The socialist connections of Obama has certainly not been featured in the Washington Post columns of Harold Meyerson, who happens not only to be a member but a vice-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America(DSA).
By Cliff Kincaid
Campaign workers for Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara. But Obama has his own controversial socialist connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based Marxist group with access to millions of labor union dollars and connections to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler.
Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.
Steve Bartin, who has been following Obama's career and involvement with the Chicago socialists, has uncovered a fascinating video showing Obama campaigning for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Interestingly, Sanders, who won his seat in 2006, called Obama "one of the great leaders of the United States Senate," even though Obama had only been in the body for about two years. In 2007, the National Journal said that Obama had established himself as "the most liberal Senator." More liberal than Sanders? That is quite a feat. Does this make Obama a socialist, too?
DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. The Socialist International (SI) has what is called "consultative status" with the United Nations. In other words, it works hand-in-glove with the world body.
The international connection is important and significant because an Obama bill, "The Global Poverty Act," has just been rushed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with the assistance of Democratic Senator Joe Biden, the chairman, and Republican Senator Richard Lugar. The legislation (S.2433) commits the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars more in foreign aid on the rest of the world, in order to comply with the "Millennium Goals" established by the United Nations. Conservative members of the committee were largely caught off-guard by the move to pass the Obama bill but are putting a "hold" on it, in order to try to prevent the legislation, which also quickly passed the House, from being quickly brought up for a full Senate vote. But observers think that Senate Democrats may try to pass it quickly anyway, in order to give Obama a precious legislative "victory" that he could run on.
Another group associated with the SI is the Party of European Socialists (PES), which heard from Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, back in 2006. Dean's speech is posted on the official Democratic Party website, although the European socialist parties are referred to as "progressive." Democrats, Dean said, want to be "good citizens of the world community." He spoke at a session on "Global Challenges for Progressive Politics."
Following up, in April 2007, PES President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen reported that European socialists held a meeting "in the Democrats HQ in Washington," met with officials of the party and Democratic members of Congress, and agreed that "PES activist groups" in various U.S. cities would start working together. The photos of the trip show Rasmussen meeting with such figures as Senator Ben Cardin, Senator Bernie Sanders, officials of the Brookings Institution, Howard Dean, and AFL-CIO President John W. Sweeney, a member of the DSA. The Brookings Institution is headed by former Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbott, a proponent of world government who was recently identified in the book Comrade J as having been a pawn of the Russian intelligence service.
It is not surprising that the Chicago Democrat, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, has endorsed Obama. Schakowsky, who endorsed Howard Dean for president in 2004, was honored in 2000 at a dinner sponsored by the Chicago chapter of the DSA. Her husband, Robert Creamer, emerged from federal prison in November 2006 after serving five months for financial crimes. He pleaded guilty to ripping off financial institutions while running a non-profit group. Before he was convicted but under indictment, Creamer was hired by the Soros-funded Open Society Policy Center to sabotage John Bolton's nomination as Ambassador to the U.N.
After his release from prison, Creamer released a book, Listen to Your Mother: Stand up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, described by one blogger as the book that was "penned in the pen." A blurb for the book declares, "Some people think that in order to win, Democrats need to move to the political center by adopting conservative values and splitting the difference between progressive and conservative positions. History shows they are wrong. To win the next election and to win in the long term, we need to redefine the political center."
In addition to writing the book, Creamer is back in business, running his firm, Strategic Consulting Group, and advertising himself as "a consultant to the campaigns to end the war in Iraq, pass universal health care, change America's budget priorities and enact comprehensive immigration reform." His clients have included the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org. In fact, his client list is a virtual who's who of the Democratic Party, organized labor, and Democratic Party constituency groups.
Creamer's list of testimonials comes from such figures as Democratic Senators Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Harold Meyerson, MoveOn.org founder Wes Boyd, and David Axelrod, a "Democratic political consultant."
Axelrod, of course, is much more than just a "Democratic political consultant." He helped State Senator Barack Obama win his U.S. Senate seat in 2004 and currently serves as strategist and media advisor to Obama's presidential campaign.
We've had eight years of Republican rule in the White House, six of which included the Congress. Are you better off because of it? Most likely not, if you are like most ordinary Ohioans.
You might be able to answer yes, only if you made over $250,000 a year and have a $million or more in financial assets. Even then, the country as a whole is hardly better off. There are fewer good jobs, we have a horrible national debt, and we have mortgaged our children's future. Republican policies under Bush/Cheney included tax cuts for the top one percent and gave companies incentives to ship the best jobs overseas to grow corporate profit at the expense of ordinary working folks here in Ohio. McCain supported these right wing Republican trickle down policies 95% of the time. Remember GOP represesnts the Grand Oil Party!!!
Obama's tax policies are designed to give relief to the middle class with incomes under $250,000 a year. Why would anyone vote against the interests of themselves and their family?
Obama stakes out the following positions in his attacks on the white paper produced by Mboya's Ministry of Economic Planning and Development:
1. Obama advocated the communal ownership of land and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land, as part of a forced "development plan", an important element of his attack on the government's advocacy of private ownership, land titles, and property registration. (p. 29)
2. Obama advocated the nationalization of "European" and "Asian" owned enterprises, including hotels, with the control of these operations handed over to the "indigenous" black population. (pp. 32 -33)
3. Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on "the rich" even up to the 100% level, arguing that, "there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay" (p. 30) and that, "Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed." (p. 31)
4. Obama contrasts the ill-defined and weak-tea notion of "African Socialism" negatively with the well-defined ideology of "scientific socialism", i.e. communism. Obama views "African Socialism" pioneers like Nkrumah, Nyerere, and Toure as having diverted only "a little" from the capitalist system. (p. 26)
5. Obama advocates an "active" rather than a "passive" program to achieve a classless society through the removal of economic disparities between black Africans and Asian and Europeans. (p. 28) "While we welcome the idea of a prevention [of class problems], we should try to cure what has slipped in .. we .. need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now .. so long as we maintain free enterprise one cannot deny that some will accumulate more than others .. " (pp. 29-30)
6. Obama advocates price controls on hotels and the tourist industry, so that the middle class and not only the rich can afford to come to Kenya as tourists. (p. 33)
7. Obama advocates government owned and operated "model farms" as a means of teaching modern farming techniques to farmers. (p. 33)
The Ant & the Grasshopper
Aesop's Fable
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long,
building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and complains
about the lack of grass to play in all summer long.
Come Winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference
and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm
and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of
the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in
his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
Nancy Pelosi & Barack Obama exclaim in an interview with Larry
King that the ant has taken advantage of the grasshopper, and
that half of the ant's food should be given to the grasshopper.
MSNBC blames the plight of the grasshopper on George Bush and
all Republicans everywhere.
Fox News says the grasshopper got what he deserved.
The grasshopper is given half of the ant's food and the ant
is forced to build the grasshopper a shelter.
The grasshopper soon demands more food and warm clothing as well.
The grasshopper's shelter falls into disrepair due to neglect and
he demands the shelter be fixed. The ant is forced to do so.
HBO does a documentary on the grasshopper's shabby conditions,
and Paramount releases a movie called "Pesticide" starring
Tim Robbins.
The Grammy award for best song is awarded to "America's Shame",
a song about the injustice done to grasshoppers. The award
is presented by Leonardo DiCaprio, on a show hosted by Ellen
Degeneres and Rachel Maddow.
The grasshopper fathers 8 children with 8 different females and
the ant is forced to give more food to the grasshopper for
the children.
Eventually the grasshopper leaves. The ant is forced to
support the grasshopper's children, and the abandoned shelter
is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once
peaceful neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2008!!
By excluding abortion and same-sex marriage from national debate, Big Media kept the voters from knowing that Obama, as chairman of the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, killed the "Born Alive" bill, thereby depriving babies born alive from botched abortions of medical care and nutrition. Big Media obviously didn't want a repetition of Obama's embarrassing handling of these issues in the Saddleback dialogue.
The issue of illegal aliens was censored out of the presidential debates and other coverage. The voters were kept oblivious to the fact that Obama favors giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens and John McCain does not.
This issue is so powerful with the voters that it played a major role in the dumping of New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and the unprecedented recall of California Gov. Gray Davis. It could have done likewise to Obama.
How many times have you heard that Obama will cut taxes on 95 percent of Americans? Have you even once heard Big Media tell us that's a big lie because 40 percent of Americans don't pay any federal income taxes at all?
Talking about "95 percent" means Obama intends to increase government handouts, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), to non-taxpaying Americans. That would surely be compatible with his promise to "spread the wealth around."
Big Media have threatened to hang a scarlet letter on anyone who dares to mention Obama's middle name. Funny thing, in all the years that I spent criticizing the disarmament-appeasement policies of JFK's and LBJ's Secretary of Defense Robert Strange McNamara, nobody ever said I was unfair to use his strange middle name.
But Obama is different. Big Media have cloaked him with a security blanket that not only protects him from criticism, but viciously attacks anybody who tells the truth about Obama's life story in Indonesia, Hawaii, Kenya or Chicago.
On Oct. 15, The New York Times ran a front-page above-the-fold pretend-news article threatening McCain that Big Media will not tolerate any negative attacks on Obama, such as talking about Obama's relationship with the 1960s terrorist Bill Ayers. The Times warned McCain and his supporters that it is unacceptable to make "strong political attacks" on Obama or be "sharply personal" or even use an "angry tone."
But the voters have a right to know who are and were Obama's associates. Old adages are still valid: "Birds of a feather flock together," and, "A man is known by the company he keeps."
Why don't Big Media tell us that Obama launched his political campaign in the Chicago living room of former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, who was famous for bombing the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon? Why don't Big Media tell us about the relationship of Obama on school issues with Ayers, who as a professor of education is now working to replace the three R's with a fourth -- Rebellion against the U.S. social and economic structure?
When Sean Hannity aired a program about "Obama and Friends," The New York Times rushed forth to defend Obama's ties with Ayers and to attack Hannity's program as "partisan" and "provocative." We are apparently not permitted to be partisan or provocative about Obama.
How could Obama sit in a church for 20 years where the Rev. Jeremiah Wright spoke hatefully about whites and cursed America as a racist country? Yet, Big Media now claim it is racist for anyone to criticize Obama's long and personal association with Jeremiah "damn America" Wright.
Why don't Big Media dissect the revelations and biases in Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," with the same journalistic curiosity they use about Sarah Palin's wardrobe? Big Media present Obama as some sort of intellectual, but why don't we hear about his failure to write anything meaningful for the Harvard Law Review when he was its affirmative-action president?
Why don't we hear more about Obama's friendship with the communist Frank Marshall Davis, who was part of a Soviet-sponsored network in Hawaii? Why aren't we given details about Obama's financial relationship with Tony Rezko, the Chicago fixer now in prison?
The source of money has always been fair game for anybody to talk about in political campaigns. Why haven't Big Media assigned their investigative reporters to trace the hundreds of millions of dollars that may be illegally flowing to the Obama campaign from foreign sources?
Pew Research confirms that 70 percent of Obama's media coverage has been positive and 60 percent of McCain's has been negative. Memo to the American people: Will we let Big Media decide this election by censoring the news we have a right to know?
And that, of course, has been the theme of the Obama campaign from its inception -- "change." It is the word found on nearly all the placards at Obama rallies. It is the word most often cited by the candidate himself.
But for all its ubiquity and for all the passion of its advocates, what this change is about is not entirely clear.
Of course, Obama himself often has spoken about the overriding need for change from eight years of President George W. Bush's policies. But this is not what he or most of his supporters really mean when they talk about change. In fact, it cannot be. This is easy to show: All candidates for president run on a platform of change from the party in power. If they don't stand for change, why vote for them?
George W. Bush wanted a change from Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton wanted a change from the first George Bush. And so on back to the first candidate for president to run from a party other than that of the prior president.
If change in policies from those of George W. Bush were all Barack Obama meant by change, "change" would not elicit anywhere near the passion it does. Nor would it be the basis of the depth of his appeal to his left-wing supporters. Surely John Kerry wanted as much of a change from George W. Bush in 2004. Yet he did not run on a platform of "change."
What Barack Obama is tapping into with the word "change" is nearly eight years of the left's constructing a description of an America that has been made so awful that "change" means changing America, not just changing policies.
The truth is that aside from the Iraq war, which is turning out to be quite successful, George W. Bush's policies have not been particularly controversial or even particularly right-wing. But the left has constructed for itself a view of America that, if you subscribe to it, makes radical change imperative.
The left, from The New York Times to MoveOn.org, has led itself and others to believe that:
--George W. Bush lied America into war.
--Tens of thousands of Iraqis and more than 4,000 Americans have been killed in a war waged in order to line the pockets of Vice President Dick Cheney's friends.
--The Constitution has been trampled on.
--America has become a torturing country.
--America's poor have become far more numerous and far more downtrodden.
--American troops in Iraq repeatedly have engaged in atrocities against innocent civilians.
--The opportunity for economic self-improvement has ceased for most Americans.
--Racism is endemic to American society
--Republican rallies are hate-fests.
--John McCain has run a racist campaign against Barack Obama.
--Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, is a religious zealot and an idiot.
--Christian fundamentalists are on the verge of taking over America and turning it into a theocracy.
--The world is getting closer and closer to catastrophic and irreversible damage caused by human beings; and George W. Bush and energy interests are standing in the way of preventing universal destruction.
--America is on the road to fascism.
Now, as it happens, none of those things is true. But the left believes them all. That is why radical "change" becomes mandatory -- or America will collapse (and the world, too, which is why Barack Obama often mentions changing the world, as well as America).
Of course, many Americans who do not consider themselves leftist also will vote for Barack Obama and left-wing Democratic congressional candidates. They do so because they are lifelong Democrats who do not realize how far left their party has strayed and think they still are voting for the party of Truman and JFK; or because they personally benefit from Democratic largesse (e.g., government workers); or because they are active in their unions; or because they have come to believe the media and the Democrats, who have been telling them for almost a decade about how George W. Bush and the Republicans have ruined their country.
But as for the left, it lives in a bubble of its making. That is why most leftists live in places where nearly everyone shares their fantasies -- bubbles such as Manhattan, San Francisco, Boston, the west side of Los Angeles, and the most hermetically sealed of the bubbles: universities. They interact almost only with other people who share their fantasy world of America Made Bad.
From Karl Marx to today's Democratic Party, the left everywhere has manufactured villains to slay -- starting with the bourgeoisie and land owners to today's "special interests" (though not, of course, left-wing special interests, such as labor unions, teachers unions and the trial bar), "the rich," drug companies, oil companies, neocons, evangelical Christians and, of course, the myriad racists, sexists, Islamophobes, homophobes and xenophobes.
So, here we go again .. this simple talk show host (right wing, hate-filled shock jock, I believe they call us) is going to use some basic logic and the ability to actually read newspapers to catch you up to speed on just what the Big BO is saying here. Now if you're educated in our wonderful government schools you may find this challenging. Stick with it. In spite of what the government has done to you, you can generate some new brain cells that will help you deal with this stuff. It would also help if you got your campaign news from somewhere other than Saturday Night Live.
Here we go, front and center with Barack Obama!
"I'm going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans."
This Obama promise has already been pretty much debunked in the media. The problem is that it hasn't been debunked on the Black Entertainment Television network or on Inside Edition or Entertainment Tonight. Until these television outlets bring forth the facts most of Obama's supporters won't know the truth.
And what is the truth? The truth is that almost one-half of working Americans eligible to vote don't pay federal income taxes in the first place. This brings forth the interesting question of how do you cut taxes for people who don't pay taxes. What Obama has done here is change the definition of "tax cut."
It used to be that when the government walked up to someone who had just received their paycheck and said 'Gimme some of that," and the government then gave that money to someone else who had not earned it; that was called welfare. Now apparently you can't get welfare if you're working ... so we'll just call it income seizure and redistribution. Under Obama a couple earning, for example, $70,000 and owing no federal income taxes at all will get several checks from Obama's federal taxpayer-funded treasury. These checks will be called "tax cuts."
So .. for those who don't pay taxes, here are some of the "tax cut" checks you’ll be getting from The Chosen One. I'm taking some literary license here and replacing the words "tax credit" with the word "payment." That literary flourish brings us much closer to the truth. Here are your goodies; come and get ‘em:
A $500 "make work pay" payment.
A $4,000 payment for college tuition.
A payment equal to 10% of your mortgage interest
A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you put into a savings account up to $1000.
A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you pay for child care up to $6000.
A payment of up to $7,000 if you purchase a "clean car." By that Obama means an environmentally correct car.
Plus ... an expansion of the earned income tax credit .. increased payments on top of your earnings if the government doesn't feel you are earning enough.
There you go ... Obama's "tax cuts." Sounds pretty good, doesn't it. Well, I guess it is, if you're not too successful it IS pretty good. Remember, the harder you work the lower these payments get. Barack Obama's tax plans are all about punishing success and rewarding failure. He understands that if it weren't for failures, Democrats would be scrounging in the alleys for votes.
It's rather ironic that the Obama campaign will go to the mat with critics over the definition of "socialist," but feel absolutely free to change the definition of "tax cut" to anything that suits them.
"95% of small businesses won't pay any more taxes."
Once people started hearing that the very people that Obama wanted to raise taxes on are the people we depend on for jobs, The BO campaign had to come up with a line to neuter the "small business" argument. Barack Obama knows he's in trouble if the voters find out that 70% of all extant jobs are in the small business sector and that 80% of all new jobs are coming from small businesses. So, Obama comes up with this line about 95% of small businesses not paying any more taxes under his plan
Here's the trick. Let me illustrate reality with a simple comparison. Let's say that we have 1000 small businesses. About 950 of them, that would be 95%, employ one or two people each for a total employment figure of 1,200. Now let's assume that the other 50 businesses employ anywhere from 20 people to hundreds of people for a total of about 250,000 workers. If someone comes along and says 95% of small businesses won't be affected by his tax increases, how do you feel? You know that the tax increase is going to slam those businesses that employ 250,000 workers, while leaving the 95% of businesses that employ just 1,200 people alone. Quite a deal, huh. Aren't you impressed?
The point here is that it's not the percentage of small businesses your tax increases hit, it's the percentage of small business employees. Unfortunately that nuance is lost on the majority of voters educated by the government, and the MoveOn Media sure isn’t going to take the time to explain it to you.
"John McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time."
First of all, George Bush doesn't cast votes in the U.S. Senate, though McCain and Obama do. The best way to judge how they vote is to see how often they vote with their respective parties. You might want to get those nuisance resolutions proclaiming the need for a colonoscopy every once in a while out of the way. That would leave some key votes for you to consider. The Congressional Research Service did the work. They looked at votes for Obama and McCain on KEY issues. The results? Barack Obama voted with Democrats 97% of the time. John McCain voted with the Republicans 79% of the time. Now .. just sit on your hands and wait for the MoveOn Media to report that one. Sit on your hands, but for God's sake don't hold your breath.
"John McCain wants to tax your health insurance benefits."
He's right, but here's the rest of the story. Let's say that you and your brother work for different companies. Your company provides you with health insurance. Your brother has to buy his own. Your boss gets a tax deduction for the cost of your health insurance. Your brother does not get a tax deduction for the cost of his health insurance. In effect, he is paying much more than you are for the same policy. Not fair. There's a reason for this. For decades government has wanted to coerce you into getting insurance through your employer. This gets you acclimated to the idea of someone else -- someone besides yourself -- is responsible for your health care. The end result is that the government, in effect, subsidizes the cost of your health insurance, but not your brother's. Now McCain has this idea of a $5,000 tax credit for every family to pay for their own health insurance policy. To make this work everyone has to start from the same starting line. Remember, you're subsidized, your brother is not. So McCain takes away the tax deduction your employer gets for your health insurance. There ... now we're all of equal standing when the $5,000 tax credits start coming out.
Now that wasn't too hard, was it?
Now .. just in case you've read something here, heard something on my show or gathered some information from some other source that might cause you to switch your vote from Obama to McCain ... just remember. You're a racist. There is only one reason NOT to vote for Barack Obama, and that's if you're a robe-wearing, cross-burning Klansman. Just so you know. You’re going to have that on your conscience.
Senator Obama has stated very clearly what kinds of Supreme Court justices he wants-- those with "the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old."
Like so many things that Obama says, it may sound nice if you don't stop and think-- and chilling if you do stop and think. Do we really want judges who decide cases based on who you are, rather than on the facts and the law?
If the case involves a white man versus a black woman, should the judge decide that case differently than if both litigants are of the same race or sex?
The kind of criteria that Barack Obama promotes could have gotten three young men at Duke University sent to prison for a crime that neither they nor anybody else committed.
Didn't we spend decades in America, and centuries in Western civilization, trying to get away from the idea that who you are determines what your legal rights are?
What kind of judges are we talking about?
A classic example is federal Judge H. Lee Sarokin, who could have bankrupted a small New Jersey town because they decided to stop putting up with belligerent homeless men who kept disrupting their local public library. Judge Sarokin's rulings threatened the town with heavy damage awards, and the town settled the case by paying $150,000 to the leading disrupter of its public library.
After Bill Clinton became president, he elevated Judge Sarokin from the district court to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Would President Barack Obama elevate him-- or others like him-- to the Supreme Court? Judge Sarokin certainly fits Obama's job description for a Supreme Court justice.
A court case should not depend on who you are and who the judge is. We are supposed to be a country with "the rule of law and not of men." Like all human beings, Americans haven't always lived up to our ideals. But Obama is proposing the explicit repudiation of that ideal itself
That is certainly "change," but is it one that most Americans believe in? Or is it something that we may end up with anyway, just because too many voters cannot be bothered to look beyond rhetoric and style?
We can vote a president out of office at the next election if we don't like him. But we can never vote out the federal judges he appoints in courts across the country, including justices of the Supreme Court.
The kind of judges that Barack Obama wants to appoint can still be siding with criminals or terrorists during the lifetime of your children and grandchildren.
The Constitution of the United States will not mean much if judges carry out Obama's vision of the Constitution as "a living document"-- that is, something that judges should feel free to change by "interpretation" to favor particular individuals, groups or causes.
We have already seen where that leads with the 2005 Kelo Supreme Court decision that allows local politicians to take people's homes or businesses and transfer that property to others. Almost invariably, these are the homes of working class people and small neighborhood businesses that are confiscated under the government's power of eminent domain. And almost invariably they are transferred to developers who will build shopping malls, hotels or other businesses that will bring in more tax revenue.
The Constitution protected private property, precisely in order to prevent such abuses of political power, leaving a small exception when property is taken for "public use," such as the government's building a reservoir or a highway.
But just by expanding "public use" to mean "public purpose"-- which can be anything-- the Supreme Court opened the floodgates.
Get ready for a stream of complaints from Democrats who love engaging in the class warfare rhetoric for which they’re famous.
I can hear Barack Obama now: “Here I am fighting for lower and middle class Americans with my (phony) tax plan and the Republicans are off spending $150,000 on Sarah Palin’s wardrobe!”
Incidentally, I inserted the word “phony” in Sen. Obama’s hypothetical statement because very few people have seemed to notice that his claim to “cut the taxes of 95% of Americans” is a rope-a-dope fantasy if there ever was one.
If nearly 50% of Americans don’t pay any income tax at all, how is he going to “cut” THEIR taxes? That’s an easy one: he’ll have the government write them checks, called tax “credits”, which is another manifestation of his socialist “spread-the-wealth” agenda.
Anyhow, back to the wardrobe story.
If I were running the McCain/Palin campaign, I’m not entirely sure I’d authorize $150,000 for what’s been described as clothing, hairstyling, makeup and other “campaign accessories” for Gov. Palin and her family.
Then again, I cannot even begin to imagine what it costs to fly both candidates around the country on enormous, expensive jets surrounded by hefty (paid) staffs and U.S. Secret Service agents.
I gotta believe it ain’t cheap.
This makes me wonder about Sen. Obama’s trip to Hawaii this week to visit his ailing grandmother.
Obviously, there is nothing wrong with Obama taking time to be by the side of the woman who raised him.
But I wonder why there hasn’t been a single news media outlet that I’m aware of which has questioned the funding of a personal family matter?
If the media accusation is that the Republican Party shouldn’t be spending money on Gov. Palin’s wardrobe, why wouldn’t the same media question why the Democrat Party is spending what has to be hundreds of thousands of dollars in order for their candidate to deal with a private, personal family issue?
The answer is pretty simple. It’s so apparent that the mainstream media has gone beyond simple, subtle bias in favor of Obama and Democrats. They are actually advocating for Sen. Obama to win.
One can find examples of this advocacy every day now. This week, a number of headlines and TV news stories bellowed about the 8 or 9 or even 10 percentage point lead that Obama supposedly has.
Where was the story about the Associated Press/GfK poll which currently shows the two candidates in a dead heat?
Or the news that in the latest George Washington University Battleground Poll, Obama and McCain are essentially tied among likely voters?
In my local paper, that was all buried on page 13A.
I remember my parents teaching me that life isn’t fair. I’ve shared that bleak advice with my children, too. But the level of inequity displayed by reckless and childish “journalists” who are rooting for Obama over McCain is simply bizarre. They’ve dropped any pretense of responsible or fair reporting.
And not to be outdone, at least one Democrat U.S. Senator confirmed his party’s plans to try and shut down talk radio if his party wins on November 4th.
During a radio interview on KKOB Radio in New Mexico this week, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, the liberal Democrat U.S. Senator from that state, admitted on-air what many of us have known for awhile now: Democrats want to resurrect the “Fairness Doctrine”, an antiquated, rickety FCC regulation from 1949 that was abolished in 1987 following numerous unanimous Supreme Court rulings that it clearly shredded the First Amendment.
This speech-suppressing nightmare, as Bingaman knows, would destroy talk radio in America, pure and simple. Radio companies are never going to be forced to mandate 50% conservative views and 50% liberal views, if for no other reason that that means that a radio station would lose money 50% of the time. Like it or not, liberal radio hosts fail miserably in the spoken word format. The most prominent, well-organized effort to create a liberal talk radio network called “Air America” has bombed. They went bankrupt. Liberals keep trying to fund it and keep Air America afloat, but it’s flushing good money down the drain after bad.
And so how do Democrats silence all of us conservatives on the radio?
Legislate us into silence. Bring back this ridiculous FCC policy which would force radio companies to abandon a format that proves too costly and complicated to run.
As Sen. Bingaman was calmly explaining to the shocked radio host on KKOB why he wants the talk radio format destroyed, he said that the Fairness Doctrine has “served us well for many years.”
He knows full well that by the time Rush Limbaugh came along and saved AM radio and talk radio because hugely successful, the Fairness Doctrine was long gone.
Served us well? Nice try, Senator.
The fact is that Democrats cannot stand dissent. Despite having a news media in its hip pocket writing silly stories about Sarah Palin’s clothing budget, they can’t tolerate millions of Americans enjoying and participating in a thriving, successful medium like talk radio. They are threatened by us. And since they can’t beat us in the free market (hey Al Franken, how many of your paychecks bounced before you finally called it quits?), they’ll attempt to get the government to shut us down.
A friend of mine once told me, “Oh Mike, don’t worry about the Fairness Doctrine, the American people will never stand for such an outrageous attempt to destroy the Constitution. It’ll never happen.”
If the Democrats win on November 4th, the American people can complain all they want. Even with pitchforks and torches, bitter Democrats in Washington will prevail.
Powerful Democrats like John Kerry, Dick Durbin and Nancy Pelosi have already advocated for the return of the Fairness Doctrine.
They just haven’t been as blatant about it as the America-hating Sen. Jeff Bingaman from New Mexico.
Last year Congress raised the minimum wage, which is set to rise to $7.25 an hour next year from the current $6.55. But Mr. Obama wants to raise it again, to $9.50 per hour by 2011, and index it for inflation. Mr. Obama says further increases are necessary so that "full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs." According to Census data, less than 1% of workers over 25 are earning the minimum. And rather than family heads or full-time workers, they tend to be young single adults, teenagers living at home or spouses providing a second income.
Moments ago Shep Smith was discussing it on FoxNews and admitted that when he runs down to get his Wendy's Value meal in New York - that it turns out to be $11. (For the same meal that would cost $3.50 in Mobile, Alabama.)
Shep points out the obvious truth.
When you force up the minimum wage two interesting things happen.
Products and Services get more expensive - thus TAXING everyone in America, and secondly many companies have to lay people off to get their employment budget in line.
Sure it sounds magnanimous for THE ONE to talk about people getting more pay. But it doesn't happen in a vacuum. And just like his ideas about "taxing business" it will not work.
Businesses - don't "PAY" for anything. People who frequent businesses, customers who order from businesses, and clients who order from businesses PAY FOR EVERYTHING. (Including an increase in wages, or 45% taxation that an Obama administration would likely level against them.)
Truly uneducated poor people, are about to rush into office a man who is about to create the single biggest season of unemployment, high tax, stagnated economic depression-like conditions we've seen in three generations. And while they've been mesmerized by his good looks, fancy words, and slogans of profound depth like "Hope and Change." The truth is he is about to unleash the single biggest assault against the poor of my lifetime...
PEOPLE - there is NOT an endless stream of "money" that Washington can GIVE you. That money comes from those who have earned it.
Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest emails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.
Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Obama's ties to Ayers.
These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.
To their credit, some liberal old-timers -- like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey -- voted against the "fairness doctrine," in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the "fairness doctrine" to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities.
Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Website and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.
Then there's the Democrats' "card check" legislation, which would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions' strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees' homes -- we know where you live -- and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard.
Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.
Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that used to pride themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.
FactCheck supposedly exists to look beyond a politician's claims. Ironically, in its analysis of NRA materials on Barack Obama, these so-called "FactCheckers" use the election year campaign rhetoric of a presidential candidate and a verbal claim by one of the most zealous gun control supporters in Congress to refute facts compiled by NRA's research of vote records and review of legislative language.
There's another possible explanation behind FactCheck's positions. Just last year, FactCheck's primary funding source, the Annenberg Foundation, also gave $50,000 to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence for "efforts to reduce gun violence by educating the public and by enacting and enforcing regulations governing the gun industry." Annenberg made a similar grant for $100,000 in 2005. (source)
Regardless of the cause, it's clear that while FactCheck swoons over a politician's rhetoric, NRA prefers to look at the more mundane details - like how that politician voted on a bill and what kind of impact that legislation had or may have had on law-abiding gun owners.
FactCheck claims that NRA advertisements "distort" Barack Obama's anti-gun positions, but FactCheck's own sources prove otherwise. In fact, even Obama's campaign has refused to deny his most extreme positions.
FactCheck also dismisses NRA's statements as "contrary to what [Obama] has said throughout his campaign." But as FactCheck says, "believing something doesn't make it so." And unless FactCheck is an arm of the Obama campaign, isn't it their job to find out if Obama is telling the truth?
FactCheck claim: "Obama is proposing no ...ban" on use of firearms for self-defense in the home.
FactCheck is wrong. Obama supported local handgun bans in the Chicago area by opposing any allowance for self-defense. Obama opposed an Illinois bill (SB 2165, 2004) that would have created an "affirmative defense" for a person who used a prohibited firearm in self-defense in his own home.
As FactCheck notes, the bill was provoked by a case where a Wilmette, Ill. homeowner shot an intruder in self-defense in his home; the homeowner's handgun was banned by a town ordinance. (After the U.S. Supreme Court found Washington, D.C.'s similar ban unconstitutional, Wilmette repealed the ordinance to avoid litigation.)
The legislation was very plainly worded, but as limited as its protection was, Obama voted against it in committee and on the floor:
It is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another ...when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.
If a person cannot use a handgun for self-defense in the home without facing criminal charges, self-defense with handguns in the home is effectively banned.
Even aside from SB 2165, Obama's support for a total handgun ban (see below) would be a crippling blow to defense in the home, since (as the Supreme Court recently affirmed) handguns are "the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family." (District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2818 (2008)).
FactCheck claim: Obama "did not ...vote to 'ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition."
FactCheck is wrong. Obama voted for an amendment by longtime ammunition ban advocate Sen. Edward Kennedy (S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, Vote No. 217, July 29, 2005), which would have fundamentally changed the federal "armor piercing ammunition" law (18 U.S.C. ' 922(a)(7)), by banning any bullet that "may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines... to be capable of penetrating body armor" that "meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers."
Federal law currently bans bullets as "armor piercing" based upon the metals used in their construction, such as those made of steel and those that have heavy jackets. (18 U.S.C. ' 921(a)(17)). The Kennedy amendment would have fundamentally changed the law to add a ban on bullets on the basis of whether they penetrate the "minimum" level of body armor, regardless of the bullets' construction or the purposes for which they were designed (e.g., hunting).
Many bullets designed and intended for use in rifles (including hunting rifles) have, over the years, been used in special-purpose hunting and target handguns, thus they "may be used in a handgun."
The "minimum" level of body armor, Type I, only protects against the lowest-powered handgun cartridges. Any center-fire rifle used for hunting, target shooting, or any other purpose, and many handguns used for the same purposes, are capable of penetrating Type I armor, regardless of the design of the bullet.
Obama also said, on his 2003 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, that he would "support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons." (source) The rifles banned as "assault weapons" under the 1994 Clinton gun ban fire cartridges such as the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester - the same ammunition used in common hunting rifles.
It's true that in 2005, Sen. Kennedy denied his amendment would ban hunting ammunition. But in a floor debate on an identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced the .30-30 Winchester rifle cartridge, used by millions of deer hunters since 1895. "It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America," said Sen. Kennedy. (Congressional Record, 2/26/04, p. S1634.)
Isn't it FactCheck's job to be skeptical of politicians' claims, especially when the plain language says otherwise?
FactCheck claim: "Obama says he does not support any ... handgun ban and never has."
FactCheck is wrong. Obama has never disavowed his support for a handgun ban. On Obama's 1996 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, he clearly stated his support for "state legislation to ...ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." Although Obama first claimed he had not seen the survey, a later version appeared with his handwritten notes modifying some of the answers. But he didn't change any of his answers on gun issues, including the handgun ban.
FactCheck itself cites Obama's 2003 questionnaire to the same group. When asked again if he supported a handgun ban, he could simply have said, "No." Instead, as FactCheck notes, he "avoid[ed] a yes-or-no answer" by saying a ban on handguns "is not politically practicable," then stated his support for other restrictions.
The 1996 and 2003 positions are not at all contradictory. Many anti-gun groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, support total bans on handguns but also support lesser regulations that are more "politically practicable."
FactCheck claim: Saying Obama supports gun licensing is "misleading."
FactCheck is wrong. Obama's fancy election-year footwork - claiming he doesn't support licensing or registration because he doesn't think he "can get that done" - isn't enough to get around his clear support for handgun registration and licensing.
What's really misleading is the idea that handgun registration isn't really gun registration. Handguns are about one-third of the firearms owned in the United States, and American gun owners know better than to think registration schemes will end with any one kind of gun.
FactCheck claim: Saying Obama would appoint judges who agree with him is "unsupported."
This FactCheck claim is just strange. Don't most Americans expect that the President will appoint people who agree with him to all levels of the government? And putting all Obama's campaign rhetoric about "empathy" aside, why would judges be any different?
And on the larger issue of Obama's view of the Second Amendment, FactCheck once again takes Obama's spin at face value. While Obama now claims to embrace the Supreme Court's decision striking down the D.C. gun ban, he refused to sign an amicus brief stating that position to the Court. And when Washington, D.C. television reporter Leon Harris said to Obama, "You support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," Obama nodded - and again didn't disavow his support. (WJLA TV interview, 2/11/2008.)
FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.17
FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.18
FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1
FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.15
FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4
FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5
FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6
FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7
FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8
FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9
FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10
FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11
FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12
FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9
2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 2008. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)
The Genie said that he'd grant the boy three wishes.
The boy stated, "I want to be a Harvard lawyer so that I can lord over the commoners."
The Genie whispered the magic words "Affirmative Action" and directed the boy to: "Go forth lazily and you will have your desire." And as a parting comment as he dissolved back into the lamp, the Genie advised, "ditch the Koran, it won't fit with your chosen life path."
In the coming years as the boy grew to adulthood, sowed his wild oats, sold drugs to his contemporaries, and generally goofed off he found doors magically opened to him as he attended college, then Harvard Law and graduated with honors.
Still, he was not satisfied. Being a lawyer was too much like working and so once again he summoned the Genie of the lamp.
"I want to be a Senator", he ordered.
The Genie, spoke the magic words, "William Ayres", and it came to pass that he was elected a State Senator.
Again, he found it boring to have to read all those papers and make decisions but, voting "present" got him by.
And still, he was not satisfied so, for the third time, he summoned the Genie.
"Not that I'm thinking that you pulled a 'Twilight Zone' on me with that last wish though as a Harvard educated lawyer, I should have really been more specific and detailed that I really wanted to be a US Senator with a bag of a billion earmarks."
"That's easy", the Genie conjured and he sent Alan Keyes to put a lock on the wish.
In the interim, the boy had married a woman, a lawyer like himself, who worshipped at the Church of God Damn America. And one day in response to his wife's naggings he sought an audience with the Genie.
"Oh magic Genie, I know that I've already received the three wishes that you proffered but, I now come to you with wishes on behalf of my wife as her attorney, a Harvard attorney as you yourself made it so and thus you cannot deny my entreaty."
The Genie acknowledged his rights as her agent and granted his boon.
"My wife wants a domicile more fitting our position in the community."
The Genie, invoked the magic words "Tony Rezco" and then replied, "It is done, and I have given her some bonus yard space -- the deed is in already in her family trust."
A short time passed, when again his wife grew unsatisfied and he knew that he had to consult the Genie once more.
"My wife is still not proud of me, or her country, and she wants to be First Lady."
The Genie replied, "Well... It would be a stretch of even my vast powers to convince George Bush to marry her even if I legalized polygamy or alternatively disposed of Laura ... ". "Better you should just run for President and I can fix the election." Twiddling votes is easy for a Genie.
So the boy ran, and ran, for President and he magically defeated all the more qualified aspirants of his party to the surprise of the pundits, the pollsters, the majority of the voters, and even the Wicked Witch of Chappaqua had to admit that he was charmed.
But, the campaign trail proved to be full of travails. And he called upon the Genie for his wife's third wish.
"My wife is tired of being called fat, stupid, and disrespected in general in this election process and she wants to be Queen of the Universe, so that the mortals will no longer trouble her."
Suddenly, the sky became very dark, the boy was enveloped in a dark fog and then the Genie intoned, "Go back to your wife, she is proud now."
And when the fog dissipated the boy was on a far off tropical beach, his wife adjacent dressed topless, in a simple sarong, cracking sand crabs on on a rock.
As we wait for Hagel's endorsement, here's a recap of some of the biggest Republicans, Republicans-turned-independents, and conservatives who have come out to support Barack for President.
If you know of any we've missed, please let us know!
Elected Officials:
Jim Leach, Former Congressman from Iowa
"For me, the national interest comes before party concerns, particularly internationally. We do need a new direction in American policy, and Obama has a sense of that."
Lincoln Chafee, Former United States Senator from Rhode Island
"As I look at the candidates in order who to vote for, certainly my kind of conservatism was reflected with Senator Obama, and those points are that we're fiscally conservative, we care about revenues matching expenditures, we also care about the environment, I think it's a traditional conservative value to care about clean air and clean water."
William Weld, Former Governor of Massachusetts
"It's not often you get a guy with his combination of qualities, chief among which I would say is the deep sense of calm he displays, and I think that's a product of his equally deep intelligence."
Arne Carlson, Former Governor of Minnesota
"I think we have in Barack Obama the clear possibility of a truly great president. I would contend that it's the most important election of my lifetime."
Wayne Gilchrest, Congressman from Maryland
"We can't use four more years of the same kind of policy that's somewhat haphazard, which leads to recklessness."
Richard Riordan, Former Mayor of Los Angeles
"I'm still a Republican, but I still will always vote for the person who I think will do the best job."
Lowell Weicker, Former Governor and Senator from Connecticut
"At issue is not the partisan politics of two parties, rather the image we have of ourselves as Americans. Senator Obama brings wisdom, kindness, and common sense to what is both his and our quest for a better America."
Jim Whitaker, Fairbanks, Alaska Mayor
"If we are as a nation concerned with energy, then our consideration should be a national energy policy that is not predicated on crude oil 50 years into the future. We need to get to it, and I think Barack Obama is very clear in that regard."
Linwood Holton, Former Governor of Virginia
"Obama has a brain, and he isn't afraid to use it."
Government Officials:
Colin Powell, Secretary of State under Bush 43
"...he has met the standard of being a sucessful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world-- onto the world state, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama."
Douglas Kmiec, Head of the Office of Legal Counsel under Reagan & Bush 41
"I was first attracted to government by Ronald Reagan, who lives in our national memory as a great leader and an inspiring communicator. Senator Obama has these gifts as well, but of course, more rhetorical flourish without substance would be worth little. Is there more to Senator Obama? I believe there is."
Charles Fried, Solicitor General of the United States under Reagan
"I admire Senator McCain and was glad to help in his campaign, and to be listed as doing so; but when I concluded that I must vote for Obama for the reason states in my letter, I felt it wrong to appear to be recommending to others a vote that I was not prepared to cast myself."
Jackson M. Andrews, Republican Counsel to the U.S. Senate
"Barack Obama is a thoughtful visionary leader who as President will end the decline of American law, liberty, and fiscal responsibility that are the hallmarks of the extremist policies of the current Administration, now adopted by John McCain."
Susan Eisenhower, Granddaughter of President Eisenhower & President of the Eisenhower Group
"Given Obama's support among young people, I believe that he will be most invested in defending the interests of these rising generations and, therefore, the long-term interests of this nation as a whole."
Francis Fukuyama, Advisor to President Reagan
"...Obama probably has the greatest promise of delivering a different kind of politics."
Rita Hauser, Former White House intelligence advisor under George W. Bush
"McCain will continue the wrong-headed foreign policy decisions of Bush, while Obama will take us in a new direction."
Larry Hunter, Former President Reagan Policy Advisor
"I suspect Obama is more free-market friendly than he lets on. He taught at the University of Chicago, a hotbed of right-of-center thought. His economic advisers, notably Austan Goolsbee, recognize that ordinary citizens stand to gain more from open markets than from government meddling."
Scott McClellan, Former Press Secretary to President George W. Bush
"From the beginning I have said I am going to support the candidate that has the best chance for changing the way Washington works and getting things done and I will be voting for Barack Obama and clapping."
Bill Ruckelshaus, served in the Nixon and Reagan administrations
"I'm not against McCain, I'm for Obama."
Ken Adelman, served in the Ford administration
"The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate. That decision showed appalling lack of judgment... that selection contradicted McCain's main two, and best two, themes for his campaign-- Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick."
Lilibet Hagel, Wife of Republican Senator Chuck Hagel
"This election is not about fighting phantom issues churned out by a top-notch slander machine. Most important, it is not about distracting the public-- you and me-- with whatever slurs someone thinks will stick."
Columnists and Academics:
Jeffrey Hart, National Review Senior Editor
"It turns out that these political parties are not always either liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican. The Democrat, under certain conditions, can be the conservative."
Andrew Bacevich, Professor of International Relations at Boston University
"For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one."
David Friedman, Economist and son of Milton and Rose Friedman
"I hope Obama wins. President Bush has clearly been a disaster from the standpoint of libertarians and conservatives because he has presided over an astonishing rise in government spending."
Christopher Buckley, Son of National Review founder William F. Buckley & former NR columnist
"Obama has in him-- I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy 'We are the people we have been waiting for' silly rehtoric-- the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for."
Andrew Sullivan, Columnist for the Atlantic Monthly
"Obama's legislative record, speeches, and the way he has run his campaign reveal, I think, a very even temperament, a very sound judgment, and an intelligent pragmatism. Prudence is a word that is not inappropriate to him."
Wick Alison, Former publisher of the National Review
"I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses. But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history."
Michael Smerconish, Columnist for the Philadelphia Enquirer