it. They carry this world of pretence into their adulthood. With the passage of time, this world becomes to them as real as the real world, to the point that they can’t tell the difference. When Obama acts presidential, he is simply acting out his childhood fantasy of omnipotence and grandeur. Emotionally, he is still a little hurt boy, neglected and unloved in the body and mind of a grown up man. Such people can be dangerous. Narcissists have the emotional maturity of a child, or even an animal, but the intellect of a man. They feel like a beast, but think like a human.
If we look into the childhood of all narcissists, we can see that invariably they were abused. Saddam was born to a widow who after losing her husband and her 12 year old son was so distressed that she attempted suicide. Before his birth, she would pull out clumps of her hair and pummel her pregnant abdomen with her fists. Saddam Hussein in his own official biography recounts his unhappy childhood. Hitler was the son of a very abusive man who would beat him regularly. From Saddam to Osama, to Hitler, to Stalin, to Khomeini, to Mao and to Kim Jong Ill, it is wounded childhood that causes NPD. Obama’s chaotic childhood and his continuous struggle to find his identity make him a prime candidate for NPD.
Hitler was confused about his identity. His father was an illegitimate son of a Jew. He chose to be in denial of that part of himself and his response was the genocide of the Jews. Obama’s search for his identity led him to a racist church that preached “Black Power.” He changed his given name Barry to Barack, in an atempt to rid himself of the only vestige he had with his white heritage.
Narcissists have only one issue. They want power and will do and say anything to get it. Their words mean nothing to them. They do not intend to keep them. They look into your eyes and swear on a stack of Bibles that they are not going to do something when that is exactly what they intend to do. They break their promises when it suits them and annul their treaties when they can get away with it. They lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie.
Narcissists are pathological liars. They lie even to themselves. Ironically, they are the first to believe their own lies. When normal people lie, they show signs of distress. Narcissists don’t. They can pass any polygraph test with flying colors. It is this conviction that fools people around them making them believe in their truthfulness and sincerity. In a twisted way they are sincere because, although they are conscience that they are not truthful, they believe in their own lies. This is difficult to understand and even more difficult to explain, but for a narcissist fantasy and reality are intertwined. The narcissist’s delusional thoughts of grandiosity are real to him.
Obama’s Incredible Shrinking Tax Cut Down to $150,000 Incomes
http://www.douchebagreport.com/archives/748
Most politicians wait until after the election to change their campaign promises. But Barack Obama is a new kind of politician, so he’s taking a new tact.
Remember when Obama promised to cut taxes for people making $250,000 or less?
So do we. Or at least, we thought we did. Apparently, though, Obama has been saying he won’t raise taxes on people making $250,000 or less. The tax cut is for people making $200,000 or less.
Or is it. Joe Biden, who is famous for his “gaffes”…AKA “accidentally telling the truth”, now indicates that the cut off is now for those making $150,000 or less.
With one week left before the election, how low can Joe Douchebag go? Enough to be honest? Check back soon to find out.
Written by Tristan · Filed Under Politics
Biden lowers standard of “rich” to those earning $150,000 a year
http://freevoiceonline.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/biden-lowers-standard-of-rich-to-those-earning-150000-a-year/
Biden lowers standard of “rich” to those earning $150,000 a year
October 29, 2008, 2:51 pm
Filed under: Democrats, Economy, McCain, Media Bias, Obama, Republicans, Sarah Palin | Tags: Taxes, rich, Joe Biden
All through the campaign the Obama-Biden campaign had a standard definition of “rich” as those who earn $250,000 a year saying only those who earned that amount (or more) would be the ones getting tax raises.
Apparently now the Obama-Biden campaign is now lowering their standard definition of rich to those earning $150,000 a year. — Until now, this was considered middle class by Obama.
Could this be a sign that Obama will in fact raise taxes on, not only the rich, but also the middle class as well as the poor?
Obama's Redistribution Tax Plan Shifting Down to Middle Class
http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamas-redistribution-plan-taxing.html
Obama's Redistribution Plan a Taxing Fantasy
Donald Lambro,
Friday, October 31, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Joseph Biden recently blew the whistle on Barack Obama's specious claims that he would cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans by raising them for people earning more than $250,000.
The Obama's gaffe-prone running mate, who has become the loose cannon of his campaign, said in an unscripted interview with a TV station in Scranton that the real soak-the-rich tax threshold in Obama's plan would start with incomes at $150,000.
Biden later tried to revise his remarks by saying that anyone earning between $150,000 and $250,000 wouldn't get a tax cut but their tax rates wouldn't rise, either. Sure. Or as Sarah Palin would say with a wink and a nod, "You betcha."
But Obama's draconian income-tax rate on the top 5 percent of income earners would not produce nearly enough federal revenue to pay for his so-called "tax cuts" for 95 percent of the nation's taxpayers and the rest of his social-welfare spending.
"Those 5 percent don't make enough money, or at least they won't after they find ways to shelter more of their income when their tax rates rise," the Wall Street Journal editorialized Wednesday.
Biden was revealing what has long been suspected among economic analysts who have crunched the numbers on his income transfer tax plan. Obama's tax-the-rich plan to send checks to the 47 million lower-income tax filers who pay no income taxes belies his specious 95 percent claim, since he does not cut their income tax rates.
Biden's uncontrolled bout of candor pokes one more hole in Obama's tax plan to expand the number of working Americans who pay no income taxes to nearly 50 million. Indeed, his campaign Web site boasts that his income-redistribution plan would wipe another 10 million people off the tax rolls.
It also exposed one more claim in a long line of falsehoods the Obama campaign has told about his shifting tax scheme. An Obama TV ad running in battleground states says, for example, that his plan has won support from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, when nothing could be further from the truth.
On the contrary, a recent analysis by the foundation's Center for Data Analysis concludes that John McCain's economic recovery plan would stimulate more economic growth than the Obama plan. Among its chief findings:
-- Job growth over 10 years is more than twice as high under McCain's tax plan than Obama's.
-- Total employment grows an average of 915,800 jobs under Obama, and by 2.13 million under McCain.
-- Economic growth, as measured by the country's gross domestic product, would be "nearly three times higher than under Obama."
-- A typical family of four "would see an average of $5,138 more in disposable income under McCain plans compared with $3,631 more under Obama's."
A strategic weakness in Obama's income-redistribution plan stems from his decision to give low- to middle-income taxpayers a refundable tax credit, instead of cutting their tax rates, said Heritage analyst William Beach, who led the study.
"Because Sen. Obama relies largely on tax credits to achieve his redistribution, his plan does not find a large economic benefit from lower tax rates, nor a more efficient tax structure," Beach wrote.
"This lower economic performance stems in large part from the modest decreases in marginal tax rates on taxpayers earning less than $250,000 and increases in those rates above that level," he said.
Obama has sold his plan as something it is not: a plan that will grow the economy when, in fact, it would grow the government at the economy's expense.
At the core of his plan is the belief that renewed growth depends first and foremost on income transfers to low- and middle-income people and a mountain of "infrastructure" spending on roads, bridges and other public-works projects, and grants to state governments to spend as they please.
McCain's plan is rooted in the belief that economic growth, job creation and higher incomes can only be fueled by lower tax rates to stimulate business expansion, entrepreneurial risk-taking and capital investment that will grow the economy, not the government.
Even Democrats, some of whom are now advising Obama, have raised questions about his pump-priming infrastructure spending and his rigid opposition to McCain's proposal to cut the 35 percent corporate income tax.
"It's going to be very hard to compete for jobs if we keep high corporate tax rates," David Rothkopf, a trade official in the Clinton administration, told the Washington Post last week.
Notably, two other economists in Clinton's administration wrote earlier this year that spending on infrastructure, as Obama proposes, is among the "less effective options" to combat looming recessions because the money usually trickles down into the economy when it is too late to do any good.
The authors of that study: Douglas W. Elmendorf, now an adviser to House Democrats, and Jason Furman, who is Obama's chief economic adviser.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Obama Tax Inceases:"Spreading the Wealth Around" to Non-Taxpayers
-Mr. Wurzelbacher's fears are well founded.
-Mr. Obama was unable to name a single significant program he would scale back when asked by debate moderate Bob Schieffer to do so.
Mr. Obama will have to come up with the money to pay for some trillion dollars in new spending in his first term.
-"Tax cut" but which will really be a check from those who do pay taxes to low-income Americans who already don't pay any federal income taxes.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/20/spreading-the-wealth-around/
COMMENTARY:
"When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," Barack Obama explained to Joe Wurzelbacher in Ohio earlier this week. But Joe the Plumber, as he has become known thanks to Wednesday night's presidential debate where his name was invoked no fewer than a half dozen times by both candidates, isn't buying it. And Mr. Wurzelbacher is right to be skeptical.
In an interview with CBS' Katie Couric after the debate, Mr. Wurzelbacher said he was worried Mr. Obama would be the one deciding who was wealthy and, therefore, should be taxed more. Mr. Obama says only those earning more than $250,000 will see their taxes go up. But Mr. Wurzelbacher worries, "When's he going to decide that $100,000 is too much, you know? I mean, you're on a slippery slope here."
Mr. Wurzelbacher's fears are well founded. Mr. Obama was unable to name a single significant program he would scale back when asked by debate moderate Bob Schieffer to do so. Mr. Obama will have to come up with the money to pay for some trillion dollars in new spending in his first term - including what he calls a "tax cut" but which will really be a check from those who do pay taxes to low-income Americans who already don't pay any federal income taxes.
The wealthy already pay a hugely disproportionate share of all federal income taxes. According to an analysis by the non-partisan Tax Foundation using the latest Internal Revenue Service figures (for 2006), taxpayers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $153,542 and above made up the nation's top 5 percent of earners. But this top 5 percent paid nearly 60 percent of all the income taxes collected in 2006, while earning about 37 percent of AGI. For all the talk of middle-income earners paying most of the taxes, the facts suggest otherwise. Those in the 26 to 50 percentiles of AGI pay about 11 percent of taxes and earn 19 percent of income.
So when Barack Obama says he wants to "spread the wealth around," he's really talking about redistributing wealth through the tax system by forcing higher income earners not only to pay a disproportionate share of taxes but to fund cash transfers to those earning less. Mr. Obama's proposed tax plan includes provisions for what he calls refundable "tax credits" for low-income Americans, many of whom don't pay any federal income taxes. In other words, those who already pay no taxes would be sent a government check equal to the "credits" in Mr. Obama's plan, including 6.2 percent of income of those earning up to $8,100 and a refundable "credit" of 10 percent of mortgage interest paid by those who don't itemize.
Obviously some people think this is "fair." Mr. Obama told John McCain in the debate on Wednesday, "Well, I don't mind paying a little more." But Joe the Plumber might not feel quite the same way. As a small businessman, Mr. Wurzelbacher will likely take those earnings to invest in a bigger company - that's what he told Mr. Obama he wanted to do when he asked his original question on the campaign trail.
By growing his business, Mr. Wurzelbacher creates wealth. By "redistributing wealth," as Mr. Obama wants the government to do, he is actually reducing overall wealth in the economy by taking away capital from those who can invest it efficiently in direct job creation. And the real irony is that if Mr. Obama is elected and succeeds in raising taxes on the top 5 percent, he is likely to collect less tax, not more, if history is a guide.
Mr. Obama says he wants to return roughly to the tax system in place during the Clinton years. But in 1994 (after Bill Clinton raised the top tax rate in what was the largest tax increase in history), the top 5 percent of earners paid only 48 percent of all taxes, not today's 60 percent. Even after the boom years of the late 1990s, the wealthiest 5 percent were shouldering less of the tax burden than today's wealthy, about 55 percent. And the total revenues collected from them were less than today as well.
One of the great successes of America has been the realization of people like Joe the Plumber that one day they, too, could be "rich" if they worked hard, invested and grew their own businesses. Now Mr. Obama and the Democrats want to replace that American Dream with a fantasy that wealth is static and must be redistributed to ensure fairness. If Mr. Obama's plan becomes reality, it could well turn into an economic nightmare by punishing the most productive in order to reward the least productive in our society.
Spreading the wealth doesn't sound all that different from Karl Marx's famous dictum: From each according to his ability to each according to his need.
Linda Chavez is a nationally syndicated columnist.
McCain Shredding "Spreading the Wealth Around" Obama's Lead
http://www.newsmax.com/morris/polls_mccain_obama/2008/10/31/146232.html
McCain Shredding Obama's Lead
Friday, October 31, 2008 8:04 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
Iraq isn't the only place where the surge seems to be working. John McCain's gains over the last five days are remaking the political landscape as Election Day approaches.
The double-digit leads Barack Obama held last week have evaporated, as all three of the top tracking polls (the most current and reliable measurements out there) show McCain hot on Obama's heels.
Zogby had Obama ahead by 12 points last week — now it's down to 4. His margin in the Rasmussen poll has dropped from 8 points to 3 in the last few days. Gallup shows only a 2-point difference.
In each news cycle, Obama is on the defensive — staving off accusations of closet socialism and trying to wriggle out of his once overt advocacy of income redistribution. "Spreading the wealth around" has become the anti-Obama slogan and might become the epitaph for his candidacy, just as "brainwashed" was for George Romney and "Where's the beef?" was for Gary Hart.
Then, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's image is returning to haunt Obama. Yes, McCain refused to use the issue in his own campaign, but independent groups like goptrust.com are using funds from tens of thousands of individual donors to run ads featuring Wright and his relationship with Obama.
Just yesterday, a tape surfaced in which Obama described the Rev. Wright as "the best the black church has to offer."
The double dose of Obama's support for spreading the wealth around and his affiliation with the toxic Rev. Wright are eroding his once-formidable lead.
If the stock market doesn't send us all into shock again, the election could be very close with the undecided vote looming large. The key question is, About whom are they undecided?
At the height of the financial crisis, voters couldn't decide if McCain was really a maverick or just a Bush clone. But the spotlight has shifted: It's no longer McCain who is caught in its glare, but Obama.
As the Democrat moved convincingly ahead last week, voters began to seriously consider what kind of president he'd be. Bush and McCain seemed increasingly irrelevant as people pondered whether they really want to trust Obama with this kind of power.
By this point, the nature of the undecided vote has likely shifted from people who are torn between wanting change and worrying about Obama, to people who have basically decided not to back Barack but haven't sufficiently collected their thoughts to come out for McCain.
Then there's the so-called Bradley effect, where white voters lie to pollsters and say they are backing the black candidate when they're not.
To date, it's been a myth: As The Wall Street Journal reported, Tom Bradley had lost his lead in the polls by the time California voted on his bid to become governor. But it may be real this year.
Undecided voters may be reluctant to say they're not voting for Obama. They may be concealing their real intentions by saying they're undecided. (They might even not have come to grips with their intentions themselves.)
High turnout may also be a wild card. On the surface, it seems sure to bolster Obama's chances as large numbers of poorer, less educated, younger, and minority voters turn out to vote for the first time.
But the swelling turnout may have gone beyond this social outreach. And, as it does, it can help McCain. After all, white voters back McCain by double digits. If the contest inspires them all to vote, Obama will lose.
So we approach Election Day with the possibility of a rerun of 2000 plainly before us.
McCain has closed to a point where the race will likely be very, very close — and we'll have to stay up very, very late on election night.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
OBAMA'S POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
A POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS !
Approximately 230 years ago the Revolutionary War began. When it ended, the United States of America was born. Liberty was proclaimed and laws were enacted under The Constitution of the United States. Today, that Constitutional liberty is sorely threatened because one aspirant for the office of President of the United States, Senator Barack Obama, remains silent while being challlenged, through an increasing number of lawsuits in various states, to confirm that he is, in fact, a natural-born citizen of the United States of America and eligible to seek the office of President. He has stone-walled all efforts to authenticate his proof of citizenship.
If any readers of this letter are unaware of this legal crisis it is because the major media outlets make no mention of possible legal restrictions which could bar the Senator from seeking this office. In fact, on Oct.25, I wrote to Bill O'Reilly of Fox News in New York about the media silence ( incl.Fox) and, with tongue in cheek, asked if we would only be made aware of the lawsuits after judges had ruled on them.
Ironically, a few days before, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by the former Ass't Attorney General of Philadelphia, Pa., Mr.Philip Berg, by declaring that Mr.Berg did not prove that he would suffer harm to himself if Senator Obama was declared eligible to run for President. The next day, Newsday,Long Island,New York's major newspaper, mentioned this case for the first time by simply mentioning the Dismissal of the lawsuit. Mr. Berg is now taking this issue directly and immediately to the U.S.Supreme Court. I wonder if a class-action suit is in the works.
The most compelling issue in this case was the request for a valid copy of Senator Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate (not the differing "Cert.of Live Birth"), since claims were made that he was actually born in Mombasa,Kenya. Ominously, the Government of Kenya recently said that they will not release any documents pertaining to the Senator until the U.S. elections are over. Mr.Berg, in his lawsuit, also requested that a "certificate of USA citizenship" be produced, since Senator Obama was believed to have been a citizen of Indonesia for some time, under the name of Barry Soetoro.
Consider-a simple request to produce two valid documents, which Mr.Berg stated in his lawsuit would be sufficient for withdrawing the lawsuit. Now, three months later, the Senator still refuses to provide these documents for examination by Federal or State authorities....or anyone else ! Would an average citizen act in such a manner ? For that matter, should anyone seeking the highest office in the Land act this way ? On the contrary, and, in fact, I know of eight instances where average citizens have now instituted lawsuits to force their respective States to insist that Senator Obama either provide a valid birth certificate or see his name removed from the election ballots of those States.
I would also like to mention an "above average" citizen, Senator John McCain, who has served his Country bravely and faithfully since he was seventeen years of age. His valid citizenship, since he was born in the Canal Zone, has been confirmed by the U.S.Senate. He could, and would immediately produce a certified copy of his birth certificate, if requested. The only time that he couldn't comply with such a request was the five and one-half years he was "tied up" in Vietnam on Government business. In contrast, Senator Obama could easily obtain any existing valid birth certificate within forty-eight hours from Hawaiian authorities. Fast forward-eight lawsuits and one petition to the Supreme Court later and he still won't answer the three-am phonecall !
WHO IS THIS MAN ?
The more we seek to learn about Senator Obama, the more concerned about him we become. Asking for transparency, we are repaid with more secrecy. Here are some of the records which, it has been reported, he refuses to release:
Occidental College records Columbia College records
Harvard College records Selective Service Registration
Medical records Illinois State Senate records
Cert.copy of Original Birth Certificate Embossed signed paper Cert.of Live Birth
With all this secrecy, he expects us to accept his birth record as legitimate, solely on his word ! I've gone that route before but it was for Someone born in a manger over 2,000 years ago, in a little town called Bethlehem.
ARE MY WRITTEN INTENTIONS WORTHY ?
As I've said in previous letters, I am morally driven, not racially, to engage in this issue. All humanity is entitled to a "redress of grievances." Sadly, however, on the issue of life those in the womb are being excluded from this "right" by many, and a President Obama would swell the casualty list enormously ! He said that, as President, he would allow abortions to be performed throughtout the entire nine months of a pregnancy and would even take this position to the ultimate end: if any child survived an abortion attempt and lived to exit it's mother's womb the Obama Party would allow the child to die, if the mother so wished !
We keep hearing the "antiseptic" phrase "fewer and safer abortions", while closing in on 50,000,000 (that's millions). I have two questions: First, how can permitting more abortions result in fewer abortions. Am I doing the math wrong. Secondly, a "safe" abortion, to be honest, means only one person will exit the hospital alive. Why not re-term it a "half-safe" abortion ? For that matter, drawing from the world of credit cards I would offer an added definition of abortion-IDENTITY THEFT !
To my fellow Catholics, and all others who honestly believe their genuine concerns about financial conditions, war, the environment, etc. equate with abortion I offer a simple reflection for them. Imagine Senator Obama,(who has promised to make abortion the "Law of the Land", from shore to shore), at a rally and being asked by one of his many cheering fans to describe what actually happens to a child during an abortion "procedure". I guarantee that if he dared to answer the request truthfully, the cheers he had been hearing would become tears and sobs would soon echo throughout an empty stadium.
In conclusion, may I point out that, as with my recent letters, I did not speak of issues such as taxes, health insurance,etc., because I was not stepping into the political arena. Senator Obama, however, plunged into the arena of morality and his defenseless targets, the unborn, need our voices before their's are silenced forever.
I am not voting for a political party but for someone who will insure that the unborn's date of birth doesn't immediately become their date of death ! I pray that all those receiving this letter join with me on Nov.4 "pulling" for life-literally.
"Before I formed thee in the womb of thy mother, I knew thee." (Jeremias 1:5)
With prayerful hope and trust,
Robert Quinn
69-11 67th Place,Glendale,
New York 11385
tel:718-497-6464
PS;Mr.Philip Berg has steadfastly, at his own expense, pursued this lawsuit right up to the U.S.Supreme Court. If anyone would like to help him financially he would be most appreciative. His address is:
Philip J.Berg,Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill,Pa. 19444-2531
Tel:610-825-3134
E-Mail:philjberg@gmail.com
President Obama of the U.S.S.A., the United Socialist States of America
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/26/a-socialist-america/
Sunday, October 26, 2008
KUHNER: A socialist America?
Jeffery T. Kuhner
COMMENTARY:
The mainstream media have downplayed the profound significance that an Obama presidency will have in combination with a Democratic congressional supermajority - the transformation of our country into a socialist state.
The U.S.A. will become the U.S.S.A., the United Socialist States of America. Capitalism, self-reliance, limited government, personal responsibility, Christian moral standards - all the key traditions that built modern America - will be swept away in a liberal tidal wave.
According to current polls, Sen. Barack Obama is poised to win the White House on Nov. 4. Democrats are also expected to increase their majorities in Congress. In fact, some polls indicate they can attain a filibuster-proof Senate of 60 seats. This will enable Democrats to pass almost any legislation without fear of Republicans blocking it. Democrats will control every branch of government.
The results will be not only "change," but a historic political shift to the left - one that will permanently alter America for the worse.
On taking office, Mr. Obama will focus immediately on passing universal health care. His plan calls for a national public insurance program modeled on Medicare, except it will be available to everyone. Most analysts predict it will shift nearly 50 million Americans from private coverage to government-run care and create a massive, new entitlement - the largest expansion of government since the Great Society.
Eventually, the program will evolve into what Mr. Obama says he truly wants: a Canadian-style, single-payer system, in which health care is nationalized. Socialized medicine will do in America what it has done in Western Europe and Canada: push politics permanently to the left. The program's vast size and immense cost will lead to rising taxes and the rationing of services. Moreover, once such a radical, complicated monstrosity is in place, it is almost impossible to dismantle it - no matter how poorly it performs (just look at Canada and Britain, where there are long waiting lines, substandard technology and poor treatment yet reform is consistently opposed by entrenched interests).
National health care will be the final piece in establishing a cradle-to-grave, liberal welfare state. America's social programs will resemble those of statist Europe; we will also resemble the Continent's anemic growth rates, lower productivity and higher unemployment. America's culture of entrepreneurialism and technological dynamism will degenerate into one characterized by economic dependency and social stagnation.
Mr. Obama will ram through Congress increases in the top rates for income taxes, capital gains and dividends. More ominously, he vows to lift or eliminate the cap on payroll taxes, which funds Social Security and Medicare. Hence, a tax designed to maintain a pension insurance system will be used for the redistribution of wealth. Democrats' class-warfare, soak-the-rich policies will deepen the economic downturn, kill job creation and discourage corporate investment. These policies will permanently expand the federal government's tax share of gross domestic product: Big government will become super-size government.
Led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrats are likely to pass a series of laws cementing their control of Congress for years to come. Their goal: to tilt the electoral playing field decisively in their favor. They will surely finally pass amnesty for the 20 million illegal immigrants in America. This will transform the Hispanic voting bloc into a key - and loyal - segment of the Democrats' coalition, and help to forge a new Democratic majority. Felons, too, will be given the right to vote. And the District of Columbia will be granted congressional representation - meaning more Democratic seats.
Also, Democrats hope to muzzle conservative talk radio. Liberals in Congress or an Obama Federal Communications Commission will attempt to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine - the pernicious notion that the public airwaves must have an "equal" and "fair" distribution of conservative and liberal views. The intent is to force radio owners to air unpopular liberal talk-show hosts, as well as empower the FCC to harass stations with potential lawsuits over allegedly "excessive" conservative content. Air America dismally failed in the marketplace of ideas. The progressive movement, however, plans to use state power to compel ideological conformity.
The Obama-Pelosi-Reid unholy alliance will complete the revolutionary project of the 1960s: a society stripped from its traditional Christian moorings. Mr. Obama has made no secret of his support for abortion rights. He is a radical, an extremist, on the issue. He opposes the ban on partial-birth abortion. As an Illinois state legislator, he even voted against a law to preserve an infant's life if an abortion is botched.
Finally, his administration will consolidate a liberal Supreme Court and thus advance the leftist social agenda of abortion on demand, gay rights, the decriminalization of prostitution, the legalization of marijuana and euthanasia. The culture of death will triumph. Democrats will finally attain the twin goals of liberalism: economic collectivism and moral anarchy.
President Obama:"Persecution" and "Suffering" is Fate of Christians
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=79411
Yes, Barack Obama really is a Manchurian candidate
By David Kupelian
October 29, 2008
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
"If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." – Abraham Lincoln
As Election Day rapidly approaches, many Americans are wondering why so many of their countrymen reject a genuine war hero with decades of experience, one whose pro-life, limited-government values pretty much reflect those of Middle America. Instead, these same countrymen are enthralled with a man who not only has no experience or qualifications for the job, but who is, in fact, the most radically left-wing major-party presidential candidate of our lifetime, having been mentored and supported for decades by terrorists (Ayers), communists (Davis), America-hating racists (Wright) and criminals (Rezko).
Doesn't make much sense, does it?
After all, in past presidential contests, Americans have flatly rejected ultraliberal candidates like McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis – and those guys weren't nearly as radicalized as Obama, who the nonpartisan National Journal rates as having the most left-wing voting record in the entire U.S. Senate – even more so than socialist Bernie Sanders! Moreover, recently it's been proven, despite his campaign's denials, that Obama was indeed a member of the socialist "New Party." And Obama himself confesses that during his college days he intentionally sought out Marxists as friends.
So, how do we explain all this? Why are so many of us eager to turn our nation, the greatest and noblest on earth, over to an angry-at-America, hardcore left-wing "change agent" who will – with the help of a like-minded, Democrat-dominated Congress and a liberal-activist federal judiciary – bring about radical "change" to every area of our lives? Just consider:
* Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history, having announced publicly: "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." This would remove all restrictions on abortion, including partial-birth abortion and parental notification laws, making America the abortion capital of the world. Of course, you know what kind of Supreme Court justices he would nominate, which as I have pointed out previously would end all hope of overturning Roe v. Wade in our lifetimes.
* He's hands-down the most pro-homosexual candidate in history, promising to back virtually the entire radical "gay rights" agenda, including the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, essentially throwing open the door to gay marriage in all 50 states. And, as he proclaims in his "open letter to the LGBT community": "I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell." That will allow and encourage overt homosexuality throughout the armed forces, something military experts have long maintained will destroy the very fabric of America's armed services.
* Sounds bad for Judeo-Christian values, you say? Dr. James Dobson's influential Focus on the Family organization analyzed issue after issue and predicts – are you ready for this? – "hardship," "persecution" and "suffering" as the fate of Christians if Obama becomes president.
Obama "would be the most anti-gun president in American history," warns the National Rifle Association, which points out that he has supported a complete ban on handguns, voted to ban most rifle ammunition, and supported increasing the tax on guns by 500 percent.
* Obama would devastate an already deeply troubled U.S. economy. Jacking up taxes, as he promises to do, during the worst financial crisis and credit meltdown since the Great Depression is breathtakingly foolish. No wonder three out of four CEOs of American companies say Obama would be a disaster. Apparently Obama, who constantly badmouths "CEOs" and "corporations," doesn't realize it is these very companies that create over 120 million of America's 140 million jobs (the rest being created by government).
* In order to throttle the troublesome talk radio truth-tellers who caused him so much trouble during the election season, and to reward his cheerleaders in the elite press, Obama will attempt to muzzle conservative talk radio by resurrecting the horrendous "Fairness Doctrine."
* Obama alone will be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory in Iraq. He is so weak, inexperienced and narcissistic, he will reflexively appease our nation's enemies and thereby encourage the growth of evil the world over. Millions will suffer as a direct result.
Then there's the issue of Obama's truly disturbing past. It seems that no matter how stunning the revelations – some of which are finally emerging, no thanks to a shockingly irresponsible and infantile "mainstream press" – they don't penetrate the public mind. Regardless of the evidence against him, people remain entranced by Obama:
* Amidst ever-growing evidence of vote fraud in multiple states perpetrated by ACORN – the notorious left-wing group with which Obama, despite his public statements, has long and deep ties – the Obama campaign's lawyers are now arguing that the Justice Department should not investigate any vote fraud claims until after the election. Instead, say Obama's attorneys, Justice should investigate those citizens who have brought to light the evidence of voter fraud, for supposedly trying to intimidate poor people into not voting. And no wonder: Thirteen of Obama's own campaign workers in Ohio have confessed to have fraudulently voted in that crucial swing state.
* Despite repeated indignant denials by the candidate and his campaign, Barack Obama was once a Muslim. If you question that fact as just a nasty "Internet rumor," examine for yourself Obama's registration papers to the Catholic school he attended in Indonesia, reproduced here by the Associated Press, which clearly indicate his religion at the time as "Islam." Much more troubling are the radical Islamist ties he maintains today, as respected Islam expert Daniel Pipes documents. Even rabid anti-Semite and leader of the radical Nation of Islam group, Louis Farrakhan, says "the Messiah is absolutely speaking" through Obama.
* Which brings us to his most troubling association of all: Obama sat in the church pews for 20 years listening to and absorbing the anti-American, racist, hate-filled sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who claims, among his other lunatic rants, that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks and deliberately created AIDS in order to commit genocide against black people. Wright's rage-filled preaching of "black liberation theology" – an anti-American, anti-White, Marxist philosophy disguised as Christianity – filled Obama's mind and soul for two decades, and they have unquestionably influenced his worldview.
Sitting at the feet of Jeremiah Wright for two decades and being filled each week with such venom against America and white people can fairly be called a form of brainwashing. If you doubt this statement, try spending 30-60 minutes on YouTube and just listen to random video clips of Wright's "sermons." Then, imagine swallowing this poisonous concoction, in person, every week for 20 years. It would be transformative.
*
One can go on and on, it's dizzying: Obama worked closely – for years – with William Ayers, a criminal and domestic terrorist who once bombed the Pentagon and other government buildings; there's absolutely compelling evidence – including independent scientific forensic analysis – showing that Ayers wrote all or part of Obama's best selling book "Dreams from My Father"; Obama received crucial funding and other financial benefits from notorious convicted Chicago criminal Tony Rezko; the Obama campaign refuses to produce a simple birth certificate to dispel persistent claims in multiple lawsuits that question the candidate's constitutional qualifications to be U.S. president – it goes on and on, and yet inexplicably, none of it seems to penetrate the minds of those entranced with Obama.
So again, the question: Why, despite a mountain of evidence utterly proving his profound unworthiness to be president, do so many millions of Americans worship Barack Obama? Let's take a closer look.
The magic of envy
In recent decades, more and more Americans have been conditioned by politicians to depend on government to solve their problems. This is how demagogues have long operated. They demonize "the rich," implying they obtained their wealth by exploiting the downtrodden; they stir up racial hatreds at every opportunity; they endlessly bash business and CEOs as evil exploiters; they promise "social justice" and universal happiness if only we will elevate them to power over us.
They do all this by appealing to anger and envy. They know instinctively that if they can stir up and ignite these dark, addictive passions in all of us, they will create a large voting bloc of people dependent on them, and thus be rewarded with great power. In its purest form, this phenomenon is called Marxism, communism, socialism – the spiritual core of which is raw envy. This philosophy of cradle-to-grave security and "wealth redistribution" exerts a powerfully seductive grip on people who have not discovered true inner "government." As William Penn famously said, "Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants."
Communism, of course, is atheistic – where the government is the only true god, the giver of blessings, the solver of problems, the dispenser of justice and mercy. This envy-based, class-warfare-fueled revolutionary system talks always of justice, fairness, progress – but the only progress it delivers is from freedom to slavery.
This is the appeal more and more Americans have been conditioned over the years to respond to, as we have progressively fallen away from the Judeo-Christian values that once animated our culture and institutions. The envy-based system Marx unleashed on the world is alive and well, and in different forms it still dominates large parts of the world. In America, it has taken root in the Democrat Party. Ronald Reagan may have destroyed the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union, but you cannot destroy evil itself. Evil remains, and continues to do its job of tempting and, if possible, corrupting the souls of men.
Even the encouragement of immorality – free sex, abortion, homosexuality, easy divorce and so on – is all part and parcel of the socialist modus operandi, because immoral, dysfunctional people who have crossed the moral line and thus become estranged from God now need the "god" of socialist government.
All of this, my friends, is what we're poised to elect as president in the person of Barack Obama.
This has been coming for quite awhile. Americans, many of us anyway, have become increasingly corrupted over the years. We've been conditioned by our leaders into voting for lying, unprincipled, seductive candidates. We almost elected certified wacko Al Gore as president – someone who seriously wants to outlaw the internal combustion engine. Then we almost elected John Kerry – a super-ambitious, unprincipled and thoroughly unlikable man who first achieved notoriety by betraying his Vietnam soldier colleagues, scandalously maligning them as baby-killers before Congress and the nation.
Now, we're very close to electing an even worse candidate – and the reasons for this tell us much about ourselves.
The power of guilt
If you've ever studied disasters like the explosion of the Challenger Space Shuttle or the sinking of the Titanic, you'll find there was not just one reason, but a whole series of factors that seemingly conspired to cause the catastrophe.
One of the "aiding and abetting" factors in the current election is the fact that Obama is black. Let's talk about race.
Americans – even though slavery and segregation are long gone from the national scene – still have a large and understandable reservoir of collective guilt over its past exploitation and mistreatment of blacks.
Guilt is a fantastically powerful factor in all of our lives. It is a very uncomfortable, nagging pain in our conscience, this thing we call guilt. When we're guilty we try to relieve this inner conflict, and this is often a good thing. If we're guilty toward God, for instance, then we naturally want to make up for that guilt by finding reconciliation and obedience to Him. If we've wronged our neighbor and our conscience bothers us, that guilt is the valuable, redeeming factor that prods us to apologize and make restitution if appropriate. Without being able to experience a guilty conscience, we'd all be amoral psychopaths – literally oblivious to whether or not we had done anything wrong.
However, there's another side to guilt. Manipulative and unprincipled humans soon discover how to use our guilt to get their way. They can even make us feel guilty when we haven't done anything wrong – for instance, by way of false accusation, a tactic the left has perfected.
Now, Barack Obama obviously is not to blame for being black – or more to the point, for how people feel about him because of his race. But the fact is, his being black pushes the guilt button in most of us and we simply see him differently than we would if he were white. (Imagine voting for a white guy with such flimsy credentials and ominous associations.) With white voters in particular, there is a strong urge to finally move beyond our collective guilt over slavery and to prove, once and for all, that we're not a nation beset by racism – by electing a black president.
It's not an exaggeration to call this guilt-induced way of looking at Obama, this conditioned attitude, a type of trance. We hold him to a different standard, we see and feel differently about him, than we would if he were white. We have a kindliness, a desire for his success, a form of love and admiration and well-wishing toward Obama, all based on guilt. But love based on guilt is not real love. It's just an unconscious attempt to rid ourselves of guilt. Shelby Steele, author of "White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era," puts it this way: "[Americans] struggle, above all else, to dissociate themselves from the past sins they are stigmatized with."
Yet this guilt phenomenon is also why craven race-baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton still command media respect as "black leaders." We see them through the "white guilt trance," part of which means we're really afraid of being regarded as racists, so we don't criticize these men for their blatant serial demagoguery. Likewise with Obama, there is a great deal of hesitancy to criticize him out of fear of being thought a racist.
You might respond to this by saying: But I don't have any guilt over slavery or segregation. Fine, but it gets much subtler than that.
Did you ever get angry at your kids – and then find yourself "being nice" to them to make up for the guilt of having been impatient? With that in mind, consider just one of many ways guilt (in this case, racial guilt) can find its way into you: Let's say you're walking down the street and a group of black men are walking toward you, and you become fearful (very similar to the story Obama famously told about his white grandmother). That fear has a little resentment attached to it, for that's the nature of fear. But when you become resentful for any reason at all, you automatically incur guilt, because resentment is a wrong, failing way for mature human beings to respond to the stresses of life. Now, saddled with this new guilt associated with black people, a compulsion rises up from within you to make up for that guilt – which you do by discovering a mysterious affinity for black people that wasn't there before. But that "love" isn't real love – it's all rooted in guilt and resentment (just like when you got impatient with your kids, then suddenly became "nice" to them to compensate for your anger). Although my example here centers on race, this guilt principle is universal. Indeed, guilt-based false love is the basis of the ubiquitous "love-hate relationship" that so vexes the human race; hate easily turns into false love, to make up for the guilt of hating. Do you get it?
It's subtle, but this is exactly the kind of dynamic that leads to self-destructive relationships – from personal relationships to electing tyrants.
The Obama News Network
A third factor, shaped powerfully by both the secular love of government and the white guilt factor just discussed, is the incomprehensibly unprofessional way the news media have behaved during the 2008 election.
In my estimation, we basically don't have a free press in America any more, other than the "New Media" – that is, talk radio, the Internet and some cable TV. Most of the rest of the establishment media have pretty much committed suicide this year.
Get David Kupelian's best-selling exposé, "The Marketing of Evil," autographed, from WorldNetDaily.
Just imagine that radical activist groups like the ACLU or the strident abortion outfit NARAL decided to start up their own "news organizations," complete with broadcast "anchor people," "reporters" and "correspondents," as well as newspapers and news websites and so on – and with a straight face they called their output "news." Everybody would laugh. Why? Because, while it would have the familiar form of news, it would of course just have the substance of their radical propaganda. No one would take it seriously.
This is exactly what we have in the so-called "mainstream press" today. The New York Times and NBC News, for example, are not true news organizations any more. They've become political and cultural activist organizations pretending to do news. And after having dropped all pretense at fairness this year, everyone knows it. This is why they're more concerned about Joe the plumber's tax bill than about the election being stolen by ACORN – because the elite media have become nothing more nor less than the propaganda ministry and attack dogs for Barack Obama.
Obama, the Manchurian candidate
In the classic 1962 movie thriller "The Manchurian Candidate," a man was programmed by communist handlers, and then emerged into the public arena as a hero, with a largely manufactured history, large parts of which were either obscured or changed. Then he was planted into a position of great influence, having been programmed to usher in tremendous change at the appointed time.
Barack Obama was programmed for years by his atheist, Muslim father, by the communist sex pervert Frank Marshall Davis, by con man Tony Rezko, by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and others – most of all by black liberation theology screamer Jeremiah Wright. Obama's resume is largely manufactured. There is a total blackout on his college years. His campaign obscures what he did as a "community organizer." All his radical associations are denied or minimized. His miserable legislative record (voting "present" over 100 times to avoid taking a stand), his lack of achievement, his radical views and so on – all have been laundered through the magic of public relations into the near-sacred saga of "The One" who has been sent to serve, and to save, America.
Yet, as I have documented previously, John McCain rendered more genuine service to his country each and every day of those five-and-a-half years he endured in a North Vietnamese prison than Barack Obama has in his entire life.
In "The Manchurian Candidate," several war heroes came back to America from abroad. But one of them harbored a dark agenda, lying in wait, secretly, until it could emerge and transform America.
America has a choice Tuesday between a genuine war hero and a genuine Manchurian candidate.
Choose well.
