"In June of 1816, Samuel Kercheval wrote President Jefferson for his thoughts on a proposed revision of Virginia’s first constitution. A month later Jefferson replied, devoting a great part of his letter to a warning about the consequences of unending government debt:
'I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and our drink, in our necessities and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers. Our landholders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign countries, and be contended with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory of the nation.
This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance….A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia [war of all against all], which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.'
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights." Abraham Lincoln
>
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Mob Rule is Mass Hysteria
The idea of targeting buildings and people that stand for conspicuous consumption is an old one. The peasants' revolt of 1381 saw ferocious disturbances in London, and what was called "luxury" was one of its targets. Various palaces and grand houses such as the home of the Archbishop of Canterbury were sacked because they represented opulence. What could not be smashed, pulverized or burned was thrown into the river.
Our mother country, Great Britain, has a long tradition of riots and, through the centuries, mobs have often made their intended targets clear in advance. Protesters have realized that the anticipation of a riot can be as disruptive as any actual assault on property, and riots are more often remembered for their targets than for their causes. Nearly 500 years ago, on May 1, 1517, riots were directed against the property of affluent foreign merchants and craftsmen plying their trades in London. These became known as the "Evil May Day" riots.
Disturbances in Elizabethan and Jacobean England directed against the enclosure of common land frequently took place on traditional holidays. The rioters would throw down the fences erected to deny access to land on which they had once been allowed to graze their animals. The motives behind these riots were to demonstrate their contempt for the landowner (occasionally by surrounding his house or burning him in effigy).
The word "mob" was first used in 1688, the year of the Glorious Revolution, at a time of great political upheaval, and it was to become a key word in the 18th century. Writers such as Addison and Jonathan Swift complained about the inelegance of the term (short for "mobile vulgus", the excitable crowd), but it stood for a vulgar, sometimes irrepressible reality. Henry Fielding sardonically called the London mob the "fourth estate".
The age of Enlightenment saw its share of rioting and in the late 18th century, with the birth of the confident, organized and educated urban mob, riots began to show signs of the sophistication that they have today. In the 1760s and 1770s, protesters took to the streets in support of John Wilkes, who coined the dismissive term "mobocracy" to describe the revolutionary government of France. Wilkes, dubbed the first "mobocratical" politician by the press, campaigned for wider parliamentary representation, the liberty of bourgeois Englishmen, and the freedom of the press. His campaign was accompanied by displays of support on the London streets, bouts of window smashing in the City, and by random attacks on the houses of wealthy Londoners some of whom were supporters of Wilkes.
The most destructive riots of the early 19th century added another word to the English language. The Luddite disturbances in the north and the midlands, later fictionalized in Charlotte Brontë's novel, Shirley, occurred between 1811 and 1816, when rioters broke into mills and workshops to destroy the new machinery that threatened their jobs and rates of pay. In some cases, factories containing machines such as the new steam loom were destroyed.
More recently, we have become familiar with the idea that, when property is attacked, rage can give way to acquisitiveness even if the rioters have initially been infuriated by the acquisitiveness of others. Such were the images of the Watts riots of 1965. Local stores and businesses were attacked, ransacked and burned as TV viewers watched rioters looting anything in sight.
Probably one of the most famous historical images of violent protests is the storming of the Bastille in July 1789 that is taken as the beginning of the French Revolution. This was partly an achievement of later propaganda by the revolutionaries because the Bastille was far from being the vast, institutional embodiment of despotism. In fact the Bastille contained a mere seven petty criminals. The sans-culottes also marched on Versailles, the real seat of power, yet it is the symbol of the Bastille that is remembered.
In revolutions of the modern era, parliament buildings and TV stations have been the preferred targets; for successful revolutions, in this age of mass media, are also public performances. In Yugoslavia, Belgrade's parliament building served as a spectacular stage set for popular insurrection. The Berlin Wall was the perfect symbolic location for German celebrations after the downfall of the GDR. Thanks to a film-maker, Sergei Eisenstein, “the storming of the Winter Palace in St Petersburg with the masses trampling the thick carpets of the tsar became as central to the notion of the Russian Revolution as the storming of the Bastille to the French.”
Riots usually target symbols of power.
Mob rule tends to reflect an anti-authoritarian character and has not always been progressive in nature. If anything, mob rule tends to be reactionary and destructive of property if not lives.
Sometimes an entire profession has attracted the ire of the mob. “During the peasants' revolt in London, rioters vented their fury on the Temple in London, the hive of lawyers, who were hated as the agents of manorial lords, helping them control and bind their serfs. The Kentish men sacked the lawyers' inns and dwellings. A supportive eyewitness expressed support by sayin ‘It was marvelous to see how even the most aged and infirm of them scrambled off, with the agility of rats or evil spirits.’ Shakespeare was perhaps reflecting this historical reality in Henry VI part II when he had Dick the Butcher, right-hand man of the rebel Jack Cade, cry, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Fear of the mob was keenly felt in Shakespeare's England. Dearth was a constant threat, food shortages were frequent and the populace was readily thought of as what one of his contemporaries called "the Beast with many Heads". In the opening scene of Coriolanus, Shakespeare dramatizes the fear of the mob as the patrician, Menenius, confronts a rabble of "poor citizens" who are demanding bread and threatening violence.
Among the most notorious instances of mob culture in America was the incident of the Salem witch trials. In these trials, there was a legal due process that was used to determine innocence or guilt. However, the unified beliefs of the townspeople overpowered the logic of the law. The Salem community abandoned logic. Instead of looking at the logic of the law, Salme simply followed the mob’s belief and many people were innocently targeted and put to death as a result.
The witch trial incidents serve as a very early example of how mob rule can take over and govern a society. In our contemporary society, mob rule is still a very prevalent phenomena. Remember the Duke Lacrosse team accusations? Duke administrators and professors shot from the hip in knee jerk fashion and did not follow the American legal precedent of innocent till proven guilty. Look at the harm and deprivation of personal reputation that resulted from this jumping to conclusions.
Other visible examples of mob rule on college campuses are the riots that break out on college campuses across the country. Riots are not a new phenomenon on college campuses as anyone who lived during the social revolution of the 1960s, but recent history suggests that they are a growing trend. For example, 2004 riots on the Hill at the University of Colorado demonstrate how a mob rule mentality can turn violent.
What starts as a celebration can quickly turn into a violent rebellion when police authorities show up. In the case of the riots at Colorado, a large party was shut down by the police. This scene then morphed into an angry mob intent upon defying the police. We also see this mob rule mentality when college students go on celebratory rampages. In many instances, riots seem to emerge from an extravagant celebration surrounding a school sports team winning a big game when one person or a small group becomes destructive. This initiates a domino effect that leads to mob driven violence.
What about the destruction of private and public property that results from these riots and demonstrations of mob rule? Why is there no remorse for such destruction? American history is replete with numerous instances of mob rule that have led to violence for many different reasons. Regardless of the setting or situation, mass hysteria determined the outcome, rather than logic. Accepted norms encourage people to abandon reasonable and responsible decision making. Instead, the illogic group mind often leads to chaos and unnecessary destruction.
Our mother country, Great Britain, has a long tradition of riots and, through the centuries, mobs have often made their intended targets clear in advance. Protesters have realized that the anticipation of a riot can be as disruptive as any actual assault on property, and riots are more often remembered for their targets than for their causes. Nearly 500 years ago, on May 1, 1517, riots were directed against the property of affluent foreign merchants and craftsmen plying their trades in London. These became known as the "Evil May Day" riots.
Disturbances in Elizabethan and Jacobean England directed against the enclosure of common land frequently took place on traditional holidays. The rioters would throw down the fences erected to deny access to land on which they had once been allowed to graze their animals. The motives behind these riots were to demonstrate their contempt for the landowner (occasionally by surrounding his house or burning him in effigy).
The word "mob" was first used in 1688, the year of the Glorious Revolution, at a time of great political upheaval, and it was to become a key word in the 18th century. Writers such as Addison and Jonathan Swift complained about the inelegance of the term (short for "mobile vulgus", the excitable crowd), but it stood for a vulgar, sometimes irrepressible reality. Henry Fielding sardonically called the London mob the "fourth estate".
The age of Enlightenment saw its share of rioting and in the late 18th century, with the birth of the confident, organized and educated urban mob, riots began to show signs of the sophistication that they have today. In the 1760s and 1770s, protesters took to the streets in support of John Wilkes, who coined the dismissive term "mobocracy" to describe the revolutionary government of France. Wilkes, dubbed the first "mobocratical" politician by the press, campaigned for wider parliamentary representation, the liberty of bourgeois Englishmen, and the freedom of the press. His campaign was accompanied by displays of support on the London streets, bouts of window smashing in the City, and by random attacks on the houses of wealthy Londoners some of whom were supporters of Wilkes.
The most destructive riots of the early 19th century added another word to the English language. The Luddite disturbances in the north and the midlands, later fictionalized in Charlotte Brontë's novel, Shirley, occurred between 1811 and 1816, when rioters broke into mills and workshops to destroy the new machinery that threatened their jobs and rates of pay. In some cases, factories containing machines such as the new steam loom were destroyed.
More recently, we have become familiar with the idea that, when property is attacked, rage can give way to acquisitiveness even if the rioters have initially been infuriated by the acquisitiveness of others. Such were the images of the Watts riots of 1965. Local stores and businesses were attacked, ransacked and burned as TV viewers watched rioters looting anything in sight.
Probably one of the most famous historical images of violent protests is the storming of the Bastille in July 1789 that is taken as the beginning of the French Revolution. This was partly an achievement of later propaganda by the revolutionaries because the Bastille was far from being the vast, institutional embodiment of despotism. In fact the Bastille contained a mere seven petty criminals. The sans-culottes also marched on Versailles, the real seat of power, yet it is the symbol of the Bastille that is remembered.
In revolutions of the modern era, parliament buildings and TV stations have been the preferred targets; for successful revolutions, in this age of mass media, are also public performances. In Yugoslavia, Belgrade's parliament building served as a spectacular stage set for popular insurrection. The Berlin Wall was the perfect symbolic location for German celebrations after the downfall of the GDR. Thanks to a film-maker, Sergei Eisenstein, “the storming of the Winter Palace in St Petersburg with the masses trampling the thick carpets of the tsar became as central to the notion of the Russian Revolution as the storming of the Bastille to the French.”
Riots usually target symbols of power.
Mob rule tends to reflect an anti-authoritarian character and has not always been progressive in nature. If anything, mob rule tends to be reactionary and destructive of property if not lives.
Sometimes an entire profession has attracted the ire of the mob. “During the peasants' revolt in London, rioters vented their fury on the Temple in London, the hive of lawyers, who were hated as the agents of manorial lords, helping them control and bind their serfs. The Kentish men sacked the lawyers' inns and dwellings. A supportive eyewitness expressed support by sayin ‘It was marvelous to see how even the most aged and infirm of them scrambled off, with the agility of rats or evil spirits.’ Shakespeare was perhaps reflecting this historical reality in Henry VI part II when he had Dick the Butcher, right-hand man of the rebel Jack Cade, cry, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Fear of the mob was keenly felt in Shakespeare's England. Dearth was a constant threat, food shortages were frequent and the populace was readily thought of as what one of his contemporaries called "the Beast with many Heads". In the opening scene of Coriolanus, Shakespeare dramatizes the fear of the mob as the patrician, Menenius, confronts a rabble of "poor citizens" who are demanding bread and threatening violence.
Among the most notorious instances of mob culture in America was the incident of the Salem witch trials. In these trials, there was a legal due process that was used to determine innocence or guilt. However, the unified beliefs of the townspeople overpowered the logic of the law. The Salem community abandoned logic. Instead of looking at the logic of the law, Salme simply followed the mob’s belief and many people were innocently targeted and put to death as a result.
The witch trial incidents serve as a very early example of how mob rule can take over and govern a society. In our contemporary society, mob rule is still a very prevalent phenomena. Remember the Duke Lacrosse team accusations? Duke administrators and professors shot from the hip in knee jerk fashion and did not follow the American legal precedent of innocent till proven guilty. Look at the harm and deprivation of personal reputation that resulted from this jumping to conclusions.
Other visible examples of mob rule on college campuses are the riots that break out on college campuses across the country. Riots are not a new phenomenon on college campuses as anyone who lived during the social revolution of the 1960s, but recent history suggests that they are a growing trend. For example, 2004 riots on the Hill at the University of Colorado demonstrate how a mob rule mentality can turn violent.
What starts as a celebration can quickly turn into a violent rebellion when police authorities show up. In the case of the riots at Colorado, a large party was shut down by the police. This scene then morphed into an angry mob intent upon defying the police. We also see this mob rule mentality when college students go on celebratory rampages. In many instances, riots seem to emerge from an extravagant celebration surrounding a school sports team winning a big game when one person or a small group becomes destructive. This initiates a domino effect that leads to mob driven violence.
What about the destruction of private and public property that results from these riots and demonstrations of mob rule? Why is there no remorse for such destruction? American history is replete with numerous instances of mob rule that have led to violence for many different reasons. Regardless of the setting or situation, mass hysteria determined the outcome, rather than logic. Accepted norms encourage people to abandon reasonable and responsible decision making. Instead, the illogic group mind often leads to chaos and unnecessary destruction.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Congress and the Executive Branch: Knee Deep in Retention Bonuses
For over a week the nation has been in an uproar over the retention bonuses being handed out by AIG. Granted, these may seem extravagant during an economic crisis and the question of their morality is a legitimate discussion topic. The tragedy, however, is the complicity of Congress in AIG paying out the bonuses and in the cover-up of their own guilt.
The Stimulus (aka Stealth) Bill passed by Congress and signed into law by Mr. Obama included a clause known as the Dodd Amendment which exempted AIG from any penalty or restrictions on bonuses. Translated: CONGRESS AUTHORIZED AIG TO PAY BONUSES TO THEIR EXECUTIVES.
The Stimulus (aka Stealth) Bill was written by none other than Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Chief of Staff to Mr. Obama, Rahm (Rambo) Emannuel. The 1100 + page bill was given to members of Congress 10 minutes before they voted. There are probably some speed readers in Congress but more than likely none of the 535 members had the appropriate amount of time to read, study, analyze, and question what was in this piece of legislation.
At first, Senator Chris Dodd denied he had written the Dodd Amendment. The next day he admitted he wrote it, but immediately Dodd claimed he did not know how it got attached to the legislation. Then, two days later Dodd admitted he had submitted it but the Executive branch "made" him do it! What is Dodd, some kind of puppet? What does he take the American people for, some kind of Kool Aid drinking idiots who cannot think?
When Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner ( who has an MBA but can't figure out how to use Turbo Tax and that was why he didn't pay his taxes) was asked about the AIG bonuses, he said he was unaware of them and outraged. Now we've learned Timothy Geithner as the director of the New York Fed last fall, knew about AIG's bonus plan and that as the Secretary of Treasury had full knowledge of the Dodd Amendment. The White House also knew about the Dodd Amendment and encouraged the Dodd Amendment be kept in the stealth legislation known as the Stimulus Bill.
In a knee jerk reaction and an attempt to take the heat off of themselves, Nancy Pelosi, beloved Speaker of the House, pushed through a bill to tax individuals who received AIG retention bonuses to the tune of a 90% tax on these bonuses.
Think about the significance of this action. The US Congress in the Stimulus Bill endorsed by 100% of the Democrat members of Congress and the three renegade Republicans GAVE and ENDORSED an exemption for AIG to pay out these Retention Bonuses. What will prevent Congress from targeting individuals or groups of people they choose to levy taxes in an attempt to silence?
Now, in an attempt to appear shocked and outraged over this incident, we have a Congress that is promoting Mob Rule by promulgating class hatred and envy towards persons who chose to enter the financial profession. Not only is Congress engaged in promoting class envy and hatred, but apparently the President has chosen to debunk persons who have chosen careers as investment bankers. On Friday, March 20, when introducing his new education policy urged persons to consider careers other than investment banking.
Why not include careers as Congressional and presidential politicians in this class envy and hatred hit list?
The Stimulus (aka Stealth) Bill passed by Congress and signed into law by Mr. Obama included a clause known as the Dodd Amendment which exempted AIG from any penalty or restrictions on bonuses. Translated: CONGRESS AUTHORIZED AIG TO PAY BONUSES TO THEIR EXECUTIVES.
The Stimulus (aka Stealth) Bill was written by none other than Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Chief of Staff to Mr. Obama, Rahm (Rambo) Emannuel. The 1100 + page bill was given to members of Congress 10 minutes before they voted. There are probably some speed readers in Congress but more than likely none of the 535 members had the appropriate amount of time to read, study, analyze, and question what was in this piece of legislation.
At first, Senator Chris Dodd denied he had written the Dodd Amendment. The next day he admitted he wrote it, but immediately Dodd claimed he did not know how it got attached to the legislation. Then, two days later Dodd admitted he had submitted it but the Executive branch "made" him do it! What is Dodd, some kind of puppet? What does he take the American people for, some kind of Kool Aid drinking idiots who cannot think?
When Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner ( who has an MBA but can't figure out how to use Turbo Tax and that was why he didn't pay his taxes) was asked about the AIG bonuses, he said he was unaware of them and outraged. Now we've learned Timothy Geithner as the director of the New York Fed last fall, knew about AIG's bonus plan and that as the Secretary of Treasury had full knowledge of the Dodd Amendment. The White House also knew about the Dodd Amendment and encouraged the Dodd Amendment be kept in the stealth legislation known as the Stimulus Bill.
In a knee jerk reaction and an attempt to take the heat off of themselves, Nancy Pelosi, beloved Speaker of the House, pushed through a bill to tax individuals who received AIG retention bonuses to the tune of a 90% tax on these bonuses.
Think about the significance of this action. The US Congress in the Stimulus Bill endorsed by 100% of the Democrat members of Congress and the three renegade Republicans GAVE and ENDORSED an exemption for AIG to pay out these Retention Bonuses. What will prevent Congress from targeting individuals or groups of people they choose to levy taxes in an attempt to silence?
Now, in an attempt to appear shocked and outraged over this incident, we have a Congress that is promoting Mob Rule by promulgating class hatred and envy towards persons who chose to enter the financial profession. Not only is Congress engaged in promoting class envy and hatred, but apparently the President has chosen to debunk persons who have chosen careers as investment bankers. On Friday, March 20, when introducing his new education policy urged persons to consider careers other than investment banking.
Why not include careers as Congressional and presidential politicians in this class envy and hatred hit list?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Why Are Liberals Afraid of a Walk Through History?
After reading some haughty and negative comments concerning the blog, “Why Should We Fear Government Intervention”, it is obvious that liberals, especially bleeding heart liberals, made assumptions that the article was directed at the current administration.
Perhaps they should re-read the blog. There was no mention or reference to the current administration in Washington, DC., but they reacted as if it were a direct slap in the face.
The blog criticizing government intervention and socialism could very well have been written by someone at the New York Times, which recently raised the issue directly with the President by asking him if his policies were socialist.
Was a raw nerve touched by historical facts? If so, perhaps the lessons of history should be examined again and again so these mistakes are not repeated. Perhaps the blog was too close to reality and that forced them to jump to conclusions.
What their responses indicated was their emotions are on the surface, they are sensitive to defending the current administration, and perhaps the most glaring indication is that they didn’t bother to check the author’s profile on the blog. The author is not someone mysterious to either of them. The author taught one of them and wrote a letter of recommendation for her. The blogger worked with the other person as well as taught two of his children while also providing letters of recommendations for two of his children. Yes, it pays to do your homework and research as opposed to jumping to conclusions.
How sad is it when views are condemned and distorted by liberals who are intolerant of other peoples’ opinions. “Why We Should Fear Government Intervention” is historically accurate, and what a shame that liberals dislike historical accuracy because it does not fit with their ideological point of view.
Perhaps they should re-read the blog. There was no mention or reference to the current administration in Washington, DC., but they reacted as if it were a direct slap in the face.
The blog criticizing government intervention and socialism could very well have been written by someone at the New York Times, which recently raised the issue directly with the President by asking him if his policies were socialist.
Was a raw nerve touched by historical facts? If so, perhaps the lessons of history should be examined again and again so these mistakes are not repeated. Perhaps the blog was too close to reality and that forced them to jump to conclusions.
What their responses indicated was their emotions are on the surface, they are sensitive to defending the current administration, and perhaps the most glaring indication is that they didn’t bother to check the author’s profile on the blog. The author is not someone mysterious to either of them. The author taught one of them and wrote a letter of recommendation for her. The blogger worked with the other person as well as taught two of his children while also providing letters of recommendations for two of his children. Yes, it pays to do your homework and research as opposed to jumping to conclusions.
How sad is it when views are condemned and distorted by liberals who are intolerant of other peoples’ opinions. “Why We Should Fear Government Intervention” is historically accurate, and what a shame that liberals dislike historical accuracy because it does not fit with their ideological point of view.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Why Intervention Matters
Why should we fear government intervention?
Perhaps the most pertinent example that demonstrates how rapidly instituted government intervention can lead to full-scale socialism is the record of National Socialist Germany.
January 30, 1933 Adolf Hitler was appointed to the position of German Chancellor. Hitler’s meteoric rise to power can be contributed to multiple factors. Although an inexperienced politician, Hitler’s charismatic rhetorical skills catapulted him into the public limelight.
A member of the National Socialist Party, Hitler endorsed and promoted the party’s radical reforms of collectivism, elimination of individualism, and state ownership of the means of production in the fields of banking, manufacturing, healthcare, and education. To achieve these goals, the National Socialist Party sought accretion of industry using their interventionist measures in the name of protectionism. The National Socialist Party opposed free trade and sought to reach a state of autarky (self-sufficiency). The last objective on the National Socialist Party’s list was job creation and that objective was not addressed for the first 18 months Hitler was in power.
Under the National Socialist Party and Hitler, Germany was on the road to Hindenburg or German Socialism, which had all the appearances of private ownership of the means of production and the appearances of the market functioning effectively. However, there was no longer entrepreneurship but shop keepers and managers who obeyed government orders unconditionally in the matters of production management. The centralized government instructed these managers on what and how to produce goods and services, what to pay their employees, who they could hire, what was to be automatically deducted from pay checks, and what hours the employees were to work.
Immediately upon taking office, Hitler established control over all unions by abolishing all unions but one: the Labour Front (DAF) which reported directly to Hitler’s office. There was no vote on whether there would be a union or not.
Hitler’s political campaigns were funded by Benito Mussolini and Henry A. Ford leaving Hitler free to concentrate on his rhetoric and not the financing of campaigning. Although he campaigned about the economic woes of Germany, Hitler quickly dropped economic issues once in office. Instead, Hitler’s attacks and rhetoric turned into a War on Prosperity blaming the Jews for the bad economy. Why the Jews? These were the people who had prospered, who had used their business acumen to succeed. The reality was Hitler neither understood nor did he have any interest in economics. (Bullock, A., 1962, p. 152) Thus, Hitler began the culture of class envy and hatred.
First, Hitler began confiscating property and wealth from his War on Prosperity targets, and he practiced the Marxist philosophy of Redistributing the Wealth by giving the confiscated property to those who were less prosperous. Second, Hitler established the SS who instituted social welfare policies including nationalized healthcare. The National Socialist Party decided whose lives were worthy or unworthy of living, and it was the scientists who made these decisions for the government. Third, professional women were stripped of their jobs, and women were paid to stay at home. Fourth, all wages were decided by the government. Fifth, young people were more or less forced to join the Voluntary Labour Service and the Voluntary Youth Service.
Under Hitler’s National Socialist Party, one intervention by the government led to another intervention. It was a “slither down” economy as all businesses were eventually under government control. “Businesses who were reluctant to follow the New Order had to be forced into line.”
Should we be concerned with government intervention?
Perhaps the most pertinent example that demonstrates how rapidly instituted government intervention can lead to full-scale socialism is the record of National Socialist Germany.
January 30, 1933 Adolf Hitler was appointed to the position of German Chancellor. Hitler’s meteoric rise to power can be contributed to multiple factors. Although an inexperienced politician, Hitler’s charismatic rhetorical skills catapulted him into the public limelight.
A member of the National Socialist Party, Hitler endorsed and promoted the party’s radical reforms of collectivism, elimination of individualism, and state ownership of the means of production in the fields of banking, manufacturing, healthcare, and education. To achieve these goals, the National Socialist Party sought accretion of industry using their interventionist measures in the name of protectionism. The National Socialist Party opposed free trade and sought to reach a state of autarky (self-sufficiency). The last objective on the National Socialist Party’s list was job creation and that objective was not addressed for the first 18 months Hitler was in power.
Under the National Socialist Party and Hitler, Germany was on the road to Hindenburg or German Socialism, which had all the appearances of private ownership of the means of production and the appearances of the market functioning effectively. However, there was no longer entrepreneurship but shop keepers and managers who obeyed government orders unconditionally in the matters of production management. The centralized government instructed these managers on what and how to produce goods and services, what to pay their employees, who they could hire, what was to be automatically deducted from pay checks, and what hours the employees were to work.
Immediately upon taking office, Hitler established control over all unions by abolishing all unions but one: the Labour Front (DAF) which reported directly to Hitler’s office. There was no vote on whether there would be a union or not.
Hitler’s political campaigns were funded by Benito Mussolini and Henry A. Ford leaving Hitler free to concentrate on his rhetoric and not the financing of campaigning. Although he campaigned about the economic woes of Germany, Hitler quickly dropped economic issues once in office. Instead, Hitler’s attacks and rhetoric turned into a War on Prosperity blaming the Jews for the bad economy. Why the Jews? These were the people who had prospered, who had used their business acumen to succeed. The reality was Hitler neither understood nor did he have any interest in economics. (Bullock, A., 1962, p. 152) Thus, Hitler began the culture of class envy and hatred.
First, Hitler began confiscating property and wealth from his War on Prosperity targets, and he practiced the Marxist philosophy of Redistributing the Wealth by giving the confiscated property to those who were less prosperous. Second, Hitler established the SS who instituted social welfare policies including nationalized healthcare. The National Socialist Party decided whose lives were worthy or unworthy of living, and it was the scientists who made these decisions for the government. Third, professional women were stripped of their jobs, and women were paid to stay at home. Fourth, all wages were decided by the government. Fifth, young people were more or less forced to join the Voluntary Labour Service and the Voluntary Youth Service.
Under Hitler’s National Socialist Party, one intervention by the government led to another intervention. It was a “slither down” economy as all businesses were eventually under government control. “Businesses who were reluctant to follow the New Order had to be forced into line.”
Should we be concerned with government intervention?
Monday, March 09, 2009
FOCUS, FOCUS, FOCUS
Focus groups and breakout sessions remind me of teacher in-service meetings. Did the Administration ever really listen to and follow the suggestions of the teachers in the trenches or were these merely attempts to placate the natives?
Perhaps Mr. Obama should spend less time acting as a Community Organizer leading Focus Groups and as the candidate who is still campaigning. Perhaps he should follow his supporter Warren Buffett's suggestion:"FOCUS his time and efforts in the Oval Office on the three main problems in our society. In the words of Warren Buffett, the three main problems are the economy, the economy, and the economy."
Yes, our financial system is in disarray, and it is not the result of the last eight years although they compounded the already growing problem. Go back to the Jimmy Carter administration when he pushed for and then signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act giving local community organizers the power to force local banks to create more affordable housing through low cost loans and mortgages with minimum downpayments. During the William Jefferson Clinton years, the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) pressured Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to shift their loan and mortgage policies to no downpayment for homes and no proof of income. Then someone of genius (or sheer stupidity) came up with the incredible idea that these housing loans and mortgages should be broken into parts and bundled for sell to different mortgage lenders who in turn sold them to brokerage firms such as Merrill Lynch who in turn sold them on the market. We now know these bundled mortgages as TOXIC ASSETS.
Wait, there's more.
In 1999, yes, under a Republican controlled Congress some Republican members of Congress worked with Mr. Clinton's Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin to push through Congress a piece of legislation calling for the Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act passed in 1933, which prohibited commercial banks from collaborating with full-service brokerage firms or participating in investment banking activities. In other words, banks were to be banks and not investment companies. With the repeal of this legislation, banks were free to become investment companies.
Wait, there's still more.
During the Clinton years, there was plenty of activity at the White House. Advisers such as Robert Rubin (now a terminated Citibank official), Rahm (Rambo) Emanuel (current White House Chief of Staff who coined the expression on December 7, 2008 "Never waste a crisis.") and HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo (now Attorney General of the State of New York) orchestrated a plan to expand affordable housing in order to increase political appeal to minority groups. The plan was to promote the expansion of low cost housing mortgages by requiring Freddie and Fannie to increase the percentage of loans every year. If Freddie and Fannie met the new quotas, the directors of Freddie and Fannie would receive hefty bonuses.
During the Bush II administration, attempts to bring investigations into Freddie and Fannie’s policies and actions were met with stiff resistance by a few Republicans but largely stonewalled by Chris Dodd in the Senate and Barney Frank in the House. When the Democrats gained control of the Congress in 2004, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank lavished praise on the role of Freddie and Fannie in the expansion of affordable housing. Meanwhile, the Housing Crisis was bubbling over but ignored by Congress and its oversight constitutional obligation.
In 1993 ACORN, the Chicago based community organizer group, filed a lawsuit against Citibank because they did not participate in these low cost mortgage loans. ACORN wanted Citibank to drop the requirement that individuals would have to provide proof of income in order to get a mortgage. The attorney representing ACORN in this lawsuit was Barack H. Obama.
Not done yet.
We would not be forthright if we failed to raise questions about unethical behavior in the market over the last 25-30 years. Have individual stock brokers pocketed money entrusted to them by investors? Yes. Have brokerage firms and other businesses paid their executives exorbitant salaries and lavished them with astronomical bonuses? Yes. Have government regulators failed to properly examine and track the activities of employees in banking and brokerage firms? Yes. Should those who abused the trust of the investors be investigated, prosecuted, and punished? ABSOLUTELY.
Mr. Obama’s election on November 4, 2008 was indeed an historic election. The media and his adoring public were thrilled when Mr. Obama made daily appearances issuing White House like press conferences and issuing policy statements about the dire economy. In fact, the media and Obama staffers referred to Mr. Obama as Co-President. The President-elect repeatedly stated that the economy was his major focus. In fact, on more than one occasion, Mr. Obama stated that fixing the economy would be his number one goal on DAY ONE, and he would hit the ground running by immediately dealing with the Housing and Financial Crisis on his first day in the White House. To date, Mr. Obama has not stepped up with a plan to deal with the Housing and Financial Crisis, and the market keeps waiting.
For over four months, Mr. Obama- with the blessings of the media and his adoring public- has been acting as President. The contention that Mr. Obama should not be criticized because he has only been in office a month is intellectually disingenuous.
Mr. Obama, instead of dealing with the Housing and Financial Crisis, you have offered many social welfare plans, environmental policies, healthcare reforms,and yes, tax increases you want enacted. If the economy continues to slide into an abyss while you focus on other issues, there will no longer be a tax base to support these massive spending plans. Printing more and more money will be as inflationary as Germany’s Weimar Republic faced.
Wall Street IS main street. Two-thirds of America’s Middle Class has some form of their hard earned money invested in pension funds, mutual funds, 401ks, 403bs, 529s, and / or IRAs. What happens on Wall Street every day does matter, and it casts a vote every day at 4 PM on how it perceives the direction this nation is headed. Every day you delay in addressing the economic crisis, hard working Americans are losing their hard earned wealth.
You seem to view the Middle Class as your enemy because they have invested money and accumulated wealth. Wealth is not bad, Mr. Obama. Wealth is the accumulation of one’s assets such as savings accounts, inheritance, property, profit from your earnings, retirement funds, education funds, and investments for starting a business. Wealth is the profit people worked for without depending on a government handout. Wealth includes the funds people use to donate to their favorite charities and causes because they choose to donate, not because it is legislated as you have proposed in the current budget. When the wealth of the Middle Class is depleted, who will donate to charities? Who will donate to their churches? Who will donate to non-profit organizations that depend on donations?
Our nation was founded by a group of people who wanted a nation where citizens were rewarded for their hard work, for their efforts to succeed, and with the opportunity to create businesses and jobs. If the market continues to be ignored by your administration, our nation will be imperiled.
Our nation is about justice and helping the downtrodden, but right now it appears your administration is willing to sit back and hurt those who have worked hard to achieve some degree of prosperity. You seem to be at War with Prosperity.
Middle Class Americans are the workers who make this nation’s economy one of the best in the entire world. Middle Class Americans are the small business owners who create jobs. Middle Class Americans are finding their backs against the wall. You need Middle Class Americans, and the nation needs Middle Class Americans working and creating jobs. "America needs everyone with a stake in the economy fighting on the same team and not against each other."
The beauty of this democratic republic is that when the election is over, the President represents all the Americans, even those who did not support them. We want to support a President who has the interest of all Americans in mind. Mr. Obama, you chose to run for this office, and you won. You cannot govern effectively if you continue to conduct yourself as if the election campaign is still going on.
Another outstanding feature of a democratic republic, Mr. Obama, is that there is always loyal opposition who not only has the right but the obligation to question, challenge, and offer alternate suggestions to proposals they view is not in the best interest of the nation so that a consensus can be reached. Maligning and impugning the loyal opposition is politics as usual which you campaigned against.
Mr. Obama, read the book, The Art of War. There’s some pragmatic advice offered by the author. “Make sure your enemy has an exit because they fight like lions when their backs are against the wall.”
Middle Class Americans are starting to feel their backs are against the wall.
Perhaps Mr. Obama should spend less time acting as a Community Organizer leading Focus Groups and as the candidate who is still campaigning. Perhaps he should follow his supporter Warren Buffett's suggestion:"FOCUS his time and efforts in the Oval Office on the three main problems in our society. In the words of Warren Buffett, the three main problems are the economy, the economy, and the economy."
Yes, our financial system is in disarray, and it is not the result of the last eight years although they compounded the already growing problem. Go back to the Jimmy Carter administration when he pushed for and then signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act giving local community organizers the power to force local banks to create more affordable housing through low cost loans and mortgages with minimum downpayments. During the William Jefferson Clinton years, the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) pressured Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to shift their loan and mortgage policies to no downpayment for homes and no proof of income. Then someone of genius (or sheer stupidity) came up with the incredible idea that these housing loans and mortgages should be broken into parts and bundled for sell to different mortgage lenders who in turn sold them to brokerage firms such as Merrill Lynch who in turn sold them on the market. We now know these bundled mortgages as TOXIC ASSETS.
Wait, there's more.
In 1999, yes, under a Republican controlled Congress some Republican members of Congress worked with Mr. Clinton's Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin to push through Congress a piece of legislation calling for the Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act passed in 1933, which prohibited commercial banks from collaborating with full-service brokerage firms or participating in investment banking activities. In other words, banks were to be banks and not investment companies. With the repeal of this legislation, banks were free to become investment companies.
Wait, there's still more.
During the Clinton years, there was plenty of activity at the White House. Advisers such as Robert Rubin (now a terminated Citibank official), Rahm (Rambo) Emanuel (current White House Chief of Staff who coined the expression on December 7, 2008 "Never waste a crisis.") and HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo (now Attorney General of the State of New York) orchestrated a plan to expand affordable housing in order to increase political appeal to minority groups. The plan was to promote the expansion of low cost housing mortgages by requiring Freddie and Fannie to increase the percentage of loans every year. If Freddie and Fannie met the new quotas, the directors of Freddie and Fannie would receive hefty bonuses.
During the Bush II administration, attempts to bring investigations into Freddie and Fannie’s policies and actions were met with stiff resistance by a few Republicans but largely stonewalled by Chris Dodd in the Senate and Barney Frank in the House. When the Democrats gained control of the Congress in 2004, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank lavished praise on the role of Freddie and Fannie in the expansion of affordable housing. Meanwhile, the Housing Crisis was bubbling over but ignored by Congress and its oversight constitutional obligation.
In 1993 ACORN, the Chicago based community organizer group, filed a lawsuit against Citibank because they did not participate in these low cost mortgage loans. ACORN wanted Citibank to drop the requirement that individuals would have to provide proof of income in order to get a mortgage. The attorney representing ACORN in this lawsuit was Barack H. Obama.
Not done yet.
We would not be forthright if we failed to raise questions about unethical behavior in the market over the last 25-30 years. Have individual stock brokers pocketed money entrusted to them by investors? Yes. Have brokerage firms and other businesses paid their executives exorbitant salaries and lavished them with astronomical bonuses? Yes. Have government regulators failed to properly examine and track the activities of employees in banking and brokerage firms? Yes. Should those who abused the trust of the investors be investigated, prosecuted, and punished? ABSOLUTELY.
Mr. Obama’s election on November 4, 2008 was indeed an historic election. The media and his adoring public were thrilled when Mr. Obama made daily appearances issuing White House like press conferences and issuing policy statements about the dire economy. In fact, the media and Obama staffers referred to Mr. Obama as Co-President. The President-elect repeatedly stated that the economy was his major focus. In fact, on more than one occasion, Mr. Obama stated that fixing the economy would be his number one goal on DAY ONE, and he would hit the ground running by immediately dealing with the Housing and Financial Crisis on his first day in the White House. To date, Mr. Obama has not stepped up with a plan to deal with the Housing and Financial Crisis, and the market keeps waiting.
For over four months, Mr. Obama- with the blessings of the media and his adoring public- has been acting as President. The contention that Mr. Obama should not be criticized because he has only been in office a month is intellectually disingenuous.
Mr. Obama, instead of dealing with the Housing and Financial Crisis, you have offered many social welfare plans, environmental policies, healthcare reforms,and yes, tax increases you want enacted. If the economy continues to slide into an abyss while you focus on other issues, there will no longer be a tax base to support these massive spending plans. Printing more and more money will be as inflationary as Germany’s Weimar Republic faced.
Wall Street IS main street. Two-thirds of America’s Middle Class has some form of their hard earned money invested in pension funds, mutual funds, 401ks, 403bs, 529s, and / or IRAs. What happens on Wall Street every day does matter, and it casts a vote every day at 4 PM on how it perceives the direction this nation is headed. Every day you delay in addressing the economic crisis, hard working Americans are losing their hard earned wealth.
You seem to view the Middle Class as your enemy because they have invested money and accumulated wealth. Wealth is not bad, Mr. Obama. Wealth is the accumulation of one’s assets such as savings accounts, inheritance, property, profit from your earnings, retirement funds, education funds, and investments for starting a business. Wealth is the profit people worked for without depending on a government handout. Wealth includes the funds people use to donate to their favorite charities and causes because they choose to donate, not because it is legislated as you have proposed in the current budget. When the wealth of the Middle Class is depleted, who will donate to charities? Who will donate to their churches? Who will donate to non-profit organizations that depend on donations?
Our nation was founded by a group of people who wanted a nation where citizens were rewarded for their hard work, for their efforts to succeed, and with the opportunity to create businesses and jobs. If the market continues to be ignored by your administration, our nation will be imperiled.
Our nation is about justice and helping the downtrodden, but right now it appears your administration is willing to sit back and hurt those who have worked hard to achieve some degree of prosperity. You seem to be at War with Prosperity.
Middle Class Americans are the workers who make this nation’s economy one of the best in the entire world. Middle Class Americans are the small business owners who create jobs. Middle Class Americans are finding their backs against the wall. You need Middle Class Americans, and the nation needs Middle Class Americans working and creating jobs. "America needs everyone with a stake in the economy fighting on the same team and not against each other."
The beauty of this democratic republic is that when the election is over, the President represents all the Americans, even those who did not support them. We want to support a President who has the interest of all Americans in mind. Mr. Obama, you chose to run for this office, and you won. You cannot govern effectively if you continue to conduct yourself as if the election campaign is still going on.
Another outstanding feature of a democratic republic, Mr. Obama, is that there is always loyal opposition who not only has the right but the obligation to question, challenge, and offer alternate suggestions to proposals they view is not in the best interest of the nation so that a consensus can be reached. Maligning and impugning the loyal opposition is politics as usual which you campaigned against.
Mr. Obama, read the book, The Art of War. There’s some pragmatic advice offered by the author. “Make sure your enemy has an exit because they fight like lions when their backs are against the wall.”
Middle Class Americans are starting to feel their backs are against the wall.
Monday, March 02, 2009
War on Prosperity
What is the longest war in which the US was engaged?
If you replied the War on Poverty, you answered correctly.
Now it seems we are engaged in a new war: the War on Prosperity. It will last until the American people wake up, take off their rose-colored glasses, and contact their Congressional representatives and tell them: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
The current administration, after examining the proposed budget, is seeking every possible avenue to attack American citizens where it hurts the most: their pocket book.
No, we're not talking about wealthy Americans. We're talking about average Americans who invested their savings and retirement plans in the stock market. Since Mr. Obama's election the market has dropped over 3200 points, and that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the economic attack on average Americans.
Barack Hussein Obama’s National Socialist policies are pure and simple anti-capitalist, anti-free enterprise, anti-democracy, and anti-American.
Despite his avowed claim that taxes are not being raised on 95% of Americans, B.O’s Stimulus (aka Stealth Bill) and his proposed budget refute this claim. Worded deceptively in his Cap and Trade Tax are proposals for a $65 BILLION tax this year on the following forms of energy: electricity, gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil. By 2020, this Cap and Trade Tax will amount to $645 BILLION, meaning our taxes on these will be gargantuan.
Mr. Obama, do not all Americans purchase at least one or two of these forms of energy? Will not the price of these forms of energy include the Cap and Trade Tax you are going to impose?
That’s right. You’re playing the “I gotcha game”. Yes, directly Americans will not pay these taxes. INDIRECTLY, ALL AMERICANS will pay these Cap and Trade Taxes.
Mr. Obama, this is pure deception and an attempt not to level the playing field but to lower the playing field so all Americans will feel beholden to the Federal (National) government.
The National Socialist Party under Hitler followed these same steps in becoming a National Socialist nation. History knows it as NAZI Germany, a government controlled dictatorship where individuals lost their economic freedom and their ability to oppose the government.
If you replied the War on Poverty, you answered correctly.
Now it seems we are engaged in a new war: the War on Prosperity. It will last until the American people wake up, take off their rose-colored glasses, and contact their Congressional representatives and tell them: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
The current administration, after examining the proposed budget, is seeking every possible avenue to attack American citizens where it hurts the most: their pocket book.
No, we're not talking about wealthy Americans. We're talking about average Americans who invested their savings and retirement plans in the stock market. Since Mr. Obama's election the market has dropped over 3200 points, and that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the economic attack on average Americans.
Barack Hussein Obama’s National Socialist policies are pure and simple anti-capitalist, anti-free enterprise, anti-democracy, and anti-American.
Despite his avowed claim that taxes are not being raised on 95% of Americans, B.O’s Stimulus (aka Stealth Bill) and his proposed budget refute this claim. Worded deceptively in his Cap and Trade Tax are proposals for a $65 BILLION tax this year on the following forms of energy: electricity, gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil. By 2020, this Cap and Trade Tax will amount to $645 BILLION, meaning our taxes on these will be gargantuan.
Mr. Obama, do not all Americans purchase at least one or two of these forms of energy? Will not the price of these forms of energy include the Cap and Trade Tax you are going to impose?
That’s right. You’re playing the “I gotcha game”. Yes, directly Americans will not pay these taxes. INDIRECTLY, ALL AMERICANS will pay these Cap and Trade Taxes.
Mr. Obama, this is pure deception and an attempt not to level the playing field but to lower the playing field so all Americans will feel beholden to the Federal (National) government.
The National Socialist Party under Hitler followed these same steps in becoming a National Socialist nation. History knows it as NAZI Germany, a government controlled dictatorship where individuals lost their economic freedom and their ability to oppose the government.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Since Inauguration Day
Has anyone noticed that since Obama was inaugurated the stock market has dropped approximately 1150 points?
Is this a resounding negative response to Obama's economic policies?
Don't check your portfolios unless you are prepared for a cardiac shock!
Socialism and nationalism are not what this nation was founded on, and apparently it is not the direction this nation wants to go.
The reality is nothing seems to get through to this new administration. Will protests on the Mall in DC get the message across? Will the Congressional elections in 2010 get the message across?
Is this a resounding negative response to Obama's economic policies?
Don't check your portfolios unless you are prepared for a cardiac shock!
Socialism and nationalism are not what this nation was founded on, and apparently it is not the direction this nation wants to go.
The reality is nothing seems to get through to this new administration. Will protests on the Mall in DC get the message across? Will the Congressional elections in 2010 get the message across?
Friday, December 12, 2008
Disgusting Capitulation
Mr. President,
I am disappointed to learn that you are considering using the TARP funds to bailout the Big Three Auto companies and capitulating to Big Labor and the UAW. What ever happened to capitalism?
Who is going to bailout us, the US taxpayers? Who's going to fight for my two sons and daughter-in-law to keep their professional --not hourly--jobs?
The backs and shoulders of the American people can only endure so much. The Big Three Auto companies should have been doing effective cost cutting and right sizing long ago instead of crawling on all fours and begging. Well, as a taxpayer and as a Republican, I am truly disappointed in this disgusting display of capitulation.
I am disappointed to learn that you are considering using the TARP funds to bailout the Big Three Auto companies and capitulating to Big Labor and the UAW. What ever happened to capitalism?
Who is going to bailout us, the US taxpayers? Who's going to fight for my two sons and daughter-in-law to keep their professional --not hourly--jobs?
The backs and shoulders of the American people can only endure so much. The Big Three Auto companies should have been doing effective cost cutting and right sizing long ago instead of crawling on all fours and begging. Well, as a taxpayer and as a Republican, I am truly disappointed in this disgusting display of capitulation.
Friday, November 07, 2008
What a Disappointment
It is extremely disappointing that Senator McCain has failed to come out publicly in criticism of the idiots on his campaign staff who have pilloried, sabotaged, and maligned Gov. Palin.
John McCain asked us to fight for him, but he refuses to come to the fight for his running mate.
Disgusting, despicable, and disappointing!
John McCain asked us to fight for him, but he refuses to come to the fight for his running mate.
Disgusting, despicable, and disappointing!
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Monday, November 03, 2008
Ego and Mouth
Thomas Sowell
Friday, October 31, 2008
After the big gamble on subprime mortgages that led to the current financial crisis, is there going to be an even bigger gamble, by putting the fate of a nation in the hands of a man whose only qualifications are ego and mouth?
Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else.
Anyone who has actually had to take responsibility for consequences by running any kind of enterprise-- whether economic or academic, or even just managing a sports team-- is likely at some point to be chastened by either the setbacks brought on by his own mistakes or by seeing his successes followed by negative consequences that he never anticipated.
The kind of self-righteous self-confidence that has become Obama's trademark is usually found in sophomores in Ivy League colleges-- very bright and articulate students, utterly untempered by experience in real world.
The signs of Barack Obama's self-centered immaturity are painfully obvious, though ignored by true believers who have poured their hopes into him, and by the media who just want the symbolism and the ideology that Obama represents.
The triumphal tour of world capitals and photo-op meetings with world leaders by someone who, after all, was still merely a candidate, is just one sign of this self-centered immaturity.
"This is our time!" he proclaimed. And "I will change the world." But ultimately this election is not about him, but about the fate of this nation, at a time of both domestic and international peril, with a major financial crisis still unresolved and a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon.
For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of "spreading the wealth," is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries.
The equally casual ease with which Barack Obama has talked about appointing judges on the basis of their empathies with various segments of the population makes a mockery of the very concept of law.
After this man has wrecked the economy and destroyed constitutional law with his judicial appointments, what can he do for an encore? He can cripple the military and gamble America's future on his ability to sit down with enemy nations and talk them out of causing trouble.
Senator Obama's running mate, Senator Joe Biden, has for years shown the same easy-way-out mindset. Senator Biden has for decades opposed strengthening our military forces. In 1991, Biden urged relying on sanctions to get Saddam Hussein's troops out of Kuwait, instead of military force, despite the demonstrated futility of sanctions as a means of undoing an invasion.
People who think Governor Sarah Palin didn't handle some "gotcha" questions well in a couple of interviews show no interest in how she compares to the Democrats' Vice Presidential candidate, Senator Biden.
Joe Biden is much more of the kind of politician the mainstream media like. Not only is he a liberal's liberal, he answers questions far more glibly than Governor Palin--grossly inaccurately in many cases, but glibly.
Moreover, this is a long-standing pattern with Biden. When he was running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination back in 1987, someone in the audience asked him what law school he attended and how well he did.
Flashing his special phony smile, Biden said, "I think I have a much higher IQ than you do." He added, "I went to law school on a full academic scholarship" and "ended up in the top half" of the class.
But Biden did not have a full academic scholarship. Newsweek reported: "He went on a half scholarship based on need. He didn't finish in the 'top half' of his class. He was 76th out of 85."
Add to Obama and Biden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and you have all the ingredients for a historic meltdown. Let us not forget that the Roman Empire did decline and fall, blighting the lives of millions for centuries.
Thomas Sowell is an Black American economist with the Hoover Institute.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, October 27, 2008
If you love America,
If you love America, if you love freedom, if you oppose Socialism, then listen to Obama in his own voice, his own words advocate his belief in theREDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, which is the major tenet of MARXISM.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
BREAKING NEWS: Records Reveal Obama Was A Member Of The Socialist Pary--"New Party"
Excerpt from New Party publication (Courtesy New Zeal blog)
________________________________________
Posted: October 24, 2008
12:50 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
JERUSALEM – Evidence has emerged that Sen. Barack Obama belonged to a socialist political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.
Several blogs, including Powerline, previously documented that while running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the socialist-oriented New Party, with some blogs claiming Obama was a member of the controversial party.
The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party's aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies.
Among New Party members was linguist and radical activist Noam Chomsky.
Obama's campaign has responded to the allegations, denying the presidential candidate was ever a member of the New Party.
But the New Zeal blog dug up print copies of the New Party News, the party's official newspaper, which show Obama posing with New Party leaders, list him as a New Party member and include quotes from him.
The party's Spring 1996 newspaper boasted: "New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). The paper quoted Obama saying "these victories prove that small 'd' democracy can work."
The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.
Barack Obama pictured in New Party publication (Courtesy New Zeal blog)
New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago's Democratic Socialists for America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group's support and "encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration."
Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party's political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a "visible and active relationship" with the party.
The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral "fusion," which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party went defunct in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.
Following the initial reports of Obama's purported membership in the New Party, Obama associate and former Chicago New Party activist Carl Davidson posted a statement on several blogs claiming his former party was not socialist, but he admitted it worked with ACORN.
"[The New Party] was a pragmatic party of 'small d democracy' mainly promoting economic reforms like the living wage and testing the fusion tactic, common in many countries but only operational in New York in the U.S. The main trend within it was ACORN, an Alinskyist outfit, which is hardly Marxist," wrote Davidson.
But the socialist goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.
Among the New Party's stated objectives were "full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal 'social wage' to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity."
The New Party stated it also sought "the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets, community-controlled alternative financial institutions."
Many of the New Party's founding members were Democratic Socialists for America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA. Obama attended several DSA events and meetings, including a DSA-sponsored town hall meeting Feb. 25, 1996, entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America." He sought and received an endorsement from the DSA.
According to DSA documents, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases, has been a point of controversy for Obama over the presidential candidate's ties to the group.
In 1995, the DSA's New Ground newsletter stated, "In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN.
"Like most organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag. On one hand, in Chicago, ACORN is a group that attempts to organize some of the most depressed communities in the city. Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas for new New Party members. On the other hand, like most groups that depend on canvassing for fundraising, it's easy enough to find burned out and disgruntled former employees. And ACORN has not had the reputation for being interested in coalition politics – until recently and, happily, not just within the New Party."
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78945
Friday, October 24, 2008
McCain for President
McCain for President
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 24, 2008;
"Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.
I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.
First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.
McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.
Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.
McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.
Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.
The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.
Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?
There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?
And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.
The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.
Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb."
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 24, 2008;
"Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.
I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.
First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.
McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.
Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.
McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.
Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.
The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.
Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?
There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?
And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.
The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.
Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb."
Monday, October 20, 2008
Proletarianization
The quintessential British historian, Arnold Joseph Toynbee (1889-1975), in the chapter "Schism In The Soul" from his seminal work, A Study of History, “observed that one of the consistent symptoms of disintegration is that the elites begin to imitate those at the bottom of society and succumb to the sickness of proletarianization”.
A historical and sociological observation of the United States reveals that the elites no longer have a code of their own in which they have confidence. Noted sociologist Charles Murray writes, “The code of the gentleman has collapsed. The collapse of the old codes has left a vacuum that has been filled by tenets characterized by a distinctive "thug code" of underclass males, and the world of hip-hop is an expression of that code. Charles Murray then closes with the following statement: "Bill Clinton's presidency, in both its conduct and in the reaction to that conduct, was a paradigmatic example of elites that have been infected by "the sickness of proletarianization".
Moses Hess, compatriot of Karl Marx, urged Marx to adopt the Hegelian idea that the leveling of society should be accomplished through ‘spreading the wealth’. Such a philosophy plays into the proletarianization plan as advocated by Karl Marl in The Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx referred to religion and G-d as the opiate of the people.
Humanism is a Renaissance school of thought that incorporates a broad category of ethical philosophies emphasizing the dignity and worth of all people. Humanism claims to be able to determine right and wrong based on universal human qualities. Rejecting the validity of religious reasoning based on beliefs in G-d, Humanists impugn such texts as merely those of “allegedly divine origin”. Humanism is Ignostic and relishes its status as intellectually superior to persons with religious beliefs. Although Humanists focus on ethical behavior, Humanists simply have no need to be concerned with the existence of G-d.
Combine Humanism with proletarianization and the result is a destruction of society based on religious faith in G-d.
A historical and sociological observation of the United States reveals that the elites no longer have a code of their own in which they have confidence. Noted sociologist Charles Murray writes, “The code of the gentleman has collapsed. The collapse of the old codes has left a vacuum that has been filled by tenets characterized by a distinctive "thug code" of underclass males, and the world of hip-hop is an expression of that code. Charles Murray then closes with the following statement: "Bill Clinton's presidency, in both its conduct and in the reaction to that conduct, was a paradigmatic example of elites that have been infected by "the sickness of proletarianization".
Moses Hess, compatriot of Karl Marx, urged Marx to adopt the Hegelian idea that the leveling of society should be accomplished through ‘spreading the wealth’. Such a philosophy plays into the proletarianization plan as advocated by Karl Marl in The Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx referred to religion and G-d as the opiate of the people.
Humanism is a Renaissance school of thought that incorporates a broad category of ethical philosophies emphasizing the dignity and worth of all people. Humanism claims to be able to determine right and wrong based on universal human qualities. Rejecting the validity of religious reasoning based on beliefs in G-d, Humanists impugn such texts as merely those of “allegedly divine origin”. Humanism is Ignostic and relishes its status as intellectually superior to persons with religious beliefs. Although Humanists focus on ethical behavior, Humanists simply have no need to be concerned with the existence of G-d.
Combine Humanism with proletarianization and the result is a destruction of society based on religious faith in G-d.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Once Upon a Time
Once upon a time in the land of Hard Work and Industry, a voice from THE ONE spoke up with a plan to spread the wealth. Why should some people make more than others?
THE ONE struck up the idea that instead of there being different salaries for teachers, professors, actors, movie directors, movie producers, news anchors, journalists, professional athletes, architects, bankers, mortgage lenders, accountants, secretaries, engineers, maintenance crews, doctors, lawyers, nurses, technicians, sales reps,the President and Congress,all government workers,CEOs,military personnel,etc., everyone would receive the same salary.
Say,$35,000. There would be no exceptions. In fact, we could just send every breathing human in the land of Hard Work and Industry a check for simply being alive!! Whoa, isn't that grand?
In fact, there would be no pay increases because of one's training, skill sets,or seniority. Thus, we wouldn't need schools and colleges. In fact, we wouldn't need jobs. The government could just send everyone an annual check.
Wouldn't this be fantastic? No work! No stress! No hassles! No incentives! No motivation to improve! Wow, what a wonderful life! What a wonderful leader and inspiration is THE ONE!
We would all live happily ever after. Ah, to live in utopia!
THE ONE struck up the idea that instead of there being different salaries for teachers, professors, actors, movie directors, movie producers, news anchors, journalists, professional athletes, architects, bankers, mortgage lenders, accountants, secretaries, engineers, maintenance crews, doctors, lawyers, nurses, technicians, sales reps,the President and Congress,all government workers,CEOs,military personnel,etc., everyone would receive the same salary.
Say,$35,000. There would be no exceptions. In fact, we could just send every breathing human in the land of Hard Work and Industry a check for simply being alive!! Whoa, isn't that grand?
In fact, there would be no pay increases because of one's training, skill sets,or seniority. Thus, we wouldn't need schools and colleges. In fact, we wouldn't need jobs. The government could just send everyone an annual check.
Wouldn't this be fantastic? No work! No stress! No hassles! No incentives! No motivation to improve! Wow, what a wonderful life! What a wonderful leader and inspiration is THE ONE!
We would all live happily ever after. Ah, to live in utopia!
Saturday, October 18, 2008
An Open Letter to Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal
Ms. Noonan, after reading your anathematic diatribe attempting to pass judgment on Governor Sarah Palin, I wanted to tell you that the only true claim to notoriety you have is your famous one line in one speech. Had it not been for Ronald Reagan, you would probably be a "journalist professor" in some obscure liberal socialist institution attempting to pass itself off as Academia.
Your weak attempt to pass as a conservative is without a doubt the most appalling farce I have crossed in sometime. I am a conservative, I know what a conservative stands for, and you, Ms. Noonan are not a conservative.
Intent on impugning Governor Palin for not having an Ivy League education, for not being the pretentious snob that radiates from New York City and the East Coast (by the way, I do live on the East Coast and the pretentiousness of the East Coast is disgusting), Ms. Noonan you just don't get small town America, you just don't get it that most Americans find the East Coast Elitist as pure snobs.
Governor Palin may not be the Foreign Policy Expert that Joe the Senator is suppose to be although he really made some glaring mistakes when he discussed the recent events in the Middle East. Governor Palin is not the socialist Marxist who wants to spread the wealth, which most of the Main Stream Media(that would be you, Ms. Noonan) failed to realize is straight out of Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto.
Governor Palin understands energy independence....you do not. Governor Palin understands caring and loving all children and not aborting them because they are imperfect...you do not. Governor Palin understands middleclass working mothers and fathers raising children without seeking a government handout...you do not. Governor Palin understands what it is like to start a business from scratch, to work multiple jobs in order to provide for your family's well being...you do not.
You and your ilk hate Sarah Palin because she has accomplished more than you have on her own because she wanted it badly enough. She knows what small towns are about. She's one of us. She's not one of you and your ilk, and you'll never understand it. Never. You don't try, and you don't care. Why? We're not in your social elite circle, and quite frankly we would not want to be there either.
Until you have walked in her shoes, then why don't you back off your sanctimonious judgment.
R.K. Wetzel, MA, Phi Beta Kappa
Your weak attempt to pass as a conservative is without a doubt the most appalling farce I have crossed in sometime. I am a conservative, I know what a conservative stands for, and you, Ms. Noonan are not a conservative.
Intent on impugning Governor Palin for not having an Ivy League education, for not being the pretentious snob that radiates from New York City and the East Coast (by the way, I do live on the East Coast and the pretentiousness of the East Coast is disgusting), Ms. Noonan you just don't get small town America, you just don't get it that most Americans find the East Coast Elitist as pure snobs.
Governor Palin may not be the Foreign Policy Expert that Joe the Senator is suppose to be although he really made some glaring mistakes when he discussed the recent events in the Middle East. Governor Palin is not the socialist Marxist who wants to spread the wealth, which most of the Main Stream Media(that would be you, Ms. Noonan) failed to realize is straight out of Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto.
Governor Palin understands energy independence....you do not. Governor Palin understands caring and loving all children and not aborting them because they are imperfect...you do not. Governor Palin understands middleclass working mothers and fathers raising children without seeking a government handout...you do not. Governor Palin understands what it is like to start a business from scratch, to work multiple jobs in order to provide for your family's well being...you do not.
You and your ilk hate Sarah Palin because she has accomplished more than you have on her own because she wanted it badly enough. She knows what small towns are about. She's one of us. She's not one of you and your ilk, and you'll never understand it. Never. You don't try, and you don't care. Why? We're not in your social elite circle, and quite frankly we would not want to be there either.
Until you have walked in her shoes, then why don't you back off your sanctimonious judgment.
R.K. Wetzel, MA, Phi Beta Kappa
Friday, October 17, 2008
Dreams of My Father
The following insightful op-ed by Jack Cashill appeared at AmericanThinker.com on Friday, October 17, 2008, and this op-ed is extremely revealing about Barack H. Obama.
"Evidence Mounts: Ayers Co-Wrote Obama's Dreams
By Jack Cashill
Evidence continues to mount that Barack Obama had substantial help from Bill Ayers in the creation of his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, a book that Time Magazine has called "the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician." The evidence falls into five general categories, here summarized.
The discovery of new matching nautical metaphors from both Ayers and Obama that almost assuredly came from the same source: Ayers, a former merchant seaman.
The discovery of a Bill Ayers' essay on memoir writing, whose postmodern themes and phrases are echoed throughout Dreams.
A newly discovered book chapter from 1990 that shows clearly and painfully the limits of Obama's prose style the year he received a contract to write Dreams.
The revelation by radical Islamicist Rashid Khalidi that Ayers made his "dining room table" available for neighborhood writers who needed help.
A refined timeline that shows Ayers had the means, the motive and the time to help Obama when he needed it most.
The timeline:
A 1990 New York Times profile on Obama's election as the Harvard Law Review's first black president in 1990 caught the eye of agent Jane Dystel. She persuaded Poseidon, a small imprint of Simon & Schuster, to authorize a roughly $125,000 advance for Obama's proposed memoir.
Obama repaired to Chicago with advance in hand and dithered. At one point, in order to finish the book without interruption, he and wife Michelle decamped to Bali. Obama was supposed to have finished the book within a year. Bali or not, advance or no, he could not. Simon & Schuster canceled the contract. His agent hustled him a new, smaller contract.
Ayers published his book "To Teach" in 1993. Between 1993 and 1996, he had no other formal authorial assignment than to co-edit a collection of essays. This was an unusual hole in his very busy publishing career.
Obama's memoir was published in June 1995. Earlier that year, Ayers helped Obama, then a junior lawyer at a minor law firm, get appointed chairman of the multi-million dollar Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant. In the fall of that same year, 1995, Ayers and his wife, Weatherwoman Bernardine Dohrn, helped blaze Obama's path to political power with a fundraiser in their Chicago home.
In short, Ayers had the means, the motive, the time, the place and the literary ability to jumpstart Obama's career. And, as Ayers had to know, a lovely memoir under Obama's belt made for a much better resume than an unfulfilled contract over his head.
Neighborhood assistance:
Allow me to reconstruct how Obama transformed himself into what the New York Times has called "that rare politician who can write . . . and write movingly and genuinely about himself." There is an element of speculation in this, but new evidence continues to narrow the gap between the speculative and the conclusive. One clue comes from an unexpected source, Rashid Khalidi, the radical Arab-American friend of Obama's and reputed ally of the PLO.
In the acknowledgment section of his 2004 book, Resurrecting Empire, Khalidi writes of Ayers, "Bill was particularly generous in letting me use his family's dining room table to do some writing for the project." Khalidi did not need the table. He had one of his own. He needed the help.
Khalidi had spent several years at Chicago University's Center for International Studies. At a 2003 farewell dinner on the occasion of his departure from Chicago, Obama toasted him, thanking him and his wife for the many dinners that they had shared as well as for his "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases."
Chicago's Hyde Park was home to a tight, influential radical community at whose center were Ayers and Dohrn. In this world, the Ayers' terrorist rap sheet only heightened their reputation. Obama had to know. The couple had given up revolution in 1980 for the long slow march through the institutions. By 1994, if not earlier, Ayers saw a way to quicken that march.
I believe that after failing to finish his book on time, and after forfeiting his advance from Simon & Schuster, Obama brought a sprawling, messy, sophomoric manuscript to the famed dining room table of Bill Ayers and said, "Help."
Obama's limited skills:
Obama needed all the help he could get. Prior to 1990, he had written very close to nothing. In 1981 Occidental College published two of Obama's poems-"Pop" and "Underground. Obama calls it some "very bad poetry," and he does not sell himself short. From "Underground":
Under water grottos, caverns
Filled with apes
That eat figs.
Stepping on the figs
That the apes
Eat, they crunch
The apes howl, bare
Their fangs, dance . . .
It would be another decade before Obama had anything in print, and this only an edited, unsigned student case comment in the Harvard Law Review unearthed by Politico. Attorneys who reviewed the piece for Politico described it as "a fairly standard example of the genre."
Once elected president of the Harvard Law Review -- more of a popularity than a literary contest -- Obama contributed not one signed word to the HLR or any other law journal.
In 1990 Obama also contributed an essay to a book published by the University of Illinois at Springfield, an anthology called After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.
Although the essay covers many of the issues raised in Dreams and uses some of the memoir's techniques, it does so without a hint of style, sophistication, or promise. The following two excerpts capture Obama's range or lack thereof:
"Moreover, such approaches can and have become thinly veiled excuses for cutting back on social programs, which are anathema to a conservative agenda."
"But organizing the black community faces enormous problems as well . . . and the urban landscape is littered with the skeletons of previous efforts."
These cliché-choked sentences go beyond the merely unpromising to the fully ungrammatical. "Organizing" does not "face." "Efforts" do not leave "skeletons." "Agendas" do not have "anathemas." Indeed, the essay is clunky, pedestrian, and wonkish, a B- paper in a freshman comp class.
In "Why Organize" Obama makes use of the fully re-created conversation, a technique used to somewhat better effect in Dreams. Here, his ungainly conjuring of black speech makes one cringe:
"I just cannot understand why a bright young man like you would go to college, get that degree and become a community organizer."
"Why's that?"
" 'Cause the pay is low, the hours is long, and don't nobody appreciate you."
To read "Why Organize" in its entirety is to understand the profound limits of Obama's literary talent. I am sure he sensed those limits if no one else did.
Postmodern themes:
Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir Fugitive Days and Obama's Dreams From My Father follow oddly similar rules. Ayers describes his as "a memory book," one that deliberately blurs facts and changes identities and makes no claims at history. Obama says much the same. In Dreams, some characters are composites. Some appear out of precise chronology. Names have been changed.
Dreams and Fugitive Days are both suffused with repeated reference to lies, lying and what Ayers calls "our constructed reality." A serious student of literature, Ayers has written thoughtfully on the role of the first person narrator in the construction of a memoir.
In true postmodernist fashion, he rejects the possibility of an objective, universal truth. He argues instead that our lives are journeys, whose "narratives" we "construct" and, if we have the will and the power, impose on others.
Curiously, Obama says much the same in Dreams and in much the same language. "But another part of me knew that what I was telling them was a lie," writes Obama, "something I'd constructed from the scraps of information I'd picked up from my mother."
The evidence strongly suggests that Ayers transformed the stumbling literalist of "Why Organize" into the sophisticated postmodernist of Dreams, and he did not so not by tutoring Obama, but by rewriting his text. The Ayers' quotes that follow come from an essay of his, "Narrative Push/Narrative Pull." The Obama quotes come from Dreams:
Ayers: "The hallmark of writing in the first person is intimacy. . . . But in narrative the universal is revealed through the specific, the general through the particular, the essence through the unique, and necessity is revealed through contingency."
Obama: "And so what was a more interior, intimate effort on my part, to understand this struggle and to find my place in it, has converged with a broader public debate, a debate in which I am professionally engaged . . . "
Ayers: "Narrative begins with something to say-content precedes form."
Obama: "I understood that I had spent much of my life trying to rewrite these stories, plugging up holes in the narrative . . . "
Ayers: "Narrative inquiry can be a useful corrective to all this."
Obama: "Truth is usually the best corrective."
Ayers: "The mind works in contradiction, and honesty requires the writer to reveal disputes with herself on the page."
Obama: "Not because that past is particularly painful or perverse but because it speaks to those aspects of myself that resist conscious choice and that--on the surface, at least--contradict the world I now occupy."
Ayers: "The reader must actually see the struggle. It's a journey, not by a tourist, but by a pilgrim."
Obama: "But all in all it was an intellectual journey that I imagined for myself, complete with maps and restpoints and a strict itinerary."
Ayers: "Narrative writers strive for a personal signature, but must be aware that the struggle for honesty is constant."
Obama: "I was engaged in a fitful interior struggle. I was trying to raise myself to be a black man in America."
Ayers: "But that intimacy can trap a writer into a defensive crouch, into airing grievances or self-justification."
Obama: "At best, these things were a refuge; at worst, a trap."
Although I cite one example for each, Dreams offers many more. There are ten "trap" references alone and nearly as many for "narrative," "struggle," and "journey." To be sure, there are other postmodernists in Chicago, but few who write as stylishly and as intelligibly as Ayers and fewer who make their dining room tables available to would-be authors of a leftist bent.
The sea metaphors:
A newly discovered anecdote from Bill Ayers' 1993 book, To Teach, solidifies the case that he is indeed the muse behind Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father.
In the book, Ayers tells the story of an adventurous teacher who would take her students out to the streets of New York to learn interesting life lessons about the culture and history of the city. As Ayers tells it, the students were fascinated by the Hudson River nearby and asked to see it. When they got to the river's edge, one student said, " Look, the river is flowing up." A second student said, "No, it has to flow south-down."
Not knowing which was right, the teacher and the students did their research. What they discovered, writes Ayers, was "that the Hudson River is a tidal river, that it flows both north and south, and they had visited the exact spot where the tide stops its northward push."
In his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, Barack Obama shares a stunningly comparable anecdote about tidal rivers from his own brief New York sojourn. He tells of meeting with "Marty Kauffman" at a Lexington Avenue diner, the man from Chicago who was trying to recruit him as a community organizer.
After the meeting, Obama "took the long way home, along the East River promenade." As "a long brown barge rolled through the gray waters toward the sea," Obama sat down on a bench to consider his options. While sitting, he noticed a black woman and her young son against the railing. Overly fond of the too well remembered detail, Obama observes that "they stood side by side, his arm wrapped around her leg, a single silhouette against the twilight."
The boy appeared to ask his mother a question that she could not answer and then approached Obama: "Excuse me, mister," he shouted. "You know why sometimes the river runs that way and then sometimes it goes this way?"
"The woman smiled and shook her head, and I said it probably had to do with the tides." Obama uses the seeming indecisiveness of this tidal river as a metaphor for his own. Immediately afterwards, he shakes the indecision and heads for Chicago.
Even were there no other clues, Obama's frequent and sophisticated use of nautical metaphors like this one makes a powerful case for Ayers' involvement in the writing of Dreams. Despite growing up in Hawaii, Obama gives no indication than he has had any real experience with the sea or ships. Ayers, however, knew a great deal about the sea. After dropping out of college, he took up the life of a merchant seaman.
Although Ayers has tried to put his anxious ocean-going days behind him, the language of the sea will not let him go. "I realized that no one else could ever know this singular experience," Ayers writes of his maritime adventures. Yet curiously, much of this same nautical language flows through Obama's earth-bound memoir.
"Memory sails out upon a murky sea," Ayers writes at one point. Indeed, both he and Obama are obsessed with memory and its instability. The latter writes of its breaks, its blurs, its edges, its lapses. Obama also has a fondness for the word "murky" and its aquatic usages.
"The unlucky ones drift into the murky tide of hustles and odd jobs," he writes, one of four times "murky" appears in Dreams. Ayers and Obama also speak often of waves and wind, Obama at least a dozen times on wind alone. "The wind wipes away my drowsiness, and I feel suddenly exposed," he writes in a typical passage. Both also make conspicuous use of the word "flutter."
Not surprisingly, Ayers uses "ship" as a metaphor with some frequency. Early in the book he tells us that his mother is "the captain of her own ship," not a substantial one either but "a ragged thing with fatal leaks" launched into a "sea of carelessness." Obama too finds himself "feeling like the first mate on a sinking ship." He also makes a metaphorical reference to "a tranquil sea."
More intriguing is Obama's use of the word "ragged" as an adjective as in the highly poetic "ragged air" or "ragged laughter." Both books use "storms" and "horizons" both as metaphor and as reality. Ayers writes poetically of an "unbounded horizon," and Obama writes of "boundless prairie storms" and poetic horizons-"violet horizon," "eastern horizon," "western horizon."
Ayers often speaks of "currents" and "pockets of calm" as does Obama, who uses both as nouns as in "a menacing calm" or "against the current" or "into the current." The metaphorical use of the word "tangled" might also derive from one's nautical adventures. Ayers writes of his "tangled love affairs" and Obama of his "tangled arguments."
In Dreams, we read of the "whole panorama of life out there" and in Fugitive Days, "the whole weird panorama." Ayers writes of still another panorama, this one "an immense panorama of waste and cruelty." Obama employs the word "cruel" and its derivatives no fewer than fourteen times in Dreams.
On at least twelve occasions, Obama speaks of "despair," as in the "ocean of despair." Ayers speaks of a "deepening despair," a constant theme for him as well. Obama's "knotted, howling assertion of self" sounds like something from the pages of Jack London's The Sea Wolf.
My own semi-memoir, Sucker Punch, offers a useful control here too. The book makes no reference at all, metaphorical or otherwise, to ships, seas, oceans, calms, storms, wind, waves, horizons, panoramas, or to things howling, fluttering, knotted, ragged, tangled, or murky. None. And yet I have spent a good chunk of every summer of my life at the ocean.
If there is any one paragraph in Dreams that has convinced me of Ayers' involvement it is this one, in which Obama describes the black nationalist message: "A steady attack on the white race . . . served as the ballast that could prevent the ideas of personal and communal responsibility from tipping into an ocean of despair."
As a writer, especially in the pre-Google era of Dreams, I would never have used a metaphor as specific as "ballast" unless I knew exactly what I was talking about. Seaman Ayers most surely did.
Why this matters: Obama's handlers have "constructed" his persona around his presumably superior intelligence. Bill Buckley's son Christopher, smitten by Obama's literary skills, is among those who have yielded to this imagery and joined the Obama crusade. Even if someone benign had ghostwritten the book it would present a problem for Obama.
The question is often asked why Obama associated with Ayers. The more appropriate question is why the powerful Ayers would associate with the then obscure Obama. Before Obama's ascendancy, it was Ayers who had the connections, the clout, and the street cred. Ayers could also write and write very well. By the mid-1990s he had had several of his books published. What Ayers could never do, however, was run for office on his own.
My suspicion is that Ayers saw the potential in Obama, and chose to mold it. The calculation in Dreams is palpable. Nothing about the book would deny a black Democrat the White House. If it were revealed that the ghostwriter is Ayers, it would suggest that Ayers has played a major role all along in the shaping of Barack Obama. It is unlikely that the McCain camp would have invested so much energy in establishing the Ayers-Obama link if they did not think this was the case.
At the end of the day, the observer is left with only two conclusions: either Barack Obama experienced a quantum surge in his writing skills almost overnight; or someone made a major contribution to the rewriting of his book.
The dispassionate observer has to choose the latter -- the former has no precedent. If he can endure the consequences, he concedes that that contributor had to be Bill Ayers."
"Evidence Mounts: Ayers Co-Wrote Obama's Dreams
By Jack Cashill
Evidence continues to mount that Barack Obama had substantial help from Bill Ayers in the creation of his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, a book that Time Magazine has called "the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician." The evidence falls into five general categories, here summarized.
The discovery of new matching nautical metaphors from both Ayers and Obama that almost assuredly came from the same source: Ayers, a former merchant seaman.
The discovery of a Bill Ayers' essay on memoir writing, whose postmodern themes and phrases are echoed throughout Dreams.
A newly discovered book chapter from 1990 that shows clearly and painfully the limits of Obama's prose style the year he received a contract to write Dreams.
The revelation by radical Islamicist Rashid Khalidi that Ayers made his "dining room table" available for neighborhood writers who needed help.
A refined timeline that shows Ayers had the means, the motive and the time to help Obama when he needed it most.
The timeline:
A 1990 New York Times profile on Obama's election as the Harvard Law Review's first black president in 1990 caught the eye of agent Jane Dystel. She persuaded Poseidon, a small imprint of Simon & Schuster, to authorize a roughly $125,000 advance for Obama's proposed memoir.
Obama repaired to Chicago with advance in hand and dithered. At one point, in order to finish the book without interruption, he and wife Michelle decamped to Bali. Obama was supposed to have finished the book within a year. Bali or not, advance or no, he could not. Simon & Schuster canceled the contract. His agent hustled him a new, smaller contract.
Ayers published his book "To Teach" in 1993. Between 1993 and 1996, he had no other formal authorial assignment than to co-edit a collection of essays. This was an unusual hole in his very busy publishing career.
Obama's memoir was published in June 1995. Earlier that year, Ayers helped Obama, then a junior lawyer at a minor law firm, get appointed chairman of the multi-million dollar Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant. In the fall of that same year, 1995, Ayers and his wife, Weatherwoman Bernardine Dohrn, helped blaze Obama's path to political power with a fundraiser in their Chicago home.
In short, Ayers had the means, the motive, the time, the place and the literary ability to jumpstart Obama's career. And, as Ayers had to know, a lovely memoir under Obama's belt made for a much better resume than an unfulfilled contract over his head.
Neighborhood assistance:
Allow me to reconstruct how Obama transformed himself into what the New York Times has called "that rare politician who can write . . . and write movingly and genuinely about himself." There is an element of speculation in this, but new evidence continues to narrow the gap between the speculative and the conclusive. One clue comes from an unexpected source, Rashid Khalidi, the radical Arab-American friend of Obama's and reputed ally of the PLO.
In the acknowledgment section of his 2004 book, Resurrecting Empire, Khalidi writes of Ayers, "Bill was particularly generous in letting me use his family's dining room table to do some writing for the project." Khalidi did not need the table. He had one of his own. He needed the help.
Khalidi had spent several years at Chicago University's Center for International Studies. At a 2003 farewell dinner on the occasion of his departure from Chicago, Obama toasted him, thanking him and his wife for the many dinners that they had shared as well as for his "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases."
Chicago's Hyde Park was home to a tight, influential radical community at whose center were Ayers and Dohrn. In this world, the Ayers' terrorist rap sheet only heightened their reputation. Obama had to know. The couple had given up revolution in 1980 for the long slow march through the institutions. By 1994, if not earlier, Ayers saw a way to quicken that march.
I believe that after failing to finish his book on time, and after forfeiting his advance from Simon & Schuster, Obama brought a sprawling, messy, sophomoric manuscript to the famed dining room table of Bill Ayers and said, "Help."
Obama's limited skills:
Obama needed all the help he could get. Prior to 1990, he had written very close to nothing. In 1981 Occidental College published two of Obama's poems-"Pop" and "Underground. Obama calls it some "very bad poetry," and he does not sell himself short. From "Underground":
Under water grottos, caverns
Filled with apes
That eat figs.
Stepping on the figs
That the apes
Eat, they crunch
The apes howl, bare
Their fangs, dance . . .
It would be another decade before Obama had anything in print, and this only an edited, unsigned student case comment in the Harvard Law Review unearthed by Politico. Attorneys who reviewed the piece for Politico described it as "a fairly standard example of the genre."
Once elected president of the Harvard Law Review -- more of a popularity than a literary contest -- Obama contributed not one signed word to the HLR or any other law journal.
In 1990 Obama also contributed an essay to a book published by the University of Illinois at Springfield, an anthology called After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.
Although the essay covers many of the issues raised in Dreams and uses some of the memoir's techniques, it does so without a hint of style, sophistication, or promise. The following two excerpts capture Obama's range or lack thereof:
"Moreover, such approaches can and have become thinly veiled excuses for cutting back on social programs, which are anathema to a conservative agenda."
"But organizing the black community faces enormous problems as well . . . and the urban landscape is littered with the skeletons of previous efforts."
These cliché-choked sentences go beyond the merely unpromising to the fully ungrammatical. "Organizing" does not "face." "Efforts" do not leave "skeletons." "Agendas" do not have "anathemas." Indeed, the essay is clunky, pedestrian, and wonkish, a B- paper in a freshman comp class.
In "Why Organize" Obama makes use of the fully re-created conversation, a technique used to somewhat better effect in Dreams. Here, his ungainly conjuring of black speech makes one cringe:
"I just cannot understand why a bright young man like you would go to college, get that degree and become a community organizer."
"Why's that?"
" 'Cause the pay is low, the hours is long, and don't nobody appreciate you."
To read "Why Organize" in its entirety is to understand the profound limits of Obama's literary talent. I am sure he sensed those limits if no one else did.
Postmodern themes:
Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir Fugitive Days and Obama's Dreams From My Father follow oddly similar rules. Ayers describes his as "a memory book," one that deliberately blurs facts and changes identities and makes no claims at history. Obama says much the same. In Dreams, some characters are composites. Some appear out of precise chronology. Names have been changed.
Dreams and Fugitive Days are both suffused with repeated reference to lies, lying and what Ayers calls "our constructed reality." A serious student of literature, Ayers has written thoughtfully on the role of the first person narrator in the construction of a memoir.
In true postmodernist fashion, he rejects the possibility of an objective, universal truth. He argues instead that our lives are journeys, whose "narratives" we "construct" and, if we have the will and the power, impose on others.
Curiously, Obama says much the same in Dreams and in much the same language. "But another part of me knew that what I was telling them was a lie," writes Obama, "something I'd constructed from the scraps of information I'd picked up from my mother."
The evidence strongly suggests that Ayers transformed the stumbling literalist of "Why Organize" into the sophisticated postmodernist of Dreams, and he did not so not by tutoring Obama, but by rewriting his text. The Ayers' quotes that follow come from an essay of his, "Narrative Push/Narrative Pull." The Obama quotes come from Dreams:
Ayers: "The hallmark of writing in the first person is intimacy. . . . But in narrative the universal is revealed through the specific, the general through the particular, the essence through the unique, and necessity is revealed through contingency."
Obama: "And so what was a more interior, intimate effort on my part, to understand this struggle and to find my place in it, has converged with a broader public debate, a debate in which I am professionally engaged . . . "
Ayers: "Narrative begins with something to say-content precedes form."
Obama: "I understood that I had spent much of my life trying to rewrite these stories, plugging up holes in the narrative . . . "
Ayers: "Narrative inquiry can be a useful corrective to all this."
Obama: "Truth is usually the best corrective."
Ayers: "The mind works in contradiction, and honesty requires the writer to reveal disputes with herself on the page."
Obama: "Not because that past is particularly painful or perverse but because it speaks to those aspects of myself that resist conscious choice and that--on the surface, at least--contradict the world I now occupy."
Ayers: "The reader must actually see the struggle. It's a journey, not by a tourist, but by a pilgrim."
Obama: "But all in all it was an intellectual journey that I imagined for myself, complete with maps and restpoints and a strict itinerary."
Ayers: "Narrative writers strive for a personal signature, but must be aware that the struggle for honesty is constant."
Obama: "I was engaged in a fitful interior struggle. I was trying to raise myself to be a black man in America."
Ayers: "But that intimacy can trap a writer into a defensive crouch, into airing grievances or self-justification."
Obama: "At best, these things were a refuge; at worst, a trap."
Although I cite one example for each, Dreams offers many more. There are ten "trap" references alone and nearly as many for "narrative," "struggle," and "journey." To be sure, there are other postmodernists in Chicago, but few who write as stylishly and as intelligibly as Ayers and fewer who make their dining room tables available to would-be authors of a leftist bent.
The sea metaphors:
A newly discovered anecdote from Bill Ayers' 1993 book, To Teach, solidifies the case that he is indeed the muse behind Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father.
In the book, Ayers tells the story of an adventurous teacher who would take her students out to the streets of New York to learn interesting life lessons about the culture and history of the city. As Ayers tells it, the students were fascinated by the Hudson River nearby and asked to see it. When they got to the river's edge, one student said, " Look, the river is flowing up." A second student said, "No, it has to flow south-down."
Not knowing which was right, the teacher and the students did their research. What they discovered, writes Ayers, was "that the Hudson River is a tidal river, that it flows both north and south, and they had visited the exact spot where the tide stops its northward push."
In his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, Barack Obama shares a stunningly comparable anecdote about tidal rivers from his own brief New York sojourn. He tells of meeting with "Marty Kauffman" at a Lexington Avenue diner, the man from Chicago who was trying to recruit him as a community organizer.
After the meeting, Obama "took the long way home, along the East River promenade." As "a long brown barge rolled through the gray waters toward the sea," Obama sat down on a bench to consider his options. While sitting, he noticed a black woman and her young son against the railing. Overly fond of the too well remembered detail, Obama observes that "they stood side by side, his arm wrapped around her leg, a single silhouette against the twilight."
The boy appeared to ask his mother a question that she could not answer and then approached Obama: "Excuse me, mister," he shouted. "You know why sometimes the river runs that way and then sometimes it goes this way?"
"The woman smiled and shook her head, and I said it probably had to do with the tides." Obama uses the seeming indecisiveness of this tidal river as a metaphor for his own. Immediately afterwards, he shakes the indecision and heads for Chicago.
Even were there no other clues, Obama's frequent and sophisticated use of nautical metaphors like this one makes a powerful case for Ayers' involvement in the writing of Dreams. Despite growing up in Hawaii, Obama gives no indication than he has had any real experience with the sea or ships. Ayers, however, knew a great deal about the sea. After dropping out of college, he took up the life of a merchant seaman.
Although Ayers has tried to put his anxious ocean-going days behind him, the language of the sea will not let him go. "I realized that no one else could ever know this singular experience," Ayers writes of his maritime adventures. Yet curiously, much of this same nautical language flows through Obama's earth-bound memoir.
"Memory sails out upon a murky sea," Ayers writes at one point. Indeed, both he and Obama are obsessed with memory and its instability. The latter writes of its breaks, its blurs, its edges, its lapses. Obama also has a fondness for the word "murky" and its aquatic usages.
"The unlucky ones drift into the murky tide of hustles and odd jobs," he writes, one of four times "murky" appears in Dreams. Ayers and Obama also speak often of waves and wind, Obama at least a dozen times on wind alone. "The wind wipes away my drowsiness, and I feel suddenly exposed," he writes in a typical passage. Both also make conspicuous use of the word "flutter."
Not surprisingly, Ayers uses "ship" as a metaphor with some frequency. Early in the book he tells us that his mother is "the captain of her own ship," not a substantial one either but "a ragged thing with fatal leaks" launched into a "sea of carelessness." Obama too finds himself "feeling like the first mate on a sinking ship." He also makes a metaphorical reference to "a tranquil sea."
More intriguing is Obama's use of the word "ragged" as an adjective as in the highly poetic "ragged air" or "ragged laughter." Both books use "storms" and "horizons" both as metaphor and as reality. Ayers writes poetically of an "unbounded horizon," and Obama writes of "boundless prairie storms" and poetic horizons-"violet horizon," "eastern horizon," "western horizon."
Ayers often speaks of "currents" and "pockets of calm" as does Obama, who uses both as nouns as in "a menacing calm" or "against the current" or "into the current." The metaphorical use of the word "tangled" might also derive from one's nautical adventures. Ayers writes of his "tangled love affairs" and Obama of his "tangled arguments."
In Dreams, we read of the "whole panorama of life out there" and in Fugitive Days, "the whole weird panorama." Ayers writes of still another panorama, this one "an immense panorama of waste and cruelty." Obama employs the word "cruel" and its derivatives no fewer than fourteen times in Dreams.
On at least twelve occasions, Obama speaks of "despair," as in the "ocean of despair." Ayers speaks of a "deepening despair," a constant theme for him as well. Obama's "knotted, howling assertion of self" sounds like something from the pages of Jack London's The Sea Wolf.
My own semi-memoir, Sucker Punch, offers a useful control here too. The book makes no reference at all, metaphorical or otherwise, to ships, seas, oceans, calms, storms, wind, waves, horizons, panoramas, or to things howling, fluttering, knotted, ragged, tangled, or murky. None. And yet I have spent a good chunk of every summer of my life at the ocean.
If there is any one paragraph in Dreams that has convinced me of Ayers' involvement it is this one, in which Obama describes the black nationalist message: "A steady attack on the white race . . . served as the ballast that could prevent the ideas of personal and communal responsibility from tipping into an ocean of despair."
As a writer, especially in the pre-Google era of Dreams, I would never have used a metaphor as specific as "ballast" unless I knew exactly what I was talking about. Seaman Ayers most surely did.
Why this matters: Obama's handlers have "constructed" his persona around his presumably superior intelligence. Bill Buckley's son Christopher, smitten by Obama's literary skills, is among those who have yielded to this imagery and joined the Obama crusade. Even if someone benign had ghostwritten the book it would present a problem for Obama.
The question is often asked why Obama associated with Ayers. The more appropriate question is why the powerful Ayers would associate with the then obscure Obama. Before Obama's ascendancy, it was Ayers who had the connections, the clout, and the street cred. Ayers could also write and write very well. By the mid-1990s he had had several of his books published. What Ayers could never do, however, was run for office on his own.
My suspicion is that Ayers saw the potential in Obama, and chose to mold it. The calculation in Dreams is palpable. Nothing about the book would deny a black Democrat the White House. If it were revealed that the ghostwriter is Ayers, it would suggest that Ayers has played a major role all along in the shaping of Barack Obama. It is unlikely that the McCain camp would have invested so much energy in establishing the Ayers-Obama link if they did not think this was the case.
At the end of the day, the observer is left with only two conclusions: either Barack Obama experienced a quantum surge in his writing skills almost overnight; or someone made a major contribution to the rewriting of his book.
The dispassionate observer has to choose the latter -- the former has no precedent. If he can endure the consequences, he concedes that that contributor had to be Bill Ayers."
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Obama Told Ohio Plumber: I Will Spread the Wealth
If ever a US presidential candidate took a page and quote directly from the father of Communism, Karl Marx, it is Barack H. Obama.
At an Ohio rally, Obama told a struggling businessman, my goal is to spread the wealth from those who have to those who do not have. Read Obama's Remarks
In 1848 in his book,The Communist Manifesto,Karl Marx proposed the Class Struggle Theory in which he called for taking from those who have and giving to those who do not have. To Marx it did not matter if those who did not have were making any efforts to work or not. Marx played the class warfare card.
Look at Obama ads. Listen to his words. Obama is playing the Class Warfare Card. His words and his actions are divisive, yet he claims he is the uniter.
Then there are those who will cheer and say, take it from the wealthy. There is no magic price tag on wealth. Obama has miraculously chosen those making $250,000 income. The truth is that those making $250,000 a year are not wealthy. The wealthy such as the Kennedy clan, the Roosevelts, the Hollywood stars (who incidentally got a tax break in the Bailout plan), don't pay taxes like you and me. Their money is in offshore accounts and Swiss accounts so their money isn't treated as simple income.
When Obama finds that the tax increase on people making $250,000 isn't going to pay for all his Trillion Dollar increase in the budget, when will he lower that $250,000 to say $40,000? He brags he is going to raise the capital gains tax on businesses. What a lie! Capital gains taxes on not levied on businesses...they are levied on anyone who has any kind of investment: savings, Roth IRAs, IRAs, 401ks, stocks, mutuals. If you are short on cash and decide to cash in your investments, guess what? You will pay Obama's new capital gains tax.
Come on folks, think! Are you going to let this man's class warfare tactic sucker you in like the folks in 1917 in Russia who bought into that nightmare?
At an Ohio rally, Obama told a struggling businessman, my goal is to spread the wealth from those who have to those who do not have. Read Obama's Remarks
In 1848 in his book,The Communist Manifesto,Karl Marx proposed the Class Struggle Theory in which he called for taking from those who have and giving to those who do not have. To Marx it did not matter if those who did not have were making any efforts to work or not. Marx played the class warfare card.
Look at Obama ads. Listen to his words. Obama is playing the Class Warfare Card. His words and his actions are divisive, yet he claims he is the uniter.
Then there are those who will cheer and say, take it from the wealthy. There is no magic price tag on wealth. Obama has miraculously chosen those making $250,000 income. The truth is that those making $250,000 a year are not wealthy. The wealthy such as the Kennedy clan, the Roosevelts, the Hollywood stars (who incidentally got a tax break in the Bailout plan), don't pay taxes like you and me. Their money is in offshore accounts and Swiss accounts so their money isn't treated as simple income.
When Obama finds that the tax increase on people making $250,000 isn't going to pay for all his Trillion Dollar increase in the budget, when will he lower that $250,000 to say $40,000? He brags he is going to raise the capital gains tax on businesses. What a lie! Capital gains taxes on not levied on businesses...they are levied on anyone who has any kind of investment: savings, Roth IRAs, IRAs, 401ks, stocks, mutuals. If you are short on cash and decide to cash in your investments, guess what? You will pay Obama's new capital gains tax.
Come on folks, think! Are you going to let this man's class warfare tactic sucker you in like the folks in 1917 in Russia who bought into that nightmare?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
