After 232 Years, Does Character & Integrity No Longer Matter To Americans?

For 232 years character and integrity have played an integral role in presidential politics. For 232 years, Americans have elected Presidents not based upon the proposition that asks what your country can do for you, but rather the proposition that you "ask what you can do for your country". In this election we have been told over and over again that we should ignore and not ask any questions concerning character and integrity. We have been told to ignore the most crucial priority for government to protect our sovereignty, while being told that the most important issue is what our government can do to solve our individual challenges; and for the first time in Presidential politics it appears that character and integrity no longer matter.

Senator Obama talks eloquently about the politics of distraction, yet every time from the primaries to today, when character or integrity has been elevated we have been distracted and subject changed. Today, I cannot stress enough the importance in this statement, 'The Presidency Has Everything To Do With Character and Integrity".

No one in this election has been able to effectively question the strength of Senator McCain's character. When the issue has been raised, the Obama campaign has to revert to misleading allegations stemming from the Keating 5 controversy that occurred well over 20 years ago. Their best attempt to question Senator McCain's integrity has been built upon an event in which both federal prosecutors and congress exonerated Senator McCain. Their best attempt to question his integrity has been built upon an event in which John McCain was the only one of the Keating 5 to stand-up and actually testify against Keating in a court room.

On the other side of the ticket, however, we have a candidate whom in his unusually short time in politics has been mired in controversy and aligned himself with some of the most questionable individuals in America. Time and time again when we Senator Obama's associations and friendships have been raised, we have been told to ignore them; that they don't matter; that they are a distraction. Yet, even if you believe this rhetoric and choose to view these friendships as mere coincidences, certainly there must be a point at which any reasonable person has to admit that some of these friendships existed. Certainly, there must be a point at which any rational individual has to admit that this is a disturbing pattern.

Whether it is Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Dohrn, Frank Marshall Davis, Khalidi, Klonsky, Odinga, his membership in the socialist based "New Party" or others, Obama's relationships may have been inconsequential with some, but certainly not all. Are we to believe that after 20 years it does not matter that Senator Obama sat in the pews of a church that openly empathized with terrorist organizations such as hamas, while preaching at times an anti-America, anti-Semitic and race baiting theology. Can we believe that Senator Obama who openly admitted to seeking out relationships with "Marxists" in his own memoirs was somehow just seeking enlightenment and does not prescribe to these worldly views. If so, then why is that Senator Obama never sought out relationships with the radical right, or even the right-leaning. I will admit that I don't believe that Senator Obama was best friends with all of these individuals, but no rational person can deny that individuals such as Frank Marshall and Rev. Wright played influenced the belief system of Obama.

What is disturbing to me and should disturb everyone isn't the fact that some of these relationships existed, but rather the fact that Senator Obama denies their existence, avoids the subject or downplays the scope of the relationship. If he lacks the basic character and integrity to honestly and openly admit to these relationships and why he chose to align himself with these types of individuals, then how can we entrust him with the most powerful political leadership role in the world.

Senator Obama talks eloquently about the need for service, the need to reach out to our neighbors, the patriotism behind choosing to pay higher taxes; Senator Obama talks eloquently about 'Spreading the wealth'; but in his own life he has displayed a lack of generosity that is phenomenal. Between 1995 and 2005 the Obama family literally generated millions of dollars in income. Yet despite making more more in a ten year period than most Americans will earn in a lifetime, they contributed nearly nothing to charity, and when I say nearly nothing, I mean nearly nothing. It wasn't until he set his sights on the Presidency that Senator Obama made a commitment to charity. Yet, despite earning over $2.5 million in 2006 and 2007, Senator Obama gave less than 3% to charity. Senator Obama has developed a career by speaking about the need to help those less fortunate, that Americanism is built upon generosity; yet Senator Obama apparently believes that only others should display the generosity he speaks so eloquently about.

More disturbing, however, is the hypocrisy of a man who will stand on a stage and tell Americans about the need to help the hand-picked Americans who are struggling in their individual lives and in need of help, while at the same time providing no assistance to those family members who are struggling. We learned over the summer of Senator Obama's brother in Kenya who earns less in one week than a minimum wage worker in America earns in one hour. Senator Obama, with his vast resources has to this date not reached out to assist his own brother. Just this week the Times located Senator Obama's aunt, an aunt he spoke fondly of in his memoirs. Unfortunately, this Aunt is living in a run down building in the slums of Boston. So again, despite his millions in income, this man who speaks so fondly of generosity has never reached out to help out his Aunt. Even more disturbing is the revelation that while not providing assistance to his own Aunt, he actually accepted $260 in campaign contributions from her. I have serious problems with an individual worth millions who will gladly accept money from a relative living in the slums while talking about the need for us to reach out and help others. Again, the presidency has everything to do with integrity and character.

Senator Obama campaigned on a platform during the primaries that he was a centrist, a moderate and a platform from which he proposed he could reach out move this country forward in a new era of post-partisanship. However, today Senator Obama speaks nothing of a post-partisan era; his campaign platform has shifted radically left and no objective and reasonable individual could ever truthfully believe that the Republican Party will ever cooperate with an Obama administration. If Senator Obama wins, the filibuster will become America's best friend and the lone check available to protect this nation against a radical lurch towards the left. Senator Obama has shifted his campaign platform to suit the current challenges of the electorate in order to capture votes, with no regard to even the most basic promises such as his opposition to FISA, opposition to offshore drilling or campaign financing. Although I disagree with a majority of Senator Obama's policies, at least I could have respected his integrity and strength of character if he were to actually state his true positions. How can any rational individual believe any promise that Senator Obama makes, when he has time and time demonstrated that winning an election is more important than the most basic of beliefs.

Character and integrity are defined by the actions you take, not the positions you hold. Senator Obama has demonstrated no integrity nor strength of character during this election. Obama has avoided any questions as to his past, distracted the American people from who he truly is and relied upon the naive belief that the Government can solve our individual challenges. For his part Senator McCain has faced staunch criticism, even from those within his own party; yet, Senator McCain has stood his ground and displayed a strength of character that is commendable even by his detractors. Senator Obama has avoided criticism and his campaign has sought to personally destroy anyone with the audacity to question his strength of character. The media has been willing accomplices in this destructive behavior, even remaining silent when the President of France refers to Obama's Foreign Policy as 'naive'.

The presidency is position which is entirely based upon character and integrity. Without these traits, then it is naive to believe that our president would ever make the hard or unpopular decisions that all President's must make. Without these traits then it is ridiculous to believe that the President would ever carry out true reform, carry out his campaign commitments or move this country forward.

The presidency is 100% about character and integrity and I suppose we will find out in four days if these are traits we no longer value and require from the President of the United States.

J Brown
October 31st, 2008

Obama's Redistribution Tax Increase Now To Hit Top 20%, $84,000 - $100,000 Earners!

It is unfortunate that only now in the final days of the campaign that Americans are finally beginning to question Senator Obama's Redistributive Tax Plans. For the past four months I have given Senator Obama a pass on a question that I have always wondered about and now it seems he has answered that question for me.

Senator Obama just a year ago stated that we needed to raise taxes on just the top 1% of taxpayers; those making over $300,000 per year. In the past four months that group has expanded to those individuals and small businesses making over $250,000 per year. Campaign statements and commercials have further expanded that group to those making over $200,000 per year and even Joe Biden brought up questions when he chose to inadvertently suggest a $150,000 per year figure.

Last week the Wall Street Journal exposed the reality of Obama's Tax Plans by analyzing his tax increases and determining that in reality his own proposals would cause increased taxes on individuals making $168,000 per year. Unfortunately, last night Senator Obama proved the Wall Street Journal wrong when he once again shifted his tax policies.

For months I have wondered how Senator Obama's tax increases would affect those families who filed joint returns. Would the tax increase actually amount to an increase on families earning $400,000 - 500,000 per year or would the inverse occur in which joint filers would see an increase in taxes at a joint income of $200,000 - $250,000 annually. Last night, Senator Obama put that question to rest when he announced to the nation that "families earning over $250,000 per year would see a tax increase".

"FAMILIES"! Not Individuals!

So now it appears that Senator Obama is not longer targeting the top 1% of taxpayers, but rather the top 10% of taxpayers. That 10% that makes over $125,000 per year; That 10% that currently pays an astounding 60% of all US Income Taxes according to IRS records.

Moreover, since Senator Obama himself has consistently flipped between the $200k and $250k figure, it is safe to assume that Obama's tax increase could easily hit individual taxpayers and SMALL BUSINESSES making just $100,000 annually. In addition, if you examine the full extent of his tax proposals as the Wall Street Journal has you can now begin to see that Obama's tax increases will likely hit those individuals and SMALL BUSINESSES earning over $84,000 per year.

We are no longer talking about the top 1%, or even the top 2% of earners. With a tax increase that will hit individuals earning $84,000 - $125,000 per year, the top 20% of taxpayers and small businesses would now see an increase in taxes. This expansion of Obama's tax increase base amounts to an increase in taxes on a group 20 times larger than his initial proposals. Now imagine if this is not the end.

Senator Obama seems to believe that he is Robin Hood, and portrays himself as a savior who will take from the rich and provide to the poor and those in-between. In reality, however, Senator Obama more closely resembles the Prince John, the great tax collector who will arbitrarily determine who is deserving of receiving a pittance of the tax dollars collected. It is now becoming apparent that Senator Obama's tax plans would increase the taxes on those individuals and small businesses that already account for over 70% of all tax revenue, only to disproportionately "Spread The Wealth", from the bottom-up, starting with the 40% of individuals who already pay NO TAXES.

This is not change we can believe in, this is change that will squander any increase in government revenues, irreparably damage small business and accelerate the already shrinking middle-class of our nation causing a massive disparity between the classes.

Senator Obama will tell you that his plans start from the bottom-up, increasing the incomes of the poor and creating a stronger middle class. Unfortunately, in practice, his oppressive tax proposals will achieve only 3 things:

1. The already wealthy, whose assets far exceed their living expenses will continue to see their wealth and power grow as these tax proposals only affect income. The rich will become richer.
2. Upward mobility from the middle class to the upper class will increasingly shrink as those who are building wealth see increasingly larger percentages of their earnings flow out the door. The result is stagnation in the upper class and a growing disparity between the upper and middle class. Small business owners pounded by an increasing tax burden will see profits shrink, therefore causing an increase in prices and less hiring. The rise in the cost of small business goods and services will reverberate through the economy, further eroding upward mobility and causing a rise in inflation.
3. Those earners in the lower class will become increasingly dependent upon government entitlements; entitlements that will prove futile as unemployment rises and inflation sets in.
   
   Senator Obama's dream, is a dream of a nation in which there is no poor, only a middle class. In reality, we have seen this dream before; some nations have prescribed to this doctrine and their intent has created societies which have collapsed or which survive without a middle class; nations of truly the have and have nots.

J Brown
October 30th, 2008
Click Here To Access Over 600 Free Career and Professional Trade Publications.
No Credit Card, No Payments, No Surveys, No Strings - Special Offer For Our Readers. Publications include Inc., CFO Magazine, Google White Pages, The Economist and hundreds more.

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

So If Obama's Bottom-Up Redistribution Tax Plan Is Right, Then Kennedy and Reagan Must Have Been Wrong???

In remarks made on the campaign trail yesterday, according to Senator Obama, his redistributive tax policies are based upon a belief that, "That is how we have always grown the economy, from the bottom up". The problem that I have, however, is simple: History just doesn't support that statement.

So my challenge today is simple: Name me a time in which our economy has ever grown from the bottom up?

Now just as a reminder, remember this: In order for even lifelong Democrat's to believe that Senator Obama's tax proposals are the right move, then you would also have to prescribe to the belief that Herbert Hoover and Lyndon Johnson were correct; and subsequently that John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were wrong.

When the progressive tax was instituted in 1913 at a 1%-7% rate and the effects of the tax were never known as US industry was soon mass producing war materials. The top marginal rates quickly rose during the war, with a promise by Wilson that they would return to lower levels after the end of the war.

Between the wars we saw the wartime rate slowly lowered to 25%. In early 1932, facing a deepening 2 year recession, Hoover raised tax rates up to 63%; 1932 would become the worst year in terms of the rise in unemployment and loss of GNP/GDP; that year the nation would fall into a technical depression. Roosevelt would not raises taxes again until the end of 1936 and once again unemployment would dramatically rise in the following 24 months before settling into a 19% unemployment rate on the eve of WWII. Despite rising federal tax revenues throughout the 30's and ever-increasing deficits, by the onset of WWII and the "War Economy", they had no measurable positive effect on the economy.

Taxes would be raised during WWII and then again at the end of the War to help slow US economic growth and assist in the rebuilding effort.

In the early 60's, President Kennedy would embark on a campaign to bring "tax fairness", his words, back to our economy. In Kennedy's own words, "It will be a major aim of our tax reform program to reverse this process, by broadening the tax base and reconsidering the rate structure. The result should be a tax system that is more equitable, more efficient and more conducive to economic growth."

Kennedy would go on to state, "The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.

I'm not talking about a "quickie" or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures...

For all these reasons, next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital."

In speech after speech on taxes, Kennedy would promote what he referred to as his "TOP-to-BOTTOM" approach to tax fairness. Congress would eventually pass Kennedy's tax-cut in 1964 after his death, but the cuts were less than Kennedy had originally proposed.

In 1968, Lyndon Johnson would reverse the economic policies of Kennedy and raise taxes in his final year in office. The economy would soon enter into the 1970's which would become a period of rising inflation and no economic growth.

Following his election in 1980, Reagan would revive the "Top-to-Bottom" approach sought by Kennedy 20 years earlier. The Reagan tax cuts would be based upon the across the board tax-cut proposals of Kennedy.

The reality of history tells us that in no period since the birth of this nation has economic growth ever occurred from the bottom-up. The industrial revolution was fully financed by the wealthy of the age, the Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Morgan's and others. They profited dearly, but more importantly laid the basis for what would become the modern economic structure.

Today, Senator Obama wants to talk about a revival of bottom-up economics, but to what period of time is this revival tied too. The last time I checked, Americans hold President's such as Kennedy and Reagan in high regard, with little regard to Johnson or Hoover. Are we now to revise history, to believe that Hoover and Johnson were right.

Senator Obama has stated that he merely wants to return tax rates back to the rates in place during the Clinton Administration. Yet, that's not accurate. The only rates that Senator Obama wants to revert are the rates at the top of the scale, while maintaining and expanding the bottom-level tax cuts provided by the Bush Administration. The result would be a tax system with a shrinking tax base, the very system that President Kennedy fought against.

Senator Obama also wants to take the system one step further, by not only providing tax cuts that would lead to more Americans not paying taxes, but would also provide "credits" to the nearly 40% of Americans who do not currently pay taxes. That is not a return to the Clinton years and it is not a return to any previous Presidential Era in this nation's history.

So my questions still stands...Name me a time when our economy ever grew from the bottom up?

Were Kennedy and Reagan wrong?

Were Hoover and Johnson right?

Name me a single President who ever proposed direct redistribution of wealth? (p.s. a U.S. President)

J Brown
October 28th, 2008
Click Here To Access Over 600 Free Career and Professional Trade Publications.
No Credit Card, No Payments, No Surveys, No Strings - Special Offer For Our Readers. Publications include Inc., CFO Magazine, Google White Pages, The Economist and hundreds more.

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Barack Obama’s Career Path Toward an American? Presidency [Guest Post]

Barack Obama’s Career Path Toward an American? Presidency

by Arlen Williams

A documented narrative for those coping with "mainstream media,"

Barack Obama, according to his own book and the testimony of relatives and their friends, was raised in quite a
radical family. His adolescent mother developed an affinity with a Marxist teacher and become an agnostic or atheist. She met Barack Obama Sr. in a Russian language class. Yes, a Russian language class, circa 1960.

With no father in his home in Hawaii, he was mentored throughout his teens by Frank Marshall Davis, a man famous in communist circles, with a large FBI file. Davis also wrote an autobiography, "Sex Rebel," which demonstrates numerous of his perversions, including pedophilia. Nothing new there, "sexual revolution" was a part of the Russia’s Marxist revolution: sex is divorced from reproduction, marriage, and child rearing; abortion becomes sublime. Sexual involvement is "liberated" into mutual use.

From there, Barack was on to New York and Columbia University (Bill Ayers was a neighbor there, too) then Chicago (where Ayers returned). Obama writes of attending socialist conferences and reading Marxist books around this time. He was trained in and taught the insurgent methods of "Rules for Radicals" drafted by cynical, "transformational Marxist," Saul Alinsky. Thesis: lie, cheat, steal, etc., while making those with American principles live up to impossibly high standards of institutional altruism, so that we and our liberal government fail in ridicule, paving the way for the "egalitarian state." Preach "change" and gradually build an activist army of the proletariat, motivated by (short sighted) self interest, for a crescendoing revolt. And funny thing, Alinsky's book tosses an acknowledgment to Lucifer, "the very first radical," a refreshing lapse into candor.

In Chicago, Obama met his wife Michelle at the Sidley & Austin law firm, where Ayers' terrorist wife Bernardine Dohrn worked, too. And in Chicago, they joined Jeremiah Wright's church, investing two decades and significant indoctrination of their daughters there. That is, until Wright turned his criticism from merely "God damn America," toward the one, Obama. This congregation espouses Black Liberation Theology, an institutionalization of ethnocentric bitterness and a variant of Liberation Theology, which had been conceived in South America as an attempt to sell Marxism to Christians through the clergy, misapplying portions of the Bible. Concurrently, Obama has repeatedly
exhorted, "our individual salvation depends on collective salvation." While that would have been less than Good News to Christ's Apostles, Marx may have found it catchy.

Obama also shared an office for apparently three years with Ayers and fellow SDS member Michael Klonsky (a self-described Maoist communist) while taking Annenberg millions and devoting much of it to ACORN and other insurgent "community organizations." The goal? "Raise political consciousness" among chiefly black school kids. (Historically, an SDS and Weathermen objective has been to piggyback on any black revolt against America, for their Marxist ends.) What "political consciousness?" One attractive to Ayers, a self-proclaimed anarchistic Marxist. Ayers secured the purse, thus presumably played a responsible role in setting up young Mr. Obama as chairman. They apparently formed a small circle of Chicago’s education radicals.

In an overlapping circle, Obama became a member of the Marxist “New Party“ in the 1990’s while maintaining membership in the Democratic Party. He also gained an odd circle of radical Muslim, anti-Israel friends, including Khalid al Mansour and Rasheid Khalidi, has connected with the radical Muslim Brotherhood, and Louis Farrakhan credits Obama with a key role in organizing his 1995 “Million Man March.”

And what has Obama been doing as Senator besides running for President? Well, he donated $1M to, and in 2006 visited Kenya to campaign for, Raila Odinga, a Kenyan out of prison for communist insurgency, who allied himself with radical Islamists and their establishment of brutally oppressive Sharia law in that nation. Odinga lost and led the kind of protest that killed 1,500 Kenyans, mostly Christians, mostly by Muslims. Rape, too. Churches were burned. The thuggery worked and Obama's man was named Prime Minister. "Change."

Many Americans are hearing about Obama's redistributionist and welfare/workfare plans, but do not know he is
committed in the direction of conscription to state service and to planning his presidential agenda in meetings with ACORN. He is also committed to the "Freedom of Choice Act," which would nullify all laws against partial birth abortion and those for parental notification, and any other restriction of abortion. So much for "Life, Liberty, and Property."

These are some key elements of the Marxist/fascist career development of the one poised to become, of all things, United States President. Is that the one you want to stomach for America?

by Arlen Williams

Arlen Williams has written articles for The Illinois Review, Mens News Daily, MichNews and Renew America.

'Joe The Plumber'...Government Invasion Of Privacy...Government Computers Used...A Glimpse Into The Obama Future?

Imagine it's a sunny Autumn day... your out on the lawn playing football with your son...a politician and his entourage appears...so you ask him a single question...he fumbles the answer...tells you in layman's terms what his plans are...and his plan is to 'spread the wealth'!

Imagine days later...you open up the paper only to find articles attacking you...you find out that your private information is now in print. You get on the computer...you find article after article...disclosing information on your job...your tax record...your birth certificate...where you lived...court records...and you are personally attacked over and over again.

You never broke the law...you not under investigation for some heinous crime such as bombing a government building...No...you did something much worse...you asked a question.

This is what happened to Joe Wurzelbacher, the average Joe, who had a politician show up at his door and whose answer gave a glimpse into the politicians plan to redistribute wealth. The AP and other news agencies in the tank for Barack Obama immediately attempted to distract from Obama's answer by demonizing the person who asked the question. Joe's birth records, court records and tax records were pulled and every detail of Joe's life came to the surface for the entire world to see.

Last night, the Columbus Dispatch printed a story in which the Ohio Attorney General's office has launched an investigation into no less than three invasions of privacy in which State DMV, Driving records and Criminal Records of 'Joe the plumber' were illegally accessed on Government computers.

According to the report, immediately following the Presidential Debate, Wurzelbacher's records were accessed by computer accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.

Spokespersons for the agencies have stated that there were no ongoing investigations of 'Joe' and no ongoing child custody or support cases that warrant access by employees of the Child Support Enforcement Agency.

There is no doubt that Wurzelbacher's information was accessed, the Attorney Generals office is now investigating to try to determine what employees accessed the system.

'Joe the plumber's' story should provide an important lesson to all Americans of exactly how the Obama campaign and surrogates have operated throughout the primaries and general election cycle. Obama nor his top campaign surrogates have not once denounced the attacks on Wurzelbacher, and in deed have attacked Wurzelbacher themselves.

Is this the change that we are looking for?

A change in which if we dare to ask a single question, let alone criticize the policies of our elected officials, every aspect of our life will be investigated and disclosed in an effort to distract and destroy.

This poor 'average Joe' who was in the unlucky position of spending an afternoon outside with his son, has seen every detail of his life disclosed and has been demonized for simply 'asking a question'.

The problem with Joe, is that no one in the main stream media wants to investigate the substance of his question, instead the will attempt to discredit him as if he were the one who wants to enter into the Marxist policy of wealth redistribution.

Is what happened to Joe a glimpse into the future?

A future in which if we ask even a single question of our elected leaders we risk personal destruction.

Don't believe it could ever happen here?

Freedom and Liberty are works of progress, constantly under siege. No one elects an official believing that their liberties could be stripped, but from time to time, we ignore the warning signs and Democracy comes under fire. Just ask the people of Venezuela.

This is the sad story of this campaign, a campaign in which has sought to destroy voices of opposition through personal attacks and intrusions in the personal lives of everyday citizens.

J Brown
October 25th, 2008
Click Here To Access Over 600 Free Career and Professional Trade Publications.
No Credit Card, No Payments, No Surveys, No Strings - Special Offer For Our Readers. Publications include Inc., CFO Magazine, Google White Pages, The Economist and hundreds more.

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Obama & Democrats Move To Seize 401(k) Plans!

US News & World Report published a story yesterday morning in which they uncovered little discussed legislation that would effectively eliminate 401(k) plans and create a second quasi-Social Security system in which the government would take control of the retirement plan savings of millions of Americans.

According to US News & World Report along with Congressional Records, a House subcommittee is considering the advancement of legislation that would ELIMINATE 401(k) plans and create as an alternative a "Guaranteed Retirement Account" for every worker in the United States. Under the plan, Americans' existing 401(k) accounts would be transferred into the GRA and would grow at an average yield of around 3%. The subsequent loss of preferential tax treatment among US employers who offer the qualified plans would be used to make a $600 per person government contribution into the plans. In addition, the GRA's would require a mandatory 5% contribution (tax) by all US workers.

Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) who supports the plan was quoted as saying, "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should."

This legislation being considered by Democrats is perhaps the most dangerous proposal put forth by the Democrats to date. The system would essentially create a second Social Security System in which bureaucrats would control the funding, investment and use of the money. The government would control all provisions of the plan, and individual rights for determination of risk reward would be stripped.

Like the current Social Security System, which is failing and is expected to collapse unless massive reforms are instituted, the 401(k) replacement program would give no assurance of the protection of funds. The government, just as with Social Security, could essentially strip the plan of assets and use those assets within the general fund. Where is Al Gore and his lock box?

More importantly, consider the immediate implications of such a plan? There is currently $4.5 Trillion dollars invested within 401(k) plans in the United States, the transfer of this wealth to the government would destroy not only the financial markets but would also cause the collapse of an entire industry of financial and accounting companies that have been built upon the Retirement Savings Industry. This would be the largest loss of wealth and seizure of public assets in world history.

In addition, consider the long term ramifications of such a system. A 3% savings rate will essentially double the account value every 24 years. That would mean that if you were 41 years old today and had $20,000 in your 401 (k) plan, that money would now be worth $40,000 at age 65 under the GRA. This GRA plan would depress savings rate to a point that multiple generations of Americans would be unable to outpace inflation within their savings and suffer inadequate incomes upon retirement. The resulting "Welfare" generation would only spurn more government taxes in order to provide for their retirement. The resulting vicious cycle of impoverishment and taxation would never end.

Is this the change that we are looking for?

The seizure of $4.5 trillion dollars by the government. A promise of low returns, no control over assets, and no guarantee that the funds would not be replaced by a promissory note.

Is this the change that you want?

The creation of a welfare state in which the government is responsible for all aspects of our lives as if we were a society of 4 year olds.

Is this change for the better?

A government that will fail to protect the current Social Security & Medicare System but will create new Bureaucratic programs based upon those failing systems.

Is It Really Time To Change America?

Are we now in the age in which we abandon 232 years of government built upon State's Rights, Individual Rights, Checks & Balances, and an American Exceptionalism based upon unhindered opportunity and a government ruled by the people, not established to rule the people.

J Brown
October 24th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Barack HOOVER Obama: Raised Taxes...GNP Fell 13.4%...Unemployment Jumped To 23.6%

I will be the first person to point out the complete failure of our nation's education system to actually educate the children of this nation as to the history of this great nation. As a result, our public is subject to revisionist history in which nearly half of Americans believe that higher taxes and massive government spending is good for our economy. Revisionist history has distorted our past and led our nation down a path whereas most Americans have no idea of the principles and beliefs of our founding fathers. The strength of our nation, the ingenuity that led an industrial revolution, transformed the feudal system that ruled the world, created a nation with the largest wealth of any nation in history and created a strong middle class society built upon opportunity is under assault.

Our nation is a union of states, built upon the belief of equal representation and small centralized government that recognizes State's rights and protects those rights. Our founding fathers feared the mentality of political parties; they feared large government; and they feared the control and inevitable stripping of rights that would follow the establishment of a large government. Today, we are faced with a financial crisis in which we have the opportunity to embrace the ideals that this nation has held true for 232 years; the idea that economic strength rests in the people, not in the government and the idea that the true strength of our nation rests in inhibited opportunity and equal representation. OR...We can abandon our proud 232 years of tradition and self-determine that the economic strength of our nation rests in our government, not in the ingenuity of the American worker. We have faced economic troubles just as we do today, and the path that we should take rests in understanding our past.

In 1931, facing an economic crisis as our nation was entrenched in a 2 year recession, our government abandoned the traditions of our nation and in a bold populist move an unpopular president in Herbert Hoover called upon Congress to raise corporate income taxes and raise personal income tax rates. As a result, the corporate tax rate jumped nearly 15%, estate taxes were nearly doubled and individual income taxes were increased, with the top tax rate increasing from 25% to 63%. To this date, the 1932 Revenue Act is the largest peacetime tax increase in US history; that is until the proposal put forth by Senator Obama.

The Revenue Act of 1932 was first proposed in 1931 and would not be enacted until June 6th, 1932. At the beginning of 1932, Unemployement rested at an astonishing 15.9% and GNP in 1931 had fallen by 8.5%.

Senator Obama's tax plans are nearly identical to those of the 1932 Revenue Act, whereas Estate Taxes would jump exponentially, the second highest corporate tax rate in the world would become the highest and personal income taxes would jump substantially for millions of small business owners and workers across the nation. Obama's tax proposals would represent the largest revenue based tax increase in US history and act in direct contradiction to the tax policies of both Reagan and Kennedy.

So how successful was President Hoover's tax increase?

In the second half of 1932 the economy completely collapsed in the United States. By the November elections, unemployment had jumped an astonishing to an astonishing 23.6% and the GNP fell a record 13.4%. In March of 1933 the nation would face a third banking crisis prompting Roosevelt to declare a National Bank Holiday to halt the run on financial institutions. By the end of 1933 GNP would continue to fall and unemployment would reach a record 24.9% as one out of every four Americans would be without a job. Roosevelt would rely upon heavy deficit spending in an attempt to keep the country afloat. Yet, at the end of 1938, our nation would still suffer under a 19.0% unemployment rate.

WWII would save the US economy. Taxes would increase again in 1943 to help pay for the war effort and in 1945 to help slow economic growth and divert funds to the rebuilding of Europe and East Asia.

Obama's tax proposals will not work, just as the similar 1932 Revenue Act did not work. We have traveled down this path before, the populist view is that tax increases will somehow eliminate the disparity between the classes. In reality though, Obama's tax increases will only tax those who are building wealth, investing their money and creating jobs. The wealthy will not see their assets shrink, in fact their assets will continue to grow, the progressive taxes will prevent more Americans from reaching the top tier and the disparity between the "haves" and have-nots" will only grow.

It is 1932, unemployment is rising, the financial system is on the brink and the question for America is do you really want another Hoover tax plan?

J Brown
October 21st, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Enjoy $2.90 Gas - Media Silent On Collapse Of Obama's Energy Plan!

Is everyone enjoying their $2.60-$2.99 gasoline?

With prices dropping to as low as $2.59 in some states, the media is eerily silent on the reality that Senator Obama's Energy Plan has essentially collapsed along with oil prices that have dropped to around $70/barrel. Most Americans, with the willful help of a silent media, will never realize that even as Senator Obama is attacking big oil companies and continuing to call for an energy plan that would cost $90 billion in the first year alone, that oil company profits and stocks have taken a beating and more importantly the Windfall Profits Tax that Obama will use to pay for his Energy Plans will not generate a single penny.

What do you mean his WPT will not generate a dime?

Senator Obama's Energy Plan is predicated upon two investments: A $15 billion per year 'green' investment and a one-time $75 billion energy rebate. On the campaign trail, Senator Obama continues to state that his energy plan will pay for itself through his proposed Windfall Profits Tax. Yet, that very Windfall Profits Tax is based upon a tax that is imposed when oil prices exceed $80 per barrel. In order for Obama's WPT to generate $15 billion per year, oil prices would have to remain above $92 per barrel. Of course if oil prices were to increase to $120 per barrel, the tax would impose a $58 billion per year cost to the oil companies (over 1/3 of their profits).

So as of today, in a weak global economy, Senator Obama's plan has no funding. As a result, his Energy Proposals would add over $90 Billion dollars to the federal deficit in the first year alone. In addition, we know that even if oil prices were to re-emerge above the $92 per barrel mark, the WPT (which failed miserably the first time) would create an environment whereas producers would maximize their profits by producing oil overseas and selling that oil overseas where there is no additional tax. Ultimately, if energy prices continued to rise, the oil industry would abandon US production and limit importation to the US. After all, if you could make more money by selling your oil to Britain, or China, or India, wouldn't you do just that?

Obama's Energy Plan is nearly identical to that of Jimmy Carter 30 years ago, and like that of President Carter, Obama's plan is destined to drive away US production. Even Senator Clinton, another supporter of the WPT had enough sense to recognize that Obama's WPT proposal was unrealistic and abusive. Senator Clinton's proposed WPT was designed to provide a minimal tax, that would generate a total of $2 billion per year, 8 times smaller than that of Senator Obama.

But the real issue today is not the long term failure of this tax that history has proven will reduce domestic production. Today's issue is the fact that at current prices, the plan has failed before it has even begun. The media is silent and willfully overlooking the fact that every time Senator Obama mentions his plan, he is failing to tell the American public that they will have to endure much higher fuel prices in order for the tax to generate a single penny for the government.

So this election day every American has a choice, you can support a candidate who wants to keep short term energy prices low, thereby retaining US wealth to be invested in alternative energies; or we can support a candidate whose entire energy plan is based upon funding that can only occur if we are willing to pay much higher gas and energy prices both today and in the future.

J Brown
October 18th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Demonizing Joe The Plumber: Obama Campaign & Surrogates Launch Investigation! AP Digs through Birth and Court Documents to Destroy Him!

Regardless of where you live or what your occupation is the story of Joe the plumber should be a wake up call for the middle class of this nation; not because of the socialist undertones of Senator Obama's 'Spread The Wealth' policies, but rather because of the reaction of his campaign, his surrogates and the fringe-left media to anyone that questions "The One".

Yesterday, left-wing bloggers, the fringe-left media, Senator Obama's supporters, surrogates, Senator Biden and Obama himself made the decision to ignore the serious realities of Obama's policies that will hinder the opportunity for upward mobility and instead made the decision to attack the voice of the 'average Joe' who dared to question the Senator, launched investigations into his personal life and launched a campaign to destroy his credibility.

Now let me first say, that if you think in any manner that Joe's personal life, where he lived or how he is registered has any impact on the simple question that he asked Obama, then you are living in a fantasy world. Joe is no operative of the Republican party, his simple question to Obama was in no way planned and his personal life has no bearing on the reality that Senator Obama's tax proposals are rooted in the purely socialist belief that we should 'Spread The Wealth'. But instead of responding to Joe's charges and questions; instead of denouncing the reality that Obama's tax plan is an exercise in socialism, Obama's campaign and surrogates reacted by trying to destroy Joe the plumber.

On the campaign trail, Obama referred to Joe as 'that guy, Joe! Who makes $250,000 a year" going on to slam him, "I don't know any plumbers who make $250,000 a year". Joe Biden attacking by stating he doesn't have any plumbers making $250,000 a year in his neighborhood. Apparently, Biden and Obama need to spend more time at home depot where they will run into contractors, who own small businesses that make $250,000 a year. Instead of defending their plans, instead of stating that changes may have to be made if it turns out that their plans will hurt more small businesses, they chose to distort Joe's story and undermine his argument.

In the media the attacks from Obama surrogates were ferocious, asking what do we know about Joe The Plumber? Well he's just wrong and doesn't understand how Senator Obama's plan will really help him! He doesn't represent the vast majority of small businesses!

Online the attacks were vicious from left-wing sites such as Huffpo, Kos and others: Joe is ignorant...He just doesn't understand how Obama's plan really works! He's a liar - his name's not even Joe! This was a set-up, he's an operative of the McCain campaign or Republican Party! He's not even a plumber and doesn't even make $250,000 a year! Of course then they turned their attacks on his personal life, his family, etc...

But my favorite is from the SF Chronicle, a know left-wing publication, yet a nationally printed publication:

"He is registered as a Republican, and voted in the state's GOP primary in March". Does this really have a bearing on anything, after all I thought Obama was the post-partisan politician.

"He has lived in McCain's home state of Arizona - in both Mesa and Tucson.
-- He lived in GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's home state of Alaska - in North Pole, from September 1992 to July 1993." Again, anything to do with the Obama's policies? Oh wait, he must be an operative under Todd Palin's control because he live in Sarah Palin's home stat 13 years before she became Governor.

"And as for that unscripted moment that ended up on Fox News, the one at a rally where he questioned Sen. Barack Obama about the American Dream - and whether he'd have to pay higher taxes under Obama's plan?" Back to the Fox News - McCain Campaign operative conspiracy theory...You got him chronicle! Joe is an operative of the Republican Party and the conspired with Fox News to set up Senator Obama. Of course, I still can't figure out how it is that they convinced Senator Obama to make the decision to make an self-described UNPLANNED DOOR-TO-DOOR Campaign stop in Joe's neighborhood. I'm sure that Joe has been planning for months and waiting for the opportunity to open up his bedroom window and see Senator Obama on the street with a flock of reporters. Oh yes, by the way...a flock of reporters, of which only one had the balls to actually replay Senator Obama's candid "Spread the Wealth" response.

" His first name isn't really Joe. It's Samuel" OK, so Samuel J. cannot be trusted because he uses his middle name.

"That's after the AP, bloggers, investigators and librarians - and The Chronicle - turned up court documents and birth records...For one, Wurzelbacher's expressed concern about paying more taxes looked a bit tarnished with the revelation that he owes Ohio about $1,200 in personal income taxes, according to the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas records. And there's a 2007 civil filing that shows a record for a $1,200 owed to a creditor, St. Charles Mercy Hospital." Seriously, again how does this have an impact on the question asked of Senator Obama? So he owes taxes? So he has had financial troubles and owes a hospital money? I would think that Joe would be the ideal voter for Senator Obama; A middle class American struggling to pay taxes and struggling financially because of health care costs!

So what is it about Joe's story that should provide an important lesson?

Joe is the average citizen, the middle class American that struggle everyday with bills and works to hopefully provide a better life for his son. Yet, when he has the tenacity to actually question the proposals of a Presidential Candidate, they set out to destroy him as though he is the epitome of everything that is wrong with this nation. When Joe exercises his freedom of speech and freedom of expression, they set forth to silence his voice by avoiding the real question at hand and resorting to infringing upon his personal life. Joe's story is a picture of what we can all expect to occur if Pelosi, Obama and Reid have total control of our government. There will be no room for dissent and no right to question our elected officials.

The reality is that Obama campaign does not want to talk about the question that Joe asked, because there is no other response that they can provide than the "Spread The Wealth" answer given by Senator Obama. The reality is that Obama does not want Americans to know that he is not interested in you achieving the American Dream, he is only interested in the idea of a society in which there is a ruling class and then a class of workers, all of whom have the same possessions and same level of wealth. There are societies that have set forth down this path before, and it hasn't worked then and it will not work now. Obama hasn't responded to Joe's statement that his policies are socialist for a reason...because the reality is that they are.

Is this the society that middle class Americans want for themselves or their children? A society in which if you dare to question authority you are subject to personal destruction? A society in which the truth is suppressed and propaganda reigns supreme?

J Brown
October 17th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

A Lesson In Depression Era Tax Increases, Unemployment, And When The Depression Ended.

So the solution to our economic woes rest in Senator Obama's 'Spread The Wealth' Policies. Yet, history directly contradicts these policies, and Both President Reagan and President Kennedy believed that genuine tax reform was based upon a top-down approach.

In 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt was running for re-election. At the time, over 10,000 banks (40% of those that existed in 1929) had failed, GNP had fallen by over 30% since 1929 and unemployment had risen to a staggering 23.6%.

Prior to Roosevelt's election, President Hoover who had tried to combat the economic free fall through monetary measures, attempted a bold new approach: He raised the top marginal tax bracket from 25% to 63%.

Hoover was viewed publicly as aloof on his handling of the economy and as a result Roosevelt handily defeated Hoover. During Roosevelt's first year in office, he would face a third banking panic and declare a federal bank holiday to prevent another run on banks. He would institute massive expansion of the federal government including the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Farm Credit Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the National Recovery Administration, the Public Works Administration, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Emergency Banking Bill, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, the Farm Credit Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Truth-in-Securities Act. Unemployment would rise in 1933 to 24.9%.

Between 1934 and 1936 Roosevelt would institute the Federal Communications Commission, the National Mediation Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Works Progress Administration, the National Labor Relations Board and the Rural Electrification Administration.Congress passes the Banking Act of 1935, the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Social Security Act.

In addition, the government would resort to deficit spending to pay for the government expansion and in 1936, Roosevelt would raise the top tax bracket to 79%. Despite the tripling of the top tax rates, deficit spending and massive government expansion, by the time of Roosevelt's re-election unemployment had only dropped to 16.9%.

After Roosevelt's inauguration in 1936, the lack of economic improvement and rising taxes that had now invaded the middle class would lead to a sharp decline in Roosevelt's public approval and cause a rift within his own party.

Roosevelt's economic plans began to come under fire and economic conditions which had slightly improved since 1932 began to deteriorate. The Supreme Court would rule the National Recovery Administration to be unconstitutional. As the reality that government spending was not solving the depression, by the middle of 1937 the economy was once again retracting and Roosevelt's proposals for more New Deal legislation in late 1937 and 1938 would fail to win the support of either Republicans nor Democrats. By the end of 1938, unemployment had once again risen to 19.0%.

In 1939, Congress would finally grant Roosevelt's requests to begin rebuilding the military when they granted him $1 billion for defense spending. Roosevelt had fought for the spending since taking office in 1933. The growing hostilities and outbreak of World War II in 1939 and 1940 would cause the allies to turn to US manufacturing might and finally end The Great Depression.

Roosevelt was a great president, but for those most part his lasting contributions to our society are often misperceived. Roosevelt's expansion of the government was important not because it ended the depression, but rather the long term economic safety nets that programs such as Social Security, FDIC and the Securities Act provided. Many of these programs were needed, yet were designed as long-term security blankets. Roosevelt will long be remembered in popular view as a beacon of strength through WWII and a guiding hand through the depression. Yet, Roosevelt's real contribution to America is the 8 years prior to the outbreak of WWII where he fought tirelessly against both parties in a mostly blocked attempt to end the protectionist economic policies of the US, re-establish internationalism and end the military isolationism of the 20's and 30's.

WWII ultimately and unfortunately ended the Great Depression. At the onset the war, Roosevelt had been politically battered, the economy had improved little, and both his own party and Republicans were considering the elimination of programs such as Social Security. In 1943 and 1945 the government would once again raise taxes to an astonishing 90%, but this time the 1943 move would occur to help fund the war effort. The 1945 increase would be made not because our economy was slowing but rather for the reasons that John F. Kennedy stated best: "...our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth."

By 1945 the government had discovered the implications of taxation upon economic growth. Kennedy understood, but it seems today, we have forgotten.

J Brown
October 16th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

The Philosophies Of Obama's 'New Party' - "Forget The Soccer Moms" - Clinton A "Barbarian"

It's safe to say that most conservatives were no fans of President Clinton. Although many of these views stem from the personal behavior of Clinton, the dislike also stems from the left-of-center Clinton policies. On the same note, it's also safe to assume that a majority of Democrats and Liberals considered the Clinton years as a period of economic stability and provide credit to Clinton for this period. Regardless of your view, the fact is that Clinton enjoyed a period of relative economic stability and understanding his role as a manager, he never instituted any wholesale economic changes during his presidency. His economic moves for the most part were moderate, working with Republicans on NAFTA, Welfare Reform and the 1997 Tax Cuts, cuts that like the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts worked from the top-down. Although many Democrats claim they want a return to Clinton economy, the reality is that they should realize that Barack Obama's 'Spread the Wealth' policies in no way reflect the Economic policies of President Clinton, nor any other President for that matter.

The scary reality is that Obama's quasi-socialist economic policies are rooted in the fringe left economic beliefs of his first political party affiliation - The New Party. To understand these economic beliefs, perhaps we should look at the policies of this party; policies that mirror Senator Obama's proposals; policies that referred to President Clinton as a "Barbarian" and were built upon a belief that we should "Forget the Soccer Moms".

From New Party Founder and potential Obama Cabinet Member 'Joel Rogers'.

"After Liberalism" Originally Printed In The Boston Review

"They [Republicans] intend to permanently disable the affirmative state by mandating supermajorities on tax increases, to repeal or render toothless virtually all important environmental, consumer, and worker protections, to remove through "tort deform" the possibility of direct citizen action against corporate power, to recommodify vast reaches of the educational system, to ensure worsening inequality and squalor among the poor by appointing business-dominated local and state governments as their reluctant (and often bankrupt) guardians. Promises of heavenly redemption are largely a sideshow. This is a particularly naked version of what Bush advisor James Pinkerton describes as an "essentially a pro-business agenda.""

Of course it's important to recognize that none of Roger's doomsday predictions ever came to fruition.

"As Clinton ponders further regressive tax reform and deregulation, he draws the line on assault weapons, low wage national service, and Mexican bailouts. Even in the palmy, pre-Contract days of one-party government, the proudest achievements of this administration were deficit reduction and reduced domestic investment, two trade bills without international rights standards, a punitive crime bill, and the promise of truly punitive welfare reform. Now, things are getting much worse"

Now you begin to understand why President Clinton has never thrown his full support towards Obama. It's also important to recognize that the very types of attacks these "New Party" Socialists were waging against Clinton, they are today waging against Bush.

More on the Clinton Democrats...

"The Democrats can beat up on welfare mothers all they want, build more prisons than Stalin, privatize garbage collection in Little Rock, and moan about the responsibilities of the poor. Given a choice between a real Republican and an imitation one, voters will go for the real thing....

The mess is declining living standards and an economy out of control, coupled with the failure of government to respond...Why don't the Democrats articulate that alternative? Why don't they seize the time?

One popular answer looks to Bill Clinton. Having devoted so much of his life to pleasing his many friends, political supporters, and companions on his way to being first in the class, the story goes, Clinton is by nature incapable of making the hard decisions needed to confront the Republicans and move the country forward. An alternative, more serious view traces the Democratic failure to their allegiance to a liberalism of racial preferences, even as they seek to win back the white working class."

PUMA's should feel vindicated, after all, these views expressed in November 1996 are the same attacks made by the Obama campaign against Clinton Supporters in 2008.

"No one, anywhere, is winning elections by promising to beat back the market with an affirmative state committed to full employment, a fair distribution of income, and an efficient provision of essential public goods. And they are not because the world in which such promises were believable - the world of European social democracy and the American New Deal, the Golden Age of postwar American capitalism, when expanded opportunity and the redistribution of its benefits was the order of the day - has largely collapsed. To understand, much less find a way out of, the present disasters of Democratic politics,"

A call for the return of European Socialism & Redistribution. Sound Familiar?

"How To Get Out Of This Mess -
...doing this will require a break with conventional liberalism. Liberals believe more in the kinder and gentler administration of people, usually through the state, than their organization. The reason is that they don't think people of ordinary means and intelligence can really run the society themselves - hence its natural descent to cultural elitism. And liberals are deeply accommodating of corporate power - preferring to mop up at its margins after the damage is done - for much the same reason. They really don't see any other way the society could be organized, and since they don't have an organized people on their side they couldn't make the effort anyway. With all this we need to break...

...It follows that any new democratic politics needs not only to articulate a social alternative to the "business as usual" (and now looping totally out of control) domination of public and everyday life... This double move, indeed, would be the signature of new democratic politics - that it paved the road as it moved along it, that it stood for social control of the economy...

...Carved that way, we are confident, most of the people would be on its side. And on the other one would be everyone else - unaccountable corporate interests, elitists reserving excellence for their children, those who'd rather be defeated than discomfited, racist swine - who reject democratic order. A good fight. One that can be won against the barbarians now running the country, and new barbarians in the wings."

Who was this "Barbarian" in charge in 1996???

"The white-dominated labor movement, for example, has now declined to the point in city membership that it cannot protect itself against low-wage privatization and the destruction of regional labor market standards, let alone assure the public investments needed for the advanced physical and social (education, etc.) infrastructure needed to support high wage production and services, without the voting support of central city Black and Hispanic populations...

...A new democratic politics, emerging at the local level, and operating in a world of high political and social heterogeneity, would first dedicate itself to efforts to get these people together on a high-wage, low-waste, metropolitan development strategy.

... Instead of using public monies to subsidize low-wage firms - as is now generally the case in movements to privatize government services - we would have "living wage (and benefits)" standards that guided all government purchases and contracting out. Instead of only encouraging the young and dislocated workers to "get smart" with additional education and training, we would establish regional labor market boards, sectoral training and employment consortia, regional "hiring halls" and job location assistance to match the human capital system to actual employment opportunities, and regional skills-credentialling systems to get some transparency and access back into a labor market where "leaving it to the company" no longer assures career paths or equal access. ..

... radical labor law reform could facilitate worker formation of "unions" - by which we mean independent worker organizations rooted in the economy, not necessarily only the sorts of organizations that go by that name now. And those unions could be assigned a role in economic reconstruction -"

This article by New Party Founder Joel Rogers was published in November 1996, the same month that Senator Obama won his first election running as Democrat and as a bona-fide member of the 'New Party'.

The same rhetoric that New Party Members used to describe the "Barbarian", President Clinton, in 1996 during a time of economic growth and strength, is the same rhetoric that Senator Obama is using 12 years later. The same policies of massive government expansion, government control of industry and income redistribution that they called for in 1996, are the same policies called for by Senator Obama today.

Our nation has the highest percentage of Middle Class citizens of any nation in the world; our nation's middle class have the strongest economic strength and highest standard of living of any middle class in the world. If European Socialism has been such a successful system, then why is it that our nation account for over 1/4 of the global GDP? Why is that our nation has the highest standard of living of any nation? Why is it that our economy can sustain growth during periods of Asian and long-lasting Russian recessions in the 90's, yet there economies crumble when our nation enters into recession?

Those nations that practice socialism have seen their middle class crumble and the disparity between the wealthy and poor increase. Economic strength is built upon competition and opportunity, both of which suffer under socialist policies. High progressive income taxes, Obama's Bottom-Up Economic Policies, will halt upward movement of the middle class by unfairly taxing their income at ever-higher rates as they strive to grow their wealth. Under this tax system, the wealthy, who have already accumulated their wealth, will see that accumulated wealth remain intact, they will reinvest this wealth in tax-free and capital gains based investments to watch their economic power grow. Meanwhile, the middle class will remain stagnant under policies which tax success at increasingly higher rates. The lower middle class and working poor will become more dependent upon government entitlements and as dependence grows so will the strength of the ruling, elite party. This is why socialism has failed time and time again; this is why our past leaders fought so hard to oppose socialism; this is why Obama's "spread the wealth" policies are dangerous.

Socialism cannot thrive without overt populism and fear. Socialism rose under crumbling European economies in the 20's and crumbling global economies in 30's. We experienced, at great sacrifice, the pain and dangers of that rise in Socialism. For 232 years our nation's system of check and balances have functioned to uphold the 'American Dream' and today I fear that if Pelosi, Obama, and Reid take total control then we shall all be POoR.

J Brown
October 15th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

USA Today, The Nation Confirm Davis As Member Of Socialist New Party, Support Obama Socialist Membership Documents!

Leftist bloggers in an effort to denounce growing Internet claims that Barack Obama was a full-fledged member of the DSA & ACORN founded New Party, have claimed that uncovered New Party press releases were misleading. In the effort to denounce the claims on sites such as Daily Kos, fringe left sites have denounced the claims by pointing to the claims in the press releases that Danny Davis was a prominent member of the New Party. The argument by the fringe left, in an effort to suppress the story, is simply that Davis is a member of the Democratic Party and like Obama has run under the Democrat banner.

However, as we pointed out in our second story on this revelation, the New Party's unconstitutional "fusion" policy was to run candidates under the banner of whatever political party would assure a victory. Now we have uncovered two Mainstream Media articles that add credibility to the New Party documents.

From an October 3, 2000 article published by USA Today:

"There are two members of Congress with third-party roots: Reps. Danny Davis of Illinois, a member of The New Party elected as a Democrat"

From The Nation, February 10, 1997:

"The New Party elected a member to Congress, Democrat Danny Davis of Chicago; won fifteen mostly nonpartisan races in several states;"

From The Almanac Archives - The National Journal - Election 2000

"The congressman from the 7th District is Danny Davis, a Democrat first ... he is listed on the Web page of the leftish New Party and says he likes its ..."

University of Chicago Calendar of Events - November 1996

"November 3 - Sunday
Pre-Election Victory Party & Fundraiser for Danny K. Davis
3 p.m. - 5 p.m. Home of Dr. Quentin & Ruth Young. 312.939.4136. Sponsored by the Illinois New Party. "

Ballot Access News - November 12th, 1996

"A dues-paying member of the New Party, Danny K. Davis of Chicago, was elected to the U.S. House; however, he was on the ballot only as the Democratic nominee."

Naturally, information is much more readily available for Davis, a United States Representative, than what was available for Obama following his first campaign victory. In addition, it is well-documented that the Obama campaign and supporters have engaged in widespread scrubbing of sites that may contain information that would be detrimental to his presidential campaign.

Yet, despite their best efforts, the availability of Google's 2001 index is shedding light on Obama's past, a light that has confirmed that Obama was a member of the DSA's New Party. The national attention to Representative Davis' membership in the New Party only further corroborates the evidence that is just now beginning to surface.

J Brown
October 14th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Obama's 300 Tax Increases In Illinois & The State That Lags Economically!

Senator Obama knows how to talk the talk, but does he walk the walk?

Obama claims to be able to restore fiscal responsibility to our government; yet, his nearly $1 trillion in new proposed spending tells a different story. He claims that increases in taxes on Businesses and wealthy Americans will bring fiscal health back to our government; yet he cannot explain how government revenues have actually grown by 20% over the past 7 years despite what he refers to as "irresponsible tax cuts". The problem with Senator Obama is simple, he has a limited record to work off of and no one in the MSM is willing to question that limited record.

As a resident of Illinois, I have seen first hand what the effects of Obama's "change" have been. In 2002, following the term of a corrupt "Republican Governor" who abandoned his own parties fiscal principles by raising taxes and overspending, Democrats gained full control of Illinois government. Running on a platform of 'change' nearly identical to that of Obama, these Chicago politicians promised massive social spending and programming, along with the ability to balance a budget plagued by deficits caused by the 01'-02'recession. Since a majority of Senator Obama's experience comes a state legislator, perhaps its time to look at his record.

Prior to 1999, Republicans controlled both the Illinois Senate and Executive Branch. Under the control of a popular governor, Illinois enjoyed a budgetary surplus that had led to the creation of a 'rainy day fund'. After Governor Edgar retired in 1998, George Ryan came to power running on a platform that promised the same fiscal constraint practiced by Edgar. However, just two years after taking office, Ryan embarked on an orgy of Pork-Barrel spending and massive spending programs leading to split between Illinois Republicans and his administration. Ryan, with the help of Illinois Democrats increased taxes and licensing fees on Illinois business. When recession hit following 9/11, State revenues collapsed, followed by multiple allegations of corruption by the governor. As a result, Chicago's political machine, ran by Rod Blagojevich and Obama's mentor, Emil Jones, took power.

During his career in the Illinois Senate, Barack Obama never saw a tax increase that he didn't like. CBS News Jan 17, 2007 - 'Obama occasionally supported higher taxes, joining other Democrats in pushing to raise more than 300 taxes and fees on businesses in 2004 to help solve a budget deficit. The increases passed the Senate 30-28.' Fox News Feb. 27, 2008 - 'A new report says he supported more than 300 tax hikes during his eight years in the Illinois State Senate'.

Yet, these reports do not even begin to demonstrate the fiscal irresponsibility practiced by Obama. Facing a budget deficit in 2003, the newly anointed Illinois Governor, with the full support of Senator Obama who voted for his budget, increased the annual budget by more than $2 billion, as opposed to seeking spending limits or cuts. On April 9th, 2003, Blagojevich introduced his budget by stating, "WE WILL NOT BALANCE THE BUDGET BY SACRIFICING OUR VALUES. INSTEAD, WE WILL BALANCE THE BUDGET BY ENDING BUSINESS AS USUAL." Sound Familiar?

Over the course of the next two years Senator Obama would vote after tax increase after tax increase.

Obama voted for an income-tax hike on natural gas. SB1733 was a $42 million income-tax hike on Illinois businesses that choose to purchase cheaper out-of-state natural gas. (2003)[I'm sure that those businesses never even thought about passing on the increased costs to the consumer.]
In 2003, Obama voted to raise the state corporate income tax by $59 million for industries that use heavy machinery. The tax hit consumers of oil, coal, other natural resources in addition to businesses from contractors to graphic arts companies.

Voted for a property tax hike to increase patronage employees' pay. The bill, costing taxpayers $31 million per year, was vetoed only to be overridden by the senate and house.

In 2004, Obama voted for yet another state income-tax increase that hit Illinois businesses for an additional $29 million per year. In addition, Obama also voted for increased real estate sales taxes and a computer software sales tax hike that cost Illinois consumers and home buyers a combined $95 Million. Obama also supported a 33% increase in licensing fees on Illinois Residents.

In a single massive bill in 2004, Obama voted to increase over 300 TAXES AND FEES Assessed on professionals and businesses operating under state licenses. The bill increased fees on every profession regulated under the state, from hair dressers to insurance agents, contractors to doctors. Fee increases were phenomenal in many cases as insurance agents and investment brokers for instance saw their licensing fees increase by as much as 400%.

But professional fees were minute compared to the massive fees imposed on business licensed entities. Automobile Dealers saw their licensing fees increase by a whopping 2,000% (not a typo). A Massive 36% Increase in Interstate Trucking Licensing fees caused a massive decline in interstate trucking as companies moved out of state and avoided interstate transportation through Illinois like the plague. Nearly every business, both small and large were affected by a massive increase in Worker's compensation fees paid by Illinois Businesses. In November 2004, An Illinois Circuit Judge ruled the Worker's Comp fees unconstitutional as the funds were being re-diverted to the general fund.

Obama voted to increase Regulatory Securities Fees On Banks & Investment Companies (ironically the state actually decreased regulatory staffing and employment)While raising regulatory fees, the state cut the Banking Office & Financial Institutions Budget by over 1.1 Million in first year.

But tax and fee increases were only the beginning for Obama and his Chicago cronies. Obama, in an attempt to increase government revenues to pay for billions in new spending, began robbing Peter to pay Paul. Obama supported a plan by Governor Blagojevich to mortgage the Thomspson Center in Chicago to raise $200 Million. The plan was quashed by the Democratic Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, who challenged the mortgage as procedurally unconstitutional.

Obama supported and voted for a plan that would generate revenue for the State by issuing $10 Billion in bonds tied to the State's Teachers Retirement System. The plan, which would put the state on the hook for the annual interest and a repayment of the $10 billion debt, would put at risk the long term viability of the Teachers Retirement System. Five years later no plan has been proposed to offer insight as to how to repay the long-term debt. In 2004, Obama would add insult to injury as he voted for a bill to short the State's contribution to the State Employees Retirement System and Re-vamp the Teachers Retirement System. The bill would actually limit pay raises made available to teachers in the years prior to their retirement.

Obama also failed miserably to support any spending cuts proposed by the few remaining fiscal conservatives left in Illinois. In 2003, Obama voted for SB1239 that included $750 Million in pork spending. The Governor would actually veto more than $556 Million from the bill only to his veto overturned by Obama and the rest of the heavily Democratic Illinois Legislature.

In 2007, suffering yet another year of Budget deficits, Illinois' Governor would propose a Gross Receipts Tax that would impose a tax on Gross Revenue of business and services rather than Gross Income. The bill was opposed by nearly every business group, consumer group and legislature in Illinois. The tax would have been the largest tax increase put forth by any state in history and many experts testified that the tax would have destroyed Illinois' economy. To give you an idea of how the tax would have worked, take for instance an individual real estate agent. If this agent had sold $1 million in real estate during the year, they would have expected pre-tax commissions of $35,000 - $70,000. The GRT would have imposed a 1% tax on the gross sales, or around $10,000. Although the tax was 1% of Gross Receipts, the tax to the agent would have been as high as 30%. For business dealing with high volume, low profit margin items such as real estate, automobiles or furniture, the tax would have destroyed their profits and operating incomes. When it became apparent the bill would fail, the Governor advised his supporters to vote against the bill to save their re-election bids. Senator Obama, although questioned repeatedly, refused to acknowledge whether or not he supported the GRT.

Dan Cronin - Illinois State Senator - "I think you just have to kind of look and take a step back and see what is happening here in Illinois. Look at the business climate. Look at the fiscal climate. This is not a place that is very friendly to business. It's a high-tax, high-regulatory state. We lag in the nation. "

How have these tax increases helped one of the nations largest states?

According to the 2008 Economic Scorecard by The U.S. Chamber, Illinois ranks...

Business Costs: (C-) 39th
Economic Growth: (D+) 36th
Economic Prosperity: (C+) 16th
Education: (B) 16th
Regulatory Environment: (D-) 49th
Workforce Preparedness: (B-) 16th

Since 2002, Illinois has consistently lagged in job growth and has seen a drastic reduction in the number of of health care workers employed within the state. Since 2002, Illinois has raised more taxes and fees than any other state in the nation, while failing to balance their budget even once. Since 2002, Illinois has expanded social services, such as children's health insurance, without taking a single step to protect services already in existence. As of October of 2008, the state is over 18 months behind in Medicaid payments to health care providers.

Illinois is a picture of Obama's economic philosophy and what this nation has to look forward too, it is a picture of corruption, out-of-control spending and a government that will tax small and large businesses into non-existence.

J Brown
October 13th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

As Oil Prices Fall, Obama's Windfall Profits Tax & Energy Policy Falls Apart!

The only silver lining that has developed economically in the past 3 months is the consistently falling oil prices due to the fear within the industry that the economy will continue to slow and global demand will fall. As of this morning October 10th, oil prices had fallen by over 40% to just under $83 per barrel. Although this is welcome news for the American Public as gas prices continue to fall to near $3/gallon in many area, the political impact is not being discussed.

Falling oil prices have essentially destroyed Senator Obama's theoretical funding for his Energy policy and should once again highlight a brutal truth about his call for a Windfall Profits Tax. Obama's energy policy is based upon 2 ideas:

#1) A $150 Billion investment in the green industry, and

#2) A $500/person energy rebate that would cost $75 billion.

In March, Obama proposed that he would pay for his $150 billion green investment through a Windfall Profits Tax. His economic advisers suggested that the tax would generate around $15 billion per year. But when oil prices spiked during the summer, Obama changed his rhetoric and began promising a $500/person energy rebate that would be paid for over a five year period by the same windfall profits tax.

We're not going to discuss the economic history behind the windfall profits tax and it's utter failure during it's first existence. Instead lets look at the reality that as oil prices fall they highlight the fact that Obama's energy funding only works if Oil Prices remain inflated.

Obama's Windfall profits tax is based upon placing a 20%-25% tax on every barrel of oil consumed in the United States that costs more that $80 per barrel. Obama expects his WPT to generate $150 billion over ten years; over 7 times larger than the $2 billion/year that Hillary Clinton had proposed. As a result, this means that OIL PRICES MUST REMAIN MORE THAN $80 PER BARREL FOR THE TAX TO WORK!

As a reminder, when Democrats took control of congress in 2006, promising lower energy costs, a barrel of oil was trading around $60. As a result, if oil prices fall to $80 will Obama praise the falling prices, will he alter his proposals, how will he now cover the cost of these plans during a time in which the deficit will likely balloon to over $1 trillion.

Now for the dirty little secret about Obama's proposed WPT. The tax is a tax on production. The tax is not based upon a levy against oil company profits, but rather the price of a barrel of oil. Although Obama has stated that the tax would generate around $15 billion per year, the reality is that if oil prices spiked that tax would generate massive revenue and cause a massive exodus of oil production and importation from the US.

Let's assume today's oil price $83 per barrel and the lower amount of Obama's 20% tax. The tax would generate around 60 Cents per barrel. Considering that the US consumer 20 million barrels per day, the WPT would generate $4.4 Billion dollars per year; far short of the amount needed to fund Obama's energy proposals.

Now let's assume that oil jumped to $120 per barrel; the tax would now generate $8 per barrel. Considering US consumption, that would result in a tax of $58.4 Billion per year; over 1/3 of the entire oil industries profits last year. That is why the WPT is dangerous.

No oil company would ever choose to produce oil domestically in the U.S. or to import oil into the U.S. under conditions in which they could produce or export oil to nations that do not pose such a penalty. Just as with the first WPT, collection efforts would create huge costs and massive bureaucracy, domestic production and importation would fall and revenue would never meet expectations.

Falling oil prices are good news for the American public and should serve as a wake up call that only way that Senator Obama's energy plans would work are if prices remained artificially high and if oil companies were to magically accept the destruction of their profits.

J Brown
October 10th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

2nd Source Confirms Obama Socialist Party Membership, Plus How They Infiltrated Democratic Party

Yesterday, we disclosed 2 documents, a archived press release from the New Party in 1996 and an archived Populist Progressive article, both confirming Barack Obama's membership in the Socialist Affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America. On Wednesday, I went hunting for additional sources...

1996 Election Update From The Columbus Free Post
"The first NP member heads to Congress, as Danny Davis wins an overwhelming 85% victory yesterday (he got a higher percentage of the vote in that district than the President). NP member and State Senate candidate Barack Obama won uncontested. Interestingly, it appears that the local Democratic machine is trying to distance itself from our folks."

Link To Columbus Free Post Article

This revelation has left many people wondering how this could be since Obama ran under the Democratic Party banner during the 1996 Election. As a result, we want to shed insider light on how the New Party planned their takeover of the Democratic Party.

From The Happy Birthday Update Published By The New Party in 1997:

" the New Party would remain independent of the Democratic Party -- but without undermining the Democrats. The New Party's program for a new majority would, as Todd Gutlin puts it, center around an "old fashioned" concern for issues like living wages.

...the New Party's founders suggest, the left needs an organization that straddles the inside-outside fence. If the U.S. left is ever to make a meaningful decision on the third-party-vs.-Dems question, they propose, it must first take on the task of grassroots power-building.
Thus, most of the New Party's work has been in local politics, where its candidates need no party label -- just the activist energy it takes to win office. The party's strategy has been to build political organizations in a few targeted cities, working closely with labor and community organizations. Chapters run candidates only where they have a real chance of winning, combine campaign work with organizing and education, and refuse to spoil elections by stealing votes from the better of two major party candidates.
But to grow past the local level, something more is needed...

...Until major changes in the legal structure of the U.S. politics happen, we're stuck with a two-party system, and progressives -- if they want to win many elections -- will have to run, and vote, Democrat.
But without fusion, the New Party is not likely to have the capacity to swing higher level elections any time soon, inside or outside the Democratic Party. For now the New Party is nothing more -- and nothing less -- than a network of local labor-community political organizations. These organizations can, from time to time, move their political muscle and know-how into Democratic primaries to back progressive candidates for state legislature and even Congress, but do not have the size or clout to field their own candidates for the Senate, the Governor's office, or the White House."

Full Article Here

Now you're beginning to understand how Obama, The New Party and ACORN have hijacked the Democratic Party. Here is more, a tell all article published by a New Party Member in Missoula, Montana in 1997:

"As our party(ies) grow, and build a strong base of support, we should move up in electoral space to higher level offices...
...Chapters generally require endorsed candidates to sign a contract, with requirements that they be NP members, identify as such, support the NP principles and program, and work to build NP chapters...
...For the New Party, whether progressives should run as Democrats is a tactical, not ideological, question...
...We rely on the good judgment of our local organizers and leadership to determine whether candidates should run as independents or inside Democratic primaries, or as fusion challengers. Regardless of whether our candidates run as "non-partisan" (in fact, the vast majority of our candidates, as we're generally running in local elections which are usually non-partisan), "New Party Democrats" (inside Dem Primaries), or independents, they all are New Party members, identify as such, and work to help build local independent political power..."

Link To Article

Now you're starting to see the light of how dangerous this organization is, how it has hijacked the Democratic Party, and how similar their goals for achieving electoral success are to another 80 years old Socialist Organization that used the same bottom-up populist approach to overthrowing a democratic government. Can anyone guess what National Socialist Organization that was?

Another Interesting Obama Speech No One Has Heard About:

Chicago DSA Press Release New Ground 69:

"Obama also has put in time at the grass roots, working for five years as a community organizer in Harlem and in Chicago. When Obama participated in a 1996 UofC YDS Townhall Meeting on Economic Insecurity, much of what he had to say was well within the mainstream of European social democracy. "

Link To Article Look Under The Endorsements Section

What Is The YDS?

Youth Democratic Socialists - Interesting, Isn't It?

Why is this just now becoming uncovered?

These organizations with the help of the Obama Campaign have been scrubbing their sites for months to limit potential disclosure of Obama's nefarious roots. Meanwhile, Google in a celebration of it's 10th anniversary announced at the end of September that were making their very first Internet index available for a 1 month period. www.google.com/search2001.html

This index is unscrubbed, yet the downside is that the index is limited. Upon finding information, Google will post the original link, along with a reference to the Internet Archives link. However, IA must have archived the page for it to show up. So Search and Search Fast Before It Is Shut Down.

See Our Original Article Web Archives Confirms Obama As Member Of Socialist New Party

Be Sure To DIGG UP The Original Article Here

Jarid Brown
October 9th, 2008
Click Here To Access Over 600 Free Career and Professional Trade Publications.
No Credit Card, No Payments, No Surveys, No Strings - Special Offer For Our Readers. Publications include Inc., CFO Magazine, Google White Pages, The Economist and hundreds more.

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Web Archives Confirm Barack Obama Was Member Of Socialist 'New Party' In 1996

UPDATE: WE WILL POST AT LEAST ONE MORE SOURCE COMING TOMORROW! Subscribe to feeds or bookmark page.

In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago "New Party". The 'New Party' was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. The admittedly Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist 'New Party' was essentially defunct after losing a supreme court challenge that ruled the organizations "fusion" reform platform as unconstitutional.

After allegations surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and 'New Party' then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party.

On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page.

From the October 1996 Update of the DSA 'New Party':
"New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races...

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."

Link To The New Party Update

Beyond the archived web page from the Socialist New Party is the recognition by the "Progressive Populist" magazine in November 1996 that Obama was indeed an acknowledged member of the Socialist Party.

"New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago. "

Link To The November 1996 Progressive Populist Article

The Democratic Socialist Party of America published in their July/August Edition of New Ground 47 Newsletter.

"The Chicago New Party is increasely becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base...

the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration."

Link To DSA Article

Obama's membership within the 'New Party' is disturbing as even Green Party members attacked the DSA and New Party as nothing more than a fringe group. The New Party had hoped to implement Socialist Rule in the United States and was established to counteract the influence of a Democratic Party that they viewed as too moderate and too centered. Now it seems that nearly 10 years after the socialist party fell apart, their strategy of upward growth has reached the White House. Obama's ties to the DSA's New Party is beyond just an association it is outright membership, as clearly defined by the parties August 1996 newsletter, in an outright Socialist organization.

DIGG IT: http://digg.com/politics/Archives_confirm_Barack_Obama_belonged_to_socialist_party

From Our Friends At American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/archives_prove_obama_was_a_new.html

J Brown
October 8th, 2008
Click Here To Access Over 600 Free Career and Professional Trade Publications.
No Credit Card, No Payments, No Surveys, No Strings - Special Offer For Our Readers. Publications include Inc., CFO Magazine, Google White Pages, The Economist and hundreds more.

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Jim Cramer: Dow 7700 'Real Possibility', Time To Reevaluate!

Jim Cramer, the well known market guru made two revelations yesterday which should raise genuine concerns for the general public with money in the stock market. Cramer, the host of Mad Money on CNBC, is easily one of the most colorful and even controversial investment experts in the industry, yet his insight into the market turmoil has for the most part been dead-on.

Yesterday morning, Cramer in an interview with the Today Show's Ann Curry, stated that investors who might need to utilize investments within the next five years should immediately re-assess their needs and "take it out". Cramer told Curry, "Whatever money you may need for the next five years, please take it out of the stock market right now, this week. I do not believe that you should risk those assets in the stock market right now.”



Cramer's statement alluded to the turmoil that was occurring throughout global markets and the realization by much of the world that their economies strength was dependent upon the strength of the US economy. Cramer, pointed out the weekend revelations that European Banks were collapsing at an astounding rate, stating, "“One thing is certain — they are, in Europe, behind us. We’ve experienced more pain than they have, we are surprised at their pain, we didn’t know how bad off they were.”

Later in the day as the market appeared to be melting down, Cramer on CNBC told viewers that a decline to 7,700 point in the Dow Jones Industrial Average was a "real possibility". Once again, Cramer who typically focuses on informing investors of bullish opportunities, warned short-term investors to pull their money out. Cramer made sure to qualify his remarks by stating that the market turmoil is creating long-term opportunities for those who have the ability to ride out the storm; but for those who may need funds for children's educations, retirement income, home purchases or other needs within five years should watch the market for any short term bounce and pull those funds out.



The collapse of the large financials has raised serious concerns within the investment community. Typically, the financial markets have been among the last sectors to effects of a recession and among the first sectors to recover. However, the economic pressures being exerted today are a direct result of the combination of a weakening financial sector coupled by high energy and food costs. As a result, the markets are in turmoil and the extent of the global financial systems melt-down may not be realized for months. The time is now to re-assess your financial portfolio, budgetary and financial needs.

J Brown
October 7th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Obama Contributor & Lehman CEO Richard Fuld Comes Under Fire By Congress!

Former Lehman Brothers CEO and long-time Barack Obama contributor Richard Fuld is testifying today concerning his role in the failure of the Investment banking giant. Fuld joins the ranks of the dozens of former wall street executives who have or are likely to be paraded in front of Congress over the coming months. Fuld also contributed to Senator Dodd's campaign and The Democratic National Senatorial Committee's fund.

Among Obama's campaign contributors are dozens of other Lehman Brothers Executives, such as President Joseph Gregory ($4,600). On June 19th, Lehman shareholders filed suit against Fuld and Gregory for the company’s exposure in the subprime market. In addition to dozens of Lehman executives are Obama's bundlers from Lehman Brothers who have raised top dollar for the campaign. Direct contributions from Lehman Brothers have exceeded $395,000 for Senator Obama, while bundled contributions raised by Lehman Executives have been just short of phenomenal.

John Rhea - (over $500,000) Co-Head of Lehman Bros. Global Investment Banking
Mark Gilbert - (over $500,000) Lehman Brothers Senior Executive
Christine Forester - (over $500,000) Lehman Brothers Senior Executive
Theodore Janulis – Bundler (over $100,000) & Lehman Brothers Head of Global Mort.
Nadja Fidelia – Bundler (over $50,000) & Managing Director of Lehman Brothers

Fuld now holds the distinguished position of joining other highly influential Obama contributors within the financial sector including Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson.

Stanley Price - Former CEO of Merrill Lynch (testified in front of Congress in 2007 after receiving $161 million in compensation after being ousted for ML's subprime exposure)
Brad Morrice - CEO of imploded subprime lender New Century
Steve Boland - Managing Director of CountryWide
Andrew Beer - President of Wachovia's Subprime Lender Evergreen Investments
Robert Wolf, the CEO of UBS Americas, helped the Obama campaign raise more than $500,000. Louis Susman, the Chairman of a Citibank Subsidiary.
John W. Roberts - (over $500,000) Ariel Capital Management
Richard Leweke – Vice Chairman of Washington Mutual Card Services
Seth Waugh – CEO of Deutsche Bank
Charles Lewis – Vice Chairman of Merrill Lynch

Click Here To Read More About Obama's Subrpime Buddies

J Brown
October 6th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Your Tax Dollars At Work: Why The Government Will Never Recover The $700 Billion Bailout Cost!

For 2 weeks the Bush Administration and Democratic and Republican leadership in the house have driven fear into the American public, predicting calamity and depression if a government intervention of the credit markets did not occur. After a majority of House Republicans joined by 40% of House Democrats rebuffed the bailout plan, the Senate turned a 110 page bill into a more than 450 page "crap sandwich" chock full of pork spending. After the initial vote, the markets suffered their largest 1 day point drop (not percentage drop) in history, and once again government leadership played the fear card while reassuring us that as taxpayers we would recover the $700 billion used for this bailout. Yet, despite the hundreds of hours of network coverage, no one in the media actually examined the back end of this bill and whether or not our government would ever recover the $700 billion.

Unfortunately in their quest to manipulate the financial markets upward, the bill passed yesterday; was signed into law by President Bush; and now our government is in a position to become the largest sub-prime mortgage company in history. Yet the question remains, Can We Really resell these toxic assets and recover taxpayer dollars?

No, and here is why:

First, politicians such as Senator Obama have compared this bailout bill to government real estate purchases and bailouts of the Great Depression, referring to the fact that the Treasury turned a profit when the economy recovered. In reality, however, this bailout is in no way similar to the government interventions in the 1930's. The underlying causes of these toxic assets are a combination of government over-regulation (such as the pressure the government applied to mortgage companies to lower credit standards to offer loans to low-income or poor-credit buyers) and deregulation which muddied the lines between investment banking, commercial banking and the insurance industry. At the root of this failure was Fannie and Freddie who began purchasing these high risk mortgages and reselling them; this move by Fannie and Freddie legitimized the lowering of credit-standards, removed the risk from commercial banks and pumped profits into these institutions. As a result, lenders now realized that they could turn enormous profits through offering these risky mortgages and then unloading the risk through Fannie and Freddie. There of course are dozens of other regulatory failures (both over regulation and deregulation of certain operations) that contributed to this credit failure.

The repurchases during the depression, revolved around an entirely separate set of circumstances. The mortgage defaults that occurred during the early years of the depression that led to a bailout, occurred not because of the credit-worthiness of the mortgagees, but rather because of the collapse of the banking system. The lack of reserves and insurance protection within the banking system in 1930 resulted in money being loaned out as quickly as it was deposited within financial institutions. The 'run' on banks that occurred in the early 30's created a situation by which the banks did not have sufficient reserves (if any) to pay out account holders trying to withdraw their funds. With a lack of mortgagee protections in place, banks began calling back loans and demanding repayment on existing mortgages. Naturally, the land-owners and homeowners could not meet the repayment demands and the system collapsed. The collapse was not caused by a lack of creditworthiness or defaults of property owners, but rather by a collapse of the overlying banking system.

As a result, the government land bailouts of the depression were not a bailout of 'toxic assets' or high risk mortgages; it was a bailout of a collapsed system in which there were no buyers, only sellers. The bailouts of the 30's were designed to take mortgages off the hands of the banking system, thus allowing the banking system to return lost assets to tax payers, not to allow the banking system to return to business as usual. An overwhelming majority of mortgagees were able to continue their scheduled payments as originally set forth, with only a small percentage defaulting. When the economy recovered as a result of WWII (that's right, unemployment in 1936 was still at 19%), the mortgage based bailout assets, of which most had continued to paid as usual, were able to be re-sold by the government for a profit because the underlying assets were never 'toxic' and the mortgages were originally underwritten to individuals with sound repayment abilities (a majority of depression bailouts were agricultural). This bailout is completely different as the bailout consists of our government accepting the highest risk mortgages that were written, with high default rates coupled by little or negative equity positions. Additionally, this bailout was not a result of a run on the system in which bailout funds are funnelled to depositors, this is a bailout designed to allow the banking system to carry on business as usual. As a result, there are three reasons why we will never recuperate the taxpayer dollars forfeited to this bailout.

#1) A New Bureaucracy. This bailout just created an expanded property management program under which bureaucrats will be charged with handling the massive number of federally-owned high risk mortgages. This expanded program will balloon in size and will require years of federal funding to pay for the expanded agencies. This bailout is the gift that keeps on giving because every year tax payers will pay millions of dollars out to fund what will most-likely be another inept government agency. To give you an idea of what to expect: When the failed windfall profits tax of 1980 was instituted, the IRS soon opposed the tax as the most expensive collection effort in history. The IRS stated that the collection of this tax, imposed on a relatively small number of companies had cost taxpayers of $150 million per year. Now consider the size of this bailout and sheer number of mortgages that will be managed by the government. It is safe to assume that the property management efforts of Fed will easily cost tax payers $500 million to $1 billion per year (if not more). Plus, with bureaucracy comes corruption and waste, especially when the congressional members who got us into this mess are the ones designing the solution and responsible for oversight.

#2) Trillions of dollars in 'toxic assets'. The mortgages that government will take over under this bailout are the highest risk mortgages in the marketplace, thus 'toxic assets'. Although the government will be purchasing these assets for 10-20 cents on the dollar, they are also assuming a tremendous risk as there will continue to be defaults, management costs and collection costs. This bailout contains provisions to protect the mortgagees of these toxic assets. Under the bailout, if a mortgagee is in risk of defaulting on the loan, a government property manager will have the power to force the servicing institution to adjust the interest, principal and points associated with that mortgage in an attempt to allow the mortgagee to maintain the home. In other words, if you can't afford the home, we will simply lower your payments, lower your interest and extend your mortgage.

Because the government is only buying 'toxic assets', it is safe to say that a large number of these assets will undergo this loan restructuring. Additionally, as the public, whose loans have come under control of the Fed, becomes more aware of the ability to reprice their loan, more will take advantage of the opportunity. The result of this repricing of interest, principal, points and repayment period will be a larger loss in the open market price of the mortgage. So even when the economy and real estate market recovers, the government will find it difficult to find buyers for mortgages with below market interest rates and extended repayment periods. The problem is that no investors in the marketplace today will touch these assets, and no investor in the future is going to want to purchase mortgages with a high risk of default and below market interest rates (high risk, low return).

#3) The Once Bitten, Twice Shy Principle. A major influence in investments is psychology. Even within the institutional investment world, psychology is a major factor in buying and selling. Every investor, including institutional managers will have trouble purchasing these 'toxic' assets when the market recovers. Why? Simply consider this:

I you purchased AIG stock at $78 per share and then lost 85% of your investment, would you consider purchasing more of that stock 5 years later when the value recover to $45 per share. Even if the company were now sound, with a high credit rating and strong outlook for profits, you would think twice; three times; four times and if another alternative was available you would avoid it. You would heavily research the company to assure the turn-around was real. Even if the real estate market recovers and economy enters a boom period, investors in mortgage backed securities are not going to be likely to repurchase these assets. Why? Because the underlying mortgages will still be 'toxic'; many of the underlying mortgages will have been restructured at lower interest rates and extended repayment periods; and most importantly because there will be new "non-toxic" assets available for investment. If the markets recover, the muck mortgages of today, will still be the muck mortgages of tommorrow; the marketplace may improve, but these government owned assets will not have changed. As an investor, why would you take on a higher-risk, lower-return mortgage backed security, when you could take on a lower-risk, higher-return mortgage backed security?

Unlike the depression-era mortgage bailouts, this bailout is essentially a buyout of the highest-default, highest-risk mortgages in the marketplace. Regardless of what economic changes occur, the underlying mortgages will remain the highest-default, highest risk mortgages in the marketplace. The government has used our money to purchase the muck of the industry, and as the House Minority Leader put it, now we are all stuck with the biggest "crap sandwich" in history.

J Brown
October 4th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Obama Promises Crowd New Government Funding ( Bailout ) For Auto Industry!

Less than 1 week after both the House and Senate passed a $25 billion bailout for the automotive industry, Senator Obama promised a crowd in Michigan government intervention and funding for the industry. The bailout passed as part of the stop-gap bill came in the form of low interest government loans expected to save the automotive industry over $100 billion in interest and designed to be used for improvements to factories and re-tooling for new hybrid vehicles. Yet the bill that passed, had no built-in restrictions or oversight on how the industry was to utilize the money. In addition, the $25 billion, a mere 25 times larger than the 1979-1980 bailout of Chrysler, contained no provisions for limitations on executive pay, no requirement for restructuring of operations and no repayment schedule; all of which were contained in the 1979-1980 bailout.

Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that an economic stimulus package introduced into the Senate last Thursday contained language for an additional $25 billion in loans/bailout funds for the industry. Although lawmakers have stated that this $25 billion were the same loans, the bill was introduced the same day that the Senate received the Stop-Gap bill and the language calling for the additional $25 billion has never been removed.

Senator Obama made no mention of this loan/bailout in his speech in Grand Rapids on Thursday, but did promise the crowd that he would provide new Government funding for the automotive industry. In his prepared remarks, Obama stated, "But I refuse to accept that Washington has to stand idly by while foreign automakers outpace us. I’m running for President to make sure the cars of the future are made in the same place they’ve always been made – right here in Michigan. I’ll be a President who finally keeps the promise that’s made year after year by providing the funding our automakers need to retool their factories and make fuel-efficient and alternative fuel cars and trucks."

"Funding Our Automakers Need"!

Obama;s statement amounts to nothing more than dangerous populous pandering, especially in light of the $25 billion our government is handing automakers to "retool their factories". Obama's statements can only be taken two ways:

A) He is simply trying to accept credit for a bailout that has already been passed, or

B) He is promising a new bailout of the industry aimed at capturing votes in a state that appears to be in perpetual recession.

My guess is the latter.

Obama of course, failed to recognize the fact that foreign automakers such as Daimler, Toyota, Honda and others employ tens of thousands of Americans. However, Obama's statements should worry everyone. This congress has done nothing to address the underlying problems of plummeting sales within the auto industry. This week they threw $25 billion to this industry without any preconditions at a time in which Ford & GM lost over $22 billion in the second-quarter alone. New Government Funding of the auto industry, as Obama is now promising, does nothing to solve automakers' underlying problems and will do nothing to create new jobs in Michigan. Just last week, despite the passage of the bailout funds, ford announced additional layoffs, and to believe that throwing more money at these companies will solve the problem is ridiculous.

If Obama wants to help the auto industry, then he should work to take steps to immediately lower energy prices. Lower energy costs mean a revival in sales for the industry; and with profits comes reinvestment in new technologies and new jobs. Throwing more bailout dollars to an industry with no sales, will do nothing more than allow these companies to barley survive while continuing to lose billions. Bailout dollars will be diverted into payroll, insurance and increased operating costs in order to survive and will never find their way back to their original purpose.

The American taxpayer should not have to continue to foot the bill for these companies whose own mismanagement and bloated expenses have ruined their ability to compete in the marketplace. But then again, Obama is just telling the crowd what they want to hear.

Populism within this campaign cycle is out of control; and as history has proven, turmoiled economic times threaten the very basis of capitalism and democracy. Today's populism prey's upon the fears that every American family has and promises that the Government will solve their problems. The government should only have 2 purposes in intervening in private industry; first to protect consumers & workers, and second, to promote competition.

Additional government bailouts of the auto industry (or government funding as Senator Obama call it) will do nothing to solve the underlying structural and macro-economic challenges that face that industry. Pumping billions of taxpayer dollars into companies whose products that taxpayers aren't purchasing is ridiculous. If Senator Obama really wanted to help Michigan workers than he would not offer billions in bailout funds while at the same time proposing a massive tax-increase on these companies (sort of hypocritical). Instead, he should be offering automakers new tax-cuts or credits based upon expanding investment and hiring new employees. Obama should be suggesting ways to strengthen the dollar and lower short-term energy costs which would revive purchases of the products these companies sell.

At the end of day, the Senator who just months ago attacked automotive industry executives is now promising them "government funding", which should prove to everyone he will say anything so long as he gets your vote. The combination of Bush's inability to veto spending legislation and a Democratic Congressional Leadership with no fiscal constraint will break all previous deficit records. As our deficit grows; the dollar will fall. As our deficit grows; the cost of clothes, food and energy will rise. And despite all of this, Senator Obama is now promising new bailouts for an Auto Industry that congress just gave $25 billion too.

J Brown
October 3rd, 2008
Click Here To Access Over 600 Free Career and Professional Trade Publications.
No Credit Card, No Payments, No Surveys, No Strings - Special Offer For Our Readers. Publications include Inc., CFO Magazine, Google White Pages, The Economist and hundreds more.

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Obama Voted To Cut Regulatory Agency Budgets & Staffs In 2003!

Welcome to Illinois in 2003:

In 2003, Democrats took the reigns of Illinois government with control of both houses of the legislative branch and the Governor's office. Facing a budget deficit caused by out of control spending and budgetary shortfalls from post 9/11 recession, Democrats, such as Barack Obama promised to restore fiscal responsibility to the budget. Their solution to this budgetary crisis was the implementation of nearly $2 billion in new social programs, increases in fees and taxes imposed upon Illinois' business community, and massive budgetary cuts in agencies across the board. Over the next 5 years the Democratically controlled legislature and executive branch would fail to balance a single budget, wasting billions on unsuccessful and costly programs while taxing Illinois businesses to the point that Illinois would rank among the bottom 25% of all states in economic growth.

Today, we hear Senator Obama, the prodigal son of the Chicago Political Machine, running on a platform nearly identical to that of the 2002 platform that brought Democrats to power in Illinois. Obama has taken the financial crisis head-on by pointing blame to Republicans and calling for a new 21st century Regulatory platform. Yet, Senator Obama's record in regard to regulation is far from Stellar, especially in Illinois.

After taking control of Illinois in 2003, over the course of the following two years the State would double regulatory fees collected by it's two financial regulatory agencies. Increased fees collected by the Department of Financial Institutions and Office of Banks and Real Estate would balloon. The Office of Banks & Real Estate, under fee increases would see regulatory collections double to over $60 million dollars. Senator Obama proudly voted for bills that imposed over 300 increased fees and taxes on Illinois businesses including regulatory fees.

Yet, with an increase in the collection of regulatory fees, we would expect that these 2 agencies would be better staffed to handle their regulatory functions. Not the case in Illinois.

The increased regulatory fees imposed on banks and financial institutions in Illinois were diverted into the State's general fund and used to help fund Obama and Blagojevichs' new social programs. The regulators in Illinois never received a dime.

More importantly however, is the budgetary cuts that Senator Obama voted for in both 2003 and 2004. Obama supported and voted for Blagojevich's budget cuts which directly affected both financial regulatory agencies in Illinois. In 2004, the Office of Banks and Real Estate suffered an 11.6% cut in it's funding. Obama voted for the $3.6 million cut which resulted in the elimination of 45 positions within the agency which included the elimination of auditors and regulators of banks, financial accounting and real estate transaction auditors. But remember, regulatory fees doubled in 2004. In addition, 2004 budget cuts, supported and voted for by Obama led to a 10.8% cut in the funding of the Department of Financial Institutions. The cut led to a reduction in the staffing from 117 positions to just 90 positions. Now for the kicker...As of 2002, Illinois had the largest number of Commercial banks whose main offices were located within the state of any state in the nation.

Once again, Obama's short lived record just doesn't cut it. He talks the talk, but when push comes to shove he has not walked the walk. Over the past 5 years Illinois has consistently ranked among the bottom of all states in economic growth. Coupled by 6 straight years of fiscal policies identical to those Obama has called for in his campaign, this lack of fiscal constraint has led to a government unable to balance a single budget. It has not worked in Illinois and will not work nationally.

Obama record in Illinois is clear, when given the chance he raised regulatory fees, diverted the money to other agencies, and voted to cut the budgets of the very agencies responsible for regulatory oversight of the financial industry.

J Brown
October 2nd, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Bailout Grants FDIC Unlimited Access To Funds From Treasury!

Yesterday I wrote about the lack of sound fiscal judgement exercised by extending the insurance limits on FDIC deposits within the bailout bill. The move which is aimed at nothing more than restoring consumer confidence in banks puts the entire Federal Deposit Insurance program at risk.

After the failures of Indymac, WaMu, and Wachovia and failures of dozens of other banks, FDIC was forced to negotiate buyouts of these corporations from larger financials because FDIC did not have sufficient assets within their own insurance fund. Yesterday, I pointed out that just one national failure or large regional bank failure could easily wipe out the $45 billion Federal Insurance fund and cause a bailout of FDIC and panic to sweep through the banking sector.

Congress apparently has the same fear, as yesterday they approved the bailout plan with not only an increase in FDIC coverage (bad, fiscally unsound move), but also granted FDIC unlimited borrowing power from the United States Treasury over the next year. Unlimited borrowing power, without congressional oversight or approval. This move would allow FDIC to tap into billions of Taxpayer dollars to maintain the viability of the system.

With increased limits, FDIC only has the insurance funds available to protect 180,000 accounts with maximum deposits of $250,000. Although this number seems large, take for instance if National City Bank, a bank that has been on the Failure warning list for months, were to fail. FDIC would immediately try to negotiate a buyout of the bank from a larger institution in order to relieve their liability; but if no buyer was found, FDIC would be responsible for claims on deposits at the bank. National City is a large regional bank with over 1400 branches and over 4 Million Households With Deposit Accounts. National City alone has over $98.5 billion in deposits and like other banks only a pittance is held in reserves. Now imagine if a larger bank, perhaps JP Morgan, or Citi, or Bank of America would collapse.

In business you plan for the best, but must be prepared for the worst. Yesterday, the Senate, in an attempt to do nothing more than restore consumer confidence in the banking system, passed legislation that increased FDIC's actuarial risks and granted that agency unlimited access to taxpayer dollars.

J Brown
October 2nd, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers