If you would like to add a comment to any of the threads here on AADB, registration with blogspot.com is not required. Simply click on the ‘comments’ link at the bottom of an essay, and either enter a nickname under ‘choose an identity’ or post your comment anonymously. Serious comments are always welcome.


Below are the two final essays to be posted on Allegiance and Duty Betrayed. The first one is written by a friend -- screen name 'Euro-American Scum' -- who, over the past four years, has been the most faithful essayist here. He has written about everything from his pilgrimage to Normandy in 2004 to take part in the 60th–year commemoration of the invasion, to his memories of his tour in Vietnam. His dedication to America’s founding principles ... and those who have sacrificed to preserve them over the past 200+ years ... is unequaled. Thank you, E-A-S. It has been a privilege to include your writing here, and it is a privilege to call you my friend.

The second essay is my own farewell. And with it I thank all of the many regular visitors, and those who may have only dropped in occasionally, for coming here. I hope you learned something. I hope a seed or two was planted. But, even if not, I thank you for stopping by ... 25 March, 2010


Barack Obama and the
Strategy of Manufactured Crisis


What follows is the longest article that has ever appeared on this weblog. With that said, I urge every reader to read and absorb every word. I do not believe there is any piece of writing out there, capable of being read in one short sitting, that better puts into perspective the state of our republic, economically, socially and politically -- and correctly addresses the wicked reasons for the decay and corruption. If you read nothing of personal gravity this year, read this.

At this stage, I do not even know whether there is any recourse for the 'average American'. But it would do us all well to know where we stand, what it appears the future will hold for us all, and why.

Mr. Simpson is willing to stick his head above the crowd in order to educate the electorate. Yet, today, anyone who musters the courage to do so is considered a conspiracy theorist by ninety-nine percent of his fellow citizens.


Because the truth has been so effectively buried by the mainstream media, and political rhetoric that also seeks to hide that truth has been honed to a virtual artform.

Combine the media's virtually unbridled power, and the covert agenda of many of our 'leaders', with the general apathy and ignorance of the populace and you paint a portrait of a socialist/Marxist steamroller, gaining huge momentum, with virtually nothing of significance standing in its way.

When I picture that small handful of Americans, such as Mr. Simpson, attempting to awaken their countrymen to the true nature of this (and past, and future) debacle(s), I picture something akin to that lone Chinese student standing in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square back in 1989.


Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

by Jim Simpson

America waits with bated breath while Washington struggles to bring the U.S. economy back from the brink of disaster. But many of those same politicians caused the crisis, and if left to their own devices will do so again.

Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama's connections to his radical mentors -- Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama's radical connections since the beginning.

Yet, no one to my knowledge has yet connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama's life comprise a who's who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.

But even this doesn't fully describe the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis

In an earlier post, I noted the liberal record of unmitigated legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress - with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?


One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.

I submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent - the failure is deliberate. Don't laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation's wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of "crisis" they were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

    1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.

    2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.

    3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.
Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their "rights." According to a City Journal article by Sol Stern, welfare rolls increased from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s as a result, and in New York City, where the strategy had been particularly successful, "one person was on the welfare rolls... for every two working in the city's private economy."

According to another City Journal article titled "Compassion Gone Mad":

The movement's impact on New York City was jolting: welfare caseloads, already climbing 12 percent a year in the early sixties, rose by 50 percent during Lindsay's first two years; spending doubled... The city had 150,000 welfare cases in 1960; a decade later it had 1.5 million.

The vast expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO's Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975. Rudy Giuliani cited Cloward and Piven by name as being responsible for "an effort at economic sabotage." He also credited Cloward-Piven with changing the cultural attitude toward welfare from that of a temporary expedient to a lifetime entitlement, an attitude which in-and-of-itself has caused perhaps the greatest damage of all.

Cloward and Piven looked at this strategy as a gold mine of opportunity. Within the newly organized groups, each offensive would find an ample pool of foot soldier recruits willing to advance its radical agenda at little or no pay, and expand its base of reliable voters, legal or otherwise. The radicals' threatening tactics also would accrue an intimidating reputation, providing a wealth of opportunities for extorting monetary and other concessions from the target organizations. In the meantime, successful offensives would create an ever increasing drag on society. As they gleefully observed:

Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.

The next time you drive through one of the many blighted neighborhoods in our cities, or read of the astronomical crime, drug addiction, and out-of-wedlock birth rates, or consider the failed schools, strapped police and fire resources of every major city, remember Cloward and Piven's thrill that "...the drain on local resources persists indefinitely."

ACORN, the new tip of the Cloward-Piven spear

In 1970, one of George Wiley's protégés, Wade Rathke -- like Bill Ayers, a member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) -- was sent to found the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now. While NWRO had made a good start, it alone couldn't accomplish the Cloward-Piven goals. Rathke's group broadened the offensive to include a wide array of low income "rights." Shortly thereafter they changed "Arkansas" to "Association of" and ACORN went nationwide.

Today ACORN is involved in a wide array of activities, including housing, voting rights, illegal immigration and other issues. According to ACORN's website: "ACORN is the nation's largest grassroots community organization of low-and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country," It is perhaps the largest radical group in the U.S. and has been cited for widespread criminal activity on many fronts.


On voting rights, ACORN and its voter mobilization subsidiary, Project Vote, have been involved nationwide in efforts to grant felons the vote and lobbied heavily for the Motor Voter Act of 1993, a law allowing people to register at motor vehicle departments, schools, libraries and other public places. That law had been sought by Cloward and Piven since the early1980s and they were present, standing behind President Clinton at the signing ceremony.

ACORN's voter rights tactics follow the Cloward-Piven Strategy:

    1. Register as many Democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them vote, multiple times if possible.

    2. Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of deceased, random names from the phone book, even contrived names.

    3. Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards.
In this effort, ACORN sets up registration sites all over the country and has been frequently cited for turning in fraudulent registrations, as well as destroying republican applications. In the 2004-2006 election cycles alone, ACORN was accused of widespread voter fraud in 12 states. It may have swung the election for one state governor.

ACORN's website brags: "Since 2004, ACORN has helped more than 1.7 million low- and moderate-income and minority citizens apply to register to vote." Project vote boasts 4 million. I wonder how many of them are dead? For the 2008 cycle, ACORN and Project Vote have pulled out all the stops. Given their furious nationwide effort, it is not inconceivable that this presidential race could be decided by fraudulent votes alone.

Barack Obama ran ACORN's Project Vote in Chicago and his highly successful voter registration drive was credited with getting the disgraced former Senator Carol Moseley-Braun elected. Newsmax reiterates Cloward and Piven's aspirations for ACORN's voter registration efforts:

By advocating massive, no-holds-barred voter registration campaigns, they [Cloward & Piven] sought a Democratic administration in Washington, D.C. that would re-distribute the nation's wealth and lead to a totalitarian socialist state.

Illegal Immigration

As I have written elsewhere, the Radical Left's offensive to promote illegal immigration is "Cloward-Piven on steroids." ACORN is at the forefront of this movement as well, and was a leading organization among a broad coalition of radical groups, including Soros' Open Society Institute, the Service Employees International Union (ACORN founder Wade Rathke also runs a SEIU chapter), and others, that became the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. CCIR fortunately failed to gain passage for the 2007 illegal immigrant amnesty bill, but its goals have not changed.

The burden of illegal immigration on our already overstressed welfare system has been widely documented. Some towns in California have even been taken over by illegal immigrant drug cartels. The disease, crime and overcrowding brought by illegal immigrants places a heavy burden on every segment of society and every level of government, threatening to split this country apart at the seams. In the meantime, radical leftist efforts to grant illegal immigrants citizenship guarantee a huge pool of new democrat voters. With little border control, terrorists can also filter in.

Obama aided ACORN as their lead attorney in a successful suit he brought against the Illinois state government to implement the Motor Voter law there. The law had been resisted by Republican Governor Jim Edgars, who feared the law was an opening to widespread vote fraud.

His fears were warranted as the Motor Voter law has since been cited as a major opportunity for vote fraud, especially for illegal immigrants, even terrorists. According to the Wall Street Journal: "After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote..."

ACORN's dual offensives on voting and illegal immigration are handy complements. Both swell the voter rolls with reliable democrats while assaulting the country ACORN seeks to destroy with overwhelming new problems.

Mortgage Crisis

And now we have the mortgage crisis, which has sent a shock wave through Wall Street and panicked world financial markets like no other since the stock market crash of 1929. But this is a problem created in Washington long ago. It originated with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), signed into law in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA was Carter's answer to a grassroots activist movement started in Chicago, and forced banks to make loans to low income, high risk customers. PhD economist and former Texas Senator Phil Gramm has called it: "a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks."

ACORN aggressively sought to expand loans to low income groups using the CRA as a whip. Economist Stan Leibowitz wrote in the New York Post:

In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of "redlining"-claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.

In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications-but the overwhelming reason wasn't racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.

ACORN showed its colors again in 1991, by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. Obama represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively.

As a New York Post article describes it:

A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.

Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with "100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don't report it on your tax returns." Credit counseling is required, of course.

Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." That lender's $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.

The lender they were speaking of was Countrywide, which specialized in subprime lending and had a working relationship with ACORN.

Investor's Business Daily added:

The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical "housing rights" groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama. (Emphasis, mine.)

Since these loans were to be underwritten by the government sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the implicit government guarantee of those loans absolved lenders, mortgage bundlers and investors of any concern over the obvious risk. As Bloomberg reported: "It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit."

And if you think Washington policy makers cared about ACORN's negative influence, think again. Before this whole mess came down, a Democrat-sponsored bill on the table would have created an "Affordable Housing Trust Fund," granting ACORN access to approximately $500 million in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac revenues with little or no oversight.

Even now, unbelievably -- on the brink of national disaster -- Democrats have insisted ACORN benefit from bailout negotiations! Senator Lindsay Graham reported last night (9/25/08) in an interview with Greta Van Susteren of On the Record that Democrats want 20 percent of the bailout money to go to ACORN!

This entire fiasco represents perhaps the pinnacle of ACORN's efforts to advance the Cloward-Piven Strategy and is a stark demonstration of the power they wield in Washington.

Enter Barack Obama

Obama Flow Chart.jpg

In attempting to capture the significance of Barack Obama's Radical Left connections and his relation to the Cloward Piven strategy, I constructed following flow chart. It is by no means complete. There are simply too many radical individuals and organizations to include them all here. But these are perhaps the most significant.

The chart puts Barack Obama at the epicenter of an incestuous stew of American radical leftism. Not only are his connections significant, they practically define who he is. Taken together, they constitute a who's who of the American radical left, and guiding all is the Cloward-Piven strategy.

Conspicuous in their absence are any connections at all with any other group, moderate, or even mildly leftist. They are all radicals, firmly bedded in the anti-American, communist, socialist, radical leftist mesh.

Saul Alinsky

Most people are unaware that Barack Obama received his training in "community organizing" from Saul Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. But he did. In and of itself that marks his heritage and training as that of a radical activist. One really needs go no further. But we have.

Bill Ayers

Obama objects to being associated with SDS bomber Bill Ayers, claiming he is being smeared with "guilt by association." But they worked together at the Woods Fund. The Wall Street Journal added substantially to our knowledge by describing in great detail Obama's work over five years with SDS bomber Bill Ayers on the board of a non-profit, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, to push a radical agenda on public school children. As Stanley Kurtz states:

"...the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago."

Also included in the mix is Theresa Heinz Kerry's favorite charity, the Tides Foundation. A partial list of Tides grants tells you all you need to know: ACLU, ACORN, Center for American Progress, Center for Constitutional Rights (a communist front,) CAIR, Earth Justice, Institute for Policy Studies (KGB spy nest), National Lawyers Guild (oldest communist front in U.S.), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and practically every other radical group there is. ACORN's Wade Rathke runs a Tides subsidiary, the Tides Center.

Carl Davidson and the New Party

We have heard about Bomber Bill, but we hear little about fellow SDS member Carl Davidson. According to Discover the Networks, Davidson was an early supporter of Barack Obama and a prominent member of Chicago's New Party, a synthesis of CPUSA members, Socialists, ACORN veterans and other radicals. Obama sought and received the New Party's endorsement, and they assisted with his campaign. The New Party also developed a strong relationship with ACORN. As an excellent article on the New Party observes: "Barack Obama knew what he was getting into and remains an ideal New Party candidate."

George Soros

The chart also suggests the reason for George Soros' fervent support of Obama. The President of his Open Society Institute is Aryeh Neier, founder of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). As mentioned above, three other former SDS members had extensive contact with Obama: Bill Ayers, Carl Davidson and Wade Rathke. Surely Aryeh Neier would have heard from his former colleagues of the promising new politician. More to the point, Neier is firmly committed to supporting the hugely successful radical organization, ACORN, and would be certain to back their favored candidate, Barack Obama.


Obama has spent a large portion of his professional life working for ACORN or its subsidiaries, representing ACORN as a lawyer on some of its most critical issues, and training ACORN leaders. Stanley Kurtz's excellent National Review article, "Inside Obama's Acorn." also describes Obama's ACORN connection in detail. But I can't improve on Obama's own words:

I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career (emphasis added). Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work. - Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007 (Courtesy Newsmax.)

In another excellent article on Obama's ACORN connections, Newsmax asks a nagging question:

It would be telling to know if Obama, during his years at Columbia, had occasion to meet Cloward and study the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

I ask you, is it possible ACORN would train Obama to take leadership positions within ACORN without telling him what he was training for? Is it possible ACORN would put Obama in leadership positions without clueing him into what his purpose was?? Is it possible that this most radical of organizations would put someone in charge of training its trainers, without him knowing what it was he was training them for?

As a community activist for ACORN; as a leadership trainer for ACORN; as a lead organizer for ACORN's Project Vote; as an attorney representing ACORN's successful efforts to impose Motor Voter regulations in Illinois; as ACORN's representative in lobbying for the expansion of high risk housing loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to the current crisis; as a recipient of their assistance in his political campaigns -- both with money and campaign workers; it is doubtful that he was unaware of ACORN's true goals. It is doubtful he was unaware of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

Fast-forward to 2005 when an obsequious, servile and scraping Daniel Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae spoke at the Congressional Black Caucus swearing in ceremony for newly-elected Illinois Senator, Barack Obama. Mudd called, the Congressional Black Caucus "our family" and "the conscience of Fannie Mae."

In 2005, Republicans sought to rein in Fannie and Freddie. Senator John McCain was at the forefront of that effort. But it failed due to an intense lobbying effort put forward by Fannie and Freddie.

In his few years as a U.S. senator, Obama has received campaign contributions of $126,349, from Fannie and Freddie, second only to the $165,400 received by Senator Chris Dodd, who has been getting donations from them since 1988. What makes Obama so special?

His closest advisers are a dirty laundry list of individuals at the heart of the financial crisis: former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson; Former Fannie Mae CEO and former Clinton Budget Director Frank Raines; and billionaire failed Superior Bank of Chicago Board Chair Penny Pritzker.

Johnson had to step down as adviser on Obama's V.P. search after this gem came out:

An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report[1] from September 2004 found that, during Johnson's tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998.[2] A 2006 OFHEO report[3] found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson's compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million.

Obama denies ties to Raines but the Washington Post calls him a member of "Obama's political circle." Raines and Johnson were fined $3 million by the Office of Federal Housing Oversight for their manipulation of Fannie books. The fine is small change however, compared to the $50 million Raines was able to obtain in improper bonuses as a result of juggling the books.

Most significantly, Penny Pritzker, the current Finance Chairperson of Obama's presidential campaign helped develop the complicated investment bundling of subprime securities at the heart of the meltdown. She did so in her position as shareholder and board chair of Superior Bank. The Bank failed in 2001, one of the largest in recent history, wiping out $50 million in uninsured life savings of approximately 1,400 customers. She was named in a RICO class action law suit but doesn't seem to have come out of it too badly.

As a young attorney in the 1990s, Barack Obama represented ACORN in Washington in their successful efforts to expand Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) authority. In addition to making it easier for ACORN groups to force banks into making risky loans, this also paved the way for banks like Superior to package mortgages as investments, and for the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite them. These changes created the conditions that ultimately lead to the current financial crisis.

Did they not know this would occur? Were these smart people, led by a Harvard graduate, unaware of the Econ 101 concept of moral hazard that would result from the government making implicit guarantees to underwrite private sector financial risk? They should have known that freeing the high-risk mortgage market of risk, calamity was sure to ensue. I think they did.

Barack Obama, the Cloward-Piven candidate, no matter how he describes himself, has been a radical activist for most of his political career. That activism has been in support of organizations and initiatives that at their heart seek to tear the pillars of this nation asunder in order to replace them with their demented socialist vision. Their influence has spread so far and so wide that despite their blatant culpability in the current financial crisis, they are able to manipulate Capital Hill politicians to cut them into $140 billion of the bailout pie!

God grant those few responsible yet remaining in Washington, DC the strength to prevent this massive fraud from occurring. God grant them the courage to stand up in the face of this Marxist tidal wave.


Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst. His writings have been published in American Thinker, Washington Times, FrontPage Magazine, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune and others. His blog is Truth and Consequences.

Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis


daveburkett said...

Jesus. This is horrifying. Give me some time to digest it.

robmaroni said...

At this stage, I do not even know whether there is any recourse for the 'average American'. But it would do us all well to know where we stand, what it appears the future will hold for us all, and why....joanie


God grant those few responsible yet remaining in Washington, DC the strength to prevent this massive fraud from occurring. God grant them the courage to stand up in the face of this Marxist tidal wave....Simpson

True also.

Thank you Joanie.

smithy said...

This guy really did his homework. No one can accuse him of not listing his resources.

I basically knew most of this, but when it's concentrated in one place it really comes together more clearly.

Scary stuff, and it leaves us with a sense that we've lost every ounce of our power.

Anonymous said...

Obama is a pathological liar and the media lets him get away with it.

He only knew Ayers as "a man in the neighborhood," for one thing.

The media should be all over that, and a million other lies.

Brad Zimmerman said...

From Gramsci's "Prison Notebooks":

Steps to bring the West to Marxism (paraphrased):

1. Make churches social/political organizations

2. Have the media demean and discredit traditional institutions and their leadership

3. Dumb down public education with politically correct curricula

4. Ridicule virtue and morality

5. Destroy marriage and the family, and create chaos in the social order

6. Replace real heroes with morally degenerate role models for the youth to follow

Is there any one of the six that isn’t already well on its way to being accomplished?

marcus aurelius said...

The Tiananmen Square analogy is a good one. We grow smaller by the day, and those tanks grow larger.

Simpson did a great job of documenting all his claims. What an excellent piece of focused research.

Anonymous said...

<< Mr. Simpson is willing to stick his head above the crowd in order to educate the electorate. Yet, today, anyone who musters the courage to do so is considered a conspiracy theorist by ninety-nine percent of his fellow citizens. >>

Absolutely right. There are no conservative messengers who can explain this situation to the public in a way that wouldn't be portrayed by the mainstream media as a return to McCarthyism, because we have at least two generations of voters who have no grasp of historical precedent.

arlene albrecht said...

I had to turn the news off tonight when Obama was on talking about how the charges of massive voter fraud against ACORN are merely "voter suppression efforts" by the Republicans.

The man is evil.

danthemangottschall said...

Obama has been "cultivated" for the Presidency for a very long time and most Americans don't even know who his puppetmasters are.

First_Salute said...

Ever notice how all the left-wing-nuts protesting that voters will be intimidated from voting, if they have to produce a photo ID generated by their country election board?

That claim by the left, is pure hogwash.

Nobody is intimidated, and furthermore, to make a claim that our Constitution prohibits all voting when even 1 person might be intimidated, is to also claim that ALL PERSONS MUST VOTE.

In fact, how the voting is to be accomplished and how thorough we are to be at the job, was left to us.

So, we have the spineless "RINO's" on the right and the Stalinist left-wing-nuts who will neither produce an honest and secure system, though both will embrace any opportunity of declaring their vigorous support for "bi-partisanship."

Which has proven to be INTIMIDATING because that is the purpose of "bi-partisanship" - to frustrate the actual, honestly administered poll of the people.

If you object to a photo ID as voter registration ID, you are a "bi-partisan."

Me, I'll remain loyal to General Washington, my father and mother, my few friends who will stand and fight.

Stand up.


First_Salute said...

Full U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld an earlier ruling --- the State of Ohio must set up a system by this Friday, in order to verify any new voter's eligibility.


cw-patriot said...


Your list makes me cringe.

Alinsky's beliefs and teachings were not based on violent revolution, as were Stalin's, but on the newer Marxist strategies of Gramsci. So Obama is much more a student of the latter, channeled through Alinsky.

Thanks for the great reminder.

cw-patriot said...

I second your reference to McCarthyism, 'anonymous'.

The fear of bringing in such accusations, as well as the fear of being called 'racist', has to explain at least a portion of McCain's (and his supporters') refusal to hammer away at all of these important, meaningful dark connections.

Thanks for the excellent insights.

~ joanie

cw-patriot said...

Great commentary, First_Salute! Especially your call to ‘Stand up!’

Rick and I have proposed a semi-tongue-in-cheek (but less so than we’d like to admit) set of rules for voting.

In order to get to the polling place, Americans should be required to walk ten miles, each way, both ways uphill, in the middle of winter, through a blinding snowstorm, while dodging sniper fire … and only after passing a civics/history test.

… which is why we are completely against ‘Get Out the Vote!’ drives. Anyone who has to be cajoled into voting shouldn’t be doing so in the first place.

For a hair-raising look at a couple of Obama supporters who would never pass our suggested test, take a gander at this:

Obama Supporters in Harlem

~ joanie

john galt said...

The truth is sometimes brutal. The hidden truths in this election are the most brutal in our lifetimes.

The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it....Ayn Rand

paul Nicholas said...

Video of Obama campaigning for his 'cousin' (not verified) Odinga -- the 'agent of (violent) change' in Kenya:


no_way_a_liberal said...

From The Patriot Post
Patriot Vol. 08 No. 41 Digest | 10 October 2008

Barack Obama has raised more money than any other presidential candidate in American history ($454 million). He has more donors than any other candidate could ever brag about (2.5 million). He has broken, established and re-established monthly fundraising records throughout the primary and general campaign seasons. If all these campaign fundraising benchmarks sound too good to be true for a man who didn’t yet register on the national radar until four years ago, then they probably are too good to be true. And as it turns out, they may be too good to be legal.

The RNC has called on the Federal Election Commission to examine the Obama campaign’s records to see if donors have contributed more than the $2,300 maximum amount allowed by law. Since there are no stipulations for recording donors who contribute small amounts such as $25 or $30, there is no way of knowing if these small contributors have donated aggregate sums over the legal limit. Newsweek, of all rags, reported that two donors each gave Obama more than $11,000 in increments of $10 and $25.

Also of interest are donations from folks like “Good Will,” who works at “Loving” and lists “You” as his occupation on the donor form. “Dahsudhu Hdusahfd of Df, Hawaii,” employed by “CZXVC/ZXVZXV” and “Uadhshgu Hduadh of Dhff, Fla.,” who works for “DASADA/SAFASE” also contributed.

Obama also appears to have a large number of foreign donors: 11,500 of them have contributed some $34 million to his campaign according to some accounts. It is against the law for any candidate to accept campaign contributions from foreign nationals, and if Obama’s campaign were found guilty, they would face stiff fines and perhaps the approbation of enough voters to change the course of the election. Unfortunately, due to the slow pace at which these legal matters travel through the courts, the election will have long since come and gone by the time it is determined whether the Obama campaign played by the rules.

As for spending those dollars, the Obama camp is negotiating the purchase of 30 minutes of primetime network airwaves on 29 October at 8 p.m. Eastern. The purchase with CBS is already complete. Obama may address the charges regarding his alliances with Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright without anyone to challenge him.

calbrindisi said...

From Capital Research: ACORN = Bill Ayers's Weather Underground

The web is so intricate that it takes a detective to discover all the connections, and the media sure as hell aren't interested in doing so.

Gary Burgess said...

So much to do. So little time. And the people's power is slipping away with every new law our leaders pass.

SidBreem said...

America Has Died - To Thunderous Applause

Have a box of tissues handy.

Anonymous said...

Even the "official" logo of the debate tonight features a big read communist star. How appropriate. (photo)

Brian Spear said...

The problem with bringing up Ayers and Wright and the other assorted nuts of Obama’s weird Scipionic Circle—I think the most reprehensible of the discarded associates was the rather murderous Kenyan, Raila Odinga—is that it may now be too little too late....Victor Davis Hanson

The Odinga thing is frightening. Obama, as a U.S. Senator, went over to Kenya to campaign for this vicious thug.


Anonymous said...

Thank you for this.

John Cooper said...

Arrested Development

Children in their early teen years have a mean streak…well boys do, anyway. They shoot birds with BB guns, torture lizards, light things on fire, bully other kids (if they’re big and strong enough), throw snowballs at cars, vandalize property, and all that stuff. I have to admit - to my eternal shame - that I engaged in a few of those things myself as a child.

I know this is going to come as a shock to younger folks, but we old guys actually remember - and still feel guilty about - the horrible things we did at 12 or 16 years old. Maybe to assuage my guilt, I’ve excused my childish behavior as, “Well, I was young and didn’t know any better.” The only problem with that particular rationalization is that I DID know better at the time. Yeah, I knew what I was doing was wrong, but did it anyway just to secure the approval of my peers. So in my old age -if I want to remain a moral person in my own mind - , I’m forced to fall back on, “Well, that’s just the way kids are”.

“That’s just the way kids are.” (Yeah, that’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it!)

Now I’m not a psychologist (and don’t play one on TV), but my theory is that children go through a phase where they need to discriminate “self” from “everything else”. They have to learn that there’s a reality outside themselves that is separate from - and doesn’t care about - the fantasies swirling around in their little heads. As an essential part of growing up, children must learn that they are a separate person - an individual. They need to learn that others view them as a separate person as well, and those people respond to the right or wrong things they do.

Most of us at that age - if we had conscientious parents and teachers - learned the difference between “us” and “them”, and grew out of that totally self-centered phase where the entire world was in our heads. We eventually learned respect for others, and - later on - that building something was a lot more difficult than tearing something down.

After a lot of consideration, I’ve come to the conclusion that some people never manage to progress beyond the adolescent way of thinking. Even as adults, they act like schoolyard bullies, and destroying things to prove that they exist. They’re like an insecure man who has to make his woman cry just in order to prove that he exists, or an insecure women who cheats on her men to prove her self-worth.

Jim Simpson proposes that “Eiher the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit”, but that leaves out an important third possibility: Some people consciously choose destructive policies.” They’re not stupid, and they they’re not in it for the money. They're motivated by death.

It’s difficult for the rational among us to understand that there are people walking (and voting) among us that are motivated by the hatred of life. It’s my belief that they’re the ones who never grew out of adolescence…the ones who kill birds just to watch them die…the ones who beat women just to see them cry…the ones who want to destroy the best Country on earth just to see it die.

Their motivation: They don’t want to live, they want do see you die.

cw-patriot said...


Your insights are excellent, especially your observation:

It’s my belief that they’re the ones who never grew out of adolescence…the ones who kill birds just to watch them die …

Allow me to add my two cents to your excellent ninety-eight.

I believe that, in Simpson’s observation, ‘Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit,’ he is using the word ‘benefit’ to signify an increase in either wealth, or power, or both.

Your theory of adolescent behavior works very well, even when not assuming a kind of perverted need to be destructive.

I think almost all children are extraordinarily me-oriented. Not nearly as many are cruel or destructive, as the behaviors you described.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that 95% of young children are self-centered, and 10% would take delight in shooting birds, or tearing the wings off of flies. (I think those percentages are probably pretty accurate, but I could be very wrong.) And I suspect that the 10% group is a subset of the 95%. And let’s assume that 5% of people remain stagnant in some form of your ‘arrested development’ for their entire lives – never maturing beyond the me-first stage.

Two of the self-centered behaviors that 95% of children engage in are: (1) wanting to have more and better toys than their peers, and (2) wanting to sit on top of the totem pole (i.e., to always be the one who serves as team captain, and therefore get to pick his teammates, and determine how they must abide by the rules, or leader of the most popular clique, able to determine what is ‘in’ and ‘cool’).

The 10% of children who are destructive simply enjoy creating circumstances in which others suffer.

I believe that your ‘arrested development theory’ is spot on! But I believe that, within that small set (5%) of humans whose development is arrested (oddly enough, many of whom find themselves elected to public office) :), the 95%-10% proportion probably carries over.

And I believe those socialists/Marxists we have been discussing have embraced that leftist ideology mostly because of their continued adherence to a self-centered world view in which they (1) are never satisfied with the extent of their worldly wealth (with toys having been extrapolated to include more ‘adult’ creature comforts/possessions/money), and (2) will never amass sufficient power to suit their needs (with the need to be team captain or clique leader having been extrapolated to now include dictatorial power over other people’s lives, liberties and fortunes).

That leaves the remaining 10% of the ‘arrested development crowd’ (.5% of the population) who might genuinely be called evil. Their need to shoot birds and tear the wings off of flies, if not tempered/excised by maturity, sometimes morphs into delighting in destruction for destruction’s sake, or, worst case scenarios, genocide and other human-upon-human abominations.

Thank you so much for your excellent insights here, John. I think, like Mr. Simpson, you have their number. It’s too bad that ninety percent of your countrymen don’t –- nor do they give a damn about the character of their leaders. Character has taken (a distant) second place to the ability/willingness to dispense government largesse.

~ joanie

First_Salute said...


Survival tips:

Put your money on green paint. Makers and suppliers of green paint, are going to be very rich.

Because green paint is going to be applied to everything that is supposed to be green as proof that Obama Mendacity "Works!"

Put your money on blue thread and blue dye for the clothing ministry ("clothing industry" is no longer economically-correct).

Because, in order to "solve the problem" of social injustice, we are all going to be urged (by the mendacity of the Bureau of ACORN Terrorizing Fruits' nuts) to wear clothing that does not offend anybody ... which, if you're curious to know what the new Obamapparel looks like, just visit a branch of JPMorgan Chase, where all the underlings and even some branch managers are "sporting" the new statement against freedom of choice.

Put your money someplace *safe,* like not in a bank.

Because Jamie Dimon's mendacity (not to mention Greenspan's and too many ivy-league-trained financial and legal "experts'") is covering all the entrances and exits of JPMorgan and all the other banks and "banks" as the case may be.



First_Salute said...


Your wonderful pre-polling qualification course, raises an interesting topic - what the Founding Fathers had in mind, about a voter's qualifications: the written exam.

As they debated the value of owning property, as an indicator of commitment, I wonder if they considered a test of willingness to aim high in one's education.

Actually, I think that they did, and it is included in the "public education" clause of our Constitution, that as part of one's education, one is expected to be able to demonstrate that one actually knows something about our democratic-republic, the principles of its founding, and the principles that guided the writing of our Constitution, in addition to some explanation of the history of voting and why, again, we are a democratic-republic.

I think the preservation of a limited gov't, which is complex work, requires that commitment to at least some basic understanding and support for it, demonstrated in writing.

An educated citizen is a requirement in order for that citizen to vote, yet some will say that the citizen was not educated well-enough by the state and therefore should not be blocked from voting.

I disagree. The citizen may pursue for relief from the education system, and when finally able to demonstrate in writing, *then* vote.

We ought not let an un-qualified doctor, for example, operate to the detriment of the many, for want of some "public education system."

Voting is too important, and for many, too sacred, in my humble opinion.


cw-patriot said...

Put your money someplace *safe,* like not in a bank.

Awesome advice, F_S -- as sad as it may be.

I've searched and searched this morning to find stocks whose companies specialize in only green paint and/or blue threads and dyes, but so far have come up empty. If you're aware of such entities, please 'private reply' me. We don't want to cause a run on such concerns (at least not before we buy our 'fair share' of their float).

I'll pay you a 2% finders fee, BTW.

~ joanie

cw-patriot said...


Your commentary on the need for an educated electorate is spot on.

Our Founders took the 'state of the electorate' very seriously.

They (Hamilton, especially) even went so far as to argue that the only people who should be able to exercise the privilege to vote are adult males who own property.

Others wished to exclude women, children and the poor from voting.

While we surely see many such exclusions as unfair and unwarranted, their purpose in suggesting them wasn't.

Their whole purpose was to exclude voters who are dependent on the will of others (the largesse of government, especially) for their well-being.

While I wouldn't necessarily exclude as broad a range of citizens as some of them sought to exclude, I believe their intent of not stacking the electorate with people who are merely seeking handouts, or people who know nothing about their republic's foundations, was critical to the success of our system.

Although there is little we can do about the rampant ignorance and apathy of the electorate, not allowing the vote to those who (1) have absolutely no knowledge of the system in which they wish to take part and/or (2) vote simply on the basis of how much they can financially milk the system, would go a long way toward reclaiming our republic from the enemy within.

Of course, how we would define and enforce such parameters is another (probably impossible) matter.

America will last until the populace discovers that it can vote for itself largesse out of the public treasury ... de Tocqueville

~ joanie

john galt said...

LOL! I like the Hamilton idea of only allowing male property owners to vote.

Seriously, we'd lose the vote of wonderful people like you Joanie, but for every clear-thinking woman there are three idiot ones who vote on the basis of "charisma."

(Please don't bar me from posting here anymore.) ;)

John Cooper said...


Thanks for doing the math. Half-a-percent sounds about right for the consciously evil - the rest are just looking for a charismatic leader.

Expanding on my original theme of "arrested development", it stuck me that Barack Obama is a black version of Ellsworth Toohey. For those who don't know, Toohey was a main character in Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhood". Spark Notes writes:
In direct contrast to Roark, Ellsworth Monkton Toohey embodies everything evil about mankind. He is irredeemably corrupt and evil. Whereas Roark never tries to win friends or influence people, Toohey's power lies entirely in his ability to control weaker minds and souls. Toohey's evil is as ingrained as Roark's goodness—Toohey learns the practice of manipulation as a child, and turns it into an art by the time he graduates from college. By making people feel small and guilty, Toohey shakes their faith in their own abilities and then assumes control of their lives. Toohey preaches selflessness and ignorance of the ego to force people to act with humble mediocrity. Toohey has no talents of his own, so he makes himself excellent by grinding down his followers. His tactics frequently evoke those of Joseph Stalin, the former Russian revolutionary who emerged as Russia's dictator."
For your reading pleasure, here's how Ayn Rand developed Toohey's character in The Fountainhead. (Please note the stunning similarities to Barack Obama toward the end:)
Ellsworth Monkton Toohey

Ellsworth Monkton Toohey was seven years old when he turned the hose upon Johnny Stokes, as Johnny was passing by the Toohey lawn, dressed in his best Sunday suit. Johnny had waited for that suit a year and a half, his mother being very poor. Ellsworth did not sneak or hide, but committed his act openly, with systematic deliberation: he walked to the tap, turned it on, stood in the middle of the lawn and directed the hose at Johnny, his aim faultless -- with Johnny’s mother just a few steps behind him down the street, with his own mother and father and the visiting minister in full view on the Toohey porch. Johnny Stokes was a bright kid with dimples and golden curls; people always turned to look at Johnny Stokes. Nobody had ever turned to look at Ellsworth Toohey.

The shock and amazement of the grownups present were such that nobody rushed to stop Ellsworth for a long moment. He stood, bracing his thin little body against the violence of the nozzle jerking in his hands, never allowing it to leave its objective until he felt satisfied; then he let it drop, the water hissing through the grass, and made two steps toward the porch, and stopped, waiting, his head high, delivering himself for punishment. The punishment would have come from Johnny if Mrs. Stokes had not seized her boy and held him. Ellsworth did not turn to the Stokeses behind him, but said, slowly, distinctly, looking at his mother and the minister: “Johnny is a dirty bully. He beats up all the boys in school.” This was true.

The question of punishment became and ethical problem. It was difficult to punish Ellsworth under any circumstances, because of his fragile body and delicate health; besides, it seemed wrong to chastise a boy who had sacrificed himself to avenge injustice, and done it bravely, in the open, ignoring his own physical weakness; somehow, he looked like a martyr. Ellsworth was sent to his room without supper. He did not complain. He remained there meekly -- and refused the food his mother sneaked up to him, late at night, disobeying her husband. Mr. Toohey insisted on paying Mrs. Stokes for Johnny’s suit. Mrs. Toohey let him do it, sullenly; she did not like Mrs. Stokes.


He was a thin, pale boy with a bad stomach, and his mother had to watch his diet, as well as his tendency to frequent colds in the head. His sonorous voice was astonishing in his puny frame. He sang in the choir, where he had no rivals. At school he was a model pupil. He always knew his lessons, had the neatest copybooks, the cleanest fingernails, loved Sunday school and preferred reading to athletic games, in which ha had no chance. He was not too good at mathematics - which he disliked - but excellent at history, English, civics and penmanship: Later, at psychology and sociology.

[omitted part about his mother passing away and Toohey being raised by his Aunt, whom he hated]

At this period he began to acquire friends. He liked to speak of faith and found those who liked to listen. Only he discovered that the bright, the strong, the able boys of his class felt no need of listening, felt no need of him at all…It was never clear whether they all discovered Ellsworth or Ellsworth discovered them. It seemed to work more like a law of nature: as nature allows no vacuum, so pain and Ellsworth Toohey drew each other. His rich, beautiful voice said to them: “It’s good to surer. Don’t complain. Bear, bow, accept -- and be grateful that God has made you suffer. For this makes you better than the people who are laughing and happy. If you don’t understand this, don’t try to understand. Everything bad comes from the mind, because the mind asks too many questions. It is blessed to believe, not to understand. So if you didn’t get passing grades, be glad of it. It means that you are better than the smart boys who think too much and too easily.”

Ellsworth went to Harvard. His mother had willed her life insurance for that very purpose. At Harvard, his scholastic record was superlative. He majored in history…Ellsworth’s relations with his fellow students were the most unusual of his achievements at Harvard. He made himself accepted. Among the young descendents of proud old names, he did not hide the fact of his humble background; he exaggerated it. He did not tell them his father was the manager of a shoe store; he said that his father was a shoe cobbler. He said it without defiance, bitterness or proletarian arrogance; he said it as if it were a joke on him and -- if one looked closely into his smile -- on them. He acted like a snob; not a flagrant snob, but a natural, innocent one who tries very hard not to be snobbish. He was polite, not in the manner of one seeking favor, but in the manner of one granting it. His attitude was contagious. People did not question the reasons of his superiority; they took it for granted that such reasons existed. It because amusing, at first, to accept “Monk” Toohey; then it became distinctive and progressive. If this was a victory Ellsworth did not seem conscious of it as such; he did not seem to care. He moved among all those unformed youths, with the assurance of a man who has a plan, a long-range plan set in every detail, and who can spare nothing but amusement for the small incidentals of his way. His smile had a secret, closed quality, the smile of a shopkeeper counting profits -- even though nothing in particular seemed to be happening.

--Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, Chapter 9

Anonymous said...

OK. So poor black people caused the current wall street collapse?


Ever heard of "credit default swaps". Phill Gramm did. He attached a 272 page rider to S.3283(Phil Gramm’s Commodities Future Modernization Act) that deregulated "credit default swaps". Very open market of him. Reminds me of the deregulation of the energy market that raped California and everyone who owned Enron stock. Oh, by the way, that deregulation ( Credit default swap)caused the current credit crisis. Maybe you should read about it.

People. It's not a damn conspiracy it's just unbounded greed.

John Cooper said...

Dear Anonymous--

Before Credit Default Swaps can become a problem, you have to have Credit Defaults. Get it?

Oh, and refresh my memory. Which president signed S.3283?

Maybe you should read about it.

Anonymous said...

Do you know what a credit default swap is? Yes, loans have be be defaulted on but a credit default swap multiplies the pain (dollars) of that default. AIG was not sunk by bad mortgages alone the dollars lost were multiplied by the credit default swap. So, as usual, rich people got richer off the backs of the average guy and then left us to hold the bag. Again.

Get it?

And again, it's not a conspiracy. It's greed. Thanks Phil Gramm and the congress that passed the bill!

Anonymous said...

You wanna see a lying, elitist snob? Here's your next President. What an S.O.B.

cw-patriot said...


With all the well-documented, damning evidence presented here that suggests that a ruling elite is bent on instituting socialist rule in America, you find it necessary to myopically focus on the idea that credit default swaps increases the effect of a default?

Did that relatively minor point of contention render the remaining 99.9% of this powerful essay meaningless to you?

As for your comment that those who support Simpson's arguments believe that 'poor black people caused the current Wall Street collapse' ... you are employing an extremely duplicitous strategy here -- namely, attributing viewpoints that were not expressed.

Nowhere in this essay is that claim made. Not even close.

The Wall Street meltdown, the mortgage crisis, and the current economic disaster are all mostly the result of left-leaning special interest groups, and left-leaning politicians, seeking more wealth and power, and the ultimate implementation of their socialist/Marxist ideology.

Sadly, the 'solutions' to this crisis (which really are not solutions at all) will result in just that. And the poor, and poor blacks in particular, are merely being used as tools toward that end.

~ joanie

BudFox said...

My trust in the markets is gone, what with manipulation, constant rule changes, naked short selling, setting interest rates, price fixing, capital controls, you name it. They don't seem to realize that there will be no capital markets if this keeps up, people are going to shun it all. These arrogant bastards need to be put on trial for many crimes probably including treason.

Anonymous said...

Six quotes from Obama’s two books. Read them and weep:

From Dreams of My Father:

I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.

I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.

There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.

It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.

I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.

From Audacity of Hope:

I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

Anonymous said...

And another kick in the head from the liberal bastards:

House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401K Tax Breaks

Proud Floridian said...

Thanks for the great compilation.

First_Salute said...

John Cooper,

Bill Clinton reminded me of every elementary school playground orator, I had observed.

They were new at the [political] game, and you could see their "progress" in discovering what words (they'd learned from the media or some parents or fellow playground terrorists) "worked" at getting them what they wanted:


I remember, my thinking that, these manipulative-"children" would grow up and out of it ... because their parents seemed nice.

Some did grow up; some did not, and they continued to be destructive of other people and of other peoples' property especially, well into adult years.

Manipulating, in order to get what they want:


As I recall, with some age of my own, I think that maybe ... I figured this out --- the parents were either too in-attentive or, in the other direction, too tolerant.

The child (of the past), always working some line, testing it, to see if the child could catch somebody's attention.

I'm also guessing, that the initial lines tested, were learned by the child from the manner in which the parents "endeared themselves" in social settings. Kids being the record and repeat offenders that they are.

Right down to the grin in these kids' faces --- a mirror of the fake smiles they witnessed on their parents' faces, "which worked!" Kids being able to detect what is phony in their parents, and incredibly skilled at testing, challenging ... and baiting ... leading the parents to further the distance ... leading the kids to work harder at getting attention.



Anonymous said...

Hi Joanie,

I just wanted point out that at least some of this article was, in my view, wrong. There was mention of the mortgage/wall street crisis and that bad loans were the cause. Yes, bad loans were the cause but things got out of hand with rich fat cats and the way they play with pretend money like credit default swaps.

As your can most likely tell, I may be just a bit more left leaning than the rest of your readers here. :)

I don't believe in conspiracies - even the right-wing kind. I don't believe we have to be afraid of a democrat in office. Could he be any worse that what we have now? How many wars could Obama start that George W. hasn't?

There is no mention in the post about the S&L mess and the links to McCain. How does that figure into this global left-wing conspiracy? How does the 50+ former financial lobbyists on McCain's staff figure in?

Can we agree that there should be no such thing in the US as a "Professional" lobbyist? Or, if we have to have them, maybe they should have to be neutered first so that they can't reproduce. :)

Maybe I'm just tired of old WASP's running things - republican or democrat.

Sorry about the ramble there. Not enough coffee this am.

John Cooper said...

A Liberal Supermajority in the WSJ:

Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.

"Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on."

*Medicare for all
*The business climate
*Union supremacy
*The green revolution
*Free speech and voting rights
*Special-interest potpourri

"In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined."

John Cooper said...

A comprehensive Obama-Ayers timeline

John Cooper said...

Here's a really well done 10 minute YouTube video: Barack Obama, William Ayers, and ACORN