Take just one minute

Islam Caused Islamic World’s Decline

Treasury Dep’t: Chavez’s government is funding and assisting Hezbollah

Obama’s ‘Nuremberg’ Complex

Obama’s ‘Nuremberg’ Complex

Rick Moran
Yes, I realize using a Nazi analogy is probably crossing a line somewhere but really, how else can you describe a candidate for President who eschews the forms and traditions of our democracy to substitute the imagry of totalitarian rallies of the past?

On Thursday, August 28, Barack Obama plans to accept his nomination at Invesco Field in Denver, rather than at the Pepsi Center.
It’s going to cost the convention committee a lot of money to make the move, but Invesco Field can handle more than 75,000 spectators and will make a much better picture.

Well – come to think of it, I probably am going overboard a bit in comparing Invesco Field to the Nuremberg rallies held during Nazi party get togethers. (There were also the 70,000 people who came out to see Obama in Oregon.). But Americans have always been wary of a candidate who stirs passions to the boiling point in his followers. Don’t believe me? Ask President William Jennings Bryan or President Huey Long. The kind of rank populism and fervid emotion emitted by their supporters caused a lot of distrust on the part of the voter who prefer ordinary men who demonstrate humility in seeking the office rather than Messiahs who flout their populism.

I guess 20,000 wasn’t enough for him to speak in front of at the convention center.

Obama and the ‘Image Thing’

Obama and the ‘Image Thing’

By Miguel A. Guanipa

At a fundamental level, elections hinge upon the most trusted intuitions voters have about their candidate’s character. In most cases these intuitions are seldom aligned with the truth, as they are loosely based on external appearances and whatever the media chooses to put on its daily feed. Nevertheless, the labeling of a candidate that gains the most currency – in other words, the one that sticks – is the one that, given enough circumstantial evidence to support its tenuous correspondence with reality, will play a significant role in determining either victory or defeat for that candidate.


In the game of politics, the label that is used to pigeon hole one candidate may not necessarily work for another- but the principle of  perseverance until a fitting label sticks works almost every time. For people who get paid to breathe life into a viable caricature of the candidate from the opposition, their work at pointing out his gaffes and consistently highlighting the negatives may in time yield the desired results, and soon enough a candidate may find that the very strengths for which he is so admired by his followers have almost overnight become his greatest liabilities. A case in point that probably haunts many of Obama’s advisors is the 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry.


In hindsight one can almost pinpoint the time when the downward spiraling of John Kerry’s campaign began to gain serious momentum. It was not long after diligent republican strategists had done their work of helping to make the eviscerating tag of the flip-flopping candidate frame the national conversation. The overriding perception of an endlessly vacillating candidate became a powerful tool in the hands of republican strategists to sway many undecided voters in the 2004 election. 


The fact that Kerry had not addressed emerging doubts in the consciousness of voters about the legitimacy of his military service also contributed to the imminent collapse of what was once considered a high-spirited campaign by many accounts, though in the end it became merely a peripheral concern of the voters.


This failure to stay one step ahead of the rumor mill and quickly defuse any allegations of misconduct or character weaknesses has served as a valuable lesson for the crafters of Obama’s campaign strategy; a strategy that – not surprisingly – puts a premium on providing a timely response to negative publicity and unfounded characterizations from the opposition.


And it is not entirely unwise for Obama to heed the promptings of his trusted advisors to seize every opportunity to silence any potentially damaging rumors and squelch any unsolicited misrepresentations that may sometimes even come from loose cannons within his own contingency. But while he is being assured that this approach will only help to project an image of honesty and strength, the impression he is giving to presumptive voters is an altogether different one than that which his advisors have in mind.  


In other words, there is a distinct possibility that he may be actually perceived as a supremely selfish man; the consummate politician who is more preoccupied with safeguarding the luster of his public persona than with the support from those whom he will readily disown should they in any way become a hindrance to the fulfillment of his life long dream. Not a label that Obama would intentionally embrace.


And therein lies the supreme irony.  


Barack Obama, lionized by his peers as the silver tongue candidate, eulogized by his followers as the fresh and untainted spirit in Washington, but seemingly oblivious to the fickle nature of political winds, may actually be helping history repeat itself.


For John Kerry, failing to quickly neutralize his foes’ negative spin on his record meant the end of his presidential bid, which is why Obama can’t be blamed for choosing an entirely opposite course of action. But as he aggressively tries to do his best to avoid mimicking the unresponsive approach that eventually sealed his predecessor’s fate, he may actually be setting the stage to face a strikingly similar finale.

Obama: Radical in Liberal Clothing

Obama: Radical in Liberal Clothing

By Peter Kirsanow

The reigning media narrative is that because this is a heavily Democratic year, Senator McCain is a clear underdog to Senator Obama. The narrative has almost nothing to do with the appeal of the candidates’ respective policies — and it’s clear the Obama campaign is concerned voters will begin to notice.

Consequently, in order to position himself for the general election, Obama has been running furiously toward the center– deemphasizing his liberalism with the adroit use of linguistic jiu jitsu. As  NBC recently reported, Obama  declared:


“Let me tell you something. There’s really nothing liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics that is common sense (sic). There’s nothing liberal about wanting to make sure [our soldiers] are treated properly when they get home. There’s nothing liberal about wanting to make sure everybody has health care, but we are spending more on health care in this country than any other advanced country. We got more uncovered.
There’s nothing liberal about saying that doesn’t make sense, and we should do something smarter with our health care system. Don’t let them run that okie doke on you!”


The person running the okie doke is  Obama, who, with media acquiescence, has changed his rhetoric if not his positions on issues such as campaign finance, gun control, troop withdrawal, welfare reform, NAFTA and terrorist surveillance —  just to name a few. 


Yet even with his recent attempts at moderation he retains positions on several significant issues indistinguishable from those of Dennis Kucinich. Most of those positions are opposed not only by overwhelming majorities of all Americans, but in several cases, majorities of Democrats as well.


Whenever a proposition  polls in the 60% range, it’s considered to be in landslide territory.  That doesn’t necessarily mean that someone supporting the minority viewpoint is a nut or an extremist, but at some point it may fairly be said that a person on the short end of several of these propositions is out of the mainstream. Here are just some of the issues in which Obama’s on the fringe of American opinion:*


Obama opposes offshore drilling for oil. Voters support drilling by 67% to 18%. (Rasmussen, June 2008).


Obama supports giving driver licenses to illegal immigrants.  Americans oppose this 76% to 23%. (CNN/ Opinion Research, Oct. 2007)


Obama supports affirmative action in public employment, contracting and university admissions.  Americans oppose giving an advantage in these areas on the basis of race by a margin of 82% to 14%. (Newsweek, July 2007) 


Obama says that he will cut funding for research and development of missile defense systems.  89% of Americans support development of or research for missile defense — 8% don’t. (Program on International Policy Alternatives, March 2004)  It’s worth noting that Obama’s closer to a pre-9/11 view of missile defense.  An August 2001 Bloomberg News poll showed only 49% favored missile defense at that time whereas 41% opposed it. 


Obama voted against a ban on partial birth abortions.  Americans support a ban by a margin of 66% to 28%. (CNN/Opinion Research, May 2007)


Despite his equivocal statements regarding the recent Supreme Court decision striking down the D.C. gun ban, Obama has never met a gun ban he didn’t like.  Although many Americans support certain types of restrictions on guns, they oppose broad bans by a margin of 68% to 30%. In fact, 58% insist no new gun laws should be passed.(Gallup, Oct. 2007)


Obama opposed the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act while in the Illinois state legislature.  The measure is designed to prevent abortion providers from withholding medical care and sustenance from infants born after surviving an abortion attempt.  There’s no national polling data on this state issue, but when the Senate voted on a analogous piece of legislation —  the Born Alive Infant Protection Act — the measure passed unanimously.


Obama voted against a bill that would make English the official language for conducting business with the U.S. government.  Americans support making English the official language 85% to 11%, including 79% of Democrats. (Rasmussen, July 2006)


While in the Illinois state legislature, Obama voted against parental notification requirements for abortions for minors.  Americans support parental notification laws by a margin of 79% to 17%. Even 64% of those identifying themselves as pro-choice support such laws. (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, April 2005)


Obama maintains that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions prohibiting the use of race in determining public school assignments are wrong.  In contrast, 71% of American agree with the decisions and only 24% disagree. (Quinnipiac, July 2007)


Of course, Obama’s positions on other issues are more mainstream, but over the course of the primary season he made a number of statements that will play poorly in the general election: Obama plans to raise taxes significantly — not just income taxes — but payroll and capital gains taxes as well; he will re-invade Iraq if things fall apart when he withdraws the troops; he promises unconditional talks with leaders of countries that are state sponsors of terror; Obama vows to slow the development of future weapons systems, without any indication that this would be contingent upon other nations slowing the development of their systems as well; he will appoint federal judges in the mold of Justice Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg and; he supports giving foreign terrorists habeas rights.


All presidential candidates take at least one position that’s unpopular with the electorate; it’s impossible not to in a heterogeneous society. And a candidate who’s nothing but a weathervane of public opinion isn’t likely to become an inspiring leader. But few, if any, serious presidential contenders have ever taken so many positions supported by so few. 


In the circles in which Obama has been traveling much of his career, his positions on the issues are hardly remarkable.  But the general election campaign will reveal that even in a strongly Democratic year, those circles remain a tiny sub-set of the American electorate.


*(Obviously, the surveys cited above aren’t the only ones on the respective issues but are generally representative of the latest polls on the topics.)

Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. These comments do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Commission

Obama and the Woods Fund of Chicago

Obama and the Woods Fund of Chicago

By Richard Henry Lee

Barack Obama served on the board of directors of Woods Fund of Chicago from 1993 to 2001. During that time, the tax exempt foundation made some interesting grants, including one to Obama’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ, headed by Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the time. Grants were also made to ACORN, a left wing voter registration group and to a partnership for constructing low income housing. The fund also used Northern Trust for financial services, which is the same company that provided Obama his 2005 mortgage.


In 2001 the board of directors included Obama, William Ayers, the former Weather Underground radical terrorist, and serving as chairman was Howard J. Stanback who headed New Kenwood LLC, a limited liability company founded by now-convicted felon Tony Rezko and Allison Davis, Obama’s former boss at the law firm of Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland.


Grant to Obama’s Church


The Woods Fund in 2001 awarded a $6,000 grant to Obama’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ, headed by his now ex-pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The grant was probably awarded since Obama did not receive his $6,000 director’s pay in 2001. He had received $6,000 in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Even though the grant may have been made in lieu of Obama’s pay, the Fund’s own web page in 2001 states that religious organiztions are not eligible for grant consideration.


The reason for the grant to Obama’s church may have been because Obama might have felt bad for not having donated much previously. According to the Obamas’ tax returns, they deducted $2350 in charitable donations in the year 2000 and a lesser amount of $1470 in 2001. Their adjusted gross income was $240,000 in 2000 and $270,000 in 2001. According to a Chicago Tribune story, the Trinity United Church of Christ encourages its members to donate 10% of their income, yet the Obamas gave only $400 in 1998 to TUCC. The $6,000 grant may possibly have been made to keep Obama in the good graces of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The tax code apparently allows such contributions.


The grant is especially interesting in view of Obama’s sudden conversion to the faith based initiative started by President Bush.


Northern Trust Connection


As reported previously, the Obamas’ financed their upscale Hyde Park home in 2005 through a mortgage with Northern Trust and obtained a better than average mortgage rate. Coincidentally, Woods Fund had started using Northern Trust investment services a couple of years earlier. The 2005 Woods Fund 990-PF tax filing shows that the fund paid $105,583 in fees and also participated in a Northern Trust private equity fund. Ayers and Stanback were still on the board of directors at that time so it is possible that one of them was somehow involved in helping Obama choose Northern Trust.


Funding for ACORN


ACORN is well known to readers of AT as a left wing voter registration group which seems to skirt the rules. Woods Fund made annual grants of around $70,000 annually to ACORN from 2001 to 2005 for a total of $355,000. There appears to be no grant to ACORN in 2006.


Investment in Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners


The Boston Globe has a recent article about Chicago’s housing problems including Woods Fund’s investment in Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners (NRP). The Chicago Sun Times has an earlier story about this investment with much more detail. Allison Davis (Obama’s former boss) asked Woods Fund to invest $1,000,000 in NRP. Obama voted in favor and Stanback abstained since he worked for Davis as noted above. The Sun Times reports:


City records show Davis used some of the money to build a 72-unit apartment building for senior citizens at 87th and Ashland. The $10 million project — built with a $5.7 million loan from the city — netted Davis nearly $700,000 in development fees, city records show. His son Cullen Davis is paid to manage the building, which opened three years ago with a ceremony featuring Mayor Daley.
Davis, who’s now business partners with Daley’s nephew Robert Vanecko, has known Obama for years. Obama began serving on the Woods Fund board in 1993, the same year he was hired as an associate lawyer with Davis’ small Chicago law firm, Davis Miner Barnhill. Obama kept working there until he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004.


Obama voted for the investment, but Stanback abstained because he worked for Davis. Davis has donated $25,000 to Obama’s various political campaigns according to the Sun Times.


Obama fact check page is wrong


Obama’s fact check web page concerning the Boston Globe article claims that Woods Fund has not actually made any payments to Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners, yet the 2002 990-PF tax filing shows in fact that Woods Fund has an investment of $408,000. As of 2006, the investment was $908,000 out of $1,000,000 committed. Someone needs to fact check the fact checkers.




One interesting investment Woods Fund made was to purchase shares of Countrywide Financial Corporation stock in 2005. As of 2006, the investment was worth $382,000. At the end of 2006, the stock was selling at $42.50. Today it is $4.25 after the sub prime mortgage fiasco.


Another is Wal-Mart, the company every liberal likes to hate. In 2005, Woods Fund had $327,000 invested in Wal-Mart stock. The investment seems to coincide with the approval for the first Wal-Mart store in Chicago in 2004. It is still remarkable that someone like Ayers would be on the board of a fund investing in the bête noire of liberals.


Obama’s long association with the Woods Fund is another chapter in his involvement in left wing ideology and it is one which deserves additional scrutiny. Certainly the many associations of Obama with members of the Chicago political machine are noteworthy. Also Obama’s term on the board overlapped three years with Bill Ayers. Since the board met quarterly, Ayers and Obama could have been together at least 12 times.


If someone wants to research more about Woods Fund, their non-profit tax forms from 2001 to 2006 are available onlne here.


Richard Henry Lee is the pseudonym of a retired Illinois state employee.



By Michael Reagan
FrontPageMagazine.com | 7/7/2008

Americans are worried. Americans are angry. Soaring gas prices are seriously crippling our economy and hitting us where it hurts the most — in our pockets.

We have a right to be angry, but anger is no longer enough. It’s time for rage — good, old American rage aimed at those elitist Democrats who prefer to see the folks beggared by soaring fuel prices rather than take the action this very real economic crisis demands.


We know that the law of supply and demand is what’s causing gas prices to soar, but merely knowing the ultimate cause of the crisis is not enough. We need to know why the most obvious remedy — one that promises to increase supply — is being studiously avoided by the powers that be, the leadership in Congress.

Once Americans become aware of that reason, get out of the way because they will be at the gates of Capitol Hill armed with pitchforks and scythes like enraged villagers marching on Dracula’s castle, determined do wreak vengeance on the very people who refuse to act in the way current circumstances clearly demand.

The steady increase in gas prices can be stopped dead in its tracks, and rolled back to less onerous levels literally overnight. The Democrats in Congress have in their hands the magic wand they could easily wave, but they arrogantly refuse to use it. And so we continue to pay the price for their refusal to help their fellow Americans when they have the power to do so.

All they need to do is lift all moratoria and restrictions on domestic, offshore and Alaskan drilling for oil. That’s all. A quick wave of that magic wand is all that’s needed. But they will not act, and for that they must be made aware that they will pay a steep price at the polls for their refusal to act when action is desperately needed.

Make no mistake about it, the liberals in the House and Senate — in the pockets of the super-rich environmentalists who scarcely conceal their contempt for their fellow humans, activists who won’t be happy until every automobile is driven from America’s roads and highways — simply will not come to our aid.

As Marie Antoinette is said to have remarked about her starving subjects who were demanding bread, “Let then eat cake,” many of our elected Democratic members of Congress are in effect saying of Americans, “Let them ride bikes.”

In their contemptuous sophistry their spokesmen sneer that opening the gates to domestic and offshore drilling would not yield results for 10 years. That excuse for inaction is insultingly deceptive. While it will take years to see our domestic supply of petroleum begin to take up the slack, the very declaration that the floodgates will be opened and America is on he way to independence from foreign oil will strike fear into the hearts of OPEC and the speculators who have driven the price of oil skyward.

Their reaction would be instantaneous — they would increase production to the fullest extent possible, motivated by the knowledge that their stranglehold on supply faces its eventual demise, and gas prices at the pump would fall.

As economist Lawrence Kudlow wrote in his column, “An America First Energy Plan,” “As soon as you say, ‘End the drilling moratoriums,’ it is precisely those traders who will start selling oil contracts — long before the first offshore oil barrels are delivered to market. If they see presidential leadership on oil and shale drilling, they will rapidly turn a bull market into a bear market.”

A partial answer to our immediate problem is at hand. The steady increase in pump prices can be halted and prices somewhat rolled back to a more acceptable level. Yet those environmentalist-controlled Democrats are turning their backs on the voters who sent them to Washington and coldly refusing to lift a finger to help the American people, preferring instead to lay the blame for the problem on big oil, speculators, and every place but where it belongs: on themselves.

If that doesn’t enrage you, nothing will.

If this continues, the payback will come in November, when people drive them from office, unless they do what needs to be done: Drill, Drill, Drill!

Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network.