Billboatd on I-75 At Lake City,Ga…

Billboatd on I-75 At Lake City,Ga…

 Where do we get one? The attached photo is of a billboard recently
established on I-75 just south of Lake City . A group gathered there today
to celebrate its unveiling. The cost of 10 months rental of the billboard
and doing the artwork was $6500. We feel that is a reasonable cost to reach
out to 1,000,000 vehicles per month and perhaps motivate their participation
in the electoral process to get our country on a sound footing.

Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption A Chicago Commuity Organiser Does This Sound Familiar

Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption

Diane Alden
Jan. 7, 2003

Saul Alinsky died in 1972. He was a Marxist grassroots organizer who spent much of his life organizing rent strikes and protesting conditions of the poor in Chicago in the 1930s. However, unlike Christian socialist and activist for the poor Dorothy Day, Alinsky’s real claim to fame was as strategist for anti-establishment ’60s radicals and revolutionaries.

Indeed, Alinsky wrote the rule book for ’60s radicals like Bill and Hillary Clinton, George Miller and Nancy Pelosi. He considered Hillary Rodham to be one of his better students and asked her to join him in his efforts as an organizer of radical leftist causes. But Hillary had other fish to fry on her climb to national prominence.

Alinsky had a true genius for formulating tactical battle plans for the radical left. He wrote two books outlining his organizational principles and strategies: “Reveille for Radicals” (1946) and “Rules for Radicals” (1971).

“Rules for Radicals” begins with an unusual tribute: “From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”

The devil challenged authority and got his own kingdom, and that goes to the heart of what left is really about. That of course is to get power any way you can, including lying, cheating and stealing. The ultimate rule is that the ends justify the means.

Alinsky asserted that he was more concerned with the acquisition of power than anything else: “My aim here is to suggest how to organize for power: how to get it and how to use it.” This is not to be done with assistance to the poor, nor even by organizing the poor to demand assistance: “[E]ven if all the low-income parts of our population were organized … it would not be powerful enough to get significant, basic, needed changes.”

Alinsky advises his followers that the poor have no power and that the real target is the middle class: “Organization for action will now and in the decade ahead center upon America’s white middle class. That is where the power is. … Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the middle class majority.”

But that didn’t stop Alinsky and his followers from using the middle class for their own purposes. They counted on the guilt and shame of the white middle class to get what they wanted. In order to take over institutions and get power, the middle class had to be convinced that they were somehow lucky winners in “life’s lottery.”

Alinsky’s radicals found a perfect vehicle for their destruction of the American system and more particularly for taking and maintaining power. That instrument was the Democratic Party.

Transition and Transaction

The transition of the old Democratic Party to what exists today should not surprise or confound conservatives. Nor should Alinsky’s tactics seem foreign. After all, for nearly 40 years, Republicans and the conservative agenda have been getting hammered by the left through the successful use of Alinsky tactics.

In that cause, radicals and the liberal-left gravitated toward the print and electronic media, toward the university professorate and the law. The left, consciously or unconsciously, adopted Alinsky’s rules. The impact changed the nature of the Democratic Party and the direction of the United States. Increasingly, the left is succeeding in changing the nature of the Republican Party as well.

Suffice to say the greatest change has taken place in the relationship between the state and the individual. America is rapidly descending from a representative Constitutional Republic to a collectivist empire controlled by elites of one sort or another.

Alinsky’s influence on the modern Democratic Party indicates that the ends do indeed justify the means. As Alinsky states in “Rules for Radicals” it was foolish to believe that means are just as important as the ends. He states that “to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles … the practical revolutionary will understand … [that] in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind.”

Sadly, not enough Republicans and conservatives learned Alinsky’s rules until late in the game. A sign of hope is the fact that the new media, including talk radio and the Internet, are changing all that. One can hope it is not too late.

In any event, Alinsky’s rules include:

  • “Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.” 
  • “Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.” 
  • “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.” 
  • “The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself.” 
  • “In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.” 
  • “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.” (Think Gingrich, Lott and the success of name-calling used by the likes of Bill Clinton, Paul Begala, James Carville, Maxine Waters and others against conservatives and Republicans. Think of how Clinton “enemies” like Paula Jones or Linda Tripp were treated.) 
  • “One of the criteria for picking the target is the target’s vulnerability … the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract.” (Trent Lott comes to mind. Meanwhile, a former Klansman by the name of Sen. Robert Byrd got away with saying “nigger” on Fox News at least three times, and he still maintains his Senate seat and power.) 
  • “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.” For instance, Democrats imply conservatives are racists or that Republicans want to kill senior citizens by limiting the growth of the Medicare system, they imply Republicans want to deny kids lunch money without offering real proof. These red-herring tactics work.

Of course, Republicans reaction to all this is to immediately go on the defensive. Seldom do they unleash their pit bull orators or strategists. Rather than use the immense amount of data available to prove the conservative case, Republicans tug their forelocks, say “yes sir,” and hope the accusations and name calling will go away.Why is it that Republicans consistently fail to point out the monumental failures of the new Democrats? Failures such as the massive disaster that is the “war on poverty.” On that topic alone Republicans should be drilling the public in every media venue and at every opportunity. Then and only then should Republicans offer alternatives to the failed policies of the Democratic left.

Republicans should pound relentlessly on the fact that the Democratic Party was hijacked by leftist reactionaries way back in the early ’70s. The reactionary left is the obstructionist left. They do nothing but defend and cling to the failures of the past. That fact makes them reactionaries rather than radicals or progressives.

Unfortunately, Republicans still pretend that nothing has changed regarding the basic philosophy of the political parties. They refuse to understand the horrendous notion that Democrats tell us the U.S. Constitution is flexible. That means the rule of law is flexible. If that is the case the law and the Constitution mean nothing. It means that the law and Constitution are twisted by the whims and fancies of the moment.

In fact, in the 2000 election Al Gore maintained the Constitution could and should be manipulated because it was “flexible.” Whatever happened to the amendment process?

Bill Clinton used executive orders to circumvent Congress and the Constitution. He used the agencies of the federal government against his enemies. Clinton set an extremely dangerous precedent. Alinsky would have loved it. It is a perfect example of the use of the Rules for Radicals – ends justify the means.

Hillary and Bill Clinton and other powerful former ’60s radicals learned from Saul Alinsky. It is about time that a few more Republicans and/or conservatives did as well.

Alinsky in South Dakota

Remember that Alinsky’s advice was that the ends justify the means. Think of Florida in 2000 and the manipulation of military ballots. Think of Milwaukee and unattended polling places, which allowed leftist college students to take handfuls of ballots to check off. Think of a million immigrants in the 1996 election granted instant voting rights by the Clinton administration.

More importantly, think of South Dakota in November of 2002, or Nevada in 1998 or 2002.

In a brilliant bit of investigative reporting, National Review’s Byron York gave us a grand overview of the corrupt and unpleasant outline of how Alinsky’s rules work during election season. Republicans, once again asleep at the switch, live in the land of euphoria. They still believe that their Democratic counterparts are among the angels on God’s right.

Considering that Alinsky expresses admiration for Lucifer, they are looking in the wrong place to find many modern Democrats. Republicans still assume that the modern Democratic Party, its media sycophants, its operatives during national or state elections, will play fair. It is hard to say which is worse, Republican naïveté’ or Democratic cheating and law breaking.

When Democrats cheat, especially under Bill Clinton’s and Terry McAuliffe’s watch, they whine when they discover they didn’t cheat enough to win. When they are caught in the big lies, they expect Republicans to ignore it and give them a pass. The last election in South Dakota is a case in point.

In the primaries and election of 2002, lawyers from Washington started showing up at polling places in the hinterlands of South Dakota. The Republican leadership and the establishment should have seen it coming but they didn’t.

As Byron York relates in “Badlands, Bad Votes”: “On Election Day, Noma Sazama knew something unusual was going on the moment she arrived at her polling place, the St. Thomas Parish Hall in Mission, South Dakota. Sazama, a member of the local election board, noticed several strangers in the room – an unusual sight in Mission, population 904, where most people know one another. It turned out the strangers were all lawyers, Democrats who had come to town to serve as poll watchers for the race between incumbent Democratic senator Tim Johnson and Republican John Thune. One was from Washington, D.C., another was from New York City, and a third was from California. ‘There were no locals, and I’ve never seen that happen before,’ says Sazama, who has lived in the area for 73 years.”

Furthermore, York maintains, “The Democratic team of lawyers confiscated the Parish Hall kitchen only a few feet from the balloting tables.”

Witnesses swore in affidavits that party hacks had rented dozens of vans and hired drivers to bring voters to the polls. Lawyers from elsewhere made the Parish Hall their headquarters. Seventy-three-year-old Ms. Sazama stated, “They had the names and time-of-pickup and whether someone voted on them, and from those he would contact the drivers.”

Finally she understood that the influx of outside Democrats were going to use the polling place as their headquarters, an action which is against the laws of South Dakota.

The lawyers tied up the phones, which meant that the poll watchers and election officials could not make needed phone calls. York quotes the election supervisor: “They were on the phone using it to call I don’t know where, and I needed to call because we had some new districting. They were always talking on it.”

When Wanless, the election supervisor, protested, she got a chilly reaction from the out-of-towners. “I felt like they were trying to intimidate me,” she recalls.

In fact, all this is against South Dakota law, which states: “No person may, in any polling place or within or on any building in which a polling place is located or within one hundred feet from any entrance leading into a polling place, maintain an office or communications center. …”

There were no Republican lawyers or authorities around to inform election officials that it was against the law for the Democrats to be running their campaign from a polling place. That was bad enough, but ever since November Republicans have failed dismally to make it a BIG national issue.

There was also complete failure to understand Alinsky’s second basic rule: “Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.” The DNC counted on the locals being intimidated by a gang of high-priced lawyers – and of course they were.

Another Alinsky rule used in the November elections in South Dakota: “In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.” In other words, what you do is count on the failure of will by your opponent to call a foul. The opponent usually believes it is easier to do nothing, it is always easier to do nothing, and so Republicans “move on.”

That is the kind of apathy Hitler’s forces counted on in the Weimar Republic. The end-justifies-the-means cabal figures that even good people find it easier to do nothing.

In South Dakota, lawyers from diverse places were part of a brigade that the DNC uses to “ensure voters’ rights are protected.” But as York relates, “According to the testimony of dozens of South Dakotans who worked at the polls, the out-of-state attorneys engaged in illegal electioneering, pressured poll workers to accept questionable ballots, and forced polling places in a heavily Democratic area to stay open for an hour past their previously-announced closing time. In addition, the testimony contains evidence of people being allowed to vote with little or no identification, of incorrectly marked ballots being counted as Democratic votes, of absentee ballots being counted without proper signatures, and, most serious of all, of voters who were paid to cast their ballots for Sen. Johnson.”

According to some witnesses, Democrats were also running car pools out of polling places on the Indian reservations, where investigators are discovering that the dead Indian vote had a major impact on the slim, last- minute, 524-vote Tim Johnson victory over John Thune.

Affidavits from South Dakotans also indicate that money probably changed hands in crucial areas in the boonies. It was not gas money for van drivers either, but paying per head per vote – shades of Tammany Hall and the elections in Boston wards. Nonetheless, Republicans have decided to “move on.”

To get the entire story, including affidavits sworn to by South Dakota residents, read York’s November article in National Review Online.

Alinsky Does Nevada

When I worked at Nevada Policy Institute in Nevada several years ago, the Post-election analysis of the 1998 election uncovered the fact that family pets received absentee ballots in crucial districts. Dead people were counted as well.

Democratic Senator Harry Reid’s slim, 428-vote win against Republican John Ensign raised eyebrows and the juices of some who understand how the modern DNC and its phalanx of wheelers and dealers, lawyers and opportunists really work.

A part of the tactic includes breaking the law when you can and where you can get away with it. Remember, in the minds of the hijacked Democratic Party the ends do indeed justify the Luciferian means.

In Nevada on Dec. 24, 2002, the FBI seized ballots cast in primary and general elections. Said Daron Borst, FBI special agent in Las Vegas, “There is an ongoing investigation into election fraud, but I can’t go into any details due to the nature of the investigation.”

Ballots were taken after a complaint was lodged that 85 voters in tiny Eureka county did not live in that county or were long dead. The Eureka County probe marked the second time this year the FBI has become involved in a county election in Nevada.

As in South Dakota, it is much easier to get away with election fraud where people don’t know the law or will not enforce the law or they are intimidated by the chutzpah and law breaking of crooks in Armani suits holding credentials from the Democratic National Committee.

Unfortunately, when Republicans don’t pay attention to the corruption and allow themselves to get screwed time and again, they are also in league with the devil. By this failure of will, the sins of omission are as evil as sins of commission.

Voting fraud was rampant in 2000 and again in 2002 and it will be more so in 2004. Why aren’t Republican lawmakers and the RNC making sure this does not happen again? In 2002, Terry McAuliffe told the world that Democratic lawyers would be out in the states keeping an eye on things. They did more than that and it was against the law.

The failure of Republicans to impose the rule of law on the cheaters, liars and manipulators allows those who use Alinsky’s corrupt system to win. That fact tells us that the voting process means as little to our elites as does the Constitution.

Because of that fact, Republicans will lose future elections. More importantly, the people of the United States will lose.

The RNC and the GOP leadership just don’t get it. Otherwise they would care enough to do something about it.

All the One’s Men Read and follow all the links

All the One’s Men

By Amil Imani

Decades ago Marshall McLuhan observed, “The medium is the message.” As the print and electronic media penetrate more and more every aspect of life, their influence increases greatly in shaping the views and behavior of the public. The power of the media is a mixed blessing. On one hand, it can serve to expose injustices, wrongdoings, and flaws. On the other, it is able to propagate misinformation and outright disinformation.

Manipulation and control of the media is of critical importance to the rule of totalitarian states. Free societies, although less subject to laundered information, are still at considerable risk of being selectively informed or misinformed outright. The public can be deceived more easily by the overlords of the media when political correctness is used as subterfuge for promotion of certain ideas or certain people.

These are indeed trying times for the American people. Free people must decide their priorities with foresight and wisdom and shy away from shortsighted simplistic solutions. We live in a Democracy and Democracy, by its accommodating and benign nature, is susceptible to corruption and even destruction by forces from within and from without.


The Democrats have not gotten over the last two elections in which President Bush won. The left felt the presidency was stolen from Al Gore and John Kerry. Those losses caused most everyone on the left into a hate spiral, so severe is this hatred that Charles Krauthammer (who is also a trained psychiatrist) was compelled to diagnose it and give it a name: BDS — or Bush Derangement Syndrome. Now that they believe they have found their Messiah in the person of Barack Obama. Now they want “social justice,” they want revenge.


What the left calls “social justice” is actually “the revenge of the psychologically oppressed against people who look happier and more satisfied with their lives.” As such, it is intimately related to the psychoanalytic understanding of envy, which is an unconscious mechanism that goes about destroying what one does not have, in order to eliminate the emotional pain of not having it, says Gagdad Bob.


Today’s polls show that many Americans are unhappy with the Republican Party and that’s enough reason to vote for a Democratic ticket. Fine and dandy. This is America, where the voter is king, and when one is king, one needs to be a sane and wise king. When people hear the word “insanity,” they conjure up the image of someone out of touch with reality and out of control, a dysfunctional person fit to be tied. Yet, insanity comes in numerous types as well as degrees. It is also widely prevalent in groups, even in nations as a whole.

One common and troubling form of insanity is, “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” warned Albert Einstein. America has already tried the path to insanity by electing Jimmy Carter as its president and he failed us miserably. Now, repeating this insanity by electing Mr. Obama is a national disaster.


Senator Obama’s greatest weakness is his past, a deliberately obscured past that MSM is fiercely trying to make look irrelevant. He, as a sequacious politician, always toes their party’s line. Regrettably, a large segment of the population goes along with some irresponsible leftists such as Bill Maher, (a humbug), who, in March 2, 2007 stated, “I’m just saying if he [Dick Chaney] did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.”


Please let me assure you, I do not say that Mr. Obama is a bad person. I say he’s not the right person for America. He would lead this country to an abyss. The presidency of the United States is a very prestigious position which entails a great deal of skill, wisdom and high moral values. It cries out for integrity and truthfulness. Although the American presidency has not been invested with the same degree of glory as a monarchy has, the American people have upheld the office to a mythic status and hold its resident in reverent awe.


In comparing the two presidential candidates, it appears that many people see John McCain as a true American and Barack Obama as a true politician. However, in this race and in our era of uncertainty, more than anything else, character does matter, experience does matter and yes, patriotism does matter. When patriotism dies, the nation dies.”

It is said that you can tell a great deal about people by the company they keep. And who has been Senator Obama’s close associates and mentors for many years, a partial list is given below:

 – Tony Rezko, a convicted political fundraiser. He was called “slum landlord” by Senator Clinton. He was an activist who raised money for both U.S. political parties. He is charged with at least eight counts, including fraud, attempted extortion, money laundering and aiding bribery. Rezko was one of Obama’s first campaign contributors when Mr. Obama first ran for the Illinois state senate in 1996. The Sun Times implied that Senator Obama could possibly go down with Tony Rezko, sooner rather than later.

 – Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ who came under fire for his anti-American, racist and ”

–  Louis Farrakhan is the black leader of the Nation of Islam and a prominent figure on the extremist scene by asserting hateful statements targeting Jews, whites and homosexuals.  Mr. Farrakhan, in his address to the world at Saviors’ Day 2008, said: “Brothers and sisters, Barack Obama to me, is a herald of the Messiah. Barack Obama is like the trumpet that alerts you something new, something better is on the way,” the Muslim leader declared. “Would God allow Barack to be president of a country that has been so racist, so evil in its treatment of Hispanics, Native Americans, and Blacks? Would God do something like that? Yeah. Of course he would.”

William Ayers was part of the “domestic terrorist group” and a former leader of the Weather Underground. Ayers and Mr. Obama were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. Moreover, Ayers contributed money to Obama’s re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported in State Board of Elections

 – Bernardine Rae Dohrn, a domestice terrorist and the wife of William Ayers.

 – Frank Marshall Davis was Obama’s childhood mentor and he was a communist. Obama had a relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Mr. Obama developed a close relationship with Frank Davis, almost like his son, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path. In his books, Obama confesses attending “socialist conferences” and coming into contact with Marxist literature.

 – Rashid Khalidi  is an Arab-American historian. Khalidi, like Ayers, held a fundraiser for Obama at his home. A New York Sun editorial criticized Khalidi for stating that there is a legal right under international law for Palestinians to resist Israeli occupation. LA Times reported, “In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama’s unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund’s board of directors.”

 – Father Michael Pfleger is a contreversial Roman Catholic priest, a pastor of St. Sabiana Church in Chicago, the largest African-American Catholic Church. “He gave Obama’s campaign $1,500 between 1995 and 2001, including $200 in April 2001, about three months after Obama announced $225,000 in grants to St. Sabina programs.”

 – George Soros, a controversial billioner, “a major Democratic Party donor and anti-Israel crusader, has been a generous contributor to Barack Obama.” How Soros Financed Obama’s Campaign, Lyndon LaRouche, a Political Action Comittee explains in details.

 – Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is a community based organization that is under invistigation for fraud. Acording to Frank Salvato, the Managing Editor of New Media Journal, “In order to understand how Barack Obama and ACORN are directly to blame for the mortgage meltdown, we first have to understand what ACORN is and how Barack Obama was affiliated with them…and make no mistake; Barack Obama was most definitely affiliated with ACORN.”
 –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –
According to the Media Research Center, the mainstream media does more to protect Barack Obama than report on his shortcomings, judging by the way it has ignored the story about his questionable relationship with a supporter who’s now on trial for influence peddling. The American public deserves to know who Mr. Barack Obama really is. I am sure we would all prefer the truth come out now rather than after the election.

Let us remind ourselves that our highest priority is the preservation of this nation of the free. We have done what it took in the past and we must do what it takes now and in the future to safeguard America and safeguard our liberty. We must meet any threat and defeat it. The alternative is to suffer.

Let us not be fooled by the accusations that the incurably sick leftists at home and America’s ill-wishers abroad level at this country. America is not perfect. Yet, it is the very best hope for a humanity struggling to find its greatness. America is worth defending. Vote for the candidate who is not going to cut and run in the face of domestic terrorism or the Islamic Jihadism.

Winston Churchill said it best: Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.

If Bailout Plan Is Too Socialistic, Just Wait For Obama Leviathan

If Bailout Plan Is Too Socialistic, Just Wait For Obama Leviathan

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election ’08: Have Americans been so lulled by Barack Obama’s smooth talk that they don’t realize his plans would expand government into a massive socialist behemoth? His is a soft-spoken, hard-left agenda.

IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism


During Friday night’s debate in Mississippi, Obama disparaged what he called “this notion that the market can always solve everything and that the less regulation we have, the better off we’re going to be.”

But the subprime crisis Washington is dealing with is the result of three decades of the federal government pressuring banks — via the regulatory demands of the Democrats’ 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which was expanded by Bill Clinton — to make tens of billions of dollars in bad loans to poor people with lousy credit ratings.

It was Democrats’ regulatory and litigious assaults upon the mortgage market in pursuit of “social justice” that left our economy in its precarious position of today; indeed as an attorney, Obama himself in 1994 represented a client suing Citibank, accusing it of systematically denying mortgages to blacks.

But if the taxpayer rescue of Wall Street and Uncle Sam’s taking over the banking system scares you, the broader socialism planned by the Democratic presidential nominee should leave you petrified.

Here are a few examples, with price tags provided by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation:

• Politicized financial regulation: Obama would establish a Financial Market Regulation and Oversight Commission to “end our balkanized framework of overlapping and competing regulatory agencies” and “which would meet regularly and report to the president, the president’s financial working group and Congress on the state of our financial markets and the systemic risks that face them.”

Translation: more centralized and heavy-handed regulatory power over businesses for Washington.

• Government-managed medicine: Even left-leaning health care experts concede that Obama’s expanded coverage plan will cost $100 billion; with no real cost containment, that will mean a second wave of reform that could impose full socialized medicine on our country.

Obama declares that “governments at all levels should lead the effort to develop a national and regional strategy for public health, and align funding mechanisms to support its implementation.”

His plan also presumes racial discrimination, “requiring hospitals and health plans to collect, analyze and report health care quality for disparity populations and holding them accountable for any differences found.”

• Community health centers: Your local doctor may become obsolete in Obama’s brave new world in which $6.7 billion will be spent over five years building “community health centers” featuring “preventive, diagnostic and other primary care services.”

• Antitrust enforcement: Promising this “is how we ensure that capitalism works for consumers,” a President Obama would “stop or restructure those mergers that are likely to harm consumer welfare, while quickly clearing those that do not” and “working with foreign governments to change unsound competition laws.”

Behind this harmless-sounding rhetoric is the misguided belief that the government must shield companies of its choosing from their competitors’ lower prices and innovative practices. Courts and government bureaucrats under Obama could be expected to use antitrust to claim the existence of imaginary monopolies and squash mergers and other business transactions.

• Required IRAs: Under Obama, “employers who do not currently offer a retirement plan will be required to automatically enroll their employees in a direct deposit IRA account.”

Costing $292 billion annually, according to the NTUF’s latest analysis, Obama’s plans are far more than just “change”; they would transfigure American society into full-blown socialism. With little more than a month to go before this most consequential election, voters seem not to appreciate the danger.

• Dictatorial energy policy: Obama would spend $150 billion over a decade “to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids” and create other ways to force uneconomical forms of energy on the auto and oil industry.

A Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund would artificially finance the environmentalist pet projects in which private investors have little faith.

Negating the global labor market, the Illinois senator also promises to “provide specific tax assistance and loan guarantees to the domestic auto industry to ensure that new fuel-efficient cars and trucks” are built within the U.S.

• Bullying utilities: The Chicago Democrat would require that 25% of electricity consumed in the U.S. be “derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.” Unless those alternative sources get cheap fast, that likely means a big escalation in consumers’ electric bills.

Obama also proposes “to ‘flip’ incentives to state and local utilities by ensuring companies get increased profits for improving energy efficiency, rather than higher energy consumption.”

• Billions for teachers unions: Instead of school choice for parents, in which competition would improve public educations and give the poor access to private education, Obama proposes “an accountability system that supports schools to improve, rather than focuses on punishments.”

His five-year, $90 billion education plan would dole out “a $200 million grant program for states and districts that want to provide additional learning time for students in need,” double federal funding for afterschool programs, provide “professional development and coaching to school leaders, teachers and other school personnel,” “develop multi-tiered credentialing systems that encourage principals to grow professionally,” and cook up other ways to keep public school teachers on the clock longer.

Uncle Sam would also “collect evidence about how prospective teachers plan and teach in the classroom” in an Obama administration.

• Required public service: In return for the federal government paying the first $4,000 of college tuition through a tax credit — which would be tough for most American families to turn down — Obama would require recipients “to conduct 100 hours of public service a year.”

• Required sick leave: Spending $1.5 billion over five years, Obama would “encourage” the states to adopt paid-leave systems that “guarantee workers seven days of paid sick leave per year.”

• Thought police: In what sounds like the outdated and unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine on steroids, Obama would “encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.”

What would the “public interest obligations” of liberal Democrats’ opponents within the media end up being in an Obama administration?

• Green Corps: Barack Obama would spend $390 million over five years to fund “an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to engage disconnected and disadvantaged youth . . . to improve the energy efficiency of homes and buildings in their communities, while also providing them with practical skills and experience in important career fields of expected high-growth employment.”

It’s a quasi-paramilitary organization dedicated to environmentalism that promises inductees that they would be getting practical employment training for future “green jobs.”

• Teaching parents parenting: The senator would spend $300 million over five years establishing “Promise Neighborhoods in cities that have high levels of poverty and crime and low levels of student academic achievement.” A key feature would be “parenting schools for parents.”

• Housebuilding army: the Youthbuild program would be expanded from 8,000 to 50,000 over eight years at a cost of $257 million to “construct and rehabilitate affordable housing for low-income and homeless families.”

• Patent reform: Obama’s idea of “opening up the patent process to citizen review” would make it much tougher for businesses to challenge the government’s judgment on the ownership rights of an invention, which will have a negative effect on the incentives to innovate.

• Private parklands regulation: Obama would “do more to encourage private citizens to protect the open spaces and forests they own and the endangered species that live there . . . and encourage communities to enhance local greenspace, wildlife and conservation areas.”

The Obama campaign uses the word “encourage” over and over in numerous areas of policy. Expect it to be the form of encouragement practiced by Don Corleone — making you an offer you can’t refuse.

• Autism czar: If you weren’t convinced that the Democratic nominee intends to use the federal government’s powers to solve every known problem, consider his promise to spend $2.5 billion over four years on appointment of an “Autism Czar” to “ensure that all federal funds are being spent in a manner that prioritizes results.”

Wake up America

Wake up America


ACORN Obama, ACORN Obama, ACORN Obama

Posted: 09 Oct 2008 12:06 PM CDT

Barack Obama’s association with terrorist William Ayers is not the only issue that has come to light to the majority of American voters recently.

ACORN otherwise known as Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is under investigation all across the country. This is a liberal group that collects voter registrations and is directly linked to Barack Obama and since they have come to the public eye, Barack Obama has taken to trying to deny his close ties with them, despite monies his campaign has given them ($800,000) his working directly with them in the past and his public statements regarding them such as “I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”

No surprise to see ACORN in the news yet again today, as they were yesterday and the day before and last week and last month, all for voter fraud, putting though fake registrations, duplicates, dead people and underage children, all in the name of helping elect their old friend Barack Obama.

Today we see ACRON harassed voters into registering multiple times, followed them around, encouraged them to keep registering time and time again.

From the New York Post:

Barkley estimated he’d registered to vote “10 to 15” times after canvassers for ACORN, whose political wing has endorsed Barack Obama, relentlessly pursued him and others.

Claims such as his have sparked election officials to probe ACORN.

“I kept getting approached by folks who asked me to register,” Barkley said. “They’d ask me if I was registered. I’d say yes, and they’d ask me to do it [register] again.

“Some of them were getting paid to collect names. That was their sob story, and I bought it,” he said.

Barkley is one of at least three people who have been subpoenaed by the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections as part of a wider inquiry into possible voter fraud by ACORN. The group seeks to register low-income voters, who skew overwhelmingly Democratic.

“You can tell them you’re registered as many times as you want – they do not care,” said Lateala Goins, 21, who was subpoenaed.

“They will follow you to the buses, they will follow you home, it does not matter,” she told The Post.

Michelle Malkin
has a partial list of the recent problems with ACORN and I have been following this with amazement myself recently and you will find those pieces listed at the end of this post under “previously”.

  • Missouri – Officials now have to sift through hundreds of bogus applications submitted last August.
  • Connecticut – A criminal investigation has been opened into ACORN fraud.
  • Wisconsin – Registering convicted felons.
  • Ohio – ACORN tells Cuyahoga County’s election board that they can’t stop themselves from committing fraud.
  • Indiana – Over a thousand new applications from ACORN appear to investigators to be fraudulent, and that should be no surprise, since Indianapolis now has 105% of its population registered to vote.

The Associated Press is now reporting even more problems, now in Missouri:

Officials in Missouri, a hard-fought jewel in the presidential race, are sifting through possibly hundreds of questionable or duplicate voter-registration forms submitted by an advocacy group that has been accused of election fraud in other states.

Charlene Davis, co-director of the election board in Jackson County, where Kansas City is, said the fraudulent registration forms came from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. She said they were bogging down work Wednesday, the final day Missourians could register to vote.

Davis also says, “I don’t even know the entire scope of it because registrations are coming in so heavy. We have identified about 100 duplicates, and probably 280 addresses that don’t exist, people who have driver’s license numbers that won’t verify or Social Security numbers that won’t verify. Some have no address at all.”

Ogden on Politics noticed something very strange in Indiana. It seems that Indiana has more registered voters than people eligible to vote.

Now, that is an accomplishment!!!!

Other than Barack Obama’s public statements and previous work done for ACORN by him, Hot Air points folk’s attention to an Investors Business Daily article showing that Barack Obama has paid $800,000 to ACORN for their services.

For starters, Obama paid ACORN, which has endorsed him for president, $800,000 to register new voters, payments his campaign failed to accurately report. (They were disguised in his FEC disclosure as payments to a front group called Citizen Services Inc. for “advance work.”)

Much much more at IBD about Obama’s ties with ACORN.

Are we finally getting to know the real Barack Obama?

Previously on WUA:

Barack Obama Trying To Deny His Ties To ACORN Now?


Las Vegas ACORN Office Raided in Voter Fraud Probe

More Dead, Underage And Fictitious Voter Registrations in Indiana, From ACORN

Michigan Branch Of ACORN Putting Through “Sizable, Duplicate, Fraudulent Voter Applications

Enforcing Florida’s ‘No Match, No Vote’ Law Begins

ACORN In The News Again For Workers Registering Dead Voters And Others


Video-McCain Campaign Lays Out The Obama-Ayers Connection

Posted: 09 Oct 2008 10:26 AM CDT

In a one-minute 40 second video ad the McCain campaign lays out the Obama-Ayers connection in a manner which will allow the American voters to see how deep the connection between Barack Obama and William Ayers is.

For those unaware, Ayers was a Domestic terrorist that set off bombs on US soil, the Pentagon, Capitol and a judges home, when he was a part of the Weatherman Underground…more here about Weatherman.

This is the strongest, hardest hitting ad against Obama yet. (YouTube URL here and ad below)


Text of ad:

Barack Obama and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Friends. They’ve worked together for years. But Obama tries to hide it. Why?

Obama launched his political career in Ayers’ living room. Ayers and Obama ran a radical “education” foundation, together. They wrote the foundation’s by-laws, together. Obama was the foundation’s first chairman. Reports say they, “distributed more than $100 million to ideological allies with no discernible improvement in education.”

When their relationship became an issue, Obama just responded, “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” That’s it?

We know Bill Ayers ran the “violent left wing activist group” called Weather Underground. We know Ayers’ wife was on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list. We know they bombed the Capitol. The Pentagon. A judge’s home. We know Ayers said, “I don’t regret setting bombs. …. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

But Obama’s friendship with terrorist Ayers isn’t the issue. The issue is Barack Obama’s judgment and candor. When Obama just says, “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” Americans say, “Where’s the truth, Barack?”

Barack Obama. Too risky for America.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air believes one more ad might be following which will feature “the son of the judge whose home got bombed by the Weather Underground”:

I suspect this is not the end of this subject, either. I’d expect at least one more ad featuring John Murtaugh, the son of the judge whose home got bombed by the Weather Underground. Murtaugh, who is running for the New York state legislature, has already released a statement through the McCain campaign attacking Obama for associating with an unrepentant leader of the terrorist organization that tried to kill him as a boy. I’m certain he will happily participate in an ad to put a human face on Ayers’ terrorism.

There is not much time left before November election and making sure the voters know this information before going into the voting booth is paramount.

Spread the video around. Make sure those unaware of the Obama-Ayers relationship become aware.


Barack Obama Trying To Deny His Ties To ACORN Now?

Posted: 08 Oct 2008 05:54 PM CDT

Piles of evidence have linked Barack Obama to ACORN aka Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Documented ties, articles quoting Obama himself stating those ties and now The Corner shows us that Barack Obama is trying to distance himself and deny those ties since ACORN is being investigated in quite a few states for voter fraud?

Barack Obama is now apparently denying his ties with Acorn. Here’s what he’s posted on the subject at his “Fight the Smears” website. These claims are contradicted by several sources, a number of which I linked to in my piece, “Inside Obama’s Acorn.” In that piece, you’ll find a link to a Los Angeles Times piece in which Chicago Acorn leader Madeline Talbott is described as so impressed with Obama that “she invited him to help train her staff.” You’ll also see a link to a statement by Obama himself, made in pursuit of Acorn’s endorsement. Obama says: “I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.” In my piece, “No Liberation,” you’ll find a link to a 1995 profile of Obama which says: “Obama continues his organizing work largely through classes for future leaders identified by ACORN and the Centers for New Horizons on the south side.” My articles provide background, but the quotes and links I’ve presented here, and in the past, pretty conclusively contradict Obama’s current claims at “Fight the Smears.”

Read the rest at The Corner for even more evidence of Obama’s close association with ACORN as well as the previous pieces below which also has documented links between Obama and ACORN as recently as this year.

ACORN, Rezko, Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, Meeks…etc… these associations of Obama are a good reason why people need to understand how bad his judgment is at best and how crooked his associations are and at worst, his involvement with these people show his negligence and irresponsibility.

More on ACORN from NetRightNation:

Voter Fraud in Ohio: In a stunning development, the Democrat activist group ACORN – a frequent and influential advisor to Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner – now publicly admits that its Ohio staff engages in election fraud.

ACORN Las Vegas Office Raided: Nevada state authorities seized records and computers Tuesday from the Las Vegas office of an organization that tries to get low-income people registered to vote, after fielding complaints of voter fraud.

All Roads Lead to ACORN: Following the DNC Convention, Saul Alinsky’s son, L. David Alinsky, wrote a letter to the Boston Globe. “Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing his effectiveness,” the son wrote. “I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It’s a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”

Palling Around With Terrorists: Watching Barack Obama, twist and turn, stutter and stammer – and, yes, lie – about his up close and personal relationship with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers has swept me back in memory’s eye to the last dinner I had with my late friend George Crile.

ACORN Will Beat McCain Down: A telling video of ACORN protestors threatening McCain.

Previously on WUA:


Las Vegas ACORN Office Raided in Voter Fraud Probe

More Dead, Underage And Fictitious Voter Registrations in Indiana, From ACORN

Michigan Branch Of ACORN Putting Through “Sizable, Duplicate, Fraudulent Voter Applications

Enforcing Florida’s ‘No Match, No Vote’ Law Begins

ACORN In The News Again For Workers Registering Dead Voters And Others



Posted: 08 Oct 2008 05:24 PM CDT

Everything described in the post below is Hyperlinked to a site within the Chicago Democratic party archives, there is no conjecture, no guessing, The fact is that as recently as 1996 Senator Obama was an active member of the Chicago Democratic Socialist Party:

On their website the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) has a description of their political perspective called Where We Stand. It says, in part,

We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.

According to its newsletter called The New Ground ,Senator Barack Obama attended at least a few meetings of the Chicago Chapter of this group in 1996. And from the way it was described in the newsletter he “talked the talk” and “walked the walk” and even signed a contract with the group.
To see all the evidence, CLICK HERE


Just a little humor on the side please

Just a little humor on the side please

From the MANITOBA HERALD, Canada (a very underground paper):

The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration.

The possibility of a McCain/Palin election is prompting the exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they’ll soon be required to hunt, pray, and agree with Bill O’Reilly.

Canadian border farmers say it’s not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night.

I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn,’ said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota . The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. ‘He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken.
When I said I didn’t have any, he left. Didn’t even get a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?’ In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields. ‘Not real effective,’ he said. ‘The liberals still got through, and Rush annoyed the cows so much they wouldn’t give milk.’ Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across the border and leave them to fend for themselves.

‘A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions,’ an Ontario border patrolman said. ‘I found one carload without a drop of drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though.’

When liberals are caught, they’re sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about the McCain administration establishing re-education camps in which liberals will be forced to shoot wolves from airplanes, deny evolution, and act out drills preparing them for the Rapture.

In recent days, liberals have turned to sometimes-ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began topping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers on Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney hits to prove they were alive in the ’50s.

‘If they can’t identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we get suspicious about their age,’ an official said. Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies.

‘I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can’t support them,’ an Ottawa resident said. ‘How many art-history and English majors does one country need?’

The Helpless Majority

The Helpless Majority
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann | November 29, 2006

For all of the dire warnings and pre-election commotion about the impact of a Democratic majority in Congress, the fact is that – now that it is upon us – it can do little or nothing but harass the administration.

There is no real danger of any legislative action emerging from this Congress. Yes, the president has a veto the Democrats cannot override, but nothing will ever make it as far as the desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are just spinning their wheels.

In the Senate, there is no such thing as a majority. Ever since the elder Bush’s administration, the filibuster has become routine. No longer reserved for civil-rights issues or for egregious legislation, it now is used to counter even motions for recess and adjournment. Members of the Senate are no longer subjected to the indignity of standing on their feet and reading a telephone book. Rather, the gentlemen’s filibuster applies.

The majority leader phones the minority leader and asks if a filibuster is in effect. With his feet up on his desk, the Republican replies that it is and the Democrat, despite his majority, does not even think about bringing up his bill for consideration unless he has a good shot at the 60 votes required to shut off debate. In the Senate, 51 votes determine who gets the corner office, but to pass legislation, one needs 60.

In the House of Representatives, with its 435 members, the Republican Party needed a simple majority – 218 – to rule. The Democrats need considerably more. The normal rules of a mathematical majority do not take into account the fractious nature of the Democratic Party.

Where the Republican majority best resembled the Prussian Army – disciplined, unified and determined – the Democratic majority in the upcoming Congress is disunited, dispersed and divided into myriad caucuses and special interest groups. One could purchase the Republican majority wholesale by making a deal with the speaker and the majority leader. But to get the Democratic majority in line, one has to buy it retail — caucus by caucus.

First, one has to go to check with the Black Caucus — hat in hand — to see if one’s bill has enough liberal giveaways to round up its forty or so votes. Thence to the Hispanic Caucus for a similar screening. Then, with one’s legislation weighted down with liberal provisions added by these two groups, one has to sell it to the Democratic Leadership Council moderates and, even worse, to the Blue Dog Democrats — the out and out conservatives.

If you are fortunate enough to pass these contradictory litmus tests, you then have to go to the environmentalists, the labor people, and even the gays to see that your bill passes muster. Only then can you begin to hope for House passage.

The result of this labyrinth is that the relatively moderate bill you first sought to pass ends up like a Christmas tree, laden with ornaments added to appease each of the caucuses. Unrecognizable in its final form, it heads to House passage.

This road map will be familiar to all veterans of the Clinton White House of 1993 and 1994. The most recent administration that had to deal with a Democratic House, the shopping from caucus to caucus and the festooning of moderate legislation with all manner of amendments will seem dejà vu to all of the early Clintonites. When Clinton proposed an anti-crime bill with a federal death penalty, he needed to add pork projects in the inner city like midnight basketball to get it past the Democrats in the House.

Nancy Pelosi will face the same obstacle. By the time her legislation emerges from the lower chamber, it will bear little resemblance to what she had in mind, liberal as that might have been. As Clinton said, after he watched the mangling of his legislative program by the various caucuses in the House, “I didn’t even recognize myself.”

Once the highly amended liberal legislation emerges from the House, it will make easy fodder for a Senate filibuster. So left leaning that it stands no chance of attracting 60 votes, it will be dead-on-arrival.

So forget the nightmares about an amended Patriot Act or restrictions on wiretapping for homeland security. Don’t worry about House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel’s, D-N.Y., ravings about the draft or the rumors of a tax increase. It’s not going to happen.

What is the Democratic majority good for? One thing and one thing only – to give their party control of the committees and the subpoena power that goes with it. The two House Democratic majority can only make noise and make trouble. It can’t pass legislation.

Click Here to support


Democrats, the Fed, and Milton Friedman

Democrats, the Fed, and Milton Friedman

by Thomas E. Brewton


Liberal Democrats are economic ignoramuses and they hope that the voters are too.


Neither the Democratic Party left wing, nor the Fed has learned the fundamental truth documented by the late Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz in A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960.


Mr. Friedman, who died November 16, 2006, effectively eviscerated Keynesian economics, which was the academic foundation of New Deal socialistic statism and remained the economic orthodoxy of the Democratic Party after World War II.


One of Professor Friedman’s messages is that, when the government attempts to regulate the economy it almost always does more harm than good. Another is that the economy will grow faster and more steadily when the Fed acts to keep the money supply in a stable relationship to GDP. This promotes price stability, i.e., the absence of inflation.


The real economy grows and more jobs are created, not as a consequence of management by government planners, but because private businesses make long-term investments to produce more goods and services. As we saw in the 1930s Depression, businesses don’t make long-term investments when taxes are being raised, inflation is rampant, and they are continually harassed by harmful rounds of government regulations.


Nonetheless, within the last few days the press has been full of reports that the liberal-progressive-socialists in the Democratic Party intend to impose a new, state-planning straitjacket for the economy to narrow the gap between top and bottom income groups.


To do as they propose, Democrats must be willfully ignorant of the economic surges from tax cuts by presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and George W. Bush. They must also deny the disintegration of the economy and of American society produced by President Lyndon Johnson’ Great Society, the most extreme degree of socialistic planning yet imposed upon us.


The announced aims of liberal Democratic committee chairmen amounts to grave-digging to exhume the old Keyesian hypothesis that private business can never raise production enough to create full employment at acceptable wages, that only government welfare-state spending can do that.


English economist John Maynard Keynes and his Harvard economics department acolyte Alvin Hansen were primary sources of these now discredited socialistic policies that exacerbated an ordinary recession into eight years of the Great Depression under President Franklin Roosevelt, a period when, at its lowest, unemployment never averaged less than three times today’s level under President George W. Bush.


Twenty years later, confident that they finally had deciphered the gnostic content of history, Keynesian liberal economists declared that the new era of permanent prosperity was at hand. Within months their hubris, and the economy, collapsed. We were mired deeply in the worst economic conditions since the Depression: the stagflation of the 1970s, with its large-scale unemployment, bankrupt manufacturing businesses in what became the Midwestern “rust bowl,” and the worst inflation in our history. Men were forced to “moonlight” with two or three jobs and mothers were forced into the full-time workforce, just to pay the rent and grocery bills.


Never forget that our two worst economic and social periods – the Depression and the 1970s stagflation – were caused by liberals’ social engineering.

Following the Friedman prescription, President Reagan after 1980 revitalized our moribund economy by trying to get government off people’s backs. He cut taxes, curbed unions’ self-centered power to paralyze industrial production, reduced regulation, and took the political heat to stop inflation.


President Reagan stood behind the Fed’s new Chairman Paul Volcker, who understood Professor Friedman’s demonstration that inflation is no more than too much money chasing too few goods and services, that the way to curb inflation is to control the money supply.


In a PBS interview in more recent years, Mr. Volcker described it this way:

Well, the Federal Reserve had been attempting to deal with the inflation for some time, but I think in the 1970s, in past hindsight, anyway, [it] got behind the curve. It’s always hard to raise interest rates.


By the time I became chairman and there was more of a feeling of urgency, there was a willingness to accept more forceful measures to try to deal with the inflation. And we adopted an approach of doing it perhaps more directly, by saying, “We’ll take the emphasis off of interest rates and put the emphasis on the growth in the money supply, which is at the root cause of inflation” – too much money chasing too few goods …- “so we’ll attack the too-much-money part of the equation and we will stop the money supply from increasing as rapidly as it was.”


And that led to a squeeze on the money markets and a squeeze on interest rates, and interest rates went up a lot. But we didn’t do it by saying, “We think the appropriate level of interest rates is X.” We said, “We think the appropriate level of the money supply or the appropriate rate of the money supply is X, and we’ll take whatever consequences that means for the interest rate because that will enable us to get inflation under control, and at that point interest rates will come down,” which, of course, eventually is what happened.


Since then the Fed has reverted to the old, completely discredited Keynesian belief that government planners can fine-tune the economy in order to attain full employment, price stability, steady GDP growth, all while expanding the money supply essentially without limit to finance ever-growing welfare-state expenditures and Congress’s massive pork-barreling.


The Fed officially acknowledges that it has abandoned Chairman Volcker’s policy of controlling the money supply in order to reduce and to forestall inflation. A 1997 policy memorandum titled Understanding Open Market Operations, published by the New York Federal Reserve Bank, states the following:


As the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve System is responsible for formulating and implementing monetary policy. The formulation of monetary policy involves developing a plan aimed at pursuing the goals of stable prices, full employment and, more generally, a stable financial environment for the economy. In implementing that plan, the Federal Reserve uses the tools of monetary policy to induce changes in interest rates, and the amount of money and credit in the economy. Through these financial variables, monetary policy actions influence, albeit with considerable time lags, the levels of spending, output, employment and prices.


The formulation of monetary policy has undergone significant shifts over the years. In the early 1980s, for example, the Federal Reserve placed special emphasis on objectives for the monetary aggregates as policy guides for indicating the state of the economy and for stabilizing the price level. Since that time, however, ongoing and far-reaching changes in the financial system have reduced the usefulness of the monetary aggregates as policy guides. As a consequence, monetary policy plans must be based on a much broader array of indicators.


Translation: instead of focusing on maintaining sound money by controlling the money supply, the Fed’s liberal-economics brain-trusters can’t resist presuming to control the entire economy.


This, at the same time that Democrats aim to re-impose Keynesian socialism via raising taxes, fixing wages, and grossing up welfare spending by nationalizing health care under socialized medicine.


Look for inflation to surge while business tanks.



Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.


His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776


The opinions expressed in this column represent those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or philosophy of

Iraq: The Democrats’ Tar-Baby — OK Dems it’s your turn

Iraq: The Democrats’ Tar-Baby
By David Keene | November 23, 2006

An old Democratic friend of mine stopped by the Monocle last week and while there ran into a Democratic senator of long acquaintance. The Senator was, of course, quite pleased with the outcome of the election and is looking forward to the perks and responsibilities that go with being in the majority.The two talked for a few minutes, but the Senator was more than a little taken aback when my friend asked him what he and his fellow Democrats intend to do with the war they managed to acquire with their new majority. “What do you mean?” he said. “Iraq is Bush’s war and his problem.”

“Oh, no,” my friend responded, “it was his war until Nov. 9, but your party ran condemning the war, Bush’s management of it and promised to end it in one way or another. Now, you guys are going to have to come up with a plan because you are in the majority and with the majority comes responsibility … especially on problems voters believe you promised to solve.”

It was a sobering thought and the senator was momentarily speechless, but then got very, very cautious and assured my friend that most Democrats believe it would be dangerous to do anything precipitous. Fortunately, there was no one from MoveOn.Org at the next table.

To be fair, my friend overstated the degree to which Democrats have to single-handedly solve the Iraq problem, but voters are not likely to long tolerate their pre-election act of attacking Bush at every turn while offering nothing, or less than nothing, in the way of a realistic alternative.

After all, while there was more to the election than the war, most of the 20 percent or so of those who voted and said the war was their No. 1 concern voted this year for Democrats because they don’t like the way things have turned out for us in Iraq and are hoping for better.

It is true that many of the Democratic Party’s ideological allies and financial supporters seem to actually believe that the problem is nutcases who would pervert their religion to justify terror, torture and genocide, all on account of the U.S. They would argue, one suspects, that since it is our presence in the region that “creates” terrorists, all we have to do is leave and the problem will vanish.

This reasoning may be persuasive within the fever swamps of the left, but most elected Democrats tend to be more realistic and few of them share this view of a world that would be a better place but for us. Moreover, as politicians they have to worry about what might happen if they “get us out of Iraq” and the forces we are fighting there decide to take us and our friends on elsewhere, or the Iranians and others look at the debacle there as evidence of our lack of will to oppose whatever it is they decide to do with their nuclear weapons once they develop them.

Some of them are hoping former Secretary of State Jim Baker’s Iraq Commission will save their bacon as well as Bush’s by coming up with a magical strategy and end game that will both work and satisfy their base. That, however, doesn’t seem likely given the intractability of the problem and the vehement insistence on the left that the war has to be ended now or that we at least begin withdrawing or “redeploying” troops soon.

Some Democrats in Congress are already responding by rejecting the idea that anything but getting out matters. They dismiss the importance of whatever might happen there after we leave and seem to buy into the notion that everyone will be so happy that we’re out that no one will blame them for “losing Iraq” or for the acts of an emboldened terrorist movement.

Others are trying to satisfy their base by suggesting that all we have to do is seek support from our allies or the U.N., as if the Bush administration hasn’t tried. Still others suggest that we do more to “train” the Iraqis but blanch at the thought that this course could require committing more U.S. forces, at least in the short term.

And then, finally, there are those who denounce the Bush administration’s “imperialist empire-building” on the one hand, while suggesting that what “we” ought to do is sit down and redraw the map of the Middle East along more “rational” lines.

The lack of any unified Democratic stance on a crucial national security and foreign policy issue — on which the party’s candidates ran and won control of Congress — means that my friend is at least partially right.

Iraq is many things, including a tar-baby that congressional Democrats are going to find as difficult to get away from as the Republicans they so gleefully beat up over the last few years.

Click Here to support

When U.S. Republicans accused Democrats of not having a plan for victory in Iraq during the campaign, Democrats insisted that they did – but, at the same time, they preferred to keep it a secret from voters. It’s a good thing that they reassured Americans of this, because anyone paying attention to what’s happening on Capitol Hill these days might assume that the “most ethical Congress in history” (as Pelosi puts it) campaigned on a blatant lie.

Current:  When U.S. Republicans accused Democrats of not having a plan for victory in Iraq during the campaign, Democrats insisted that they did – but, at the same time, they preferred to keep it a secret from voters.  It’s a good thing that they reassured Americans of this, because anyone paying attention to what’s happening on Capitol Hill these days might assume that the “most ethical Congress in history” (as Pelosi puts it) campaigned on a blatant lie. 

Here’s just a sample of what we have so far: 

John Murtha wants to cut and run.  Joe Lieberman wants to stay the course.  Joe Biden wants to carve Iraq into three sections.  Carl Levin wants U.S. withdrawal to being in 4 to 6 months.  Hillary wants to give it another year.  Charlie Rangel wants to reinstate the military draft.  Nancy Pelosi wants an immediate reduction in U.S. troops.  And a whole lot of other Democrats campaigned on the protest that there weren’t enough troops in Iraq, leading many to naturally assume that they would increase troop levels. 

What they all really want, of course, is to build on their political gains by winning the White House in 2008.  Unfortunately for them, they’ve now inherited a war that was made deeply unpopular in no small part because of their own success at hammering morale even before the troops were on the ground.  And regardless of whether they retreat in the face of Islamic terror or stand and fight, perhaps Democrats will at least come to understand the difficulty of leading in a time of war.