- Was elected President of the United States on
November 4, 2008
- U.S. Senator from Illinois, 2005-2008
- Illinois state senator, 1996-2004
For an in-depth look at a host of Barack
Obama's key personal and political
affiliations, visit DiscoverTheNetworks' special
feature, Barack's World.
Democrat Barack
Hussein Obama, Jr. was elected President of the
United States on November 4, 2008. Prior to that, he had
served four years as a U.S. senator from Illinois
(2005-2008) and eight years as an Illinois state
senator (1996-2004).
Early Life and
Family:
Barack Obama says he was
born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to a white
mother from Kansas and a black Muslim father from Kenya.
His parents had met when they were students at
the University of Hawaii.
In his 1995 memoir
Dreams from My Father, Obama describes his
mother, Anna, as "a lonely witness for secular
humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps,
position-paper liberalism."
Obama's father, also
named Barack (Swahili for "One who is blessed by God")
Obama, left his rural Luo-speaking village and his own
Muslim father to become an "agnostic" and study
economics abroad.
Barack Obama, Jr.'s place
of birth is a matter in dispute. As Frank Gaffney
reported
in The Washington Times on October 14, 2008:
"There is evidence Mr. Obama was born in Kenya
rather than, as he claims, Hawaii. There is also a
registration document for a school in Indonesia where
the would-be president studied for four years, on
which he was identified not only as a Muslim but as an
Indonesian. If correct, the latter could give rise to
another potential problem with respect to his
eligibility to be president. [The U.S. Constitution
stipulates that only a natural born citizen
of the United States may be eligible for the
presidency.]
"Curiously, Mr. Obama has, to
date, failed to provide an authentic birth certificate
which could clear up the matter."
When Obama was two years old,
his father left the family and returned
to Harvard
University; he thereafter went to Kenya, where
he became a globe-traveling economist for that nation's
government.
When Obama was six, his mother
married an Indonesian oil manager, a "non-practicing
Muslim," and the family moved to Jakarta, Indonesia,
where the boy's half-sister Maya was born. The
family would reside there for four years.
Muslim Upbringing as a
Child:
Vis a vis Barack Obama's
religious upbringing, Islam scholar Daniel Pipes reports
the following:
"In Islam, religion passes from the father to the
child. Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. [his Kenyan birth
father] was a Muslim who named his boy Barack Hussein
Obama, Jr. Only Muslim children are named
'Hussein'.… [Barack Obama's] stepfather, Lolo Soetoro,
was also a Muslim. In fact, as Obama's half-sister,
Maya Soetoro-Ng explained to Jodi Kantor of the New York
Times: 'My whole family was Muslim, and most of
the people I knew were Muslim.' An Indonesian
publication, the Banjarmasin Post reports a
former classmate, Rony Amir, recalling that 'All the
relatives of Barry's [Barack's] father were very
devout Muslims.'"
Obama's good friend, the attorney and novelist Scott
Turow, writes that Obama as a child spent "two
years in a Muslim school, then two more in a Catholic
school." School records show that when Obama attended Catholic school, he was enrolled as a Muslim.
Journalist Paul
Watson of the Los Angeles Times learned
from Obama's childhood friends that "Obama sometimes
went to Friday prayers at the local mosque."
Kim
Barker of the Chicago Tribune found
that "Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the
mosque for Friday prayers."
An Indonesian friend
of Obama, Zulfin Adi, states
that "[Obama] was Muslim. He went to the mosque. I
remember him wearing a sarong [a garment associated with
Muslims]."
Obama's former classmate in Indonesia,
the aforementioned Rony Amir, recalls
Obama as having been "previously quite religious in
Islam."
In December 2007 Obama would say, "I've always been a
Christian. The only connection I've had to Islam is that
my grandfather on my father's side came from that
country [Kenya]. But I've never practiced
Islam."
In February 2008 he elaborated, "I have never been a
Muslim.… [O]ther than my name and the fact that I lived
in a populous Muslim country for four years when I was a
child [Indonesia, 1967-71], I have very little
connection to the Islamic
religion."
The 1970s and CPUSA Member
Frank Marshall Davis:
At age ten,
Obama was sent back to Hawaii to be raised largely by
his white, middle-class, maternal grandparents, and
to attend the prestigious Punahou Academy. For only one
month of his life, also when he was ten, Obama was
visited by his biological father.
In
the Seventies, the Obama family became friendly
with Frank
Marshall Davis (1905-1987), a black writer and
fellow Hawaiian resident. Davis wrote
for the Honolulu Record (a Communist
newspaper) and was a known member of the
Soviet-controlled Communist Party USA (CPUSA). He soon
became the young Barack Obama's mentor and
advisor.
In Dreams From My Father,
Obama writes
about Davis but does not reveal the latter's full name,
identifying him only as "a poet named Frank" -- a man
with much "hard-earned knowledge" who had known "some
modest notoriety once" but was now "pushing eighty."
(Several sources -- including Professor Gerald Horne,
Dr. Kathryn Takara, and libertarian writer Trevor
Loudon -- have confirmed
that Obama's "Frank" was indeed Frank Marshall
Davis.)
Obama in his book recounts
how, just prior to heading off to Occidental
College (in California) in 1979, he spent some time
with "Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self." Obama
writes that "Frank" not only had told him
that college was merely "an advanced degree in
compromise," but also had cautioned him not to
"start believing what they tell you about equal
opportunity and the American way and all that
sh--."
Columbia
University:
From Occidental, Obama
transferred to Columbia
University in New York City, where he graduated in
1983 with a degree in political science.
Socialist Scholars
Conferences:
In Dreams From My
Father, Obama reveals that during his student years
at Columbia he "went to socialist conferences at Cooper
Union and African cultural fairs in Brooklyn."
Specifically, these were Socialist Scholars
Conferences (SSC), which featured the elite of
socialist academia as well as union activists,
political revolutionaries, reformers, and opponents of
"corporate greed." According
to the libertarian writer Trevor Loudon, guest
speakers at these conferences included "members of the
Communist Party USA and its offshoot, the Committees of
Correspondence, as well as Maoists, Trotsyists,
black radicals, gay activists and radical
feminists."
Community
Organizer:
Obama applied for
work as a community organizer with groups across
the United States while working as a writer and
financial analyst for Business International
Corporation.
One small group of 20-odd churches
in Chicago offered Obama a job helping residents of
poor, predominantly black, Far South Side neighborhoods.
Accepting that opportunity, Obama moved to Chicago and
in June 1985 became Director of the Developing
Communities Project, where he worked for the
next three years on initiatives that ranged from job
training to school reform to hazardous waste cleanup.
David Freddoso, author of the 2008 book The Case
Against Barack Obama, summarizes Obama's
community-organizing efforts as follows:
"He pursued manifestly worthy goals; protecting
people from asbestos in government housing projects is
obviously a good thing and a responsibility of the
government that built them. But [in every case except
one] the proposed solution to every problem on
the South Side was a distribution of government funds
..."[1]
Trained in the Saul Alinsky
Method:
Obama was trained
by the Saul
Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation
(IAF) in Chicago. (The Developing Communities
Project itself was an affiliate of the Gamaliel
Foundation, whose modus operandi for the creation of
"a more just and democratic society" is rooted firmly in
the Alinsky method.) Alinsky was known for having
helped to establish the aggressive political
tactics that characterized the 1960s, and which have
remained central to all subsequent revolutionary
movements in the United States.
In the Alinsky
model, "organizing" is a euphemism for "revolution" -- a
wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the
systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly
oppressed segment of the population, and the radical
transformation of America's social and economic
structure. The goal is to foment enough public
discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark
the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin
predicted -- a revolution whose foot soldiers view the
status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of
salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle
for nothing less than that status quo's complete
collapse -- to be followed by the erection of an
entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end,
they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic
radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and
vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types
of societal "change" is needed.
But Alinsky's
brand of revolution was not characterized by dramatic,
sweeping, overnight transformations of social
institutions. As
Richard Poe puts it, "Alinsky viewed revolution as a
slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate
existing institutions such as churches, unions and
political parties." Alinsky advised organizers and their
disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the
decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to
introduce changes from that platform.
One of
Obama's early mentors in the Alinsky method, Mike
Kruglik, would later say the
following about Obama:
"He was a natural, the undisputed master of
agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting
targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging
them to admit that they were not living up to their
own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be
aggressive and confrontational. With probing,
sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the
source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos
just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they
could make things better."
For several years, Obama himself taught
workshops on the Alinsky
method.
Introduction to ACORN and
Project Vote:
Beginning in the
mid-1980s, Obama worked with ACORN, a
creation of the Alinsky network. ACORN was a grassroots
political organization that grew out of George
Wiley's National Welfare Rights
Organization (NWRO), whose members
in the late 1960s and early 70s had invaded
welfare offices across the U.S. -- often violently
-- bullying social workers and loudly demanding every
penny to which the law "entitled" them.[2]
Obama
also worked for Project Vote,
the voter-mobilization arm of ACORN. Project
Vote's professed purpose is to carry out "non-partisan"
voter-registration drives; to counsel voters on their
rights; and to litigate on behalf of voting rights --
focusing on the rights of the poor and the
"disenfranchised."[3] Obama was the
attorney for ACORN's lead election-law cases, and he
worked as a trainer at ACORN's annual conferences, where
he taught members of the organization the art of radical
community organizing.
Harvard Law
School and Khalid al-Mansour:
In
1988 Obama applied for admission to Harvard Law
School. At the time, a Muslim attorney and
black nationalist named Khalid Abdullah Tariq
al-Mansour asked civil rights activist Percy
Sutton to send a letter of recommendation to his
(Sutton's) friends at Harvard on Obama's
behalf.
Al-Mansour formerly had been a close
personal adviser to Huey
Newton and Bobby
Seale, having helped them establish the Black Panther
Party in the 1960s. He thereafter became
an advisor to a number of Saudi billionaires known
for funding the spread of Wahhabi extremism
in America. Al-Mansour also would show himself
to be a passionate
hater of the United States, Israel, and white
people generally.
With al-Mansour's help, Obama
in 1988 was accepted by Harvard Law School, where
he became the first African-American president of the
Harvard Law Review. He
graduated magna cum laude in 1991.
From April to
November of 1992, Obama served as the Director of
"Illinois Project Vote," which registered
approximately 150,000 mostly poor, mostly Democratic
voters in Chicago's Cook County before that year's
presidential election.
Also in 1992, Obama
married Michelle Robinson (now Michelle
Obama).
Litigator for Davis,
Miner, Barnhill & Galland,
P.C.:
In 1993 Barack
Obama took a job as a litigator of voting rights
and employment cases with the law firm Davis, Miner,
Barnhill & Galland, P.C. (a.k.a. Davis Miner), where
he remains a Counsel today. In 1993 he also became a lecturer at the University of Chicago
Law School, another position he still holds.
In
1994 Obama worked for Davis Miner on a case titled
Barnett v. Daley, where he was part of a legal
team that challenged
the racial
makeup of Chicago's voting districts. The Obama team
sought to raise the number of black super-majority
districts from 19 to 24. According to the judge in the
case, Richard Posner, Obama and his fellow litigators
held that "no black aldermanic candidate in Chicago has
ever beaten a white in a ward that had a black majority
of less than 62.6 percent, and it is emphatic that the
ward in which the population is 55 percent black is not
a black ward -- is indeed a white ward, even though only
42 percent of its population is white."
In a 1995
case known as Buycks-Roberson
v. Citibank, Obama and his fellow Davis Miner
attorneys charged that
Citibank was making too few loans to black
applicants, and they won
the case.[3]
More ACORN
Connections:
Also in 1995, Obama sued,
on behalf of ACORN, for the implementation of the Motor
Voter law in Illinois. Jim Edgar, the state's
Republican Governor, opposed the law because
he believed that allowing voters to register using
only a postcard would breed widespread
fraud.
ACORN would later invite Obama to
help train its staff. Moreover, Obama eventually
would sit on the Board of the Woods
Fund of Chicago, which gave a number of sizable grants
to ACORN -- including
$45,000 in 2000, $75,000 in 2001, and $70,000 in
2002.
Million Man March
(1995):
In 1995 Obama -- along
with such notables as Al Sharpton
and Jeremiah
Wright -- helped
organize the Washington, DC-based Million Man March
which featured Nation of Islam
leader Louis
Farrakhan. Said
Obama in the immediate aftermath of the March:
"What I saw was a powerful demonstration of an
impulse and need for African-American men to come
together to recognize each other and affirm our
rightful place in the society…. Historically,
African-Americans have turned inward and towards black
nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now,
that the mainstream has rebuffed us, and that white
Americans couldn't care less about the profound
problems African-Americans are facing."
Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Obama's
Entry into Politics:
In the
mid-1990s, Obama developed a friendship with fellow
Chicagoans Bill Ayers
and his wife Bernardine
Dohrn, university professors who hosted meetings at
their home to introduce Obama to their neighbors during
his first run for the Illinois state senate in 1996.
Ayers (who contributed money to Obama's 1996 campaign)
and Dohrn had been leaders of the 1960s domestic
terrorist group Weatherman, a
Communist-driven splinter faction of Students for a
Democratic Society. The pair had participated
personally in the bombings of New York City Police
Headquarters in 1970, the Capitol building in 1971, and
the Pentagon in 1972. To this day, both have remained
unrepentant about their former terrorist activities and
their hatred of the United States.[4]
There is strong evidence
suggesting that Ayers contributed
heavily, if not entirely, to the writing of Obama's
1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father.
When
questioned about his relationship with Ayers during an
April 2008 Democratic primary debate, Obama responded:
"This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who is
a professor of English in Chicago, who I know, and who
I have not received some official endorsement from. He
is not somebody who I exchange ideas from [with] on a
regular basis. And the notion that somehow, as a
consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in
detestable acts forty years ago when I
was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and
my values doesn't make much sense … [T]his kind of
game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how
flimsy the relationship is, [that] somehow their ideas
could be attributed to me, I think the American people
are smarter than that. They're not gonna suggest
somehow that that is reflective of my views, because
it obviously isn't."
Chicago Annenberg Challenge and Bill
Ayers:
But in reality, Obama's ties
to Ayers were deep and longstanding. In 1995, for
instance, Obama
was appointed as the first Chairman of the
Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), a "school reform
organization" founded by Ayers, who would later
write, in his book Teaching Toward Freedom,
that his educational objective was to "teach against
oppression" as embodied in "America's history of
evil and racism, thereby forcing social
transformation."
When National Review
Online writer Stanley Kurtz in 2008 asked the Obama
presidential campaign about the nature of its
candidate's connection to Ayers and the CAC, the
campaign issued a statement claiming
that Ayers had not been involved in the
"recruitment" of Obama to the CAC board in 1995. But
when Kurtz reviewed the
CAC archives at the Richard J. Daley Library at the
University of Illinois, he found that Ayers in fact
had been one of five members of a working
group that assembled the initial CAC board which
hired Obama.
"Ayers founded CAC and was its
guiding spirit," Kurtz wrote
in September 2008. "No one would have been appointed the
CAC chairman without his approval." According
to Kurtz, the CAC archives show that Obama and
Ayers worked as a team to advance the foundation's
agenda -- with Obama responsible for fiscal matters
while Ayers focused on shaping educational policy. The
archived documents further reveal that Ayers served as
an ex-officio member of the board that Obama chaired
through CAC's first year; that Ayers served with Obama
on the CAC governance committee; and that Ayers worked
with Obama to write CAC's bylaws.
A September
2008 WorldNetDaily report offers
still more details: "Ayers made presentations to
board meetings chaired by Obama. Ayers also spoke for
the Chicago School Reform Collaborative before Obama's
board, while Obama periodically spoke for the board at
meetings of the collaborative … According to the
documents, the CAC granted money to far-leftist causes,
such as the radical Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, which …has done
work on behalf of Obama's presidential
campaign."
WorldNetDaily
reported further that "while Obama chaired the board
of the CAC, more than $600,000 was granted to an
organization founded by Ayers and run by Mike Klonsky, a
former top communist activist. Klonsky was leader of the
Marxist-Leninist Communist Party, which was effectively
recognized by China as the all-but-official U.S. Maoist
party." Said
Stanley Kurtz:
"Instead of funding schools directly, [the CAC]
required schools to affiliate with 'external
partners,' which actually got the money. Proposals
from groups focused on math/science achievement were
turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through
various far-left community organizers, such as ACORN."
Kurtz has provided the following synopsis
of the CAC/Ayers agendas:
"The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's
educational philosophy, which called for infusing
students and their parents with a radical political
commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in
favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught
at a radical alternative school, and served as a
community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto.
"In
works like 'City Kids, City Teachers' and 'Teaching
the Personal and the Political,' Mr. Ayers wrote that
teachers should be community organizers dedicated to
provoking resistance to American racism and
oppression. His preferred alternative? 'I'm a radical,
Leftist, small-c-communist,' Mr. Ayers said in an
interview in Ron Chepesiuk's, 'Sixties Radicals,' at
about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC."
Between 1995 and 1999, Obama and CAC distributed $110
million to a variety of leftist education
enterprises for "experiments" in Chicago's public
schools.
Obama Endorses Ayers
Book:
In December 1997 Obama wrote
a blurb praising
Ayers' recently published book, A Kind and Just
Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court, calling it
"a searing and timely account of the juvenile court
system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope
from despair."
The Pro-Soviet Alice
Palmer Paves Obama's Path to Elected
Office:
A notable attendee at
the aforementioned political gatherings which Ayers
and Dohrn hosted on behalf of Obama in the
mid-1990s, was Democratic state senator Alice J.
Palmer (of Illinois' 13th District),
who quickly developed a friendly relationship with
Obama. Prior to her stint in politics, Palmer had worked
for the Black Press Institute and was editor of the
Black Press Review. During the Cold
War, she supported the Soviet Union and spoke
against the United States. In the 1980s she served as an
executive
board member of the U.S. Peace Council, which the
FBI identified as a Communist front group (and which was
an affiliate of the World Peace Council, an
international Soviet front). Palmer participated in the
World Peace Council's Prague assembly in 1983 -- just as
the USSR was launching its "nuclear freeze" movement, a
scheme that would have frozen Soviet nuclear and
military superiority in place.
State senator
Palmer was instrumental in Obama's entry into politics.
In 1995 Palmer decided to pursue an
opportunity to run for a higher office when Mel
Reynolds, the congressman from Illinois' 2nd
District, resigned from the House of
Representatives amid a sexual scandal involving him
and an underage campaign volunteer. As Palmer
prepared to leave the state senate, she hand-picked
Obama as the person she most wanted to fill her newly
vacated senate seat. Toward that end, she introduced
Obama to party elders and donors as her preferred
successor, and helped him gather the signatures required
for getting his name placed on the
ballot.
Obama Betrays
Palmer:
But in November 1995, Jesse Jackson,
Jr. defeated Palmer in a special election for
Reynolds' empty congressional seat. At that point,
Palmer filed to retain the Democratic nomination for the
state senate seat she had encouraged Obama to pursue;
that seat would be up for grabs in the November 1996
elections. She asked Obama to politely withdraw from the
race and offered to help him find an alternative
position elsewhere.
But Obama refused to
withdraw, so Palmer resolved to run against him (and two
other opponents who also had declared their candidacy)
in the 1996 Democratic primary. To
get her name placed on the ballot, Palmer hastily
gathered the minimum number of signatures required.
Obama promptly challenged the legitimacy of those
signatures and charged Palmer with fraud. A subsequent
investigation found that a number of the names on
Palmer's petition were invalid, thus she was knocked
off the ballot. (Names could be eliminated
from a candidate's petition for a variety of
reasons. For example, if a name was printed rather than
written in cursive script, it was considered
invalid. Or if the person collecting the signatures was
not registered to perform that task, any
signatures that he or she had collected likewise were
nullified.)
Obama also successfully challenged
the signatures gathered by his other two opponents, and
both of them were disqualified as
well. Consequently, Obama ran unopposed in the
Democratic primary and won by default.
"I liked
Alice Palmer a lot," Obama
would later reflect. "I thought she was a good
public servant. It [the process by which Obama had
gotten Palmer's name removed from the ballot] was
very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out
entirely differently."
Endorsement by
the New Party:
In 1995 Barack Obama
sought
the endorsement
of the so-called New Party for his 1996 state senate
run. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement,
and he used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign
workers. By 1996, Obama had
become a member
of the New Party.
Co-founded in 1992 by
Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse
Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel
Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison), the New Party was a Marxist
political coalition whose objective
was to endorse and elect leftist public
officials -- most often
Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to
move the Democratic Party
leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual
rise of new Marxist third party.
Most New Party
members hailed from the Democratic
Socialists of America and the militant organization
ACORN. The
party's Chicago chapter also included a large contingent
from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist
coalition of former Maoists,
Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA
members.
The Marxist Carl Davidson
and the 1996 State Senate
Race:
Another key supporter of
Obama's 1996 state senate campaign was Carl
Davidson, a Marxist who in the 1960s had been a national
secretary of Students of a
Democratic Society and a national leader of the
anti-Vietnam War movement. In 1969 Davidson (along with
Tom
Hayden) helped launch
the "Venceremos Brigades," which covertly transported
hundreds of young Americans to Cuba to help harvest
sugar cane and interact with Havana's communist
revolutionary leadership. (The Brigades were organized
by Fidel
Castro's Cuban intelligence agency, which trained
"brigadistas" in guerrilla warfare techniques, including
the use of arms and explosives.)
In
1988 Davidson founded Networking
for Democracy (NFD), a program encouraging
high-school students to engage in "mass action" aimed at
"tearing down the old structures of race and class
privilege" in the U.S. "and around the world." In 1992
he became
a leader of the newly formed Committees of
Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists,
Trotskyists, and members of the Communist Party USA. In
the mid-1990s Davidson was a major player in the Chicago
branch of a Marxist
political coalition known as the New Party, whose
endorsement Obama actively
sought -- and received -- for his Illinois state
senate run in 1996. Moreover, Obama used a number of New
Party volunteers as campaign
workers.
Democratic Socialists of
America Endorse Obama:
Obama's 1996
senate campaign also secured the endorsement
of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA),
the largest socialist organization in the United States
and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist
International. Obama's affiliation with DSA was
longstanding, as evidenced by his reference,
in Dreams From My Father, to the fact that
during his student years at Columbia University he "went
to socialist conferences at Cooper Union," a privately
funded college for the advancement of science
and art. From the early 1980s until 2004, Cooper Union
had served as the usual venue of the annual Socialist Scholars
Conference. According
to Trevor Loudon, guest speakers at these
conferences included "members of the Communist Party USA
and its offshoot, the Committees of Correspondence, as
well as Maoists,
Trotsyists, black radicals, gay activists and radical
feminists." Mr. London observes
that "Obama speaks of 'conferences' plural,
indicating [that] his attendance was not the result of
accident or youthful curiosity."
Obama won his
1996 race for the Illinois state senate in the 13th
District, which mostly represented poor South Side
blacks but also a few wealthy
neighborhoods.
Joyce
Foundation:
In 1998 Obama became a
board member of the Chicago-based Joyce
Foundation, which targets its philanthropy in large
measure toward organizations dedicated to the agendas of
radical environmentalism, "social justice," prison reform, and
increased government funding for social services,
particularly for minorities. Obama would remain a board
member for three years, during which time the Joyce
Foundation made grants to such groups as the
Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under
Law, the Children's Defense Fund of Ohio, the Jane Addams
Resource Corporation, the Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities, the World
Wildlife Fund, the National
Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club
Foundation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the
Izaak
Walton League of America, the Union of
Concerned Scientists, SUSTAIN, the Tides
Center, the Environmental Working Group, the World
Resources Institute, the League
of Women Voters Education Fund, the Democracy 21 Education Fund, the Brennan
Center for Justice, the Brookings Institution, Alliance
For Justice, the Council
on Foundations, the Center
for Community Change, the National
Network of Grantmakers, Physicians for Social Responsibility,
the U.S. Public Interest Research Group
Education Fund, the Nine to
Five Working Women Education Fund, the Rockefeller
Family Fund, Environmental Defense and the Urban
Institute.
Woods Fund of Chicago
and Bill Ayers:
Obama also had been
a member of the Woods
Fund of Chicago since 1993. In 1999 he was
joined on this board by Bill Ayers, who would serve
alongside Obama until the latter left the Fund in
December 2002. (In 2002 -- while Obama was still on
the board -- the Woods Fund made a grant to Northwestern
University Law School's Children and Family Justice
Center, where Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn, was
employed.)
Failed Congressional
Campaign (2000):
In 2000, Obama ran
against former Black Panther
and incumbent congressman Bobby Rush
in the Democratic Primary for the U.S. House of
Representatives. Rush denounced Obama as an "elitist"
who "wasn't black enough," and crushed him by nearly a
two-to-one vote margin. Obama returned to the Illinois
state senate for another four-year
term.
Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah,
and the the Arab American Action
Network:
As noted earlier, during
his state senate years Obama was a lecturer at the
University of Chicago law school, where he became
friendly with Rashid
Khalidi, a professor in Near Eastern Languages and
Civilizations. Obama and his wife were
regular dinner guests at Khalidi's Hyde Park home.
Khalidi and his wife Mona had founded in 1995 the Arab American Action
Network (AAAN), noted for its contention
that Arab Americans face widespread discrimination
in the United States, and for its view that Israel's
creation in 1948 was a "catastrophe" for Arab
people. In 2001 and again in 2002, the Woods
Fund of Chicago, while Obama served on its
board, made grants totaling $75,000
to AAAN.
In 2003 Obama would attend
a farewell party in Khalidi's honor when the latter was
leaving Chicago to embark on a new position at
Columbia University. At this event (which was also
attended by William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn),
Obama paid
public tribute to Khalidi as someone whose insights had
been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots
and my own biases… It's for that reason that I'm hoping
that, for many years to come, we continue that
conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not
just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around
"this entire world." Khalidi then returned the favor,
telling the largely pro-Palestinian attendees that Obama
deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat, stating,
"You will not have a better senator under any
circumstances."
According to
journalist John Batchelor, "AAAN vice-president Ali
Abunimah of Electronic
Intifada [a website that, like AAAN, refers to
Israel's creation as a "catastrophe"] has
remembered Mr. Obama's speaking in 1999 against 'Israeli
occupation' at a charity event for a West Bank refugee
camp; and Mr. Abunimah … has also recalled Mr. and Mrs.
Obama at a fundraiser held for the then-Congressional
candidate Obama in 2000 at Rashid and Mona Khalidi's
home, where Mr. Obama made convincing statements in
support of the Palestinian
cause."
Obama Likens Aspects of
America to Nazi Germany:
In a
January 18, 2001 radio interview, Obama said: "There's a
lot of change going on outside of the Court that judges
have to essentially take judicial notice of. I mean
you've got World War II, you've got the doctrines of
Nazism that we are fighting against, that start
looking uncomfortably similar to what's going on, back
here at home."
Robert Blackwell and
the Quid Pro Quo:
Shortly after
Obama's unsuccessful run for Congress in 2000, he was
deeply in debt, with little cash at his disposal (his
annual part-time salary as a state senator was $58,000)
and a stagnant law practice that he had largely
neglected during a year of political
campaigning.
In early 2001 a longtime political
supporter, Chicago entrepreneur Robert Blackwell, Jr.,
hired Obama to provide legal advice for his
(Blackwell's) growing technology firm, Electronic
Knowledge Interchange (EKI). In exchange for his
services, Blackwell paid Obama an $8,000 retainer each
month for roughly a 14-month period -- a total of
$118,000.
In return for these payments, Obama
pressured the Illinois state tourism board to send a
$50,000 grant to EKI. He also issued a formal written
request for Illinois officials to furnish a $50,000
tourism promotion grant to another Blackwell company,
Killerspin, which sells equipment and apparel related to
the sport of table tennis. The day after Obama wrote
this letter, his U.S. Senate campaign received a $1,000
donation from Blackwell.
Killerspin would not
receive the full $50,000 it was seeking that year, but
only $20,000. With Obama's help, however, the company
eventually secured $320,000 in state grants between 2002
and 2004 to subsidize the table tennis tournaments it
sponsored. As
blogger Ed Morrissey observes: "This looks like a
rather obvious quid pro quo…. In exchange for
$118,000 in salary, Blackwell received $320,000 in state
taxpayer money and influence at the highest level of
state politics."
Obama's presidential campaign
website reported that Blackwell in 2008 committed to
raise between $100,000 and $200,000 for Obama's White
House run that year.
Iraq
War:
Obama was an outspoken
opponent of the Iraq War ever since it was first
discussed as a possible means of unseating Saddam
Hussein from power. On October 2, 2002, Obama gave
an antiwar speech
alongside Jesse
Jackson on the very day that President Bush and
Congress had agreed on a joint resolution authorizing
the use of force against Iraq. (That date was Gandhi's
birthday, and thus was selected for its symbolism.) It
was with this speech that Obama first caught
the attention of the American
public.
Suggesting that the prospect of war was
largely a Republican ploy to distract voters from
domestic issues that were impacting minorities
negatively, Obama said: "What I am opposed to is the
attempt by potential hacks like [Republican strategist]
Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a
rise in the poverty state, a drop in the medium income,
to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock
market that has just gone thorough the worst month since
the Great Depression. That's what I am opposed
to."
The Chicago rally was staged
by a group called Chicagoans Against the War. Some of
the key organizers were Carl Davidson (the
aforementioned Marxist antiwar activist and Obama
supporter), BettyLu Saltzman (an officer of the New Israel
Fund), and Marilyn Katz (a former Students for a
Democratic Society radical in the
Sixties).
In July 2004, Obama delivered the
keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in
Boston. He used
the speech to introduce himself to a national
audience while impugning the Bush administration and the
War in Iraq.
U.S. Senate Campaign
(2004):
In 2004 Obama ran for one
of Illinois' two seats in the U.S. Senate. The
Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama's campaign.
More importantly, the Tribune persuaded a
Democrat-appointed judge in California to open the
sealed divorce records of Obama's Republican opponent to
the media. The resulting sex scandal, based on
allegations in the divorce records by a Hollywood
actress eager to prevent her ex-husband from getting
custody of their children, prompted the Republican to
resign from the race.
With a $10 million campaign
war chest from contributors, and with no Republican
opponent who could garner much support, Obama had an
open road to become the next U.S. Senator from
Illinois. His friend and political supporter, the
longtime Chicago alderwoman Dorothy
Tillman, helped
him win the voting in Chicago's predominantly black
wards. He also received valuable backing from the Jesse
Jacksons, Junior and
Senior,
and Rev. Jackson's Rainbow
Coalition.
Alliance with
MoveOn.org:
In March 2005 Obama
joined forces with the Web-based, grassroots political
network MoveOn -- which
seeks to use its fundraising clout to push the
Democratic Party ever further to the political left --
in an effort to raise campaign money for West
Virginia Senator Robert Byrd's 2006 reelection bid. In a
letter to MoveOn members, Obama wrote:
"You and millions of others, working through MoveOn,
have helped change the way politics works in this
country."
Obama Defines
Conservatism:
In
a 2005 commencement address, Obama described the
conservative philosophy of government as one that
promises "to give everyone one big refund on their
government, divvy it up by individual portions, in the
form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone
to use their share to go buy their own health care,
their own retirement plan, their own child care, their
own education, and so on." "In Washington," said Obama,
"they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past
there has been another term for it, Social Darwinism,
every man or woman for him or herself. It's a tempting
idea, because it doesn't require much thought or
ingenuity."
Obama Accuses the Bush
Administration of Racism:
In
September 2005, Obama spoke at a town hall meeting
of the Congressional Black
Caucus. Nominally devoted to the subject of
"eradicating poverty," the
meeting was replete with condemnations
of President George W. Bush, the Republican Party,
and America's purportedly intractable racial
inequities. Obama stopped short of suggesting that
the allegedly slow federal response to the victims of
Hurricane Katrina (which had devastated New Orleans and
the Gulf Coast earlier that month) -- especially black
victims -- was motivated by racism. But he
nonetheless claimed that racism was the cause of what
he perceived to be the Bush
administration's indifference to the struggles of
African Americans generally.
"The incompetence
was colorblind," said Obama. "What wasn't colorblind was
the indifference. Human efforts will always pale in
comparison to nature's forces. But [the Bush
administration] is a set of folks who simply don't
recognize what's happening in large parts of the
country." Blacks in hurricane-hit areas were poor, Obama
further charged, because of the Bush administration's
"decision to give tax breaks to Paris Hilton instead of
providing child care and education
…"
Obama Endorses Dorothy Tillman,
Proponent of Reparations and Admirer of Louis
Farrakhan:
In 2006 Obama endorsed
the aforementioned Dorothy
Tillman in the Third Ward race for the Chicago City
Council. A passionate admirer of Louis
Farrakhan, Tillman was a leading proponent of
reparations for slavery. Claiming that America
remains "one of the cruelest nations in the world
when it comes to black folks," Tillman continues to
declare that the U.S. "owes blacks a
debt."
Support from George
Soros:
In December of 2006, Obama,
who by then was contemplating a run for the presidency,
met in New York with billionaire financier George
Soros, who previously had hosted a fundraiser for
Obama during the latter's 2004 campaign for the
U.S. Senate.
One of the most powerful men on
earth, Soros is a hedge fund manager who has amassed a
personal fortune estimated at about $7.2 billion. His
management company controls billions more in investor
assets. Since 1979, Soros' foundation network --
whose flagship is the Open
Society Institute (OSI) -- has dispensed more than
$5 billion to a multitude of organizations whose
objectives can be summarized as follows:
- promoting the view that America
is institutionally an oppressive nation
- promoting the election of leftist political
candidates throughout the United States
- opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security
measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the
Patriot Act
- depicting American military actions as unjust,
unwarranted, and immoral
- promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a
watering down of current immigration laws
- promoting a dramatic expansion of social
welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes
- promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for
illegal aliens
- defending suspected anti-American terrorists and
their abetters
- financing the recruitment and training of future
activist leaders of the political Left
- advocating America's unilateral disarmament and/or
a steep reduction in its military spending
- opposing the death penalty in all circumstances
- promoting socialized medicine in the United States
- promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism,
whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is "not clean air and
clean water, [but] rather ... the demolition of
technological/industrial civilization"
- bringing American foreign policy under the control
of the United Nations
- promoting racial and ethnic preferences in
academia and the business world alike
Running for
President:
On January 16, 2007,
Obama announced the creation of a presidential
exploratory committee, and within hours Soros sent
the senator a contribution of $2,100, the maximum amount
allowable under campaign finance laws. Later that week
the New York Daily News reported that Soros would back Obama
over Senator Hillary Clinton, whom he had supported in
the past.
At the time Obama announced the
formation of his exploratory committee, he had logged a
mere 143 days of experience in the U.S.
Senate (i.e., the number of days the Senate had been in
session since his swearing in on January 4,
2005).
On February 10, 2007, Obama officially
announced his candidacy for President. Having served for
only two years as a U.S. Senator, and with no experience
in an executive office, Obama said:
"I recognize that there is a certain presumptuousness in
this, a certain audacity to this announcement. I know
that I have not spent a long time learning the ways of
Washington, but I have been there long enough to know
that the ways of Washington have to
change."
Michelle Obama Takes an
Active Role in the
Campaign:
Obama's wife Michelle
quickly emerged as one of the new candidate's most vocal
campaigners. In a February 2007 appearance with her
husband on the television program 60 Minutes,
Mrs. Obama implied that America's allegedly rampant
white racism posed a great physical threat to her
husband. Said Mrs. Obama: "As a black man, you
know, Barack can get shot going to the gas station." In
a January 2008 speech, Mrs. Obama depicted the U.S. as a
nation whose people are inclined to "hold on to [their]
own stereotypes and misconceptions," and to thereby
"feel justified in [their] own ignorance." During a
February 18, 2008 speech in Milwaukee on behalf of her
husband's campaign, she declared,
"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really
proud of my country, and not just because Barack has
done well, but because I think people are hungry for
change." In March 2008 a New
Yorker profile quoted Mrs. Obama saying,
in a stump speech she had made in South Carolina,
that the United States is "just
downright mean" as a
nation.
High-Profile
Supporters:
Many notable
individuals and organizations began to identify
themselves publicly as Obama supporters. Among these
were: George
Clooney; Rob Reiner;
Ariana
Huffington; Jesse
Jackson; Michael Eric
Dyson; Manning
Marable; Cornel West;
Barbara
Weinstein; Laurence
Tribe; Jane Fonda;
Tom
Hayden; Michael
Ratner; Danny
Glover; Martin
Sheen; Susan
Sarandon; Spike Lee;
Michael
Moore; Bill Maher;
Bruce
Springsteen; Ted Kennedy;
John
Kerry; John
Conyers; Luis
Gutierrez; Barbara Lee;
Major
Owens; Jan
Schakowsky; Bobby Rush;
Pearl Jam;
and ACORN.
Al
Sharpton:
In April 2007, Obama addressed the activist Al
Sharpton's National Action Network, telling an
overflow crowd of listeners about his success as an
Illinois lawmaker in making health insurance available
to children and reducing the cost of prescription drugs
for senior citizens. He also expressed his opposition to
racial profiling in law enforcement, detailing how he
had helped pass legislation against the practice. In
addition, he asserted that society must help ex-convicts
escape an "economic death sentence" by securing jobs for
them when they leave prison.
Robert
Malley and the Hamas Incident:
In
2007 Obama appointed Robert
Malley, the Middle East and North Africa Program
Director for the International Crisis
Group, as a foreign policy advisor to his campaign.
ICG receives funding from the Open
Society Institute (whose founder, George
Soros, serves on the ICG Board and Executive
Committee). Prior to joining ICG, Malley had served
as President Bill
Clinton's Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs
(1998-2001); National Security Advisor Sandy
Berger's Executive Assistant (1996-1998); and the
National Security Council's Director for Democracy,
Human Rights, and Humanitarian Affairs (1994-1996).
Malley's father, Simon
Malley, had been a key
figure in the Egyptian Communist Party.
Rabidly anti-Israel, Simon Malley was a confidante
of the late PLO leader Yasser
Arafat; an inveterate critic
of "Western imperialism"; a supporter
of various leftist revolutionary "liberation movements,"
particularly the Palestinian cause; a beneficiary of Soviet
funding; and a supporter of the 1979 Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan.
Robert Malley alleges
that Israeli -- not Palestinian -- inflexibility caused
the 2000 Camp David peace talks (brokered by Bill
Clinton) to fail. He has penned several
controversial articles -- some he co-wrote with
Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Arafat --
blaming Israel and exonerating Arafat for that failure.
(In 2008, the Obama campaign would sever its ties with Malley after the
latter told the Times of London that he --
Malley -- had been in regular contact with Hamas as
part of his work
for ICG.)
Planned
Parenthood:
On July 17,
2007, Obama spoke before the Planned
Parenthood Action Fund. His
comments included the following:
"Thanks to all of you at Planned Parenthood for all
the work that you are doing for women all across the
country and for families all across the country—and
for men, who have enough sense to realize you are
helping them, all across the country….
"What
kind of America will our daughters grow up in? Will
our daughters grow up with the same opportunities as
our sons? Will our daughters have the same rights, the
same dreams, the same freedoms to pursue their own
version of happiness? I wonder because there's a lot
at stake in this country today. And there's a lot at
stake in this election, especially for our daughters….
With one more vacancy on the [Supreme] Court, we could
be looking at a majority hostile to a woman's
fundamental right to choose for the first time since
Roe versus Wade, and that is what is at stake
in this election….
"We know that five men don't
know better than women and their doctors what's best
for a woman's health. We know that it's about whether
or not women have equal rights under the law. We know
that a woman's right to make a decision about how many
children she wants to have and when—without government
interference—is one of the most fundamental freedoms
we have in this country….
"I have worked on
these issues for decades now. I put Roe at
the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom
when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case
about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for
women's equality….
"We need more programs in
our communities like the National Black Church
Initiative which empowers our young people by teaching
them about reproductive health, sex education and teen
pregnancy within the context of the African-American
faith tradition….
"Now the good news is that
there has been a decline in the teen birth rate, in
part due to the outstanding work of Planned Parenthood
[i.e., the quarter-million abortions the organization
performs each year]….
"When we have achieved as
one voice a strong call for that kind of more fair and
more just America, then I am absolutely convinced that
we're not just going to win an election but more
importantly we're going to transform this nation…."
Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider
in the United States, with some 850 clinics across the
country. It purports to offer "a wide range of
medical and counseling services and health care
education," but its primary business is providing
abortion services. In 2004 Planned Parenthood
completed 138 abortions for every adoption referral it
made to an outside agency. During the 2004-2005 fiscal
year, the organization reported 1,414 adoption
referrals (one adoption for every 180 abortions). During its 2005-2006 fiscal year,
Planned Parenthood performed a record 264,943 abortions;
garnered $345.1 million in clinic income; took in $212.2
million in donations; and received record taxpayer
funding of $305.3 million. Total income reached a record
$902.8 million.
Daily Kos:
In
August, 2007, Obama appeared
at the national convention of the leftist political
weblog Daily
Kos. 's convention. According to a New
York Times report: "Mr. Obama, who
has built his candidacy upon the mantra of change,
received booming applause when he was introduced to the
audience of more than 1,500. When the moderator
mentioned that the senator turned 46 years old on
Saturday, several of those gathered in the ballroom
began to serenade him with 'Happy
Birthday.'"
Al
Gore:
In October 2007 Obama stated
that, if elected, he would offer a high-level position
in his administration to former Vice President Al
Gore.
African American Religious
Leadership Committee:
On December
4, 2007, Obama's campaign announced the creation of its
African
American Religious Leadership Committee. Among the
committee's more notable members were Rev. Jeremiah
Wright, Rev. Otis Moss
III, and Rev. Joseph E.
Lowery.
Jeremiah Wright and Trinity
United Church of Christ:
From March
1972 until February 2008, Jeremiah Wright -- whom Barack
Obama described as his "spiritual advisor," his
"mentor," and "one of the greatest preachers in America"
-- was the pastor of Chicago's Trinity United Church of
Christ (TUCC), where Obama had attended services since
1988, and where he (Obama) had been a member since
1992. Wright embraces the tenets of black
liberation theology, which seeks to foment Marxist
revolutionary fervor founded on racial rather than class
solidarity. His writings, public statements, and sermons
reflect his conviction that America is a nation infested
with racism, prejudice, and injustice. Wright is also a
strong supporter of Nation of Islam leader Louis
Farrakhan. Controversy erupted in early 2008 when news
reports surfaced detailing Wright's incendiary comments.
Obama initially dismissed
the audio/video clips as mere "snippets," claiming
that the media were highlighting only Wright's "most
offensive words," and that his statements had been
taken out of context. In May 2008, Obama finally made a
move to distance himself from Wright and to denounce
aspects of his preachings. As a result of the
controversy, Wright stepped
down from his position with the Obama campaign's
African American Religious Leadership
Committee.
Long before the controversy over
Wright erupted, Rev. Jim Wallis,
the founder of the Sojourners evalngelical
ministry, told
an interviewer: "If you want to understand where Barack
[Obama] gets his feeling and rhetoric from, just look at
Jeremiah Wright."
During his years as a member of
TUCC, Obama had given a great deal of money to the
church. In 2005, for example, he gave $5,000. The
following year he gave $22,500. Moreover, during his
tenure as a board member of the Woods Fund, he helped
steer $6,000 to Trinity.
Otis
Moss:
Rev. Otis Moss
III -- whom Obama has extolled as a "wonderful
young pastor" -- served as assistant pastor of TUCC
from 2006-2008 and then succeeded Jeremiah Wright as
pastor when the latter retired. In one notable sermon, Moss
likened
the condition of contemporary black Americans to that of
the hapless lepers referenced in biblical
stories. He further implied that whites -- who, in
his estimation, continue to segregate blacks both
socially and economically -- are the "enemy"
of African Americans. "Our society creates thugs," Moss
added. "Children are not born thugs. Thugs are made
and not born."
Joseph
Lowery:
Rev. Joseph Lowery is a
prominent figure in the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference. Viewing the United States as
a nation that is "not
committed to serious efforts to address the issue of
racism," he has warned that "white racism is gaining
respectability again," and that "there's a resurgence of
racism … at almost every level of life." Lowery has
expressed contempt for Supreme Court Justice Clarence
Thomas, specifically because the black conservative
Thomas opposes the use of affirmative action (i.e., race
preferences) in business and academia. Says Lowery: "I
have told [Thomas] I am ashamed of him, because he is
becoming to the black community what Benedict Arnold was
to the nation he deserted; and what Judas Iscariot was
to Jesus: a traitor; and what Brutus was to
Caesar: an
assassin."
Michael
Pfleger:
Another notable religious
supporter of Barack Obama is Rev. Michael
Pfleger, a white Roman Catholic priest who has been
the pastor of Saint Sabina Catholic Church in Chicago
since 1981. A great
admirer of Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright,
Pfleger views
America as a nation plagued by "classism and
racism," and he identifies white racism as "the number
one sin in this country." Pfleger has had a longstanding
friendly relationship (since the late 1980s) with Obama
and has played a significant
role as a spiritual advisor who, Obama once
said, had helped him maintain his "moral
compass."
Between 1995 and 2001, Pfleger contributed
a total of $1,500 to Obama's various political campaigns
-- including a $200 donation in April 2001,
approximately three months after Obama (who was then an
Illinois state senator) had announced that St. Sabina
programs would be receiving $225,000 in state grants.
(After Obama's 2004 election to the
U.S. Senate, he would earmark an
additional $100,000 in federal tax money for
Pfleger's work.) Pfleger also has hosted a number of
faith forums for Obama during his political
campaigns.
In May 2008 Pfleger was a guest
preacher at Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC),
where he condemned America as a racist nation that
"has been raping people of color." He also declared that
Hillary Clinton felt a sense of "white entitlement" in
her quest to become President. When portions of this
sermon were aired widely by the media, Obama
denounced Pfleger's rhetoric as "divisive" and
"backward-looking," and soon thereafter he announced
that he was leaving Trinity
church.
James
Meeks:
Yet another religious figure
affiliated with Obama is Rev. James
Meeks, a Democratic
member of the Illinois state senate, where he served
alongside Obama from 2002-2004 (prior to Obama's
election to the U.S. Senate). Meeks also has been
the pastor of Chicago's 22,000-member Salem Baptist
Church since 1985, and he was once the executive
vice president of Jesse
Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH
coalition. In July 2006, Meeks sparked controversy when
he delivered a heated sermon excoriating Chicago mayor
Richard Daley and others regarding public-school
funding issues. "We don't have slave masters," Meeks shouted.
"We got mayors. But they still the same white people who
are presiding over systems where black people are not
able, or to be educated." Also among the targets of
Meeks' wrath were African Americans who supported Daley.
Said
Meeks: "You got some preachers that are house niggers.
You got some elected officials that are house niggers.
And rather than them trying to break this up, they gonna
fight you to protect this white man."
Meeks is a
longtime
political ally of Barack Obama, who in 2003 and 2004
frequently campaigned at Salem Baptist Church during his
run for the U.S. Senate. Meeks, meanwhile, appeared
in television ads supporting Obama's candidacy. Also
in 2004, Obama personally selected Meeks to endorse him
in a radio
ad. In a 2004 interview with the Chicago
Sun-Times, Obama described
Meeks as an adviser to whom he looked for "spiritual
counsel." In 2007 Meeks served on Obama's exploratory
committee for the presidency. The Obama campaign website
listed Meeks as one of the candidate's "influential
black supporters." A Meeks endorsement
of Obama was featured on that same website in 2008. Also
in 2008, Meeks was named as an Illinois superdelegate
pledged to Obama for the Democratic convention in
Denver, Colorado.
Black Advisory
Council (Cornel West and Charles
Ogletree):
For his 2008
presidential run, Obama formed a Black
Advisory Council whose members included, most
notably: (a) Marxist professor Cornel West,
a longtime member of the Democratic
Socialists of America and a great admirer
of Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah
Wright; and (b) Harvard law professor Charles
Ogletree, a reparations-for-slavery proponent who
has advised Obama on such matters as criinal-justice
reform.
Accusing Republicans of
Having Failed Minorities:
During a
Democratic presidential debate on January 21, 2008,
Obama expressed his belief that Republican politicians
had failed to provide adequate opportunities for the
social and economic advancement of minorities: "I
am absolutely convinced that white, black, Latino,
Asian, people want to move beyond our divisions, and
they want to join together in order to create a movement
for change in this country. The Republicans may have a
different attitude.... The policies that they have
promoted have not been good at providing ladders for
upward mobility and opportunity for all
people."
Tony Rezko, the Federally
Indicted Real-Estate
Developer: Also in January
2008, Obama's relationship with a federally indicted
real estate developer came to light when rival candidate
Hillary Clinton said,
during a South Carolina Democratic Party presidential
debate: "I was fighting against … [Republican] ideas
when you were practicing law and representing your
contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in
inner city Chicago." Clinton's reference was to Tony
Rezko, a Syrian-born, Chicago-based restaurateur and
real estate developer who had been one of the first
major financial contributors to Barack Obama's political
campaigns in the 1990s. For a full explanation of
Rezko's relationship with Obama, click on the footnote
number here: [6]
Praise from Louis
Farrakhan:
In
February 2008 Louis Farrakhan called
Obama "a herald of the Messiah." "Barack has captured
the youth," said the Nation Of Islam leader, referring
to the passionate support Obama had drawn from young
people in America. "And he has involved young
people in a political process that they didn't care
anything about. That's a sign. When the messiah speaks,
the youth will hear. And the messiah is absolutely
speaking."
Support from, and Praise
for, Al Sharpton:
In March
2008 the controversial Al
Sharpton, a strong supporter of Obama's presidential
candidacy, revealed publicly that he was in the habit of
speaking to Obama on a regular basis -- "two
or three times a week." Sharpton also said
that he had told Obama four months earlier, "I won't
either endorse you or not endorse you. But I will
tell you I can be freer not endorsing you to help you
and everybody else." According
to Sharpton, Obama then protested and asked for his
public support: "No, no, no. I want you to
endorse."
As he had done the year before, Obama
in 2008 again addressed Sharpton's National
Action Network to seek its support.
Calling Sharpton "a voice for the voiceless and ...
dispossessed," Obama stated:
"What National Action Network has done is so important
to change America, and it must be changed from the
bottom up."
Strengthening the
Alliance with MoveOn.org:
In early
2008 MoveOn executive director Eli Pariser
announced that he and his organization were endorsing
Obama for U.S. President. "We've learned that the key to
achieving change in Washington without compromising core
values is having a galvanized electorate to back you
up," said
Pariser, "and Barack Obama has our members 'fired up and
ready to go' on that front."
Said
Obama in response: "In just a few years, the members of
MoveOn have once again demonstrated that real change
comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up.
From their principled opposition to the Iraq war -- a
war I also opposed from the start -- to their strong
support for a number of progressive causes, MoveOn shows
what Americans can achieve when we come together in a
grassroots movement for change…. I thank them for their
support and look forward to working with their members
in the weeks and months
ahead."
Support from a Hamas
Political Advisor:
In
April 2008 Ahmed Yousef, a political advisor for the
terrorist group Hamas, told
interviewer Aaron Klein that his (Yousef's) organization
was hopeful that Obama would win the presidential election and change
America's foreign policy vis a vis the Arab-Israeli
conflict. When reporters subsequently asked Obama what
he thought of the Hamas leader's endorsement, Obama
said: "My position on Hamas is indistinguishable from
the position of Hillary Clinton or [Republican
presidential candidate] John McCain. I said they are a
terrorist organization, and I've repeatedly condemned
them. I've repeatedly said, and I mean what I say: Since
they are a terrorist organization, we should not be
dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce
terrorism, and abide by previous
agreements."
"They Cling to Guns or
Religion"
During an April 2008
campaign stop in San Francisco, Obama said,
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania,
and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs
have been gone now for 25 years, and nothing's replaced
them. And they fell through the Clinton administration
and the Bush administration, and each successive
administration has said that somehow these communities
are gonna regenerate, and they have not. And it's not
surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or
religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or
anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a
way to explain their
frustrations."
Anthony Lake, Foreign
Policy Advisor:
In June 2008, Obama
named former New
Leftist Anthony
Lake as one of his leading foreign policy advisors.
Lake served as a special assistant for national security
affairs under President Nixon in 1969-70, but soon
thereafter he stepped down from that post to protest the
Nixon administration's bombing raids in Cambodia --
raids that were designed to support the existing
government against the power-grabbing efforts of Pol Pot and
his bloodthirsty Khmer Rouge. By 1972 Lake was an
activist in Democrat George McGovern's presidential
campaign, whose platform was founded on the axiom that
the military conflicts of Southeast Asia were rooted in
the "arrogance of American power" rather than in
Communist aggression. He called for the newly
installed Democrat Congress to cut off funding for
the governments of South Vietnam and Cambodia in January
1975. When Republicans warned that a Pol Pot victory
would inevitably result in a Cambodian "bloodbath," Lake
and his fellow anti-war Democrats accused their critics
of trying to stir up "anti-Communist
hysteria."
After Congress followed Lake's course
and cut the above-referenced funding, the
governments of Cambodia and South Vietnam were quickly
overrun by the Communists, who, during the next three
years, slaughtered nearly 3 million Indo-Chinese
peasants in one of the most horrific genocidal campaigns
in the recorded history of mankind.
Lake's 2008
appointment to the Obama campaign was withdrawn
after the revelation that in a 1996 television
appearance, Lake had stated, erroneously and
naively, that the recently deceased Alger Hiss
may not actually have been a Soviet
spy.
The Race
Card:
At a June 2008 campaign stop
in Jacksonville, Florida, Obama suggested that his
political opponents were trying to exploit the
issue of race to undermine his candidacy. "It is going
to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their
stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign
policy," he said.
"We know what kind of campaign they're going to run.
They're going to try to make you afraid. They're going
to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and
inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I
mention he's black?"
The following month, Obama
told
his listeners at another campaign event: "They
[Republicans] know that you're not real happy with them
and so the only way they figure they're going to win
this election is if they make you scared of me. What
they're saying is 'Well, we know we're not very good but
you can't risk electing Obama. You know, he's new, he
doesn't look like the other presidents on the currency,
he's a got a funny name.'"
Speaking
of America's Moral
Failings:
Speaking at a July
2008 gathering of hundreds of minority journalists
in Chicago, Obama said the
United States should acknowledge its history of poor
treatment of certain ethnic groups:
"There's no doubt that when it comes to our
treatment of Native Americans as well as other persons
of color in this country, we've got some very sad and
difficult things to account for…. I personally would
want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements
of our history, acknowledged…. I consistently believe
that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or
African-American issues or reparations, the most
important thing for the U.S. government to do is not
just offer words, but offer deeds."
Joe Biden:
In August
2008, Obama named Senator Joe
Biden to be his vice presidential running
mate.
Mortgage Lending
Crisis:
In
the summer of 2008 a mortgage-lending crisis of immense
proportions caused many U.S. banks to go out of business
and led to the virtual collapse of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, America's two largest underwriters of home
mortgages. The roots of the crisis were traceable, in
large measure, to the Community Reinvestment
Act put in place by the Carter administration
in 1977 and reinforced by the Clinton
administration in the 1990s. As a September 30, 1999
New York Times article
explains:
"Fannie Mae ... has been under increasing
pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand
mortgage loans among low and moderate income people
and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its
phenomenal growth in profits.
"In addition, banks, thrift institutions and
mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to
help them make more loans to so-called subprime
borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit
ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for
conventional loans, can only get [so-called
'subprime'] loans from finance companies that charge
much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to
four percentage points higher than conventional
loans....
"Demographic information on these borrowers is
sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18
percent of the loans in the subprime market went to
black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in
the conventional loan market.
"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of
lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more
risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush
economic times. But the government-subsidized
corporation may run into trouble in an economic
downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to
that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."
The Editors of National Review Online explain
the connection between the foregoing policies
and Barack Obama:
"One of the reasons so many bad mortgage loans were
made in the first place is that Barack Obama's
celebrated community organizers make their careers out
of forcing banks to do so. ACORN, for which Obama
worked, is one of many left-wing organizations that
spent decades pressuring banks and bank regulators to
do more to make mortgages available to people without
much in the way of income, assets, or credit. These
campaigns often were couched in racially inflammatory
terms. The result was the Community Reinvestment Act.
The CRA empowers the FDIC and other banking regulators
to punish those banks which do not lend to the poor
and minorities at the level that Obama's fellow
community organizers would like. Among other things,
mergers and acquisitions can be blocked if CRA
inquisitors are not satisfied that their demands —
which are political demands — have been met. There is
a name for loans made to people who do not have the
credit, assets, income, or down payment to qualify for
a normal mortgage: subprime."
Though ACORN played a large role in creating the
climate that brought on the mortgage
crisis, Obama in 2007 told a
gathering of that organization's
members: "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on
issues you care about my entire career." Moreover,
Obama's presidential campaign demonstrated its
solidarity with ACORN by giving
the organization some $800,000 to fund its
voter-registration efforts. (Technically, this money was
given to "Citizens'
Services Inc.," an ACORN-dominated subsidiary whose
headquarters are located at precisely the same address
as ACORN's national headquarters in New Orleans,
Louisiana. In an effort to hide the fact that it
had earmarked these funds for ACORN and Citizens'
Services, the Obama campaign misidentified the
$800,000 payment as money spent for "election
services.")
Also in 2007, Obama stated that
"subprime lending started off as a good idea -- helping
Americans buy homes who couldn't previously afford to."
When the crisis arrived in 2008, Obama not only blamed
Republicans, but tacitly blamed the very institution of
capitalism -- referencing it by the pejorative code name
of "trickle-down"
economics.
In September 2008, it
was learned that Obama, during his first three
years in the Senate (2005-2008), had received more political
contribution money ($126,349) from those two sources
than had any other legislator except Connecticut Senator
Christopher Dodd, who had been in Congress continuously
for 33 years.
Two of Fannie Mae's major
players had noteworthy ties to Obama. James Johnson, a
longtime aide to former Vice President Walter Mondale,
headed Fannie Mae from
1991 to 1998. While dutifully
following the Clinton administration directive
mandating that Fannie Mae make subprime loans to
borrowers who were poor credit risks, and thereby
helping to run the mortgage lender into the ground,
Johnson himself earned tens of millions of dollars in
his Fannie Mae post, including $21 million in 1998
alone. In the summer of 2008, Obama tapped Johnson
to chair his vice presidential selection committee; but
soon thereafter, Johnson had
to resign in disgrace from that position when it was
revealed that he personally had taken at least five real
estate loans (totaling more than $7 million) at
below-market rates from Countrywide Financial
Corporation.
Johnson's successor as Fannie Mae's
head, Franklin
Raines, had previously served as a budget director
to Bill Clinton. During his years at Fannie's helm
(1999-2005), Raines, while continuing to oversee the
ill-advised policies that ultimately would bankrupt the
company, pocketed nearly $100 million in compensation
before leaving under a cloud of scandal when it was
learned that he had manipulated profit and loss
reports so as to enable himself and other senior
executives to earn gargantuan bonuses, even as the
financial empire he oversaw was imploding.
Notwithstanding Raines' poor track record, the
Obama campaign consulted him in 2008 for
his advice on housing
matters.
Obama's Ties to
ACORN:
In an October 15, 2008
presidential debate, Republican John McCain raised the
issue of Obama's ties to ACORN. At the time, ACORN was
in the news for two major reasons. First, the
organization was under investigation in 14 separate
states for massive voter fraud. Strongly pro-Democrat,
ACORN claimed to have registered 4 million new voters
(most of whom were Democrats) during the preceding four
years. Many tens of thousands of these registrations
already had been found to be fraudulent -- they
bore phony names, fake or nonexistent addresses,
inaccurate personal information, duplicate signatures,
etc. The full extend of the fraud, however, was
impossible to determine.
Second, ACORN was facing
some criticism for the previously mentioned,
decades-long role it had played in pressuring banks and
bank regulators to make more mortgages available to
unqualified, undercapitalized borrowers -- a policy
that precipitated the financial crisis of 2008 (which
saw the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac). Obama replied to
McCain as follows:
"The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I
represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department
in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that
helped people get registered at DMVs…. ACORN is a
community organization. Apparently what they've done
is they were paying people to go out and register
folks, and apparently some of the people who were out
there didn't really register people, they just filled
out a bunch of names. It had nothing to do with us. We
were not involved."
He said nothing about the years he had spent training
ACORN activists; nothing about the laudatory statements
he had made about ACORN in the recent past; and nothing
about the $800,000+
his campaign had given to the ACORN front group "Citizens'
Services Inc." for "election services" in
2008.
Foreign
Contributions to Presidential
Campaign:
Foreign campaign
contributions are illegal.
In October 2008, Frank Gaffney of The Washington
Times reported
the following:
"A Federal Election Commission (FEC) employee has
reportedly been warning for months about evidence that
the Obama campaign has received as much as $200
million, almost half of his total donations, in
amounts less than $200. That is below the threshold
for donor information [which] Mr. Obama has chose[n]
to report to the FEC -- unlike the Clinton and McCain
campaigns, which have reported all donor
information.
"Of the $200 million, between $30
million and $100 million are from the Mideast, Africa
and other places Islamists are active. It is unclear
whether -- as seems likely -- these funds come not
only from Wahhabis, Muslim
Brotherhood types, and jihadists of other stripes,
but from non-U.S. citizens. Such contributions would
be not only worrying but illegal."
In August 2008, Pamela Geller wrote,
in the American Thinker, that among the myriad
foreign donations Obama had received was a $33,000
contribution from "Palestinian" brothers based
in the Hamas-controlled Rafah refugee camp in Gaza, who
had proudly declared their "love" for Obama. The
Obama campaign claimed that it had returned that money,
but the brother donors said they had never received such
a return. Moreover, Geller catalogued several dozen of
the foreign cities and nations from which illegal
contributions to the Obama campaign had
originated. In many caees, the donors' names
and contact information were fraudulent --
sometimes consisting of nothing more than letters
arranged in random, nonsensical
sequence.
Obama's
Positions and Voting Record as State Senator and U.S.
Senator, and What He Proposes in the Event He Is Elected
President:
During his eight-year
career in the state senate, Obama avoided making
controversial votes approximately 130 times -- which,
according to other Illinois state senators, is much
higher than average. Rather than vote "yea" or "nay" to
the legislation in question, Obama on those occasions
simply voted "present." In the Illinois state senate,
this was the equivalent of a "nay" vote when tallying up
support or opposition to a given bill. But, as
David Freddoso points out:
"[F]or rhetorical purposes, a 'present' vote is
different in that critics and journalists must discuss
it differently. For example, Barack Obama did not vote
against a bill to prevent pornographic book and video
stores and strip clubs from setting up within 1,000
feet of schools and churches -- he just voted
'present.' Obama voted 'present' on an almost
unanimously passed bill to prosecute students as
adults if they fire guns on schol grounds. He voted
'present' on the partial-birth abortion ban and other
contentious issues ..."[7]
Miscellaneous Issues (gun control, Cuba,
affirmative action,
pornography):
Barack Obama is a
strong supporter
of gun control, and an advocate
of loosening restrictions on trade with -- and travel to
-- Communist-controlled Cuba.
He favors racial
preferences for minorities in university admissions,
public employment, and state contracting. "I still
believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming
both historic and potentially current
discrimination," said Obama
in April 2008.
In 2001 Obama voted "present"
on a bill to restrict the location of buildings with
"adult" uses (meaning pornographic video stores, strip
clubs, etc.) within 1,000 feet of any school, public
park, place of worship, preschool, day-care facility, or
residential area. In 1999 he voted "No" on a bill
requiring school boards to install software that
would block sexually explicit material on public
computers accessible to
minors.
Same-Sex
Marriage:
In the wake of a May 2008
California Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex
marriage in that state (similar to a 2003 decision by
the high court of Massachusetts), Obama issued a call to
"fully
repeal" the Defense of Marriage Act (signed into law
by President Clinton in 1996), a move that would have
the effect of legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
The Defense of Marriage Act currently protects states
from having to recognize same-sex marriages contracted
in other states. Says
Obama's campaign website: "Obama also believes we need
to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact
legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal
legal rights and benefits currently provided on the
basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples
in civil unions and other legally recognized
unions."
Notably, no
Congress or state legislature has ever voted to
define homosexual unions as marriages. And wherever
proposals for same-sex marriage have been put up
for popular vote, they have been rejected by
the American people. In the 13 states where gay
marriage was on the ballot in 2004, for example, it
was defeated by majorities ranging in size from 58
percent to 85 percent of the voters.
Abortion:
Obama
has consistently, without a single exception, voted
in favor of expanding abortion rights and the funding of
abortion services with taxpayer dollars. In July
2006 he voted "No" to requiring physicians
to notify parents of minors who get out-of-state
abortions. In March
2008 he voted "No" on a bill prohibiting minors
from crossing state lines to gain access to abortion
services. Also
in March 2008, he voted "No " on defining
unborn child as eligible for the State Children's Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was designed to cover
the medical-care costs of uninsured
children in families whose incomes are modest
but too high to qualify for Medicaid.
When
Obama was a state senator, two separate
partial-birth abortion bans came up for vote in
1997. Obama voted "present" on both occasions, the
functional equivalent of a vote against the ban. He
voted against a 2000 bill that would have ended state
funding of partial-birth abortions. In The Audacity
of Hope, Obama explained that his opposition to the
ban on this procedure was rooted in the fact that the
bill contained no exception for cases where a mother's
"health" might require the procedure.[8]
As a
state senator in 2001, he voted
against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which was
intended to protect babies that survived late-term
abortions from being permitted to die from intentional
neglect. He explained his vote as follows:
"[W]henever we define a pre-viable fetus as a
person that is protected by the equal protection
clause or other elements in the Constitution, what
we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons
that are entitled to the kinds of protections that
would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old --
child that was delivered to term. That determination,
then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court,
would forbid abortions to take place.... For that
reason, I think it would probably be found
unconstitutional."
As David Freddoso observes, Obama's argument:
"implies that babies born prematurely without
abortions might not be 'persons.' They might have to
be 'nine months old' before they count.... [O]ne might
even conclude from [his words] that he actually does
think they are persons. But, he argues, we cannot
legally recognize them as 'persons.' Because if we do,
then somewhere down the road it might threaten
someone's right to an abortion.... Barack Obama's
actions indicate he thinks that before any other
rights are granted to 'persons,' the Constitution
exists to guarantee abortion rights."[9]
Though it did not in any way conflict with, or
compromise, Roe v. Wade, Obama voted
against this same legislation in 2003, and as chair
of the Health and Human Services Committee, he blocked
another attempt to bring the bill to the floor
of the Illinois Senate.
In 2006 Obama voted
"Yes" on a Senate Budget amendment
allocating $100 million to: "increas[e] funding and
access to family planning services"; "fun[d] legislation
that requires equitable prescription coverage for
contraceptives under health plans"; and "fun[d]
legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy
prevention programs and education programs concerning
emergency contraceptives."[10]
Obama's voting
record in the foregoing matters earned him a 100%
rating from NARAL
Pro-Choice America in 2005, 2006, and 2007. He also
received a 100
percent rating from Planned
Parenthood in 2006, and a zero
percent rating from the National Right-to-Life
Committee (an anti-abortion group) in 2005 and 2006.
Says Freddoso, "I could find no instance in his entire
career in which he voted for any regulation or
restriction on the practice of abortion."[11]
On
July 17, 2007, Obama declared, "The first thing I'd do
as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." This
bill would effectively terminate all state restrictions
on government funding for abortions. It would also
invalidate state laws that currently protect medical
personnel from losing their jobs if they refuse to
particpate in abortion procedures.[12]
In an
August 17, 2008 interview with Pastor
Rick Warren, Obama stated that abortion rates
had not declined over the previous eight
years. But this was untrue. Abortion rates
had actually decreased rather dramatically during
that period, reaching a three-decade low.
Rev.
Warren asked Obama directly:"Now, let's deal with
abortion ... [A]t what point does a baby get human
rights, in your view?" To this, Obama replied:
"Well, you know, I think that whether you're
looking at it from a theological perspective or a
scientific perspective, answering that question with
specificity, you know, is above my pay
grade.
"... I am pro-choice. I believe in
Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion
not because I'm pro-abortion, but because, ultimately,
I don't think women make these decisions casually....
And so, for me, the goal right now should be -- and
this is where I think we can find common ground. And
by the way, I've now inserted this into the Democratic
party platform, is how do we reduce the number of
abortions? The fact is that although we have had a
president who is opposed to abortion over the last
eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is
something we have to address....
"I am in
favor, for example, of limits on late-term abortions,
if there is an exception for the mother's health. From
the perspective of those who are pro-life, I think
they would consider that inadequate, and I respect
their views....
"What I can do is say, are
there ways that we can work together to reduce the
number of unwanted pregnancies, so that we actually
are reducing the sense that women are seeking out
abortions. And as an example of that, one of the
things that I've talked about is how do we provide the
resources that allow women to make the choice to keep
a child. You know, have we given them the health care
that they need? Have we given them the support
services that they need? Have we given them the
options of adoption that are necessary? That can make
a genuine difference."
Criminal
Justice:
Obama as a lawmaker has
opposed the death penalty and authored legislation
requiring police to keep records of the race of everyone
questioned, detained or arrested.[13]
Obama
promises that as President, he will work to ban racial
profiling and eliminate racial disparities in criminal
sentencing. "The criminal justice system is not color
blind," he says.
"It does not work for all people equally, and that is
why it's critical to have a president who sends a signal
that we are going to have a system of justice that is
not just us, but is everybody."
According to
Obama, "[W]e know that in our criminal justice system,
African-Americans and whites, for the same crime … are
arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very
different rates, receive very different sentences. That
is something that we have to talk about. But that's a
substantive issue and it has to do with how … we pursue
racial justice. If I am president, I will have a civil
rights division that is working with local law
enforcement so that they are enforcing laws fairly and
justly."[14]
Obama contends that the much harsher
penalties for crimes involving crack cocaine as opposed
to powder-based cocaine -- the former disproportionately
involve black offenders, whereas the latter involve
mostly white offenders -- are wrong and should be
completely eliminated.[15]
He also pledges to
"provide job training, substance abuse and mental health
counseling to ex-offenders, so that [ex-convicts] are
successfully re-integrated into society." Moreover, he
vows to create "a prison-to-work incentive program to
improve ex-offender employment and job retention
rates."
In Obama's calculus, many young black men
engage in street-level drug dealing not because they
seek to profit handsomely from it, but because they are
unable to find legitimate jobs anywhere. Says
Obama: "For many inner-city men, what prevents gainful
employment is not simply the absence of motivation to
get off the streets but the absence of a job history or
any marketable skills -- and, increasingly, the stigma
of a prison record. We can assume that with lawful work
available for young men now in the drug trade, crime in
any community would drop."
During his years as a
legislator, Obama voted against a proposal to
criminalize contact with gang members for any convicts
who were free on probation or on bail. In 2001 he opposed,
for reasons of racial equity, making
gang membership a consideration in determining
whether or not a killer may be eligible for capital
punishment. "There's a strong overlap between gang
affiliation and young men of color," said Obama. "… I
think it's problematic for them [nonwhites] to be
singled out as more likely to receive the death penalty
for carrying out certain acts than are others who do the
same thing."
In 1999, Obama was the only state
senator to oppose a bill prohibiting early prison
release for offenders convicted of sex
crimes.
Education:
Obama
has occasionally attacked special interests in
the Democratic
Party. In the past, for instance, he was prepared to
help students escape from bad public schools by considering school vouchers. But he now
toes the anti-voucher party line and thus the special
interest of the Democratic Party's biggest funding and
activist base, the National
Education Association.
In his 2008
presidential campaign, Obama stressed the importance of
increasing government expenditures on public education.
"We're going to put more money into education than we
have," he said.
"We have to invest in human capital."
Obama's
education plan calls for "investing" $10 billion
annually in a comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan that
"will provide critical supports to young children and
their parents." These funds will be used to "create or
expand high-quality early care and education programs
for pregnant women and children from birth to age five";
to "quadruple the number of eligible children for Early
Head Start"; to "ensure [that] all children have access
to pre-school"; to "provide affordable and high-quality
child care that will … ease the burden on working
families"; to allow "more money" to be funneled "into
after-school programs"; and to fund "home visiting
programs [by health-care personnel] to all low-income,
first-time mothers."
In Obama's view, virtually
all schooling-related problems can be ameliorated or
solved with an infusion of additional cash. Consider,
for instance, his perspective
on the low graduation rate of nonwhite minorities:
"Latinos have such a high dropout rate. What you
see consistently are children at a very early age are
starting school already behind. That's why I've said
that I'm going to put billions of dollars into early
childhood education that makes sure that our
African-American youth, Latino youth, poor youth of
every race, are getting the kind of help that they
need so that they know their numbers, their colors,
their letters."[16]
Obama opposed the Supreme Court's 2007 split decision
that invalidated programs in Seattle and Louisville
(Kentucky) which sought to maintain "diversity" in local
schools by factoring race into decisions about which
students could be admitted to any particular school, or
which students could be allowed to transfer from one
school to another. Under these programs, parents were
not free to send their children to the schools of their
choice. Instead they were obliged to abide by the quotas
preordained by bureaucrats who had never met any of the
children whose educational lives they sought to
micromanage. Both the Seattle and Louisville programs
were representative of similar plans in hundreds of
other school districts nationwide.
In Obama's opinion,
the Court's "wrong-headed" ruling was "but the latest in
a string of decisions by this conservative bloc of
Justices that turn back the clock on decades of
advancement and progress in the struggle for equality."
"The Supreme Court was wrong," Obama added. "These were
local school districts that had voluntarily made a
determination that all children would be better off if
they learned together. The notion that this Supreme
Court would equate that with the segregation as tasked
would make Thurgood Marshall turn in his
grave."[17]
Viewing racial mixing as
an educational objective compelling enough to
warrant the use of quotas and bussing for its
attainment, Obama stated
that "a racially diverse learning environment has a
profoundly positive educational impact on all students,"
and thus he remains "devoted to working toward this
goal."[18]
Welfare
Reform:
In 1997 Obama opposed an
Illinois welfare reform bill, proposed by Republican
senator Dave Syverson, which sought to move as many
people as possible off the state welfare rolls and into
paying jobs. He tried to weaken the legislation by
calling for exceptions not only to the requirement that
welfare recipients make an effort to find employment,
but also to the bill's proposed five-year limit on
benefits.
Two months after Svyerson's bill was
first proposed, Obama added his name to it. The
legislation ultimately would slash welfare rolls by
some 80 percent. As David Freddoso points out, "It
was a bill that the Senate had to pass in order to
conform to the federal welfare-reform laws. It passed
with only one senator voting against
it."[19]
Health
Insurance:
Obama has
said many times, "I am going to give health
insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without
coverage." But as
political analyst Dick Morris points out,
the 47 million statistic includes at least 12
million illegal immigrants who are uninsured.
Another 15 million uninsured are eligible for
Medicaid but have not yet registered for it —
primarily because they have not yet been
ill. When they do enroll eventually, they will
receive inexpensive health care, courtesy of the
American taxpayers. Then there are uninsured
children, almost all of whom are eligible for
the State Children's Health Insurance Program — even if
their parents have not yet enrolled them
therein. That leaves fewer than 20
million uninsured adults who are either American
citizens or legal immigrant non-citizens. To
address this situation, Obama proposes to dramatically
restructure the country's health-care
system.
Gender
Discrimination:
The Obama campaign
asserts that gender-based "discrimination on the job" is
a big problem in America. "For every $1.00 earned by a
man, the average woman receives only 77 cents," says the
campaign website. "A recent study estimates it will take
another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with
men." To rectify this, Obama "believes the government
needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act,
fight job discrimination, and improve child care options
and family medical leave to give women equal footing in
the workplace."
But Obama's claim that women are
underpaid (in comparison to men) by American employers
is untrue. As longtime employment lawyer William
Farrell, who served as a board member of the National
Organization for Women from 1970 to 1973, explains
in his 2005 book Why Men Earn More, the gender
pay gap is actually 20 cents per dollar, not 23
cents. And that gap can be explained entirely by
the fact that women as a group tend, to a much greater
degree than men, to make employment choices that
involve certain tradeoffs; i.e., choices that suppress
incomes but, by the same token, afford tangible
lifestyle advantages that are highly valued.
For
example, women tend to pursue careers in fields that are
non-technical and do not involve the hard (as opposed to
the social) sciences; fields that do not require a large
amount of continuing education in order to keep pace
with new developments or innovations; fields that offer
a high level of physical safety; fields where the work
is performed indoors as opposed to outdoors (where bad
weather can make working conditions poor); fields that
offer a pleasant and socially dynamic working
environment; fields typified by lower levels of
emotional strife; fields that offer desirable shifts or
flexible working hours; fields or jobs that require
fewer working hours per week or fewer working days per
year; and fields where employees can "check out" at the
end of the day and not need to "take their jobs home
with them."
Moreover, Farrell notes, women as a
group tend to be less willing to commute long distances,
to travel extensively for work-related duties, or to
relocate geographically in order to take a job. In
addition, they tend to have fewer years of uninterrupted
experience in their current jobs, and they are far more
likely to leave the work force for extended periods in
order to attend to family-related matters such as
raising children.
When all of the above variables
are factored into the equation, the gender pay gap
disappears entirely. When men and women work at jobs
where their titles and their responsibilities are
equivalent, they are paid exactly the
same.
Energy:
Obama
has voted
against permitting the U.S. to drill for oil and
natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR). Says
Obama:
"It is hard to overstate the degree to which our
addiction to oil undermines our future…. A large
portion of the $800 million we spend on foreign oil
every day goes to some of the world's most volatile
regimes. And there are the environmental consequences.
Just about every scientist outside the White House
believes climate change is real. We cannot drill our
way out of the problem. Instead of subsidizing the oil
industry, we should end every single tax break the
industry currently receives and demand that 1% of the
revenues from oil companies with over $1 billion in
quarterly profits go toward financing alternative
energy research and infrastructure."
At a July 30, 2008 campaign stop in Missouri, Obama
said:
"There are things that you can do individually
... to save energy; making sure your tires are
properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all
the oil that they're talking about getting off [from]
drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires
and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save
just as much."
Obama is a staunch supporter of
federal ethanol subsidies; in 2006 he
himself inserted an ethanol subsidy
into proposed tax legislation. In his book
The Audacity of Hope, he characterized
"alternative fuels like E85, a fuel formulated with 85
percent ethanol" as "the future of the auto
industry." But as David Freddoso explains, by 2008
ethanol "was contributing to record-high food prices and
causing food riots in the developing world ...
exhausting water supplies, driving up gasoline prices,
and exacerbating smog." Freddoso examines what he calls
"the physics of ethanol" as follows:
"To produce five gallons of ethanol from corn, one
must spend the energy equivalent of roughly four
galons of ethanol for farming, shipping, and
processing. (In other words, ethanol has a 25 percent
net energy yield.) ... America's entire 6.5 billion
gallon ethanol production created the net energy
equivalent of 2.2 days' worth of American
gasoline consumption."[20] (Emphasis in original)
"In exchange for that miniscule output," adds
Freddoso, "federal and state governments provide between
$6.3 billion and $8.7 billion in annual direct and
indirect subsidies.... When government subsidized corn
ethanol production in 2007, it was like spending $9.00
to create a gallon of gasoline, and doing it 853 million
times."[21]
In January 2008 Obama said the
following about the future of the coal industry, which
currently accounts for half
of all the electricity produced in America: "If
somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,
It's just that it will bankrupt them because they will
be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's
being emitted." Added
Obama:
"When I was asked earlier about the issue
of coal, you know, under my plan of a cap and trade
system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.
Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good
or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power
plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the
plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would
have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money.
They will pass that money on to
consumers."
Environment:
Obama's
position on the issue of global warming is unambiguous.
His campaign website declares:
"Global warming is real, is happening now and is
the result of human activities. The number of Category
4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30
years. Glaciers are melting faster; the polar ice caps
are shrinking; trees are blooming earlier; oceans are
becoming more acidic, threatening marine life; people
are dying in heat waves; species are migrating, and
eventually many will become extinct. Scientists
predict that absent major emission reductions, climate
change will worsen famine and drought in some of the
poorest places in the world and wreak havoc across the
globe. In the U.S., sea-level rise threatens to cause
massive economic and ecological damage to our
populated coastal areas."[22]
During a 2008 campaign stop in Oregon, Obama called
on the United States to "lead
by example" on global warming. "We can't drive our
SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72
degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other
countries are going to say OK," he said. "That's not
leadership. That's not going to
happen."
Homeland Security / War on
Terror:
Obama voted "No" on a bill
to remove the need for a FISA [Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act] warrant before the government may
proceed with wiretapping in terrorism-related
investigations of suspects in other countries.
"Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in
defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional,"
says Obama.[23]
In Obama's view, "the creation of
military commissions" to try terror suspects captured in
the War on Terror was, from its inception, "a bad
idea."[24]
Such commissions are designed
to adjudicate the cases of so-called "unlawful
combatants" -- as distinguished from "lawful combatants"
-- who are captured in battle. The former are entitled
to prisoner-of-war status and its accompanying Geneva
Convention protections; the latter are entitled to none
of that. Article IV of the Geneva Convention defines
lawful combatants as those whose military organization
meets four
very specific criteria: "(a) that of being commanded
by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that
of having a fixed distinctive sign [a uniform or emblem]
recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms
openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in
accordance with the laws and customs of war." Al Qaeda,
for one, fails even to come close to satisfying
these conditions. Obama opposes the distinction between
lawful and unlawful combatants, and has called for the
repeal of any separate standards regulating the
treatment of each.[25]
Obama has also voted in
favor of preserving habeas corpus -- the notion
that the government may not detain
a prisoner without filing specific
charges that can expeditiously be brought before a
court -- for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. U.S.
officials consider these prisoners -- captured
mostly on the battlefields of the Middle East -- to be
of the highest value for intelligence purposes, or to
constitute, in their own persons, a great threat to
the United States. Says Obama: "Why don't we close
Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus,
because that's how we lead, not with the might of our
military, but the power of our ideals and the power of
our values. It's time to show the world we're not a
country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be
tortured in far off countries."
On June 19, 2008,
political analyst Dick Morris described
Obama's prescription for dealing with terrorism as
follows:
"[Obama has] urged us to go back to the era of
criminal-justice prosecution of terror suspects,
citing the successful efforts to imprison those who
bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. [He said] 'It
is my firm belief that we can crack down on threats
against the United States, but we can do so within the
constraints of our Constitution.... In previous
terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack
against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest
those responsible, put them on trial. They are
currently in US prisons, incapacitated.'
"This
is big -- because that prosecution, and the ground
rules for it, had more to do with our
inability to avert 9/11 than any other single
factor. Because we treated the 1993 WTC bombing as
simply a crime, our investigation was slow, sluggish
and constrained by the need to acquire admissible
evidence to convict the terrorists.
"As a
result, we didn't know that Osama bin Laden and al
Qaeda were responsible for the attack until 1997 --
too late for us to grab Osama when Sudan offered to
send him to us in 1996. Clinton and National Security
Adviser Sandy Berger turned down the offer, saying we
had no grounds on which to hold him or to order his
kidnapping or death.
"Obama's embrace of the
post-'93 approach shows a blindness to the key
distinction that has kept us safe since 9/11 -- the
difference between prosecution and
protection."
The War in Afghanistan and the Iraq
War:
In August 2007, Obama suggested
that as a result of President Bush's poor military
leadership, U.S. troops in Afghanistan had done a
disservice to their mission by "just air raiding
villages and killing civilians, which is causing
enormous problems there."
Vis a vis the war in
Iraq, Obama, as noted earlier, was an outspoken opponent
of the Iraq War at the outset. Over time, however, he
made a number of statements that seemed to indicate
vacillation in terms of his views about the
war. During the November 11, 2007 airing of
Meet The Press, newsman Tim
Russert reminded him of some of those statements:
"In July of '04 [you said]: 'I'm not privy to
Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I
don't know,' in terms of how you would have voted on
the war [in 2002]. And then this: 'There's not much of
a difference between my position on Iraq and George
Bush's position at this stage.' That was July of '04.
And this: 'I think' there's 'some room for
disagreement in that initial decision to vote for
authorization of the war.' It doesn't seem that you
are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left
some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate,
you may have voted for it."
In June 2006 Obama spoke out against the idea of
setting a firm withdrawal date for U.S. troops in Iraq.
Immediately after the midterm election five months
later, however, Obama declared that it was vital "to
change our policy" and to bring home all American
troops. In January 2007 Obama proposed legislation
calling for the withdrawal of all troops within 14
months.
In early 2008, the Obama campaign website
declared that Obama, as President:
"... would immediately begin to pull out troops
engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two
brigades every month, to be completed by the end of
[2009]. He would call for a new constitutional
convention in Iraq, convened with the United
Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq's
leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation. He would
use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy
with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a
new regional security compact. And he would take
immediate steps to confront the humanitarian disaster
in Iraq, and to hold accountable any perpetrators of
potential war crimes."
Claiming that the U.S. presence in Iraq was
"illegal," Obama campaigned publicly in 2007 and 2008
for a speedy withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
But in a July 2008 discussion he held with Iraqi leaders
in Baghdad, Obama privately
tried to persuade them to delay an agreement on a
timetable for such a withdrawal until after the November
elections. According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar
Zebari, "He asked why we were not prepared to delay an
agreement until after the U.S. elections and the
formation of a new administration in Washington….
However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security
agreement that regulates the activities of foreign
troops, rather than keeping the matter open." The
political implications of delaying the troop withdrawal
were clear: If Obama were to win the election and
subsequently set the withdrawal in motion, he could
claim credit for what President Bush allegedly had been
unable or unwilling to do.
Obama also vowed to
"fulfill America's obligation to accept refugees" from
Iraq. "The State Department pledged to allow 7,000 Iraqi
refugees into America," said the Obama campaign, "but
has only let 190 into the United States. [President]
Obama would expedite the Department of Homeland
Security's review of Iraqi asylum
applicants."
After President Bush announced in
January 2007 that he would send a "surge" of some
21,500 additional troops to Iraq in an effort to
quell the insurgency there. In response, Obama said:
"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in
Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In
fact, I think it will do the reverse." Throughout 2007,
Obama continued to argue that the surge was
ill-advised.
In July 2008, by which time the
surge had proven to be extremely effective in reducing
the violence in Iraq, newscaster Katie Couric
asked Obama: "But yet you're saying ... given what you
know now, you still wouldn't support [the surge] ... so
I'm just trying to understand this." Obama replied:
"Because ... it's pretty straightforward. By us
putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200
billion, that's money that could have gone into
Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone
into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used
to shore up a declining economic situation in the
United States. That money could have been applied to
having a serious energy security plan so that we were
reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund
the insurgents in many countries. So those are all
factors that would be taken into consideration in my
decision -- to deal with a specific tactic or strategy
inside of Iraq."
Israel:
While
running for Congress in 2000, Obama prepared
a position paper on Israel in which he stated,
"Jerusalem should remain united and should be recognized
as Israel's capital."
Along the same lines, in
January 2008 Obama wrote,
in response to an American Jewish
Committee Election Questionaire's question about
how he foresaw "the likely final status of Jerusalem,"
that "Jerusalem will remain Israel's capital, and no one
should want or expect it to be
re-divided."
Similarly, in a June 4, 2008 speech
to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Obama
said,
"Let me be clear…. Jerusalem will remain the capital of
Israel, and it must remain undivided."
The next
day, after a number of Arab sources criticized Obama's
comments, an unnamed Obama adviser tried to "clarify"
the candidate's statement by suggesting that it left
room for Palestinian sovereignty. Soon thereafter, Obama
said:
"[T]he truth is that this was an example where we had
some poor phrasing in the speech" and a reminder of the
need to be "careful in terms of our syntax." He said his
point had been "simply" that "we don't want barbed wire
running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was
prior to the '67
war."
Military/Missile
Defense/Weapons Systems:
Obama has
consistently opposed America's development of a missile
defense system. In a February 2008 campaign
ad, he stated:
"I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful
spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile
defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will
slow our development of future combat systems. I will
institute an independent Defense Priorities Board to
ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used
to justify unnecessary defense spending.... I will set
a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek
that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I
will seek a global ban on the production of fissile
material…."
Redistribution of
Wealth:
During a
call-in program on Chicago's WBEZ public radio in
2001, state senator Barack Obama said
the following (click here
for audio):
"You know, if you look at the victories and
failures of the civil-rights movement, and its
litigation strategy in the court, I think where it
succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously
dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the
right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch
counter and order and as long as I could pay for it,
I'd be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into
the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of
more basic issues of political and economic justice in
this society.
"And uh, to that extent, as
radical as I think people tried to characterize the
Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break
free from the essential constraints that were placed
by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least
as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted
it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is
a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the
states can't do to you, says what the federal
government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what
the federal government or the state government must do
on your behalf.
"And that hasn't shifted, and
one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights
movement was because the civil-rights movement became
so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a
tendency to lose track of the political and community
organizing and activities on the ground that are able
to put together the actual coalitions of power through
which you bring about redistributive change. And in
some ways we still suffer from that."
A caller then asked: "The gentleman [Obama] made
the point that the Warren Court wasn't terribly radical.
My question is (with economic changes) … my question is,
is it too late for that kind of reparative work,
economically, and is that the appropriate place for
reparative economic work to change place?"
Obama
replied:
"You know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about
major redistributive change through the courts. The
institution just isn't structured that
way.... You start getting into all sorts of
separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the
court monitoring or engaging in a process that
essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
You know, the court is just not very good at it, and
politically, it's just very hard to legitimize
opinions from the court in that regard.
"So I
think that, although you can craft theoretical
justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any
three of us sitting here could come up with a
rationale for bringing about economic change through
the courts."
Bill Whittle of National Review Online analyzed
Obama's words as follows:
"There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this.
Nothing.
"From the top: '…The Supreme
Court never entered into the issues
of redistribution of wealth, and sort of
more basic issues of political and economic
justice in this society. And uh, to that
extent, as radical as I think people tried to
characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that
radical.'
"If the second highlighted phrase had
been there without the first, Obama's defenders would
have bent over backwards trying to spin the meaning of
'political and economic justice.' We all know
what political and economic
justice means, because Barack Obama has
already made it crystal clear a second earlier: It
means redistribution of wealth. Not the
creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of
opportunity, but simply taking money from the
successful and hard-working and distributing it to
those whom the government decides 'deserve'
it.
"This redistribution of wealth, he states,
'essentially is administrative and takes a lot of
time.' It is an administrative task. Not
suitable for the courts. More suitable for the chief
executive.
"Now that's just garden-variety
socialism ... [C]onsider this next statement with
as much care as you can possibly bring to
bear: 'And uh, to that extent, as radical as I
think people tried to characterize the Warren Court,
it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free
from the essential constraints that were placed by the
Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at
least as it's been interpreted, and [the] Warren Court
interpreted it in the same way, that
generally the Constitution is a charter of
negative liberties: [it] says what the states can't do
to you, says what the federal government can't do to
you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or
the state government must do
on your behalf.'
"The United States of
America — five percent of the world's population —
leads the world economically, militarily,
scientifically, and culturally — and by a spectacular
margin. Any one of these
achievements, taken alone, would be cause for enormous
pride. To dominate as we do in all four arenas has no
historical precedent. That we have achieved so much in
so many areas is due — due entirely — to the structure
of our society as outlined in the Constitution of the
United States.
"The entire purpose of the
Constitution was to limit government.
That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in
America the vast human potential available in any
population.
"Barack Obama sees that limiting of
government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal
flaw: "…One of the, I think,
the tragedies of
the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights
movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that
there was a tendency to lose track of
thepolitical
and community
organizing and activities on the ground that
are able to put together the
actual coalitions of
power through which you
bring about redistributive
change. And in some ways we
still suffer from
that.'
"There is no room for wiggle or
misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There
is nothing out of context; for the entire
thing is context — the context of what
Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess
at what he believes or try to interpret what he
believes. He says what he believes.
"We have,
in our storied history, elected Democrats and
Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates.
We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched
battles about how best to govern this nation. But we
have never, ever in our 232-year
history, elected a president who so completely and
openly opposed the idea of limited government, the
absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of
America unique and exceptional."
Taxes:
Obama
generally favors significant increases in the tax rates
paid by Americans. In 2001 he said, "I consider the Bush
tax cuts for the wealthy to be both fiscally
irresponsible and morally troubling."
During a
June 28, 2007 primary debate at Howard University, Obama
was asked, "Do you agree that the rich aren't paying
their fair share of taxes?" He replied,
"There's no doubt that the tax system has been skewed.
And the Bush tax cuts -- people didn't need them, and
they weren't even asking for them, and that's why they
need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health
care and other initiatives."
In 1999
Obama voted "No" on a bill to create an income tax
credit for the families of all full-time K-12 pupils. In
2003 he voted "Yes" on a bill to retain the Illinois
Estate Tax. He also supported raising taxes on insurance
premiums and levying a new tax on businesses. In his
keynote address at a 2006 "Building a Covenant for a New
America" conference, he urged Americans of all faiths to
convene on Capitol Hill and give it an "injection of
morality" by opposing a repeal of the estate
tax.
In the U.S. Senate, Obama has never once
failed to support a tax hike, voting several dozen times
in favor of such increases.
In June 2008, Rea
Hederman and Patrick Tyrell of the Heritage Foundation
summarized presidential candidate Obama's tax proposals
as follows:
"His plan would boost the top marginal [income tax]
rate to well over 55 percent—before the inclusion of
state and local taxes—resulting in many individuals
seeing their marginal tax rate double…. Senator Obama
would end the Bush tax cuts and allow the top two tax
rates to return to 36 and 39.6 percent. He also would
allow personal exemptions and deductions to be phased
out for those with income over $250,000 …
[and] would end the Social Security payroll
tax cap for those over $250,000 in earnings. (The cap
is currently set at $102,000.) These individuals will
then face a tax rate of 15.65 percent from payroll
taxes and the top income tax rate of 39.6 percent for
a combined top rate of over 56 percent on each
additional dollar earned.
"High-income
individuals will be forced to pay even more if they
live in cities or states with high taxes such as New
York City, California, or Maryland. These unlucky
people would pay over two-thirds of each new dollar in
earnings to the federal government…. Senator Obama's
new tax rate would give the United States one of the
highest tax rates among developed countries. Currently
only six of the top 30 industrial nations have a tax
rate for all levels of government combined of over 55
percent. Under this tax plan, the United States would
join this group and have a higher top rate than such
high-tax nations as Sweden and Denmark. The top
marginal rate would exceed 60 percent with the
inclusion of state and local taxes, which means that
only Hungary would exceed Senator Obama's new proposed
top tax rate."
In an April 2008 Democratic primary debate, Obama was
asked, by journalist Charlie Gibson, a question
about his proposal to nearly double the capital gains
tax (from 15 percent to 28 percent). Said
Gibson: "… In each instance when the rate dropped [in
the 1990s], revenues from the tax increased. The
government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when
the [capital gains] tax was increased to 28 percent, the
revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially
given the fact that 100 million people in this country
own stock and would be affected?"
Obama replied
that he wished to raise the tax "for purposes of
fairness." "We saw an article today," he explained,
"which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made
$29 billion last year…. [T]hose who are able to work the
stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains
are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries.
That's not fair."
In a September 2008 Fox News
Channel television interview,
Obama pledged to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans,
while raising taxes on those who earn more than
$250,000. Political commentator Bill O'Reilly objected,
"That's class warfare. You're taking the wealthy in
America, the big earners … you're taking money away from
them and you're giving it to people who don't. That's
called income redistribution. It's a socialist tenet.
Come on, you know that."
Obama replied, "Teddy
Roosevelt supported a progressive income tax…. If I am
sitting pretty and you've got a waitress who is making
minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she
can't, what's the big deal for me to say, I'm going to
pay a little bit more? That is
neighborliness."
In October 2008, CNS News
provided the following analysis
of the Obama tax plan, which, according to Obama, would
feature the aforementioned tax cut for all
those earning less than $250,000 per year, or 95 percent
of American taxpayers:
"Democratic presidential
candidate Barack Obama's plan to
cut taxes on 95 percent of taxpayers would effectively
increase government spending by an average of $64.8
billion a year and effectively raise income tax rates
for many Americans, even on some earning $20-$50,000
per year, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy
Center.
"The heart of Obama's tax cut proposal
is in his use of refundable tax credits, which the
Center describes as 'credits available to eligible
households even if they have no income tax liability'
-- in short, refunds available even to those who don't
pay taxes. These refunds are claimed on tax returns
and are paid to all taxpayers who qualify for them,
regardless of whether they owe taxes or not.
These refunds have the ability of reducing a
taxpayer's liability below zero, meaning they can get
a refund without actually paying taxes.
"In
real numbers, 60.7 million people who have no tax
burden at all will receive refunds from Obama, while
only 33.8 million people, who pay approximately 40
percent of income taxes, will get any kind of
refund. Twenty percent of taxpayers, who pay
87.5 percent of total income taxes, will actually see
after-tax income decline under Obama by nearly two
percent, according to the Center.
"By using
these refunds, Obama is able to claim that he is
giving a tax cut to 95 percent of households, although
only 62 percent of households pay any income taxes at
all. This means that Obama's tax plan calls for
giving money to some households that do not pay taxes,
including a plan to make community college
'essentially free' and pay 10 percent of the interest
on all mortgages. "The
problem with Obama's characterization that his
proposals are tax cuts is that refundable credits are
calculated as outlays, or direct spending, not as
reductions in tax rates, according to the
Center. This means that, in budgetary terms,
some of Obama's tax cuts are actually spending
increases. "The Tax Policy Center
estimates that Obama's spending proposals will be so
large that they effectively eliminate income taxes for
15 million households, increasing the percentage of
households that pay no taxes from 37.8 percent to 48.1
percent....
"When compared with current law,
people earning $20,000-$50,000 a year will see their
effective tax rates -- the amount of money the
taxpayer actually ends up paying the government --
increase on average under Obama's plan, according to
Tax Policy Center figures.
"Most households
making $30,000-$75,000 will not see a reduction in
their taxes under Obama's plan relative to current
law, according to the Center. In fact, the only
strata that will see a majority of its effective tax
burden reduced under Obama are those making less than
$30,000 per year and those making $75,000-$200,000 per
year."
The net result of the tax plan, according to the
figures above, will be to increase by more than 25
percent the number of households that pay no taxes at
all, thereby effectively increasing the size of the
welfare state.
At an October 2008 campaign appearance in Ohio, Obama
was approached by man named Joe Wurzelbacher (who
thereafter would become widely known in the media as
"Joe the plumber"). Wurzelbacher told Obama that he was
planning to purchase a business which was projected to
earn in excess of $250,000 per hear, and that Obama's
tax plan, which would raise taxes (by 8.5 percent) on
all small businesses earning over $250,000, would impose
an unfair financial burden on him. Obama replied
that the tax increase on businesses like his was
justified because it would enable the government to give
tax breaks to people earning considerably less than
$250,000. "I think when you spread the wealth around,
it's good for everybody," said Obama.
The
National Taxpayers Union -- an organization that
"seeks
to reduce government spending, cut taxes, and protect
the rights of taxpayers" -- gave
Obama ratings of zero percent, 16 percent, and
"F" in 2005, 2006, and 2007,
respectively.
Americans for Tax Reform --
which "believes
in a system in which taxes are simpler, fairer, flatter,
more visible, and lower than they are today" -- gave
Obama a zero percent rating in 2005 and a 15 percent
rating in 2006.
The Small Business &
Entrepreneurship Council -- which "works
to influence legislation and policies that help to
create a favorable and productive environment for small
businesses and entrepreneurship" -- gave Obama a rating
of 9
percent in 2005.
The National Federation of
Independent Business -- which seeks
"to impact public policy at the state and federal level
and be a key business resource for small and independent
business in America" -- gave Obama a rating of
12 percent in 2005-2006.
The Business-Industry
Political Action Committee -- which "supports
pro-business candidates who have demonstrated the skill
and leadership necessary to fuel a pro-business
Congress" -- rated
Obama 15 percent in 2005 and 10 percent in
2006.
Earmarks:
"Earmarking"
refers to the commonplace congressional practice of
directing federal tax dollars to local projects which
are often frivolous and are of extremely limited
utility. In fiscal year 2008, Obama was the sole
Senate sponsor of 29 earmarks whose aggregate sum was
$10.7 million. Earmarks are often informal quid pro
quo arrangements, where recipients show gratitude
by giving money to the political official who steered
the earmarks their way. For example, after Obama
inserted earmarks into a 2008 defense appropriations
bill, the recipients sent $16,000 in contributions to
Obama's presidential campaign.
Sometimes the
quid pro quo works in the other direction,
where the senator earmarks money for recipients
after they have taken action that is in some
way beneficial to the senator. For example, in 2007
Obama earmarked $1 million for the University of Chicago
Medical Center, where his wife, who served as vice
president of the Center, had received a $200,000 pay
raise immediately after Obama took office
as senator in early
2005.[26]
Price
Controls:
In 1998 Obama proposed
the creation of a study panel to examine the feasibility
of having the government regulate and cap automobile
insurance rates. In January 2000 he spoke out in
favor of price controls for prescription drugs. A year
later he called for the establishment of a five-person
government "review board" to place a cap on drug prices
in Illinois. To read economist Thomas Sowell's
explanation of why price controls have historically
failed to lower costs or improve products and
services, click here.[27]
Voting
Rights:
In September 2005,
Obama sponsored "Senate
Concurrent Resolution 53," which expressed "the
sense of Congress that any effort to
impose photo identification requirements for
voting should be
rejected." Immigration:
Obama's voting record clearly reflects his desire to
expand entitlements for illegal aliens.
Obama
opposes immigration raids designed to identify
illegal aliens in workplaces or housing units. He says
the U.S. should "allow undocumented immigrants who are
in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to
the back of the line for the opportunity to become
citizens." "When I was a state senator in Illinois,"
Obama says,
"I voted to require that illegal aliens get trained, get
a license, get insurance to protect public safety. That
was my intention. The problem we have here is not
driver's licenses. Undocumented workers do not come here
to drive. They're here to work." His position remains
unchanged: He is in favor of permitting
illegal aliens to obtain driver's
licenses.
Obama voted in
favor of allowing former illegal aliens who had
previously worked at jobs under phony or stolen Social
Security numbers, to someday reap the benefits of
whatever Social Security contributions they may
have made while they were so employed.
He voted
in favor of an amendment placing an expiration date
on a point-based immigration system (i.e., a system that
seeks to ensure that people with skills that
society needs are given preference for
entry into the United States).
Obama instead advocates a system
focusing on the reunification of family
members, even if that means permitting
the relatives of illegal aliens to join the
latter in America.
Obama seeks to delineate
a "path to citizenship" for illegal aliens, so as to "bring
people out of the shadows" and allow them to "to
fully embrace our values and become full members of our
democracy." Says
the Obama campaign, "America has always been a nation of
immigrants…. For the millions living here illegally but
otherwise playing by the rules, we must encourage them
to come out of hiding and get right with the
law."
As a U.S. senator, Obama has been a
supporter of the DREAM Act, intended to allow illegal
aliens to attend college at the reduced tuition
rates normally reserved for in-state legal residents. He
helped
to pass a state version of such a law in
Illinois during his years as a state senator.
Says
the Obama campaign, the DREAM Act "would allow
undocumented children brought to the United states the
opportunity to pursue higher education or serve in our
military, and eventually becoming legalized citizens….
[I]nstead of driving thousands of children who were on
the right path into the shadows, we need to giver those
who play by the rules the opportunity to
succeed."
In September 2008, Obama told the
North Carolina Public Radio station WUNC that the
children of illegal immigrants should be
permitted to attend community colleges. "For us to
deny them access to community college, even though
they've never lived in Mexico, as least as far as they
can tell, is to deny that this is how we've always built
this country up," said
Obama.
According to Dick Morris, the political
strategist who formerly advised President Bill
Clinton Obama's plan for universal health care
would include coverage
for illegal immigrants.
In March 2008, Obama
voted to table a Senate amendment calling
for the withdrawal of federal assistance "to
sanctuary
cities that ignore the immigration laws of the
United States and create safe havens for illegal aliens
and potential terrorists."
In July 2007
Obama was a featured speaker at the annual
convention of the National Council of
La Raza, an open-borders group that lobbies
for racial preferences, mass immigration, and
amnesty for illegal aliens. Among his remarks were the
following:
"I will never walk away from the 12 million
undocumented immigrants who live, work, and contribute
to our country every single day.
"There are few
better examples of how broken, bitter, and divisive
our politics has become than the immigration debate
that played out in Washington a few weeks ago. So many
of us -- Democrats and Republicans -- were willing to
compromise in order to pass comprehensive reform that
would secure our borders while giving the undocumented
a chance to earn their citizenship....
"[W]e
are a nation of immigrants -- a nation that has always
been willing to give weary travelers from around the
world the chance to come here and reach for the dream
that so many of us have reached for. That's the
America that answered my father's letters and his
prayers and brought him here from Kenya so long ago.
That's the America we believe in.
"But that's
the America that the President and too many
Republicans walked away from when the politics got
tough.... [W]e saw parts of the immigration debate
took a turn that was both ugly and racist in a way we
haven't seen since the struggle for civil
rights....
"We don't expect our government to
guarantee success and happiness, but when millions of
children start the race of life so far behind only
because of race, only because of class, that's a
betrayal of our ideals. That's not just a Latino
problem or an African-American problem; that is an
American problem that we have to
solve....
"It's an American problem when one in
four Latinos cannot communicate well with their doctor
about what's wrong or fill out medical forms because
there are language barriers we refuse to break
down...."
In July 2008, Obama again spoke to NCLR. Among his
remarks were the
following:
"The theme of this [La Raza] conference is the work
of your lives: strengthening America together. It's
been the work of this organization for four decades
--lifting up families and transforming communities
across America. And for that, I honor you, I
congratulate you, I thank you, and I wish you another
forty years as extraordinary as your
last….
"The system isn't working when a child
in a crumbling school graduates without learning to
read or doesn't graduate at all. Or when a young
person at the top of her class -- a young person with
so much to offer this country -- can't attend a public
college.
"The system isn't working when
Hispanics are losing their jobs faster than almost
anybody else, or working jobs that pay less, and come
with fewer benefits than almost anybody
else.
"The system isn't working when 12 million
people live in hiding, and hundreds of thousands cross
our borders illegally each year; when companies hire
undocumented immigrants instead of legal citizens to
avoid paying overtime or to avoid a union; when
communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids --
when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when
children come home from school to find their parents
missing, when people are detained without access to
legal counsel….
"[W]e'll make the system work
again for everyone. By living up to the ideals that
this organization has always embodied the ideals
reflected in your name, 'Raza,' the people. [Actually,
a literal translation is "the race."] … And together,
we won't just win an election; we will transform this
nation."
The U.S. Border Control (USBC), a nonprofit citizen's
lobby dedicated to ending illegal immigration and
securing America's borders, reports that Obama's
immigration-related votes are consistent with USBC's
values only 8
percent of the time. By USBC's definition, Obama's
stance on immigration qualifies him as an "open borders"
advocate.
English
Language:
Obama voted against a
bill to declare English the official language of the
U.S. government. Under this bill, no person would be
entitled to have the government communicate with
him (or provide materials for him) in any language other
than English. Nothing in the bill, however,
prohibited the use of a language other than
English.
Constitution / Supreme
Court:
In his 2006 book The
Audacity of Hope, Obama expresses his belief
that the U.S. Constitution is a living document (subject
to reinterpretation and change), and states that, as
President, he would not appoint a strict constructionist
(a Justice who seeks to apply the text as it is written
and without further inference) to the Supreme Court:
"When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding
Fathers and the Constitution's ratifiers to give
direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that
the original understanding must be followed and if we
obey this rule, democracy is respected. Others, like
Justice Breyer, insist that sometimes the original
understanding can take you only so far -- that on the
truly big arguments, we have to take context, history,
and the practical outcomes of a decision into account.
I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the
Constitution -- that it is not a static but rather a
living document and must be read in the context of an
ever-changing world."
When President Bush in 2005 nominated John Roberts to
be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Obama stated
that few Supreme Court cases involve any controversy at
all, "so that both a [conservative like] Scalia and a
[leftist like] Ginsburg will arrive at the same place
most of the time on those 95 percent of cases." In the
other 5 percent, he said, "the critical ingredient" was
neither the law nor the Constitution says, but rather
"what is in the judge's heart."
"[W]hen I
examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public
service, it is my personal estimation that he has far
more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the
strong in opposition to the weak," Obama said
in a floor speech on September 22, 2005. "In his work in
the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he
seemed to have consistently sided with those who were
dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of
racial discrimination in our political process. In these
same positions, he seemed dismissive of concerns that it
is harder to make it in this world and in this economy
when you are a woman rather than a man."
Obama
was also "deeply troubled" by "the philosophy, ideology
and record" of yet another Bush nominee to the Supreme
Court, Samuel Alito. "There is no indication that he is
not a man of fine character," Obama said
in a floor speech on January 26, 2006. "But when you
look at his record, when it comes to his understanding
of the Constitution, I found that in almost every case
he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against
the powerless."
Columnist Terrence Jeffrey observes:
"In contrast to his soaring campaign rhetoric about
bringing America together, Obama's Senate speeches
against Roberts and Alito revealed a polarizing vision
of America. Minorities, women, employees and criminal
defendants were among the weak; majorities, men,
employers and prosecutors were among the strong."
In April 2007, newsman Wolf Blitzer asked Obama, "Are
there ... Justices right now upon whom you would model
[appointments to the Supreme Court]?" Obama replied,
"Well, you know, I think actually Justice [Stephen]
Breyer, Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg are very sensible
judges. I think that Justice [David] Souter ... is a
sensible judge."
In an August 2008 symposium,
Obama was asked which, if any, of the current Supreme
Court Justices he would not have nominated if he had
been President at the time. He replied
that he would not have nominated Clarence Thomas,
because "I don't think that he was a strong enough
jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation.
Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with
his interpretation of a lot of the
Constitution."
On another occasion, Obama
criticized Justice Antonin Scalia for believing
"that the original understanding [of the Constitution]
must be followed, and that if we strictly obey this
rule, then Democracy is respected.... [I]t is
unrealistic to believe that a judge, two hundred years
later, can somehow discern the original intent of the
Founders or ratifiers."[28]
Explaining the
criteria by which he would appoint judges to the federal
bench, Obama declared:
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy,
to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom,
the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or
African-American or gay or disabled or old--and that's
the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."
Foreign Aid:
Obama
supports an initiative known as the Global Poverty
Act (GPA), which, if signed into law, would
compel the U.S. President to develop "and implement"
a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015
through aid, trade, debt relief," and other
means.
Says Obama:
"With billions of people living on just dollars a
day around the world, global poverty remains one of
the greatest challenges and tragedies the
international community faces," . "It must be a
priority of American foreign policy to commit to
eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child
has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we
strive to rebuild America's standing in the world,
this important bill will demonstrate our promise and
commitment to those in the developing world…. Our
commitment to the global economy must extend beyond
trade agreements that are more about increasing
profits than about helping workers and small farmers
everywhere." According
to a report by Accuracy in Media editor
Cliff Kincaid, the adoption of the GPA could "result in
the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels "of U.S. foreign
aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."
Kincaid states that the legislation would earmark
some 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to
foreign aid, which over a 13-year period would amount to
roughly $845
billion "over and above what the U.S. already
spends."
Foreign
Policy:
During a July 2007 Democrat
primary debate, Obama was asked: "[W]ould you be willing
to meet separately, without preconditions, during the
first year of your administration, with the leaders of
Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order
to bridge the gap that divides our
countries?"
He replied: "I would. And the
reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking
to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the
guiding diplomatic principle of this administration --
is ridiculous."
Notwithstanding subsequent
criticisms from Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden,
and numerous other Democrats as well as political
commentators -- all of whom contended that some
preconditions were essential -- Obama initially did not
change his position.
Since that time, however, he
and his campaign staffers have sought to quietly,
incrementally reframe Obama's position. For instance,
his senior policy advisor Susan Rice in early 2008 said
Obama would "meet with the appropriate ... leaders" of
such countries, specifying Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad. In May 2008, Obama further parsed his words
of the previous year: "What I said was I would meet with
our adversaries including Iran, including Venezuela,
including Cuba, including North Korea, without
preconditions but that does not mean without
preparation." When he was asked to explain how
preconditions differed from preparation, he replied:
There's a huge difference ... There are a whole series
of steps that need to be taken before you have a
presidential meeting but that doesn't mean you expect
the other side to agree to every item on your
list."
During a May 18, 2008 campaign event,
Obama said:
"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny
compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious
threat to us…. Iran may spend one-one hundredth of what
we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a
serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance." Two
days later, he told
another audience: "Iran is a grave threat. It has an
illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across
the regions and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's
existence. It denies the
holocaust…."
Obama's Overall
Record:
In January 2008 the
National Journal published its rankings of all
U.S. senators -- based on how they had voted on a
host of foreign and domestic policy bills -- and
rated Barack Obama "the
most liberal Senator of 2007." "Obama's
[foreign policy] liberal score of 92 and conservative
score of 7 indicate that he was more liberal in that
issue area than 92 percent of the senators and more
conservative than 7 percent," the researchers explained. In
the area of domestic policy voting, the study found
that "Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66
key votes on which he voted … [and] garnered perfect
liberal scores in both the economic and social
categories."
The leftist organization Americans
for Democratic Action (ADA) similarly rated Obama's
Senate voting record at 97.5 percent. By contrast, the
American Conservative Union (the ADA's ideological
antithesis) gave Obama a rating of 8
percent.
After declaring his presidential
candidacy in early 2007, Obama clearly became far
more focused on campaigning for his White House run
than on performing the legislative duties for which
he had been elected to the U.S. Senate. From
January 2007 through September 2008, he missed
303 votes (a total of 46 percent of all votes that
came before the
Senate.
Notes:
[1]
David Freddoso, The Case Against Barack Obama
(Washington DC: Regnery Publishing, 2008),
p. 146.
[2] ACORN's mandate today includes
all issues touching low-income and working-class people.
The organization runs schools where children are trained
in class consciousness; it oversees a network of "boot
camps" where street activists are trained; and it
conducts operations that extort contributions from banks
and other businesses under threat of trumped-up civil
rights charges.
[3] In the 2004 and 2006 election
cycles, both Project Vote and ACORN ran nationwide
voter-mobilization drives marred by allegations of
fraudulent voter registration, vote-rigging, voter
intimidation, and vote-for-pay scams.
[3] As one observer noted
in May 2008, legal "successes" such as this were
probably responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis
of 2007. That is, banks were not loaning to blacks whose
credit was poor. When the law forced them to lend money
anyway, the inevitable happened.
[4] When Obama ran for the
presidency in 2008, and his relationship with Ayers and
Dohrn became a matter of public controversy, his
campaign produced a "fact
sheet" pronouncing the former terrorists now to be
"respectable" members of the "mainstream"
community.
[5] David Freddoso, The Case
Against Barack Obama, p. 117.
[6] Rezko had initially
met Obama in 1990, when the former was a low-income
housing developer in Chicago and the latter was a
Harvard Law School student. In fact, Rezko offered Obama
a job with his company, Rezmar Corporation, but Obama
turned it down.
Obama eventually found employment
in 1993 with the aforementioned Chicago law firm Davis
Miner Barnhill, which represented developers who built
low-income housing with government funds. In 1995 one of
the firm's clients -- the Woodlawn Preservation and
Investment Corporation (WPIC) -- partnered with Rezmar
Corporation in a project to convert an abandoned nursing
home into low-income apartments. Obama was instrumental
in helping Rezmar Corporation and WPIC strike their
deal. Rezmar Corporation would also partner with WPIC
clients in four later deals.
When Obama announced
in 1995 that he was running for an Illinois Senate seat
(which would be up for grabs in 1996), two of Tony
Rezko's companies donated
a total of $2,000 to Obama's campaign. Over the course
of the entire primary season, Rezko raised
between $10,000 and $15,000 of the roughly $100,000
Obama collected overall. Obama won the November 1996
election, and the district he represented included 11 of
Rezko's 30 low-income housing projects.
Rezko served
on the campaign committee for Obama's failed
congressional run against U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush in 2000,
raising between $50,000 and $75,000 of the estimated
$600,000 Obama collected for that race.
In 2001
Rezko's Rezmar Corporation stopped making its mortgage
payments on the old nursing home it had converted into
apartments, and the state of Illinois foreclosed
on the building, which was located in Obama's Senate
district.
In 2003 Obama announced that he would
run for an Illinois seat in the U.S. Senate which would
be open the following year. He again named
Rezko to his campaign finance committee. It is estimated
that Rezko raised some $160,000 for Obama during the
Senate primary season.
In November 2004 Obama was
elected U.S. Senator. A few months later, he and Rezko's
wife, Rita, purchased
adjacent pieces of property in Chicago's Kenwood
neighborhood. Obama's portion of the deal involved a
mansion for which he paid $1.65 million -- $300,000
below the seller's asking price. Meanwhile, Rezko's wife
(who earned only $37,000 per year and owned few assets)
paid the full asking price -- $625,000 -- for a vacant
lot adjacent to Obama's mansion.
At this time,
Mr. Rezko was being pursued
by creditors seeking more than $10 million which
Rezko owed on defaulted loans and failed business
ventures. At
least 12 lawsuits had been filed against Rezko and
his businesses from November 2002 to January 2005,
including one by the G.E. Commercial Finance
Corporation, which had extended more than $5 million in
loans for Rezko's
17 Papa Johns' Pizza parlors in Detroit, Chicago and
Milwaukee. In November 2004, G.E. obtained a court
judgment against Mr. Rezko for the $3.5 million that it
said was outstanding on its loans.
Obama says he
does not know why the Rezkos decided to purchase the
vacant lot at that time. But the Rezkos' involvement was
crucial because the owners of the house and the lot had
stipulated
that neither property could be sold unless a deal for
the other also closed on the same day. Both deals indeed
closed on the same day in June 2005.
At the time
of the purchase, Mr. Rezko was ostensibly destitute;
that is why his wife was named officially as the sole
purchaser of the vacant lot.
In December 2005
Obama paid Rita Rezko $104,500 for a strip that
constituted one-sixth of her newly acquired lot, so that
he could increase the width of his yard by ten feet. At
the time of this deal, Tony Rezko was under federal
investigation on charges that he had solicited kickbacks
from companies seeking state pension business under his
friend, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, for whom
Rezko reportedly had raised
as much as $500,000. For more than two years before
the property purchases, news articles also had raised questions
about Mr. Rezko's influence over state appointments and
contracts. Moreover, reports swirled that the FBI was
investigating accusations of a shakedown scheme in which
Mr. Rezko had suggested appointments to a state hospital
board.
Obama rejects
any suggestion that the Rezkos, by paying full price
for the vacant lot, had enabled him to save $300,000 on
his home's purchase price and were perhaps seeking
political favors in return. "Frankly, I don't think he
[Mr. Rezko] was doing me a favor," Obama
has said.
In October 2006, Mr. Rezko was
indicted on extortion charges. According to federal
prosecutors, Rezko had funneled $10,000 in kickback fees
to Obama's 2004 Senate campaign.
Rezko remained
free on bail until January
28, 2008, when a U.S. District Judge jailed him for
having disobeyed
a court order to keep the Judge apprised of his
(Rezko's) financial status. Most notably, Rezko had
failed to tell the judge about a
$3.5 million loan he had received (in
mid-2005) from London-based Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi
Auchi -- a loan that Auchi later forgave in exchange for
shares in a prime slice of Chicago real estate. According
to the Associated Press, Rezko "gave $700,000 of the
[$3.5 million] to his wife [for the purchase of the
vacant lot adjacent to Obama's mansion] and used the
rest to pay legal bills and funnel cash to various
supporters."
[7] David Freddoso, The Case
Against Barack Obama, p. 116.
[8]
Ibid., p. 203.
[9] Ibid., pp.
197-200.
[10] Such
an approach to "pregnancy prevention" had been tried
before, with disastrous results. In the 1960s, leftists
in politics and academia demanded that sex education be
added to public-school curricula nationwide, and that
government-funded "family planning" (abortion) services
be made more widely available. By 1968, almost half of
all U.S. schools—public and private, religious and
secular—had instituted sex education programs for their
students; these programs continued to spread widely
throughout the American educational system in the
1970s.
"Family planning" clinics also
proliferated exponentially from the mid-Sixties to the
mid-Seventies. Between the late Sixties and 1978,
federal expenditures for "family planning" and
"population" legislation grew from $16 million annually
to $279 million. Whereas in 1969 fewer than 250,000
teenagers used the services provided by abortion
clinics, by 1976 their number had risen to 1.2 million.
Between 1970 and 1980, the pregnancy rate among 15- to
19-year-olds rose by more than 40 percent. Among
unmarried girls aged 15 to 17, birth rates rose 29
percent between 1970 and 1984—even as the number of
abortions more than doubled during the same
period.
[11] David Freddoso, The Case Against
Barack Obama, p. 203.
[12]
Ibid., pp. 203-204.
[13] These rules to deter racial
profiling, say critics, lead to "de-policing." To
avoid charges of racism if they question or arrest too
many minority suspects, police find it easier to protect
their careers by turning a blind eye and leaving
minority criminals alone.
[14] Obama's premise of a discriminatory
justice system is entirely mistaken, as Manhattan
Institute scholar Heather MacDonald points
out:
"Let's start with the idea that cops
over-arrest blacks and ignore white criminals. In fact,
the race of criminals reported by crime victims matches
arrest data. As long ago as 1978, a study of robbery and
aggravated assault in eight cities found parity between
the race of assailants in victim identifications and in
arrests—a finding replicated many times since, across a
range of crimes. No one has ever come up with a
plausible argument as to why crime victims would be
biased in their reports.
"Moving up the
enforcement chain, the campaign against the
criminal-justice system next claims that prosecutors
overcharge and judges oversentence blacks.… In 1997,
criminologists Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen
reviewed the massive literature on charging and
sentencing. They concluded that 'large racial
differences in criminal offending,' not racism,
explained why more blacks were in prison proportionately
than whites and for longer terms. A 1987 analysis of
Georgia felony convictions, for example, found that
blacks frequently received disproportionately lenient
punishment. A 1990 study of 11,000 California cases
found that slight racial disparities in sentence length
resulted from blacks' prior records and other legally
relevant variables. A 1994 Justice Department survey of
felony cases from the country's 75 largest urban areas
discovered that blacks actually had a lower chance of
prosecution following a felony than whites did, and that
they [blacks] were less likely to be found guilty at
trial. Following conviction, blacks were more likely to
receive prison sentences, however—an outcome that
reflected the gravity of their offenses as well as their
criminal records.
"Another criminologist—easily
as liberal as Sampson—reached the same conclusion in
1995: 'Racial differences in patterns of offending, not
racial bias by police and other officials, are the
principal reason that such greater proportions of blacks
than whites are arrested, prosecuted, convicted and
imprisoned,' Michael Tonry wrote in Malign
Neglect…. The media's favorite criminologist,
Alfred Blumstein, found in 1993 that blacks were
significantly underrepresented in prison for homicide
compared with their presence in arrest."
[15] The Congressional
Record shows that the strict, federal anti-crack
legislation dates back to 1986, when the Congressional Black
Caucus (CBC) -- deeply concerned about the degree to
which crack was decimating the black community --
strongly supported the legislation and actually pressed
for even harsher penalties. In fact, a few years earlier
CBC members had pushed President Reagan to create the
Office of National Drug Control Policy.
[16] In their
1997 book America in Black and White, scholars
Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom debunk the claim that
big-city public schools attended mostly by blacks are
under-funded in comparison to mostly white, suburban
schools. Research actually shows that the higher the
percentage of minority students in a school district,
the higher the per-pupil expenditures. Mostly-minority
school districts spend fully 15 percent more money on
each student than districts where minority enrollment is
below 5 percent. Moreover, per-pupil spending in the
central cities of metropolitan areas—regardless of
race—is identical to spending levels in the surrounding
suburbs.
[17]
Many critics of the Court's decision contended that
it had undone the landmark Brown v. Board
of Education ruling of 1954. But these charges were
untrue. The Brown case addressed the issue
of mandatory racial segregation in America's public
schools, an issue which had become an international
embarrassment for the United States. The case centered
around a black third-grader named Linda Brown who had
been denied admission to an all-white school located
just a few blocks from her home in Topeka, Kansas, and
was forced instead to take a bus to an all-black school
in a more distant neighborhood. Because millions of
other blacks nationwide faced the same dilemma, her case
had far-reaching, monumental implications.
Miss
Brown's father successfully sued the Topeka Board of
Education on grounds that, contrary to a previous
Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson
(1896), segregated schools were separate but
not equal and thus failed to fulfill the
Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection
under the laws. On May 17, 1954, the Court handed down a
9-0 decision which stated
unequivocally: "Where a State has undertaken to provide
an opportunity for an education in its public schools,
such an opportunity is a right which must be made
available to all on equal terms."
In other words,
Brown overturned the notion that it was
permissible to use race as the basis for denying
students the right to attend the schools they preferred.
Like the 1964 Civil Rights Act that would become law ten
years later, Brown was intended to remove
barriers to integration by outlawing de jure
segregation, but it issued no mandate for measures (like
busing or racial quotas) to forcibly integrate
America's schools or workplaces.
[18] Hoover Institution fellow and
Stanford University sociologist Thomas Sowell, who has
studied this matter in great depth, explains
that the "'compelling' benefits of 'diversity' are "as
invisible as the proverbial emperor's new clothes"; that
"[n]ot only is there no hard evidence that mixing and
matching black and white kids in school produces either
educational or social benefits, there have been a number
of studies of all-black schools whose educational
performances equal or exceed the national average"; that
"[s]ome black students -- in fact, whole schools of them
-- have performed dramatically better than other black
students and exceeded the norms in white schools," and
that this phenomenon dates back as far as the late 19th
century; that black students who have been bussed into
white schools have seen no discernible rise in their
standardized test scores -- "not even after decades of
bussing"; and that "[n]ot only is there no hard
evidence" for the dogma "that there needs to be a
'critical mass' of black students in a given school or
college in order for them to perform up to standard,"
but that "such hard evidence as there is points in the
opposite direction. Bright black kids have benefited
from being in classes with other bright kids, regardless
of the other kids' color."
[19] David Freddoso,
The Case Against Barack Obama, p.
114.
[20] Ibid., p, 90.
[21]
Ibid.
[22] Contrary to Obama's claim, in May
2008 it was announced
that more than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. --
including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as
atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science,
environment and dozens of other specialties -- had
signed a petition rejecting the claim that the human
production of greenhouse gases is causing "global warming" that damages the Earth's
climate. "There is no convincing scientific evidence
that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other
greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable
future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the
Earth's climate," the petition stated. "Moreover, there
is substantial scientific evidence that increases in
atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial
effects upon the natural plant and animal environments
of the Earth."
[23] Most
legal scholars believe the president has inherent
constitutional authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps
to collect foreign intelligence, and no statute --
including FISA -- can reverse that. Citing a 22-year-old
precedent, the Federal Intelligence Surveillance
Court of Review ruled
in 2002 that "the president did have inherent authority
to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign
intelligence information.... We take for granted that
the president does have that authority and, assuming
that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president's
constitutional power."
John Schmidt, President
Clinton's associate attorney general from 1994-97, wrote
that NSA [National Security Agency] surveillance against
al-Qaeda "is consistent with court decisions and with
the positions of the Justice Department under prior
presidents"; FISA, he explained, "did not alter the
constitutional situation." Schmidt quoted Clinton Deputy
Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's 1994 testimony before
the Senate Intelligence Committee: "The Department
of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the
president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless
physical searches for foreign intelligence
purposes."
[24]
Obama and his fellow critics of military commissions
accuse such tribunals of trampling on the civil rights
and liberties of defendants who, the critics contend,
should be entitled to all the rights and protections
afforded by the American criminal court system -- where
the standards that govern the admissibility of evidence
are considerably stricter than the counterpart standards
in military tribunals.
In November 2006 Congress
passed
the Military Commissions Act of 2006, formally
authorizing the adjudication of war crimes and terrorism
cases in military courts. The House of Representatives
vote was 253 to 168 (Republicans voted 219 to 7 in
favor, Democrats 160 to 34 against); the overall Senate
margin was 65 to 34 in favor.
According
to the Defense Department, military tribunals, where
military officers serve as the judges and jurors, are
designed to deal with offenses committed in the context
of warfare — including pillaging; terrorism; willfully
killing or attacking civilians; taking hostages;
employing poison or analogous weapons; using civilians
as human shields; torture; mutilation or maiming;
improperly using a flag of surrender; desecrating or
abusing a dead body; rape; hijacking or hazarding a
vessel or aircraft; aiding the enemy; spying; providing
false testimony or perjury; soliciting others to commit
offenses that are triable by military jurisprudence; and
intending or conspiring to commit, or to aid in the
commission of, such crimes.
The issue of whether
it is appropriate to try someone accused of the
aforementioned transgressions in a military court
depends upon how one answers a single overriding
question: Is terrorism a matter of war, or is it a legal
issue where redress should be pursued via the
criminal-justice system — like robbery, vandalism, or
murder.
[25] "Our government, the Supreme
Court has
ruled, "by thus defining lawful belligerents
entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, has
recognized that there is a class of unlawful
belligerents not entitled to that privilege, including
those who, though combatants, do not wear 'fixed and
distinctive emblems.'"
Apart from the question of
whether military tribunals are a good idea
philosophically, trying terrorists and war criminals in
civilian rather than military courts poses a number of
serious problems from a practical standpoint. For one
thing, the rules defining admissible and inadmissible
evidence in each venue differ dramatically. In civilian
trials, neither coerced testimony, nor confessions made
in the absence of a Miranda warning, nor hearsay
evidence can presented to the court; in military
tribunals the opposite is true, provided that the court
determines such evidence to have "probative value to a
reasonable person."
Attorneys Spencer J. Crona
and Neal A. Richardson explain
the profound significance of this:
"A relaxation
of the hearsay rule might become critical in a
prosecution for terrorism where it may be impossible to
produce live witnesses to an event which occurred years
earlier in a foreign country. For example, the
indictment in the Pan Am Flight 103 case details the
alleged purchase of clothing, by Libyan intelligence
agent Abdel Bassett, for placement in the suitcase with
the bomb. The clothing was used to disguise the contents
of the suitcase containing the bomb, which was placed
inside a radio-cassette player. Under the rules of
evidence applicable in U.S. District Court, the
prosecution would have to produce in person the Maltese
shopkeeper to identify Abdel Bassett as the man who
allegedly purchased the clothing back in 1988, as
opposed to producing the investigator who tracked down
the shopkeeper and showed him a photograph of Abdel
Bassett. Even if we assume that the shopkeeper could be
located six years or more after the fact, we recognize
that it is nearly impossible to secure involuntary
testimony from a witness who is a citizen of a foreign
country, especially one that historically has been less
than sympathetic to the United States. The reach of a
federal court subpoena simply does not extend to
Malta."
Another exceedingly significant weakness
inherent in civilian trials for terrorists is the fact
that in such proceedings, there exists a high likelihood
that classified intelligence sources will be
compromised. If the government wishes to present certain
incriminating evidence in a civilian trial, which is
open to the public, it must disclose its sources as well
as the techniques it used for obtaining the information
from them. This obviously would place those sources in
grave danger and would quickly lead to the
non-cooperation or disappearance of many of them — to
say nothing of the future potential informants who would
undoubtedly choose to avoid placing themselves in
similar peril. Moreover, the effectiveness of any
publicly disclosed information-gathering techniques
would thereafter be permanently compromised. By
contrast, military tribunals permit incriminating
evidence to be presented to the judge and jury, while
being kept secret from the public as well as from the
defendant and his attorney.
For those who are
concerned about legal precedent, it must be understood
that the use of military tribunals for the adjudication
of war crimes is in no way a departure from past
practices. military commissions were used commonly
during the Civil War. Prior to that, General George
Washington employed such tribunals during the American
Revolution in the late 18th century. In the era
following the ratification of the U.S. Constitution,
military tribunals were first convened by Major General
Winfield Scott during the Mexican-American War of
1846-48, to adjudicate the alleged war crimes of
American troops and Mexican guerrilla fighters alike.
World War II also saw the use of military courts, the
most famous case involving eight marines of the Third
Reich (one of whom was an American citizen named
Herbert Haupt) who rode a Nazi U-boat to the
east coast of the United States, where, laden with
explosives, they disembarked and set off toward various
locations with the intent of bombing railroads,
hydroelectric plants, factories, department stores, and
defense facilities across the country. The saboteurs
were wearing no military uniforms or identifying emblems
when they were captured, meaning that they were, in the
eyes of the law (as defined by the Supreme Court in
Ex parte Quirin, quoted earlier in this
article), "unlawful combatants." Refusing to grant the
perpetrators civilian jury trials, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt quickly created a secret military commission
to hear their cases. All eight were convicted and
sentenced to death, though two turncoats later had their
sentences commuted to life in prison.
[26] David
Freddoso, The Case Against Barack Obama, p.
96.
[27] Thomas Sowell, "Price
Controls," Capitalism (November 16,
2005). Dr. Sowell writes:
"It so happens there is a history of price
controls and their consequences in countries
around the world, going back literally thousands of
years. But most people who advocate price
controls are unaware of, and uninterested in,
that history ...
"Prices are not just arbitrary
numbers plucked out of the air or numbers dependent on
whether sellers are 'greedy' or not. In the
competition of the marketplace, prices are signals
that convey underlying realities about relative
scarcities and relative costs of
production.
"Those underlying realities are not
changed in the slightest by price controls....
Municipal transit used to be privately owned in many
cities, until local politicians' control of fares kept
those fares too low to buy and maintain buses and
trolleys, and replace them as they wore out. The costs
of doing these things were not reduced in the
slightest by refusing to let the fares cover those
costs.
"All that happened was that municipal
transit services deteriorated and taxpayers ended up
paying through the nose as city governments took over
from transit companies that they had driven out of
business -- and government usually did a worse
job.
"Something similar has happened in rental
housing markets, where rent control laws have kept the
rents too low to build and maintain rental housing.
Whether in Europe or America, rent-controlled housing
is almost invariably older housing and more
deteriorated housing.
"Costs don't go away
because you refuse to pay them, any more than gravity
goes away if you refuse to acknowledge it. You usually
pay more in different ways, through taxes as well as
prices, and by deterioration in quality when political
processes replace economic process."
[28] David Freddoso, The Case Against Barack
Obama, pp. 205-206.
|