Monthly Archives: July 2010

Barack Obama & The Socialist “New Party”

Barack Obama not only has ties to Socialist Organizations, apparently he signed a contract with one as well. First lets identify one of these Socialist Organizations, the “New Party”

From Discover The Networks:

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 New Party’s modus operandi included the political strategy of “electoral fusion,” where it would nominate, for various political offices, candidates from other parties (usually Democrats), thereby enabling each of those candidates to occupy more than one ballot line in the voting booth. By so doing, the New Party often was able to influence candidates’ platforms. (Fusion of this type is permitted in seven states — Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont — but is common only in New York.)

Now that we understand that this group is indeed a Socialist Organization let’s look at their connections to Barack Obama. According to “The Progressive Populist” Obama was a Member of the New Party. The Progressive Populist describes itself as:

THE PROGRESSIVE POPULIST, a newspaper that believes people are more important than corporations, premiered in November 1995 as a monthly tabloid publication based in Storm Lake, Iowa, with editorial offices in Austin, Texas.

The Progressive Populist reports from the heartland of America on issues of interest to workers, small-business owners and family farmers and ranchers. It serves as “The People’s Voice in a Corporate World.”

We fight efforts by the Republicans, with the complicity of conservative Democrats, to enact the Contract on America that would roll back nearly every progressive advance since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.

And we resist attempts to amend or ignore the Bill of Rights, which we consider to be the greatest accomplishment of the American democracy.

The Progressive Populist is not a Democratic Party organ; we support progressive Democrats, progressive independent and third-party candidates who promote progressive democracy and, if any progressive Republicans show themselves, we will give them a hearing.

So it’s pretty clear anything they do is not to support the Right Wing in any way. Within an editorial published in November of 1996 titled, “Editorial The Next Campaign” they made the following statement:

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

So according to a Progressive Newspaper Obama was a member of the socialist New Party, This prompted me to look up every tie I could, and I found quite a few. I began digging through Issues of “New Ground” Which is published by “Chicago Democratic Socialists of America“. Here are some back issues and excerpts.

New Ground 42, September – October 1995

Chicago New Party Update

About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. The NP is being very active in organization building and politics. There are 300 members in Chicago. In order to build an organizational and financial base the NP is sponsoring house parties. Locally it has been successful both fiscally and in building a grassroots base. Nationwide it has resulted in 1000 people committed to monthly contributions. The NP’s political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to “win”. This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.

The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia’s District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer’s vacant seat.

So he attended a membership meeting and had to sign a contract, Hmmm. Thiss next issue of New ground shows he got the Endorsement.

New Ground 45 March – April 1996

Chicago DSA Endorsements in the March 19th Primary Election

Barak Obama

Barak Obama is running to gain the Democratic ballot line for Illinois Senate 13th District. The 13th District is Alice Palmer’s old district, encompassing parts of Hyde Park and South Shore.

Mr. Obama graduated from Columbia University and promptly went into community organizing for the Developing Communities Project in Roseland and Altgeld Gardens on the far south side of Chicago. He went on to Harvard University, where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated with a law degree. In 1992, he was Director of Illinois Project Vote, a voter registration campaign that made Carol Moseley Braun’s election to the U.S. Senate much easier than it would have been. At present, he practices law in Judson Miner’s law firm and is President of the board of the Annenberg Challenge Grant which is distributing some $50 million in grants to public school reform efforts.

What best characterizes Barak Obama is a quote from an article in Illinois Issues, a retrospective look at his experience as a community organizer while he was completing his degree at Harvard:

“… community organizations and organizers are hampered by their own dogmas about the style and substance of organizing. Most practice … a ‘consumer advocacy’ approach, with a focus on wrestling services and resources from outside powers that be. Few are thinking of harnessing the internal productive capacities, both in terms of money and people, that already exist in communities.” (Illinois issues, September, 1988)

Luckily, Mr. Obama does not have any opposition in the primary. His opponents have all dropped out or were ruled off the ballot. But if you would like to contribute to his campaign, make the check payable to Friends of Barak Obama.

That’s a clear endorsement. Here’s the following issue.

New Grounds 47 July – August 1996

New Party Update

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

First, in relation to its infrastructure, the NP’s membership has increased since January ’95 from 225 to 440. National membership has increased from 5700 in December ’95 to 7000. Currently the NP’s fiscal balance is $7,000 and receives an average of $450/month is sustainer donations.

Secondly, the NP’s ’96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. The lone loser was Willie Delgado, in the 3rd Illinois House District. Although Delgado received 45% of the vote, he lost by only 800 votes. Delgado commented that it was due to the NP volunteers that he carried the 32nd Ward. Delgado emphasized that he will remain a visible community activist in Humbolt Park. He will conduct four Immigration workshops and encouraged NP activists to get involved.

This one confirms the endorsement and Obama’s personal involvement with the New Party.

The website “” has actually uncovered “New Party News” newsletters proclaiming Obama’s membership and more including a photo of him posing with New party members.

Obama File 41 Obama Was a New Party Member-Documentary Evidence

Below are scans from New Party News Spring 1996.

They prove that Barack Obama was a member of the Illinois New Party and was endorsed by them in his 1996 Illinois State Senate race.

Front page-scanned from a photocopy

Front page close up-scanned from a photocopy

Front page ultra close up-scanned from a photocopy

Note that the text refers to Barack Obama as a New Party member, while Willie Delgado is only “NP endorsed

The New Party clearly drew a distinction. Obama was on on the wrong side of the dividing line.

Page 2, scanned from a photocopy.

Page 2 closeup-scanned from the original.

The New Party ceased to be active after 1998 but Socialist support of Barack Obama did not stop then.

New Ground 69 March – April 2000

Chicago DSA Recommendations for the March Primary Election

At the tail end of the December CDSA membership meeting, we decided not to endorse any candidates in the Illinois primary elections but instead the Executive Committee would make recommendations about candidates with which members and friends could do as they please – as if they would do any differently in any case.

For the most part, it was not a terribly difficult task, one made easier because a great many good incumbents face no opposition or token opposition. Willie Delgado, Julie Hamos, Jessie Jackson Jr, Luis Gutierrez, Jan Schakowsky and Danny Davis, for example, will all have easy nominations being essentially unopposed. At the February Executive Committee meeting, we voted the following recommendations:

For Congressman of the 1st Congressional District, the Executive Committee was faced with two very good candidates. As we are not making endorsements but merely recommendations, we felt no conflict in recommending both Bobby Rush and Barak Obama.

Barak Obama is serving only his second term in the Illinois State Senate so he might be fairly charged with ambition, but the same might have be said of Bobby Rush when he ran against Congressman Charles Hayes. Obama also has put in time at the grass roots, working for five years as a community organizer in Harlem and in Chicago. When Obama participated in a 1996 UofC YDS Townhall Meeting on Economic Insecurity, much of what he had to say was well within the mainstream of European social democracy.

What’s that? Obama participated at a YDS (Young Democratic Socialists) townhall meeting in 1996? He sure did.

From Google Groups Chi.Politics

Town Meeting on Economic Insecurity on the South Side

The Democratic Socialists of America Present
The First Chicago Town Meeting on Economic Insecurity

a discussion of policy, problems, and possibilities


Director, Center for the Study of Urban Inequality at the University
of Chicago

Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago

Candidate, State Senate, 13th Legislative District

4th Ward Alderman

Professor of Political Science, Temple University

Ida Noyes Hall, Cloyster Club
1313 E. 59th Street, Chicago

Sponsored by:
*University of Chicago Democrats
*Chicago Democratic Socialists of America
*University of Chicago Democratic Socialists of America

For more information call:

University of Chicago Democratic Socialists

Doesn’t get much clearer than that folks. Here’s a few videos if your eyes hurt from all the reading.

Here’s The O’Reilly Factor reviewing one of Obama’s radio interviews about “Redistribution of Wealth” with Newt Gingrich

And the Obama Defense

Yes, Obama was an active member of the socialist New Party. Yes Obama accepted their campaign endorsement, yes Obama has Socialist Dreams and seeks to implement them.

Woe to the Republic

HatTip to TexasFred :)

8-28 Restoring Honor Rally

Join Americans for an event to honor that which we hold most dear.

Throughout history America has seen many great leaders and noteworthy citizens change her course. It is through their personal virtues and by their example that we are able to live as a free people. On August 28, come celebrate America by honoring our heroes, our heritage and our future.

Restoring Honor 8-28 Event

Join the Class Action Lawsuit Against Obamacare

Join the effort to stop Obamacare by adding your name to the class action lawsuit.

Visit Join the Classaction lawsuit against Obamacare

The purpose of this lawsuit is to reverse Supreme Court precedent related to the Commerce clause and thereby overturn Obamacare. The Supreme Court has historically erred in its interpretation of the Constitutional role of the Federal Government. Recent Supreme Court rulings hint that they may be willing to take another look at Commerce clause precedent. Obamacare is so over reaching and so onerous, that it must either be repealed in Congress or struck down in the courts. We must fight this on both fronts. This is our historic opportunity to reverse America’s trend toward Socialism by overturning this unconstitutional precedent.

Here is the email I received in response to my contribution and becoming a claimant:


Thank you for joining the Obamacare Class Action as a plaintiff. Please let this email serve as confirmation that we have received your information and your name will be added to the next amended complaint.

The current status of the case is that we are waiting for the defendants to answer the complaint and preliminary injunction motion. They now have less than 14 days to respond to the motion for preliminary injunction and less than 60 days to answer the complaint. The complaint will be amended to add your name before the preliminary injunction motion is heard in Federal court. We will let you know what that date is as soon as we are informed by the court. Please know that you are not required to appear in court. Van will be there to represent you.

From here on out, you will receive occasional emails with case updates. Look for “OCA” in the subject line. If you receive an unsubscribe notice, please resubscribe right away. If you unsubscribe from the Obamacare Class Action Plaintiff email list, your name will not be added to the next complaint.

Since Van was on Fox News, we have received a tremendous amount of email. We are working to respond to each inquiry as soon as we can. If you have emailed, please know we are trying our best to get back to you.

Liberty Legal Foundation
We would also like to share with you some important recent developments. We are forming a non-profit legal foundation to continue our fight to restore the Constitution – the Liberty Legal Foundation. This week we’re filing the documents to form the foundation and request tax-exempt status from the IRS. The LLF will take over managing the Obamacare Class Action lawsuit. It will also be filing other lawsuits with the intent of forcing the Federal government to follow the U.S. Constitution.If you would like to receive updates about the Liberty Legal Foundation, please join that email list here. Many plaintiffs email with lawsuit suggestions daily. The LLF will allow us to take some of those on and provide a stronger base of operations to prosecute the Obamacare Class Action.

Over the next week or so, the website will be transformed into the Liberty Legal Foundation’s website. We’ll keep you up to date on the Liberty Legal Foundation’s organization and activities. The more resources we have, the more we can accomplish. Please continue to encourage your friends, neighbors, family, and co-workers to join the OCA and support us if they are able.

With your support and steadfast faith we will restore our Constitutional Republic.

In Liberty,

Dawn Irion
[email protected]

Was the Communist Party USA behind Obama?

In order to answer this question, I simply visited their website and did a keyword search for Barack Obama. Lets look at some of the results here in chronological order.

February 22, 2008 Newsletter: Labor Upfront

“Buffenbarger election speech could strip gears of labor unity” By Scott Marshall

Getting carried away with your own rhetoric is rarely a good thing. Tom Buffenbarger, president of the Machinists’ union (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers), did just that in a “warm-up” speech for Hillary Clinton the night of the Wisconsin primary win by Barack Obama. (Necessary disclaimer: I have great respect for the Machinists’ union and president Buffenbarger, a tough industrial union that goes up against some of the biggest multinationals. So this incident is all the more worrisome from a seasoned labor leader.)

Ironically Buffenbarger’s main point was to ridicule Obama’s oratory. John McCain made a nasty attack on Obama’s speech-making that same night, but Buffenbarger’s was even more mean-spirited.

Besides the unfairness and shallowness of this attack on Obama, Buffenbarger’s speech also rudely, and with rightwing stereotypes, attacked Obama’s supporters. Ridiculing supporters as “latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies” ignores the large number of union members and their families, of all races and nationalities, who are supporting Obama. Not to mention that I know lots of steelworkers who appreciate a good latte now and again, and who would like to drive a hybrid car to save gas and the environment.

Working people sorely need to defeat John McCain in November. That can only be done with the full support and unity of all the labor movement. No matter who wins the Democratic nomination, there will be millions of labor households who were once supporting the other candidate.

Most of those in the labor movement, both AFL-CIO and Change to Win unions, who have endorsed a candidate for the Democratic nomination are campaigning positively on the strengths of their chosen candidate. Most recognize that all of both Clinton’s and Obama’s supporters in labor are vital sections of the democratic coalition that it will take to end corporate, rightwing domination of our political life

March 22, 2008  CPUSA 2008 Electoral Policy

The Communist Party USA views the 2008 elections as a tremendous opportunity to defeat the policies of the right-wing Republicans and to move our country in a new progressive direction.

The record turnout in the Democratic Presidential primary races shows that millions of voters, including millions of new voters, are using this election to bring about real change. We wholeheartedly agree with them.

While we do not endorse any particular candidates, we do endorse and join in the anti-Bush/anti-right wing sentiments that are driving so many people to activism.

The fact that the Democratic frontrunners are an African American and a woman speaks volumes on how far the country has come. Hillary Clintons campaign has attracted large numbers of supporters, especially women. Other Democratic contenders presented some excellent proposals to reverse the devastation caused by the Bush administrations policies.

Barack Obamas campaign has so far generated the most excitement, attracted the most votes, most volunteers and the most money. We think the basic reason for this is that his campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change, while having a real possibility for victory in November.

As we see it, however, this battle is bigger than the Democrats and Republicans, even though those parties are the main electoral vehicle for most voters today. Our approach is to focus on issues and movements that are influencing candidates and parties.

We will work with others to defeat the Republican nominee and to end right-wing control of the new Congress.

The activism growing out of this election will help guarantee a progressive mandate no matter who is elected. It is critical to our countrys renewal and future.

We think this election is a great opportunity to bring an early withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. It can mean job creation and relief for those who are losing their homes or unable to pay their bills.

This election can set the stage to advance the interests of working people; of those excluded because of race, gender, sexual orientation and immigration status.

This election can begin to turn the tide: it can help bring universal health care, save the environment and start the restoration of our democratic rights. This election can strengthen democracy for all.

In the long run, we see the need for an independent peoples party — an electoral party that will unite labor and all democratic forces. We also are working for a political system and government whose priority is to watch the backs of working families, not fill the pockets of the corporate fat cats. Our slogan, people before profits and our goal of Bill of Rights socialism say it all.

April 11, 2008 Report: A Labor and People’s Landslide is Necessary and Possible


This election presents an historic opportunity to breakthrough and change the political landscape.

The grand coalition of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win along with National Council of La Raza, Womens Vote, ACORN, MoveOn and Rock the Vote has launched the biggest ever independent voter mobilization, which is at the heart of winning a massive turnout on election day and after.

The purpose of this report is to discuss how we contribute to the remarkable movement growing in our country, how we can help build the unity needed to defeat the ultra-right with a landslide vote, and how we can build the movement and the Communist Party and YCL to achieve bold and sweeping gains in the post-election period.


Mobilizing a landslide win against the ultra right, necessary to turn the country around, is at the center of our tactics.

A landslide vote that changes control of the White House and improves the balance of forces in the House and Senate and in the states will create a new political dynamic in our country and the possibility to win gains far beyond the current platform of either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

We do not yet know who will emerge, but with each new phase of the campaign Obama is proving to have the greatest potential to bring out a landslide vote to defeat John McCain, and the greater openness to working with mass movements. His recognition of the role of the people in moving history forward, and his message of inclusion not division inspires youth and all generations to get involved It reflects his own life experience.

In response to right-wing media attacks and the Clintons dangerous and opportunist negative campaigning, Obamas profound speech tackling race and racism in America opens a new door to uproot the legacy of slavery and the devastation of the era of ultra-right domination. He makes a deep contribution to unity in the way he addresses white people and shows that racism holds everyone back and the progress made in overcoming racism benefits everyone. Bill Richardsons response, embracing Obamas vision and addressing racism against immigrants and Latinos further uplifts the level of unity.

But whether the nominee is Obama or Clinton the landslide vote must be fought for as a necessary first step to winning a different direction for our country. Neither candidate is of the left. But history teaches us that when mobilized, labor and peoples forces can push through and win progressive gains in a climate like today.


The community affiliate Working America is active in 14 states with 2 million members. Ohio and Pennsylvania are among the battlegrounds.

The primaries have been challenging because of the different union endorsements and the need to keep unity for November while at the same time building support for Obama. Change to Win has activated their member-to-member operation for Obama. Twelve AFL-CIO unions have endorsed Clinton with different amounts of activation, six have endorsed Obama and the rest are waiting until the nominee is decided.

A remarkable 30% to 40% of voters who turned out so far in the Democratic primaries are union members. The media plays a negative role in promoting the idea that wage workers are Clinton voters and professionals are Obama voters. A deeper look is required. For example, in Rhode Island Change to Win union members voted 56% for Obama, but the union vote reported was 59% Clinton and 40% Obama. Clearly wage workers were among those voting for Obama, as in other states.

African American

The Obama campaign has moved the African American community in a special way, expressed in the turnout and vote. The African American vote has been the most consistent progressive voting bloc over decades, 90% Democratic. We have noted if African Americans vote the proportion of their population in South Carolina, Mississippi and Georgia those states will flip from red to blue. That process is underway, starting with the large primary turnout. Massive voter registration drives are taking place . Participating in community mobilizations will deepen our ties and contribution on an ongoing basis.

The media and the right-wing have been working overtime to diminish the African American vote. Constant distortions by FOX News and others combined with the Clintons slash-and-burn negative campaign has been damaging for future unity and must be challenged.

Attempts by anti-immigrant groups to split the African American and Latino people are being rejected in many instances at the local level. If such fissures are left untouched it will endanger the potential of a landslide vote and movement that can chart a new course. Obamas speech on race made a great contribution in this regard and can be drawn upon..


There has been a big increase in Latino voters in the primaries, with the largest number of young voters. Latinos represented 10 percent of the voters (up from 6.7 percent in the 2004 general election). They voted 79% Democratic (up from 60-63 percent in the 2004 general election).. The vote was in majority for Clinton, but it is fluid as Obama becomes better known. Outreach to all Latinos on all of the issues is crucial for unity in November.


Women voters have been turning out in large numbers for the Democratic primaries. Clinton has the overall advantage, reflecting the possibility of the first woman president, and the endorsement of NOW. But women are voting for both Clinton and Obama. African American women are voting overwhelmingly for Obama. Single women have voted overwhelmingly for Obama in Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri and Utah, while Clinton carried single women in the remaining ten super Tuesday states.


When young people began flocking to vote in the Democratic primaries it galvanized the overall turnout. Young people want to impact these elections, and they want change. They want jobs, affordable education and an end to the war in Iraq. They are concerned about health care and the environment. (Rock The Vote 2/08) The number of under 30 voters in the democratic primaries tripled (3 million) from 4 years ago. My space and face book sign-ups on the internet show youth support for Obama who has 1 million friends compared to Clintons 330,000 and McCains 140,000. (NYT 3/27/08)

Progressives for Obama just formed. Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher, Jr.,Barbara Ehrenreich, and Danny Glover are calling on those in the peace movement who have been sitting out the election to join the grass roots upsurge around Obama and build the demand to end the war. This call to action should be useful locally.


We do not know all the twists and turns that the campaign will take. The great democratic spirit spreading through the country will hopefully prevail in a big way for a transformative election. If we stay on top of new developments we will be able to play our unity role. .

The movement for a landslide victory is the beginning. The more decisive the victory, the greater the possibilities for that movement to keep going and growing to win big new gains in a new stage of struggle.

It is clear to me they are more behind Obama than Clinton by the smearing of her “negative campaign” and citing how Obama has more support, and can pick us more of the Latino vote as he becomes more “well known.” While they refuse to endorse a candidate, demanding unity and showing Obama has more support, and smearing Clinton’s campaign is pretty close.


Erica Smiley’s Bi-Annual Report to the National Council April 12-13, 2008; Chicago, IL


Who was the last national Democratic leader you heard blame greedy corporations for dividing workers along racial lines?

And have you ever heard a presidential candidate acknowledge the role of discrimination in the disproportionate numbers of Black youth in prison?

The movement surrounding the candidacy of Barack Obama is epic.

What makes this candidacy epic is what it has come to represent. This campaign has wrapped up in it all the hopes and dreams for the betterment of our country and the working people it belongs to. This campaign isnt about a man so much as its about whats possible if we are able to take our country out of the tight grip of the Ultra-right.

Is Obama a Communist? Is this upsurge around Obama a Communist movement?

Of course not.

But who dare say the upsurge around his campaign does not have a working class character? These elections are a pivotal battlefield for us to turn a corner in our struggle for socialism.

No where else would we be able to struggle for such broad unity within the working class in this specific moment.

No where else would we be able to struggle and persuade on our vision for the country and our understanding of the current barriers on so many issues.

In this period, we dont have to wax profound about all of our advanced demands in order to advance the struggle for peace and equality, as some have suggested. Our task is to build and maintain unity in this surge against Bush and the extreme right. We fight for the most advanced demands of our movements center, the most unifying demands against the Right.

And right now, there is unity in struggling within the movement surrounding Barack Obama, especially given the divisive attacks on Obama and the speech of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. This is where the forces of unity are mobilizing.

Labor and people from every walks of life see hope in the Obama presidency, and they see someone who will be responsive to the demands of the broader peoples movement more so than Wall Street. This was exemplified when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi got a letter from big Democratic donors demanding she take back her support of Super Delegates switching their votes based on their Districts.

Its not simply that Obama is a great leader. It is the recognition of the key role between leaders and the movements they represent. The Clinton campaign made some divisive remarks earlier this year, claiming that even Dr Martin Luther King needed a Lyndon B Johnson. What was missed in this remark, which was designed to de-legitimize Obama as more of a great speaker and repeater of rhetoric than a great leaderwas the fact that the movement benefited in having a president that would take a phone call from Martin Luther King, and President Johnson benefited from taking that call.

Forget that little red phone commercial! The united front of American workers, Black communities, immigrants, women, and youth needs a president that will answer the phone when we call.

You might ask yourself how Smiley could possibly give a report like this when our policy is not to endorse any candidate outside of the Communist Party and YCL. You might even think that this is an over-simplification.

Its true. We do not endorse Obama or any other presidential candidate.

And the post-election struggle will probably be more complicated than it is now.

Now I have said a lot about the campaign of Barack Obama. But there is one thing I do not want to get lost in this discussion.

Even if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, the Ultra-right will suffer a massive defeat.

A Clinton Administration would still govern to the Left of McCain, and arguably further to the Left of the first Clinton Administration. By necessity, it would be more beholden to the will of our movement. Even if the Wall Street interests within the Democratic Party would rather see Clinton over Obama, they dont want to see a landslide victory of either. They want business as usual, and a landslide victory would be a mandate for change.

Therefore, a landslide victory by either Obama or Clinton would be a striking blow against racism and sexism in the United States; it would be a blow against the Ultra-right. We have to make this clear, especially if Clinton wins, in order to ensure unity against McCain and the extreme right wing.

The enemy for us remains the extreme right, and it is our responsibility to build unity in the struggle against them. If we stick to this, the McCain supporters will eventually join us. If we hold unity above all else in our discussions, it will not be as difficult for us to win Clinton supporters over to Obama if he wins the nomination and vice versa if Clinton manages to pull it off.

This election is not about progressive Democrats vs Blue dogs, and it isnt even about how progressive Barack Obama is or can be. This election is about an overwhelming majority of Americans frustration with the direction the Ultra-right has taken our country into. This election is about turning a corner in the fights for working people. And working people understand we can do that best with a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic president.

Isn’t this one interesting. Completely sings Obama’s praises and the power of his campaign while giving the catch phrase, “We do not endorse Obama or any other presidential candidate.” While saying Clinton has some potential, this report is, in my opinion, a clear endorsement of the Obama campaign.

The Communist Party USA’s publication “Peoples World” published an article on every union endorsement for Obama throughout the election, heres a link to the Search Page, there’s too many to post.

Then came this report

A Landslide Mandate For Change – Report to the National Committee Meeting 11/15/08

Congratulations on an extraordinary history making election!

We can think back with pride to decades of hard work toward our strategic goal of a big enough, broad enough and united enough labor and all-peoples movement that could overcome the ultra-right blockage to all progress. That all peoples movement has come to life, it is dynamic and it has the potential to keep growing.

The election of Barack Obama and a strengthened Congress creates new conditions in our country. There is now the possibility to shift gears and move forward. This new day requires us to further develop our tactics in order to continue to deepen and broaden labor and peoples unity.

There are thousands of experiences that we all have had in these momentous days, some large, some small, all of which express the enormity of change in thinking and readiness for involvement that is underway and that steels us for the battles ahead.

The tears of joy we all shared as crowds gathered to watch the election results here and throughout the world dramatize the new moment we are in.

Noting that self-identified moderates and liberals agree with Obamas program, Robert Borosage concludes that this election marks the consolidation of a new majority coalition, and the mandate provided for progressive reform….in what is, increasingly, a center-left nation.

The beginnings of a qualitative shift took place in the 2006 Congressional elections. The broader movement that emerged this year around Obama represents the biggest progressive ideological shift since the 1930’s. The rejection of red baiting, racism, and tax baiting against Obama by the voters shows a new majority in opposition to basic Republican right wing ideology.

People are angry, hopeful and ready to go. Our program to rebuild America should be strong and decisive. There is no other way to meet the emergency needs of this moment as the economic crisis spirals through every sector. We should call for taking the profits out of health care and energy which are basic human rights, and explore public ownership including of the finance and automotive industries .

This was a transformative election for many reasons. The vote for Barack Obama and the conversation on race which he opened up at Independence Hall. The rejection of 30 years of ultra-right horror. The emergence of new grass roots involvement and participation and a shift in thinking. The leading role of the multi-racial labor movement. A renewed respect for our Party and some growth. All point to the process of a rising consciousness and struggle for democracy and equality. All are part of moving forward the progressive arc of history.

As Obama said in his acceptance speech, ‘This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change.’

And so the hard work begins. Obama is going to include many people in his cabinet and advisors that we would not pick, but protesting that will not build a movement. Our energy and focus should be invested in building the labor and peoples broad movement at the grass roots. That is how we can give a constructive push in a united way.

They were clearly overjoyed with the Obama victory and instantly sought to promote Communist solutions with Obama’s Presidency. The only dissent was on perceived future cabinet picks not on resistance to Communism. Whether or not they ever said that they endorsed Obama really doesn’t matter, they were clearly behind him throughout the campaign.

The Myths about the Myths of Social Security

For decades we’ve all known the Social Security was in trouble. No more!! has calmed the waters and published the truth – all while using an absolute fiction.

This post at the liberal site attempts to convince its readers that there is nothing wrong with Social Security – move on folks, nothing to see here:

Myth: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a ‘T’). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it’ll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits–and again, that’s without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

The source of footnote “1” is… yup, another liberally-slanted “news” site, new deal 2.0. To refute this myth about a myth, I submit – The 2009 Annual Report of the Board of  Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors  Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund (that’s the original name for the Social Security Trust Fund):

Under the long-range intermediate assumptions, annual cost will begin to exceed tax income in 2016 for the combined OASDI Trust Funds.

That just means they’ll dig into their piggy bank right?  Well, that piggy bank is not cash or any other easily liquid assets (stocks, money market funds, etc) – it’s government bonds.  In the event of Social Security running a deficit, they will have to cash in their government bonds, and their holdings aren’t small.  One must also realize that in order for the government to pay those bonds, they will have raise taxes, cut spending or both.  The exact same thing as if dealing with a deficit crisis.

I am not sure how they even throw this next one out with a straight face .. but hey, job security for me.

Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago.3 What’s more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly–since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Checking the footnote source “3” .. The Center for Economic and Policy Research – A progressive economic “think-tank”.  Wow, what right-wing nut job counter-source will I use… uh, I know!  That whacked-out tea party infested non-partisan .. Congressional Budget Office :

Once the baby-boom generation retires, the portion of the nation’s output that the federal government will spend on Social Security will increase by more than 50 percent–from 4.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal year 2001 to an estimated 6.5 percent in 2030.<

This is just too easy.
Next up… a statement that is only true if you believe the first two falicies:

Myth: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.

Reality: Social Security doesn’t need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here’s a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

But heck, this has been so fun, let’s see who this source “5” is.  The Economic Policy Institute which has a board of directors listing that reads like a collection of union leadership, socialists,and at a minimum heavily left-leaning academicians.

  • Andy Stern – SEIU Founder
  • Linda Sanchez (D-CA 39)
  • Ed Mcelroy – American Federation of Teachers
  • Ron Gettlefinger – United Auto Workers
  • R. Thomas Buffenbarger, Internation Association of Machinists & Allied Workers
  • Anna Burger, SEIU and “Change to Win” (Organized labor group)

I could go on, but you get the point, another progressive site sourced as if it’s a balanced credible source.

Next up, something we’ve all known for decades:

Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn’t full of IOUs, it’s full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market–which would have been disastrous–but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

I cringe at the thought, but yeah.. lemme go check this apparently omnipotent, clarifying and surely factual source.  Hey look, it’s Andy Stern and his union cronies at Economic Policy Institute again.  Now why would organized labor have an interest in Americans feeling secure about Social Security and also getting the rich to put more in than they will ever get out?  Probably because his union workers are going to get the shaft when they realize how badly unions have under-funded their pensions.  If the government can’t bail him out.. he’s looking at the collapse of organized labor.  Now to debunking the myth.. uh check the commentary under the first myth and the next one.. this is just a chain of lies where you tear down one and rest fall upon the weak foundation that first lie set.

I hope I don’t even have to post a rebuttal to this one, because if you’ve understood the rest of the article, it’s unnecessary:

Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It’s not just wrong — it’s impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can’t add one penny to the deficit.1

The source, New Deal 2.0 .. again.  As if the actual “New Deal” hasn’t actually perpetuated a deficit crisis, the new version is trying to say that not only did Social Security not cause the issue, it’s actually not even possible.  The first rebuttal should give you enough, but if not.. lemme try again.  During years of excess, the Social Security trust fund does not get to hang on to its excesses.  It has to put that money into government bonds and hold those instead.  Should they run into deficit, they will call on the government to give them cash for the bonds.  Since our government doesn’t have any free cash due to deficit spending… they’ll have to borrow money from somewhere else, raise taxes or cut spending – exactly the same actions as excessive debt.  Because the trust fund gave the government money and it received bonds in return, it holds debt of the U.S. government (I said debt right?).  The treasury got money from someone on a loan basis to cover costs it cannot fund on its own.  Most of us call that operating at a deficit.  Social Security absolutely enables our government’s deficit spending and if they call on the money in those IOUs, it will just get tacked-on.

So posts an article based on the facts of union-run, far-left, liberal nut-job organizations – gave me something to do, but could really have used a challenge.

The War on Tax Cuts

In their current battle to tax-and-spend us into economic collapse, the left has dug up or created every statistic they can to somehow justify taking more money away from Americans and letting the government spend it. This is not a new battle or a new position. Behold Senator John Kerry discussing tax cuts:

Basically, you can’t be trusted to invest your money where we say you need to invest it, so the Government must not give tax cuts because the Government is more responsible than a private citizen.

Due to the pending expiration of the Bush tax cuts the Liberal Media has gone out of their way to paint tax cuts as evil villians and part of the deficit. Do tax cuts affect Government’s income, certainly. But to simply declare that not letting those tax cuts expire adds to the debt is to ignore reality.

The economy of the United States is in a fiscal crisis. We are on the verge of an economic collapse. It is not government, but private enterprise that makes this country great and grew our economy, it is governmental interference that is bringing the economy down. Not renewing the Bush tax cuts amounts to a huge tax increase on not just the very wealthy, but the middle class as well.  We are at a time when we really could recover from this recession. However the policies of the Obama Administration have been destructive to private business and private enterprise.

The Heritage Foundation posted a report titled “The Three Biggest Myths About Tax Cuts and the Budget Deficit” Here are a few highlights:

Myth #1: The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts wiped out the $5.6 trillion surplus for 2002–2011.

Fact: They caused just 14 percent of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits.

The budget surplus peaked at $236 billion in 2000. However, Senator John Kerry (D–MA), among others, has criticized President George W. Bush for having “taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see.” The critics have pointed specifically to the $1.7 trillion in tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 as the leading creator of deficits. However, the numbers tell a different story.

First, the $5.6 trillion surplus never actually existed. It represents the cumulative 2002–2011 budget surplus projected by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in early 2001. Instead, the United States is now set to run a $6.1 trillion deficit for 2002–2011—a swing of $11.7 trillion. The surplus projection itself was completely unrealistic.

Myth #2: Future deficits are “the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.”

Fact: These policies play a relatively minor role in the growth of future deficits.

President Bush implemented the three policies mentioned by President Obama in the early 2000s. Yet by 2007—the last year before the recession— the budget deficit had stabilized at $161 billion. Since the combined annual cost of these three Bush-era policies is now relatively stable, they cannot have suddenly caused a trillion-dollar leap in budget deficits beginning in 2009

Myth #3: Declining revenues are driving future deficits.

Fact: Rapidly increasing entitlement spending will cause nearly 100 percent of rising long-term deficits.

Over the past 50 years, Washington has collected an average of 18.0 percent of GDP in revenue, spent 20.3 percent of GDP, running a sustainable deficit of 2.3 percent of GDP. Annual figures have not deviated much from these averages. Even as tax rates fluctuated, tax revenues rarely deviated by more than 1 percentage point from 18.0 percent of GDP. The composition of spending has shifted dramatically from defense to entitlements, yet total spending has nearly always remained within 2 percentage points of 20.3 percent of GDP. Total spending and revenues have remained remarkably stable for the past 50 years.

From CNBC: “Letting Bush Tax Cuts Die Would Kill Recovery: Analysts”

The nascent US economic recovery would be halted in 2011 if Congress fails to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, analysts at Deutsche Bank said.

“In a worst-case scenario, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and failing to fix the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) could result in (1.5 percent) of fiscal drag in 2011 on top of the 1 percent fiscal drag we expect to occur as the Obama fiscal stimulus package unwinds,” Deutsche said in a note to clients. “If the recovery remains soft/tentative through early next year, this additional drag could be enough to push the economy to a stalling point.”

In spite of such information the liberal media continues it’s assault on tax cuts in the spirit of Senator Kerry above, here’s the Huffington Post, with some classic fearmongering:

The GOP Plot to Screw the Economy and the Middle Class

“And thanks to an alliance between the Republicans (which includes the tea party), the increasingly dominant far-right media, a traditional “old media” that panders to the far-right, and right-of-center “conservadems” who pander to the Republicans, too many voters have decided that the Republican Party might be better suited to turn all of this around.

The big lie here is that if Congress stops spending, cuts the deficit and makes permanent the Bush tax cuts, especially the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, our problems will be solved — even though these concepts are in direct conflict with each other. Not surprising given the ever-lengthening Republican syllabus of contradictions.”

Where’s the contradiction? If you stop the spending and downsize the Government you need less income. Businesses need economic certainty to know whether or not they can invest their money and expand their businesses by hiring workers. An increase in taxes causes lay-offs, price increases, and private sector economic decline.

Here’s the simple answer to solving the fiscal crisis, stop the spending. It’s time for entitlement reform, time to stop growing this massive government, and time for a complete spending freeze. HealthCare must be repealed, Financial Regulatory Reform must be repealed, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac must be reformed, and the bailouts must stop.

None of the above will happen under Obama’s presidency because, in my opinion, bringing down the economy is his goal. The choice here is do you believe what John Kerry has said, that you are stupid and won’t invest properly, so the Government must invest for you, or do you believe in freedom? Here is a tax calculator to show you the impact the Bush tax cuts expiring will have on your income.

Are we on the verge of an Economic Collapse?

Are we on the verge of an Economic Collapse?

In my opinion yes, and it is intentional, but I’ll let the CBO give you a heads up before I give my opinion.

Federal Debt and the Risk of a Fiscal Crisis

July 27, 2010

Economic and Budget Issue Brief


“Over the past few years, U.S. government debt held by the public has grown rapidly—to the point that, compared with the total output of the economy, it is now higher than it has ever been except during the period around World War II. The recent increase in debt has been the result of three sets of factors: an imbalance between federal revenues and spending that predates the recession and the recent turmoil in financial markets, sharply lower revenues and elevated spending that derive directly from those economic conditions, and the costs of various federal policies implemented in response to the conditions.

Further increases in federal debt relative to the nation’s output (gross domestic product, or GDP) almost certainly lie ahead if current policies remain in place. The aging of the population and rising costs for health care will push federal spending, measured as a percentage of GDP, well above the levels experienced in recent decades. Unless policymakers restrain the growth of spending, increase revenues significantly as a share of GDP, or adopt some combination of those two approaches, growing budget deficits will cause debt to rise to unsupportable levels.

If the United States encountered a fiscal crisis, the abrupt rise in interest rates would reflect investors’ fears that the government would renege on the terms of its existing debt or that it would increase the supply of money to finance its activities or pay creditors and thereby boost inflation. To restore investors’ confidence, policymakers would probably need to enact spending cuts or tax increases more drastic and painful than those that would have been necessary had the adjustments come sooner.”

Beyond those gradual consequences, a growing level of federal debt would also increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget, and the government would thereby lose its ability to borrow at affordable rates. It is possible that interest rates would rise gradually as investors’ confidence declined, giving legislators advance warning of the worsening situation and sufficient time to make policy choices that could avert a crisis. But as other countries’ experiences show, it is also possible that investors would lose confidence abruptly and interest rates on government debt would rise sharply. The exact point at which such a crisis might occur for the United States is unknown, in part because the ratio of federal debt to GDP is climbing into unfamiliar territory and in part because the risk of a crisis is influenced by a number of other factors, including the government’s long-term budget outlook, its near-term borrowing needs, and the health of the economy. When fiscal crises do occur, they often happen during an economic downturn, which amplifies the difficulties of adjusting fiscal policy in response.

Although deficits during or shortly after a recession generally hasten economic recovery, persistent deficits and continually mounting debt would have several negative economic consequences for the United States. Some of those consequences would arise gradually: A growing portion of people’s savings would go to purchase government debt rather than toward investments in productive capital goods such as factories and computers; that “crowding out” of investment would lead to lower output and incomes than would otherwise occur. In addition, if the payment of interest on the extra debt was financed by imposing higher marginal tax rates, those rates would discourage work and saving and further reduce output. Rising interest costs might also force reductions in spending on important government programs. Moreover, rising debt would increasingly restrict the ability of policymakers to use fiscal policy to respond to unexpected challenges, such as economic downturns or international crises.

This entire report is an alarm bell. The CBO, while admitting the spending/tax revenue shortfall, does not provide a solution but straddles both sides of the fence with the final sentence of this report.  I believe we are heading to an economic collapse and the Obama policies are speeding us there.

However this report will not be used, as it should be, by the Obama Administration. Instead of seeing this alarm bell as a warning to stop the spending, it will be used to drastically raise taxes, to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and to push through a VAT tax.

These new taxes will kill job growth, bankrupt the middle class, and further hasten an economic collapse because the Obama Administration has no intention of stopping the spending in any way. I have made the case that Obama is using the Cloward-Piven strategy not Keynesian Economics in a post at Conservative Daily News. This report is proof that Cloward-Piven Strategy is working.

If I am wrong about the Cloward Piven Strategy, the President will heed this report and make moves to downsize our bloated Federal Government, Renew the Bush Tax Cuts, Use all unspent stimulus and TARP funds as a downpayment on the debt, and actually stimulate private sector growth instead of hampering it.

If I’m right, they will not waste a crisis and move to Increase taxes on everyone, especially the very wealthy.

I recommend that you prepare for an economic collapse. This report is not your only warning sign. Here are some excerpts from Yahoo News & Reuters:

“Local governments warn: more job, service cuts”

“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Local government revenue has withered so drastically that U.S. cities and counties will have to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs in the coming months, leaving communities without basic services and raising jobless rates, according to a survey.

Those surveyed — 214 cities with populations of more than 25,000 and 56 counties of more than 100,000 people — reported they will cut 8.6 percent of their full-time positions from 2009 through 2011.

“If applied to total local government employment nationwide, an 8.6 percent cut in the workforce would mean that 481,000 local government workers were, or will be, laid off over the two-year period,” the report said.

Currently, the U.S. unemployment rate stands at 9.6 percent. In June, local governments had a net loss of 8,000 jobs, according to the U.S. Labor Department, and they have shed 18,000 jobs over the past three months.


So far, more than half of cities and more than a third of counties have cut staffing for police, safety and firefighting services due to the deep recession that began in 2007. Those numbers are surprisingly high, given that “cities and counties almost always seek to protect public safety services.”

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter said at a press conference about the survey and the local jobs bill that he had recently cut two classes of police training, keeping 200 officers from joining the city’s force. Philadelphia is suspending work at some fire stations to prevent laying off firefighters. Those choices have been hard to make, he said.”

The State and Local Governments will borrow from the Federal Government where possible which adds to the debt. When no one can borrow anymore and they can’t possibly tax anymore, the economy will collapse. I again recommend you prepare.

Redistribution of Wealth Through Taxation

Blame the rich, they’re responsible for everything wrong anyway right. That’s the media’s message. Meanwhile the politician’s sing, “Make them pay.” Here’s a few examples

Those evil rich people just have too much money, we need to tax them more and more. Nevermind that the current administration is intentionally throwing money away in the name of the  Cloward-Piven Strategy. If you don’t accept the Cloward-Piven strategy you surely see that the Obama Administration has nearly tripled the National Deficit and plans on running deficits for years with no slow down to spending in sight. The media has put the blame for almost everything on rich people.

The Politicians are moving in to capitalize on this blame by letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire, reinstating the Estate (Death) Tax, as well as Cap & Trade and a VAT still lurking around the corner, and the HealthCare taxes coming online. The top 1% of income earners already pay 40% of all taxes within the United States.

This is nothing more than Redistribution of Wealth through taxation. Forcing the rich to pay for continued Government Spending.

Here’s CNN in 2009 on the HealthCare Taxes debate

And Laura Ingraham sitting in for Bill O’reilly hosts a debate between Mark Levine & Stuart Varney.

In Obama’s quest to bankrupt America, he has to also bankrupt the rich. The media has helped paint a  target on the wealthy and the politicians are moving to exploit it. Economics 101 tells if you take more money from the people who create jobs, you will have fewer jobs. There will be layoffs if the Bush tax cuts expire. Obama knows this, and will use it too. The rich will be villianized and blamed for these layoffs and forced to pay even more, all the while the real villian was the Obama Administration.

Our politicians have become Michael Moore, the Communist.

Follow StopObama2012 -and- Conservative Daily News on twitter

Texas Ranch Takeover – After the Hoax

On the night of July 24th, all hell broke lose on the internet about some ranches in Texas supposedly going through hell.  Well, there was no hell in Texas, we gave the hoaxers hell, and my guest in this follow-up interview just said hell no.

After having posted the Laredo article, a link-back showed up from what seemed to be an inflammatory attack on the Tea Party titled, Mexican Drug Cartel HAVE NOT Seized Texas Ranches – Tea Bagger extremists move to incite more fear and hatred of Mexicans. I read the article and found that the article itself wasn’t what it sounded like.  The article was seeking the same outcome as mine, but the comments after the post demonstrated the set-in-stone attitudes from both sides.

The author of that article, Porter M. Corn, agreed to my request for an interview.  His bio lends credibility to his position and his post.

Rich: Tell us a little about yourself

Porter: I’ve been living in Mexico for the past 15 years. First in Cd. Juarez and now in Nuevo Laredo and Monterrey where I split my time when not working.  I spent 35 years in the transportation industry and 10 years doing web design and development.

I got into the immigration debate quite by accident. The debate over the US fulfilling our obligation under NAFTA to allow Mexican trucks equal access to the US was heating up in 2007. Various organizations and their allies in talk radio were portraying Mexico and its trucking industry as something out of the 18th century. Their arguments devoid of facts. I established to refute their allegations and to provide documented and photographic proof to counter their propaganda.

Because of their including illegal immigration in their arguments against allowing the trucks into the country, I begin investigating that also. Accompanying a female acquaintance through the process of trying to obtain a visa and being denied after waiting 8 months and my wife and step kids not being qualified for laser visas to cross the border, simply because she married and American, caused me to become politically active.

And then seeing all the vitriol and hatred directed against Mexicans by people whose lives in no way intersect with illegals, strengthened my resolve to try and do something to expose many of the untruths and out and out lies the extremists on both sides of the issue use.

I’m a fiscal conservative and a social moderate who does not vote the party line rather who votes for the person I think could best serve the people they are running for.

Rich: What did you want your readers to take away from your piece on the Laredo hoax?

Porter: That’s a hard one. First and foremost, the absurdity of the claims and the credibility of those making them. There are those among us, where the illegal immigration debate is a source of great profit. Anything to spread the fear and hysteria people have about our country being “invaded” by Mexico, they’ll do without qualms or second thoughts.

Fortunately, I was home at the time that this broke and I immediately knew there was nothing to it. And when the conspiracy nuts started talking about news blackouts, I tried to jump in to set the record straight, from an eyewitness point of view. But as you can see on the comments on our respective site and others, people are going to believe what they want to believe.

Rich: Why were you so sure that the Diggers Realm story wasn’t real?

Porter: First, the fact that I happened to be home during the time this “invasion” allegedly occurred. Contrary to what some may believe, our law enforcement resources actually enforce the law here in Texas and across the southwest border. Has something like this occurred, every TV station from San Antonio to Corpus Christi would have been here boots on the ground. Not to mention CNN and FOX. That would have been a newsworthy event, wouldn’t you say? I also have friends who own trucking business’s located close to where this happened and the area the ranches in question are located actually is owned by these friends, the Garza family.

And finally I considered the source(s), and their credibility, associations and other factor. And finally, did it pass the smell test. It didn’t!

Rich: Clearly this internet story was handled poorly by some bloggers.  If someone came to you and said, hey, I have an unnamed source in the border patrol that says they just caught a group of tea party types beating and robbing illegal aliens as they crossed the desert – how would you handle that lead?

Porter: First off, I would dismiss it out of hand and if I did anything, I would ask several BP agents I know or one of the CBP officers at the border crossing if there was any truth to it. But we don’t have to worry about 99.9% of Tea Party members. They’re no different than you or I. It is the extremists who have tried to align themselves with the TP to push their own agendas that is giving the group as a whole, a bad rep.

Rich: Do you believe that blogs should have government regulation or oversight to prevent this kind of thing from creating panic?

Porter: Strange you should ask this as it is something I’ve been thinking about heavily abut of late. In a nutshell NO, we don’t need regulation that would interfere with our First Amendment Rights. With that being said, what is the limits of free speech? Obviously, you can’t go into a crowded theater and shout fire, are yell Hi Jack on an airliner in flight. How are those examples any different than say, this story and others designed to prey upon peoples prejudices and fears.

But you know, the internet has given a new and anonymous medium to us that some use for no good, protected by the anonymity of their keyboards. They can spread false or malicious information about anything that comes into their minds without fear of repercussion.

Rich: Did the anti-stories posted on sites like, Immigration Clearing House, and ours provide a kind of self-governance or could more have been done by the community?

Porter: To answer that, I would suggest taking a look at the comments on my site, yours and and decide. Also look at the comments on Dvorak’s original story. They’re probably running 50/50. Did we do enough? I think we tried. Could we have done more? Possibly but some minds can’t be changed. Especially those who believe the bunk about North American Unions, the Reconquista, the birther movement and all the other trite crap being peddled out there by the “Patriots for Profit”.

You know, our country has survived 234 years, survived numerous wars and 43 Presidents. This country is resilient. We have a President now, who I did not support nor vote for, who scares the hell out of people as being one of the few Presidents in memory who actually is trying to do what he promised. And of course everyone has their own opinions of what should be done and how. Then you have the big buck lobbyists on both side that try to skew the issue.

Rich: ALIPAC put up a post confirming the ruse, should they have done more?  If so, what?

Porter: The only reason ALIPAC put out that press release is to give Amato another slap in the face. Had that story not been so prominent on Amato’s site, I believe Gheen would have allowed the bashing to continue on his site until such a time as he decided it would benefit him to speak out. Gheen is a nasty piece of work. He regularly tries to take credit for the work of others, and takes credit for things benefiting his agenda that would have occurred whether he existed or not.

Gheen and Digger had a falling out over the June 5 Phoenix Rising Rally. Read about it on Diggers site or mine by searching for the article titled “ALIPAC & William Gheen Exposed”

Everyone he befriends is his friend as long as they are of some value to him. Afterwards, he goes on the attack.. Some examples? Jim Gilchrist, Barbara Coe, Dan Amato Jim Deakins, Lou Dobbs. Anyone who is critical of him or his positions on things. Hell, I’ve got emails passed around from him to those named that I could share. The man’s got a nasty mouth and attitude.

His 36,000 supporters consist of an email list containing that number of addresses. I find it strange that with alleged 36,000 supporters, you never find more than 3 or 4 dozen online to his forum at any given time, and about the same number who are regular posters

And finally, you look at his FEC reports, especially when he is whining for donations so he can singlehandedly STOP “amnesty”! 1/3 of his donations go for his salary and the rest goes for phone bills, internet access and server space. Also a media consultant in Florida he pays to get his opinions published everywhere he can.

I simply have a problem with a man who has been quoted as saying “If there was no money to be made in the immigration debate, I would have nothing to do with it”

His press release was totally self serving.

Rich: If the story had been real, what would you like to see happen (Law enforcement, feds, military, citizens, bloggers, etc)

Porter: If the story had been true, I would have wanted to happen what would have happened. A strong response by Local, State and Federal law enforcement. That is how we handle things in Texas. There would have been no reason to involve the military in something law enforcement is well equipped to handle.

Citizens would have needed to stay the hell out of the way and let the authorities do their job. As evidenced by some of the militias putting out a call to arms, claiming the Texas DPS has called them to come to the border to assist them, we don’t need citizens itching to pop a cap on someone.

Bloggers and MSM would have needed to report it as it happened and not how they wished it would happen. The impression that people have of our southern border being overrun by terrorists, and the Mexican border cities a lawless free fire zone Is sensationalism by the media and by bloggers who have no idea of what is happening here. El Paso Texas, across from Cd Juarez is the third safest city in America. Sure, violence flares up and is ongoing, but it is not a constant threat here in Mexico. I would venture to say it is safer here than some neighborhoods in Chicago’s southside or parts of Atlanta.

Rich: What actions would like to see on immigration?

Porter: First off, people need to think for themselves and quit letting others think for them.

First, we need operational control of the borders. Secure borders is a catch phrase for those who are oppose to any type of revamping of our nations broken system. You can’t lay mine fields, sniper towers or station troops on the 2000 mile + border with shoot to kill orders as some suggest. Building a physical fence throw mountainous and rugged terrain is cost prohibitive and will only slow down, not stop, the smugglers. And without someone to watch the fence, the fence is useless. And if you have the personnel to watch the fence, then obviously you don’t need the fence. We have more operational control of the borders than at anytime in recent years.

A re-examination of our worker visas and a guest worker program to fill the jobs Americans refuse to do. And yes, those jobs exist and we have it within our laws to fill those jobs, except the visa quota system stands in the way. Americans are soft and have no desire to do back breaking menial labor. Look at Arizona with the exodus of Hispanics. If they held these jobs Americans want and will do, why haven’t we seen a decrease in unemployment. All we are seeing is businesses shutting down because their customer base is leaving. Parts of Phoenix is beginning to look like a ghost town.

Our government needs to get it out of its head that 100 million Mexicans are chomping at the bit to get into this country and look at the manner in which they issue laser visas and I-9’s. The laser visa is nothing more than a border crossing card. It permits the holder to cross and shop, visit family but they are limited to 28 miles of the border without the I-9. Canadians don’t have this requirement. They can cross at will with only a passport and go wherever they desire.

It’s interesting about the Laser Visa. Mexicans apply for it, submit their documents showing ties to Mexico and proving ties enough that they will return, pay the $100 dollar application fee and are given an appointment at the closest Consulate 4 to 6 months in the future. When they arrive for the appointment and stand in line for a couple of hours, most are denied with no reason given nor any avenue for appeal. It’s solely the decision of a low level Consular employee whose word is final. That needs to change. Rules need to be established for eligibility. Not the choice of an employee who might have had a fight with his wife or something that morning or simply didn’t like the looks of the applicant.

We need to identify who is here and who they are. That would involve giving all some form of legitimacy. Not a path to citizenship although they wouldn’t be prohibited years down the road if they desired,. Identify who is here. The criminal element, identify and deport after any pending charges against them were resolved, and I know this will cause the civil libertarians to raise holy hell, but insert and RFID chip in the cheeks of their butts. We have them in our new passports. Mine can be read electronically 2 blocks from the border according to CBP officers. Then sensors along the border to detect when they try to re-enter.

There is a lot of good hardworking families who have crossed illegally They’ve built lives here, paid their taxes and been good citizens except for the 9 digit number they lack. We can’t deport the estimated 6 million Mexicans in this country. It is impossible

There is no good solution or perfect solution to the problem of illegal immigration. But the “no solution” is people sitting around and being obstinate in their views.

William Gheen, when he got into his pissing match with Lou Dobbs over the Dobbs suggestion we needed a national dialogue on the subject and asked Gheen if he would be interested in participating in a round table discussion. Gheen refused basically saying it was :”my way or the highway”. That attitude which is prevalent in most of the anti-immigrant crowd will continue to stymie any meaningful debate and solution of the issue.

It is also interesting to note, until 9/11, when it seems this issue exploded, it was a non issue. We had cyclical migration for more than 75 years. Sure, most of it was illegal. People would cross, work a few months, go home to Mexico for the holidays and maybe return, maybe not. But the majority always returned at some point. Sure to be replaced by others, but it helped drive the economy on both sides of the border.

So I guess after that rambling reply, in a nutshell, we need to put a stop to this hysteria being spread that illegal immigrants are coming here to wallow in the public trough and acknowledge the contributions they make. We can’t have it both ways. Either they come here and take all the social services available, (which they can’t do) or they’re taking jobs Americans won’t. We can’t have it both ways. That is what is so illogical from the extremist point of view on both sides.

I want to thank Mr. Corn for this interview.  While I may not agree with all of his positions, I do believe in listening.

*update 7/27/10*  We have been contacted by Mr. Gheen of ALIPAC claiming that Mr. Corn is providing “false and derogatory information”.  I always like to listen to both sides and have offered Mr. Gheen an interview.

#update 7/28/10* Mr. Gheen has declined to comment or be interviewed.

Blame Capitalism?

You may have noticed a new theme within the mainstream media. Sometimes its subtle, somtiemes its blunt, but its there. “Blame the Rich”, blame the wealthy, blame capitalism, blame .. “God Damn America” as Rev. Wright would say.

It has emerged as the left’s rallying cry once again, just as it has throughout history. In my post on Cloward-Piven Strategy, I discussed how the creators of this strategy simply expected us to embrace Socialism because we would be told that Capitalism had failed and Socialism was needed to save us. They are laying that foundation now in order to get popular support against the rich, in the hopes that, when the economy fails, you will support Socialism in order to “Save America.”

Here are some examples:

From Newsbusters:

MSNBC: American Capitalism To Blame For Financial Crisis
By Mike Sargent

File this one under Liberal Guilt Syndrome.

In the second hour of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, correspondent Savannah Guthrie gave a live report on the upcoming G-20 summit from London. This was a fairly straightforward report, hitting on issues that the major parties were interested in hammering out – the French want more financial regulation, for example. And then, at the very end of the report, Mika Brzezinski threw a hanging curveball. Guthrie did not disappoint:

MIKA BRZEZINSKI,“Morning Joe” co-host: What are you hearing in terms of who the Europeans blame for this financial mess and is there any blame being put on the United States? SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, MSNBC correspondent: Absolutely. I don’t think there’s any question that here in Europe and in other places around the world, people place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the United States. And in ways, this G-20 summit which, in years past, was just kind of a meet and greet and a photo op has a lot of importance. In some ways, capitalism itself is on trial, people will really be looking at hard at some of the free market principles that have really governed the day up till now. I don’t think we’re going see some huge sea change but you know, people are taking a hard look at how we got here and a lot of people do blame this American-style capitalism, lax regulation and the pursuit of money above all things with moral responsibility sort of shoved to the side. And I think we’re going to hear a lot of those themes in the coming days.
BRZEZINSKI: All right. Savannah Guthrie, thank you very much. Great report.

For those of you keeping score at home, let’s break this down in slow motion. The economic collapse is the fault of capitalism as a system, and thus, not the fault of individuals who over-leveraged their capital – or, for that matter, individuals who overextended their financial capability by buying overpriced homes.

The normally-meaningless G-20 summit is now important because it has now become Nuremberg for capitalism itself. Scratch that. American-style capitalism – the European version is perfectly fine, because it pays attention to the moral responsibility of the successful to subsidize the unsuccessful individual’s lack of success.

Of course, although the real issue lies with the fault of the few who tarnished the success of many an honest businessman, We the Press will rouse a populist lynch mob to destroy the career of every American capitalist pig.

The Ronald Reagan quip rings all too true for the mainstream media: “We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.”

How about the New York Times claiming the Rich are keeping us in the recession with the following article :” Wealthy Reduce Buying in a Blow to the Recovery“.

The economic recovery has been helped in large part by the spending of the most affluent. Now, even the rich appear to be tightening their belts.

Late last year, the highest-income households started spending more confidently, while other consumers held back. But their confidence has since ebbed, according to retail sales reports and some economic analysis.

“One of the reasons that the recovery has lost momentum is that high-end consumers have become more jittery and more cautious,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics.

How dare those rich people not spend in order to get us out of this recession. It’s all their fault. According once again to the New York Times, these “ruthless”  rich people don’t even pay their mortgages.

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

Whether it is their residence, a second home or a house bought as an investment, the rich have stopped paying the mortgage at a rate that greatly exceeds the rest of the population.

More than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million dollars are seriously delinquent, according to data compiled for The New York Times by the real estate analytics firm CoreLogic.

By contrast, homeowners with less lavish housing are much more likely to keep writing checks to their lender. About one in 12 mortgages below the million-dollar mark is delinquent.

Though it is hard to prove, the CoreLogic data suggest that many of the well-to-do are purposely dumping their financially draining properties, just as they would any sour investment.

“The rich are different: they are more ruthless,” said Sam Khater, CoreLogic’s senior economist.

So now the evil wealthy don’t pay their mortages, are guilty of prolonging the recession, and caused the financial crisis. If that’s not enough for you lets blame them for Climate Change too.

From Tech Herald: “U.S. study pins blame for climate change on wealthy

In the context of the ever tricky debate of how to involve developing nations in the battle against global warming, a group of researchers at the U.S.’s Princeton University has said a fairer method of controlling carbon emissions would be to focus on the highest emitters in each country (ie the rich).

The new study, released at a time when the world looks to a new global compact for cutting carbon emissions at the Copenhagen climate talks in December, contends that a more practical way of combatting excessive emissions is to concentrate on those wealthier individuals in all countries who contribute most to increased greenhouse gases.

“Most of the world’s emissions come disproportionately from the wealthy citizens of the world, irrespective of their nationality,” explained physicist Shoibal Chakravarty, a lead author of the report and a research scholar at the Princeton Environmental Institute.

“We estimate that in 2008, half of the world’s emissions came from just 700 million people,” he said.

“We are not actually suggesting you go after the high using individuals. But we are using this approach to better capture the notions of equity and fairness in bettering national targets,” Chakravarty said in an interview with Scientific American. “So, if a country has a lot of high-emitting people, it must do more to reduce carbon emissions.”

The authors of the report say their system is a fairer way to apportion “blame” for global warming and may lead to a breakthrough in the impasse in climate negotiations.

Many developing nations, such as India and China, say because their contribution to greenhouse gases is far lower historically and per capita than those countries of the affluent West, they should be exempt from stringent emission cuts levels. However critics of this approach say that a global approach is required to combat the climate crisis.

I’m sure by now you are seeing the pattern, but I can’t resist throwing one more at you, the latest attack on the rich blames them for the ever shrinking middle class.

From Yahoo Finance: ” The Middle Class in America Is Radically Shrinking. Here Are the Stats to Prove it

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace.

So why are we witnessing such fundamental changes? Well, the globalism and “free trade” that our politicians and business leaders insisted would be so good for us have had some rather nasty side effects. It turns out that they didn’t tell us that the “global economy” would mean that middle class American workers would eventually have to directly compete for jobs with people on the other side of the world where there is no minimum wage and very few regulations. The big global corporations have greatly benefited by exploiting third world labor pools over the last several decades, but middle class American workers have increasingly found things to be very tough.

The reality is that no matter how smart, how strong, how educated or how hard working American workers are, they just cannot compete with people who are desperate to put in 10 to 12 hour days at less than a dollar an hour on the other side of the world. After all, what corporation in their right mind is going to pay an American worker 10 times more (plus benefits) to do the same job? The world is fundamentally changing. Wealth and power are rapidly becoming concentrated at the top and the big global corporations are making massive amounts of money. Meanwhile, the American middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence as U.S. workers are slowly being merged into the new “global” labor pool.

What do most Americans have to offer in the marketplace other than their labor? Not much. The truth is that most Americans are absolutely dependent on someone else giving them a job. But today, U.S. workers are “less attractive” than ever. Compared to the rest of the world, American workers are extremely expensive, and the government keeps passing more rules and regulations seemingly on a monthly basis that makes it even more difficult to conduct business in the United States.

So corporations are moving operations out of the U.S. at breathtaking speed. Since the U.S. government does not penalize them for doing so, there really is no incentive for them to stay.

What has developed is a situation where the people at the top are doing quite well, while most Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to make it. There are now about six unemployed Americans for every new job opening in the United States, and the number of “chronically unemployed” is absolutely soaring. There simply are not nearly enough jobs for everyone.

While the author mentions “Globalism” and that “the government keeps passing more rules and regulations seemingly on a monthly basis that makes it even more difficult to conduct business in the United States” he has settled on blaming the rich who surely must be responsible.

The government is already limiting executive pay where it can, taxing it where it can’t (expiration of Bush tax cuts, estate tax reinstatement – all to take from the evil rich.  Where does it go?  The intent appears to be Obama’s “re-distributive change”.  Taking from the wealthy and using it to fund programs or outright hand the money to the poor.  How long before the case is directly made that the middle class needs to be rebuilt using money from the wealthy to lift-up the poor?

The media is pushing the message that, “The rich” are responsible for all our problems. They are hoping you will hold to blaming them after an economic collapse and allow a Socialist Economic Revolution to replace “Failed Capitalism.” They are trying to make you angry enough to turn a blind eye to the Nationalization of each and every company, and the forced redistribution of wealth because those evil rich are responsible for all our problems.

What’s Happening With Los Zetas in Laredo

It’s been a busy afternoon.  There are numerous conflicting reports about the U.S. incursion by one of Mexico’s most-violent drug gangs, Los Zetas.  I started out concerned, then confused, and finally .. well.. still kinda confused.

I was born and raised in Texas and still have a lot of family there (quite a bit in South Texas), so this story struck very close to home.  At first, there was the  tweet, “Los Zetas drug cartel seizes 2 U.S. Ranches in Texas..”.  I caught my breath and started pulling up the stories like the one that seems to have started it on

The bloodbath continues along our southern border and now word is coming in that Los Zetas, the highly trained killers formerly with the Gulf Cartel, have crossed into the United States and taken over at least two ranches in the Laredo, Texas area. I am receiving word that the owners of the ranches have evacuated without being harmed. The source is law enforcement in the area.

It certainly was starting to sound serious – off to verify I went.  I first called family and got a bunch of confused and unknowing responses.  The local news in South Texas was oblivious and so was my family.  Off to the papers I went to see if anyone else had the 411.  The Laredo Morning Times had an article on just this subject that stated:

..officials with the Laredo Police Department, Webb County Sheriff’s Department and Border Patrol said they knew nothing about such an incident, while Erik Vasys, an FBI spokesman in San Antonio, said the agency does not comment on rumors.

Follow that with the an article in the Tuscon Citizen that says the whole thing was a disagreement between two ranchers.

..a disagreement happened between two ranch owners. It would be up to Sheriff Cuelar to elaborate or state with certainty that the disagreement between two ranchers was not in fact a conflict between possible narco-trafficers.

That put me a little at-ease and I started thinking that this was probably more a stunt by some right or left-leaning group to evoke a response.  Evoke a response.. uh-oh .. not at ease anymore, I set off learning as much as I could about the originators of the story and the players involved.

The story seems to have first been published by based on a tip by Jeff Schwilk, founder of the San Diego Minutemen.  The San Diego Minutemen mission:

To demand maximum border security and immigration enforcement both locally and at the national level. We oppose illegal immigration in all parts of San Diego County with our political activism.  We assist and support the U.S. Border Patrol in securing the U.S.-Mexican Border from terrorists, gang members, criminals, drugs, and illegal aliens entering the United States. We also assist ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) and local law enforcement in exposing law breaking employers and helping to return illegal aliens to their country of legal residence. We act on behalf of and in accordance with the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Nothing too outlandish there, but when I looked into Jeff Schwilk, things got weird fast.  Apparently, the founder of The Minuteman Project, Jim Gilchrist, doesn’t want Jeff associated with the credible efforts of the Minutemen – at all. published an email from Mr. Gilchrist to Jeff and this conclusion says alot:

Make it easy on yourself and stop trying to pirate the SDMM. You are finished and no one wants you in this movement anymore…not Gheen, not Nightingale, nor any of their equally demented associates. There is no unity among criminals like yourselves…only mutual acrimony. Thank you for destroying yourselves. It makes my job a lot easier and more successful.

Jim Gilchrist, BAJ, BSBA, MBA, CPA(ret.) — Founder and President, Jim Gilchrist’s Minuteman Project, Inc. [dba The Minuteman Project, Inc.]

That lead me to ask the age old question, what’s in it for the parties involved.  For Los Zetas, not much.  They get their drugs into the U.S. just fine.  Taking over a few ranches in the U.S. brings the full brunt of the United States of America on them and will almost certainly (I say almost because of present leadership) lead to the absolute shut-down of the border.  The Zetas don’t want that because it would kill-off a huge distribution channel.  Keeping U.S. officials off of their back means they can concentrate on killing members of rival cartels.

What’s in it for Jeff?  Well, sudden recognition, media attention, perhaps interviews or a book deal.. maybe just some ego petting – unfortunately at the expense of America-loving Conservatives that might rush off to help defend our borders.

There is another portion of the population that would love to see this circus get out-of-hand – progressives.  They would love nothing more than to use someone like Schwilk as a broad brush with which to paint all pro-immigration enforcement Conservatives.  We should and will defend America if she truly comes under threat, but we can’t get taken down on a sham.

If Mexicans are taking over ranches in South Texas, I’ll be among the first group to volunteer for border duty.  If two Texas ranchers had a dispute and shots were fired.. not the first time that’s happened.  If this is instead a media hoax then the last thing I plan to do is allow someone like Jeff Schwilk take down the Conservative movement with idiotic stunts like this one.  We all saw how reacting quickly to unsubstantiated stories got the White House in hot water over the Sherrod story, don’t get “Bretibarted” as the libs are calling it.  Get the facts, act accordingly – this is just the kind of crap the left would love to color all of us with – we have bigger fish to fry.

*Update 7/25/10 10:54am*

The left is starting their attack.  Don’t get pulled in.  No named sources, no first-person verification, still looks like a hoax or at best an over-exaggeration of a rancher disagreement.

As if to make my point, here’s a link-back to my post:

Mexican Drug Cartel HAVE NOT Seized Texas Ranches – Tea Bagger extremists move to incite more fear and hatred of Mexicans.

*Update 7/25/10 10:05pm*
Numerous independent verification that nothing happened:

I found this ALIPAC notice re-posted on TexasFred‘s site:

Friends of ALIPAC, bloggers, leaders, and members of the media, As the primary focal point of information flows regarding the borders and illegal immigration, ALIPAC has both released astounding information to the public that was verified and we have stopped stories that were fakes.  Many of you will remember the fake Shawna Ford photos, and some other false stories and rumors that ALIPAC took steps to quell.

Today, we are issuing an advisory that the story being circulated on many blogs titled “Mexican Cartels Invade Texas” or “LOS ZETAS TAKES OVER TEXAS RANCHES” that was written by blogger Dan Amato aka Digger is unconfirmed. In fact, it is starting to look like it is completely false.

While we will hold the door open for the possibility there’s some fire with this smoke, the story claims that the paramilitary drug and alien importing gang Los Zetas had invaded our side of the border and taken over several ranches in the US thus sending the American occupants running for their lives.

As a last ditch effort, I went looking at NOTAMs, notices to pilots on restrictions or hazards, there are none for KLRD (Laredo airport) or surrounding area, nor have there been recently.  If the government didn’t want anyone to know about what was going on … they could easily have put up a NOTAM restricting the air space due to military flight training, high tower construction, border patrol operations…   I think I’m ready to call this one as “nothing to see here folks”.

Obama’s Mentor: Frank Marshall Davis

Frank Marshall Davis was a writer, poet, journalist, and Communist Party member. He was also a mentor for the young Barack Obama while he was in Hawaii. Obama writes of Mr. Davis in his book “Dreams From My Father” and refers to him only as “Frank.”

From Accuracy In Media

In Obama’s own book, Dreams From My Father. He writes about “a poet named Frank,” who visited them in Hawaii, read poetry, and was full of “hard-earned knowledge” and advice. Who was Frank? Obama only says that he had “some modest notoriety once,” was “a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago…” but was now “pushing eighty.” He writes about “Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self” giving him advice before he left for Occidental College in 1979 at the age of 18.

Who was Frank Marshall Davis? From Discover The Networks:

Frank Marshall Davis (1905-1987) was a black poet and writer (he wrote for the Honolulu Record, a Communist newspaper), and a known member of the Soviet-controlled Communist Party USA (CPUSA).

Davis’ good friend Paul Robeson, who himself was a dedicated Stalinist, persuaded him in 1948 to move to Honoloulu, Hawaii. In 1950 Edward Berman, a member of the NAACP‘s Honolulu branch, testified to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) that Davis had “sneaked” into local NAACP meetings to “propagandize” the organization’s members about America’s “racial problems,” with “the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.”

Davis was identified unequivocally as a CPUSA member in a 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii (CSALTH), which, along with HUAC, also charged that Davis was affiliated with a number of communist-front organizations. According to Max Friedman, a former undercover member of several Communist-controlled “anti-war” groups, Davis testified in 1956 before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and took the Fifth Amendment when asked about his Communist Party membership.

If you doubt his ties to the Communist Party, I have it in their own words. From the publication “People’s World” the propaganda arm of the CPUSA, an article titled “Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party” dated April 6, 2007 Not only ties Frank Marshall Davis to the Communist Party, but also to Obama.

The article states that, “This is the text of a speech delivered at the reception of the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University.” And in the final paragraph we find the connection.

In any case, deploring these convictions in Hawaii was an African-American poet and journalist by the name of  Frank Marshall Davis, who was certainly in the orbit of the CP – if not a member – and who was born in Kansas and spent a good deal of his adult life in Chicago, before decamping to Honolulu in 1948 at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson. Eventually, he befriended another family – a Euro-American family – that had migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago. In his best selling memoir ‘Dreams of my Father’, the author speaks warmly of an older black poet, he identifies simply as ‘Frank’ as being a decisive influence in helping him to find his present identity as an African-American, a people who have been the least anticommunist and the most left-leaning of any constituency in this nation – though you would never know it from reading so-called left journals of opinion. At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir, ‘Living the Blues’ and when that day comes, I’m sure a future student will not only examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties but will also be moved to come to this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside.

Who are we to deny their claim that Frank Marshall Davis was a Communist and Mentor to Obama. Now let’s look at some of his work and how he influenced young Barack Obama. In one poem Mr. Davis praises the Red Army. From American Thinker:

One of Davis’ poems is titled, “To the Red Army”.  Its concluding stanzas read:

Smash on, victory-eating Red warriors!
Show the marveling multitudes
Americans, British, all your allied brothers
How strong you are
How great you are
How your young tree of new unity
Planted twenty-five years ago
Bears today the golden fruit of victory!
Drive on, oh mighty people’s juggernaut!
Hear in your winning ears
Shadow songs of your departed comrades
Telling you, “Be avengers and kill our killers
And when you have struck the last foe to the ground
Then drop their fascist dreams below hell!”

That looks like clear support to Communism and the Red Army to me. Here’s more on Mr. Davis and Obama from Discover The Networks:

Obama in his book (Dreams From My Father)  recounts how, just prior to heading off to Occidental College in 1979, he spent some time with “Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self.” Says Obama, “Frank” told him that college was merely “an advanced degree in compromise,” and cautioned him not to “start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh–.”

Davis also told Obama, “What I’m trying to tell you is you [white] grandma’s right to be scared…. She understands that black people have a reason to hate. That’s just how it is. For your sake, I wish it were otherwise. But it’s not. So you might as well get used to it.”

Davis penned many poems during his lifetime. One of them, titled “To the Red Army,” hailed the Soviet revolution and condemned the “rich industrialists” in Washington DC and London who allegedly wanted Hitler and the Nazis to “wipe Communism from the globe.”

Davis also wrote poems deriding traditional Christianity. In some of these compositions, Davis called Christ “a Dixie Nigger” who was nothing more than “another New White Hope”; he derided Christians as hypocrites “who buy righteousness like groceries”; and he spoke of Africans being killed with a “Christian gun” by missionaries following “the religion of Sweet Jesus,” rather than by a spear.

Another Davis poem, “Peace Quiz for America,” includes the following lines:

Uncle Sam, Uncle Sam
Why did you send me against Axis foes
In the death-kissed foxholes
Of New Guinea and Europe
Without shielding my back
From the sniping Dixie lynchers
In the jungles of Texas and Florida?

You can see how the teachings of Frank Marshall Davis affected the personality of young Barack Obama. He writes in his books how when in college he sought out communists and radicals. You can also see why he felt so at home in Reverend Wright’s church which espouses communism and racism in pursuit of “Collective Salvation.”

Apparently Frank Marshall Davis and his wife also committed statuatory rape with a 13 year old girl in Hawaii named Anne, amongst other sexual appetites and deviances. He wrote about them in a book titled “Sex Rebel” under the name Bob Greene. From

It has also been established that Mr Davis, who divorced in 1970, was the author of a hard-core pornographic autobiography published in San Diego in 1968 by Greenleaf Classics under the pseudonym Bob Greene.

In a surviving portion of an autobiographical manuscript, Mr Davis confirms that he was the author of Sex Rebel: Black after a reader had noticed the “similarities in style and phraseology” between the pornographic work and his poetry.

“I could not then truthfully deny that this book, which came out in 1968 as a Greenleaf Classic, was mine.” In the introduction to Sex Rebel, Mr Davis (writing as Greene) explains that although he has “changed names and identities…all incidents I have described have been taken from actual experiences”.

He stated that “under certain circumstances I am bisexual” and that he was “ a voyeur and an exhibitionist” who was “occasionally mildly interested in sado-masochism”, adding: “I have often wished I had two penises to enjoy simultaneously the double – but different – sensations of oral and genital copulation.”

The book, which closely tracks Mr Davis’s life in Chicago and Hawaii and the fact that his first wife was black and his second white, describes in lurid detail a series of shockingly sordid sexual encounters, often involving group sex.

One chapter concerns the seduction by Mr Davis and his first wife of a 13-year-old girl called Anne. Mr Davis wrote that it was the girl who had suggested he had sex with her. “I’m not one to go in for Lolitas. Usually I’d rather not bed a babe under 20.

“But there are exceptions. I didn’t want to disappoint the trusting child. At her still-impressionistic age, a rejection might be traumatic, could even cripple her sexually for life.”

He then described how he and his wife would have sex with the girl. “Anne came up many times the next several weeks, her aunt thinking she was in good hands. Actually she was.

“She obtained a course in practical sex from experienced and considerate practitioners rather than from ignorant insensitive neophytes….I think we did her a favour, although the pleasure was mutual.”

On other occasions, Mr Davis would cruise in Hawaii parks looking for couples or female tourists to have sex with. He derived sexual gratification from bondage, simulated rape and being flogged and urinated on.

He boasted that “the number of white babes interested in at least one meeting with a Negro male has been far more than I can handle” and wished “America were as civilised as, say, Scandinavia”. He concluded: “I regret none of my experiences or unusual appetites; for me they are normal.”

Hattip to Bonzmarela :)

Theres no telling what under that lifestyle young Obama could have been exposed to, and I’ll leave it at that.

Obama’s Presidency is not his first attempt to “Redistribute Wealth” while a Senator, Barack Obama introduced a bill,  S.2433 – Global Poverty Act of 2007. Here’s the official summary:

Official Summary

4/24/2008–Reported to Senate amended. Global Poverty Act of 2007 – Directs the President, through the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day. Requires the strategy to contain specific and measurable goals and to consist of specified components, including:
(1) continued investment or involvement in existing U.S. initiatives related to international poverty reduction and trade preference programs for developing countries;
(2) improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate;
(3) enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate;
(4) mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses and public-private partnerships;
(5) coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other internationally recognized Millennium Development Goals; and
(6) integrating principles of sustainable development and entrepreneurship into policies and programs. Sets forth specified reporting requirements. Directs the Secretary of State to designate a coordinator who will have primary responsibility for overseeing and drafting the reports, as well as responsibility for helping to implement recommendations contained in the reports. Defines specified terms

Full text of the bill available here.

Basically, under the bill, the United States would “spread the wealth around” in order to ease the poverty of the world. We would give billions and trillions to the poorest people of the world (many of which, in my opinion, are in Communist countries) who live on less than a dollar or two a day. In essence we would bankrupt the Federal Government in order to “Nanny State” the world.

This is a continuing theme from the Obama Administration, and we can trace it all the way back to his Communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.

Find more on Obama’s inner circle in our Exposing Obama section.

Follow StopObama2012 -and- Conservative Daily News on twitter

What Does the President See in Rashid Khalidi?

On May 31, 2010 a so called “Peace Flotilla”  attempted to break through the legal Israeli  blockade of the Gaza Strip. The Flotilla was asked to cease their attempt to illegally  dock at the Gaza Strip and dock at the Israeli port of Ashdod instead, they refused to comply. Flotilla ships were then stopped by Israeli forces and a conflict ensued onboard one ship the Mavri Marmara. Israeli Commando’s boarded this ship full of “Peace Activists”, armed only with paintball guns, crowd control items, and pistols for emergency use,  were met by a mob attacking them with metal poles, knives, chairs, firebombs, and possibly guns before the Commandos ever touched the deck of the ship. One Commando was thrown overboard and seriously injured, 6 Israeli’s were injured in total and 10 Activists were killed.

In the wake of this event Israel has been villianized for defending it’s legal blockade and several calls have gone up for further blockade running attempts. One website fundraising for another Flotilla Blockade running attempt is US to Gaza. Their website states:

Dear Friends,

This is an important moment in history. In the aftermath of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla massacre and increased world-wide scrutiny of Israel’s blockade of Gaza, the Israeli government has mounted a huge public relations campaign spreading the lie that by letting a few more items into Gaza the blockade has been lifted. This is not the reality. Gaza is still under siege, vital building materials and other supplies are banned, exports of goods from Gaza are denied and neither ships nor people can travel without permission from Israel, permission which Israel will not give. Gaza is essentially an open-air prison under a U.S.-backed Israeli blockade.

We are planning to launch a U.S. boat to Gaza, joining a flotilla of ships from Europe, Canada, India, South Africa and parts of the Middle East due to set sail in September/ October of this year. In order to succeed in this essential but costly human rights project, we need significant financial support.

Citizens around the world have responded to the plight of the Palestinian people and are taking action to help break the blockade which is suffocating the lives of the people of Gaza and denying them their liberty. The U.S. government is complicit through established policies that uncritically support Israel in its brutal attack on the Palestinian people and on those who attempt to intervene on their behalf. We in the United States must continue to step up and do our part. We must join with others from across the world to support an end to the collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza.

We turn to you to help make the U.S. boat, The Audacity of Hope, a reality. We must raise at least $370,000 in the next month. These funds will be used to purchase a boat large enough for 40-60 people, secure a crew, and cover the licensing and registering of the boat. In addition, the funds will subsidize some other costs of sending a U.S. delegation. We can make this happen together. For example, with 370 people giving $1,000, or with 3,700 people giving $100, we will have raised our full amount.

We have already received donations ranging from $10 to $10,000. So, give what you can and give generously. From the deck of The Audacity of Hope, we will be in a powerful and unique position to challenge U.S. foreign policy and affirm the universal obligation to uphold human rights and international law. Let us act now because every moment counts and every dollar counts. Together we will contribute to the great effort to end the blockade of Gaza and the illegal occupation of Palestine.

So in addition to lying and omitting information about the incident, They are raising money to build a ship they will name after one of President Obama’s books, “The Audacity of Hope” which they will use to attempt breaking the legal blockade of the Gaza Strip.

One name on the list of contributors for this project stands out, Rashid Khalidi. Rashid Khalidi is currently a college professor at Colombia University and is a personal friend of Barack Obama. Before his teaching days from 1970 to 1983 he had extremely close ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), which the United States considered a terrorist organization. The American Spectator Explains:

While living in Lebanon from the early 1970s through 1983 (where the PLO was based at the time), Khalidi was frequently cited in the press as being close to the organization, and he even used the word “we” while speaking on the group’s behalf. He was described as a “director” of Wafa, the PLO’s official news agency, and he thanked Arafat for research assistance in the preface of one of his books. In 1991, Khalidi was part of the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid peace talks with Israel — by his own account, he did so at the request of the PLO.

The article goes on to list several quotes and instances Rashid Khalidi worked for & with the PLO including mentioning his roles with them in his book, “Palestinian Identity”

Defining Rashid Khalidi himself is difficult. He knows the boundaries and dances back and forth across the lines. He is obviously Pro-Palestinian and Anti-Israel. How far he takes it is difficult to determine. To show what I mean here are excerpts from a transcript of MSNBC’s Scarborough Country which aired on August 29, 2003

SCARBOROUGH: And tonight, we’re spotlighting Columbia University, where the Middle East Studies Department has been criticized for hiring outspoken opponents of American and Israeli policy. Now, some Israeli supporters are concerned that Columbia has just appointed Rashid Khalidi, a fervent opponent of Israel, to the anonymously endowed Edward Said Chair.

With me now, Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi, and Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum. Professor, let me begin with you and just ask you to defend yourself against these charges that you are anti-American or that you are anti-Israeli.

RASHID KHALIDI, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Well, I don’t think I should have to defend myself. The charges themselves are scurrilous and the people who are making them are not very reputable themselves. I am somebody whose record and what I’ve written is well known. I’m somebody who thinks that the United States has made some mistakes in the Middle East and that these are things that are not in the best interest of the United States or the American people.

And the kind of people who would call critics of this or that policy unpatriotic or un-American, I think, are doing the United States and the people of the United States a terrible disservice.

SCARBOROUGH: Fair enough, Professor.

KHALIDI: So I don’t think I really need to defend myself at all.

SCARBOROUGH: OK, well, let me bring up a quote or two and have you respond to these quotes and whether you think they are being misinterpreted. This is what you said in a speech in June: “Israel has killed three times as many innocent civilians as have Palestinians, for all the media hysteria about suicide bombers. Killing civilians is a war crime, whoever does it, although resistance to Israeli occupation is legitimate in international law.” [DP addition: this quote derives in part from Adam Daifallah, “Said Chair At Columbia Also Backed By Saudis: Hauser Helped Fund Professor of Hate,” The New York Sun, July 23, 2003]

Now, Professor, it sounds like you are saying there very much that suicide bombings, like the tragic one last week that killed quite a few young children, are legitimate in international law. Do you agree or disagree with that?

KHALIDI: Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

SCARBOROUGH: You do not believe that?

KHALIDI: Absolutely. That is not what I said and that’s not even what the New York Post, which is notorious for making mistakes on things like this, said. What I said and what I believe is that killing civilians, in any manner, form, or shape, is a war crime, is a violation of international law. The massacre of innocent children by suicide bombers is, in my view, a war crime. And that is what I said in the speech that was taken out of context in that New York Post article.

KHALIDI: What I went on to say is that, in international law, in a situation where you have military occupation, resistance against that occupation is, under international law, considered legitimate. That is a far cry from suicide bombs or attacks on civilians, which are, as far as I’m concerned and as far as international law is concerned, war crimes.

SCARBOROUGH: All right, Daniel Pipes, the professor sounds very reasonable. But there’s been a big stir that he and other Columbia professors actually believe that suicide bombings are legitimate political expressions. Has the professor gotten a bad rap or do you really believe that he is anti-Israeli?

DANIEL PIPES, MIDDLE EAST FORUM: Well, the question isn’t whether he’s pro-Israeli or anti, Joe. The question is, what is he justifying? And he did justify violence against those in occupation.

So my question for Mr. Khalidi is, are Israelis living within the Green Line occupiers or are they legitimate citizens of a state whose existence you accept?

KHALIDI: I don’t really think I have to answer questions from the like of Daniel Pipes. But what I would say is that any Israeli living within Israel, the legitimate borders of the state of Israel, yet to be defined, because there has not yet been a treaty defining them—but everybody accepts that Israel is a state, has legitimacy within certain frontiers yet to be defined, presumably the Green Line—those people obviously should be immune from attack. There is no question that civilians inside Israel, civilians anywhere in the world should not be attacked.

And I don’t quite understand why the likes of Mr. Pipes is being put on television to question me. I would ask Mr. Pipes, how does he feel about the killing of Palestinian civilians by Israeli occupation forces? What does he feel about the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation that has gone on for several decades?

SCARBOROUGH: Mr. Pipes, Mr. Pipes, obviously, you are an outspoken critic of Hamas and the Palestinians. Answer that question.

PIPES: Well, I regret every time any Palestinian is killed who is innocent. That goes without question. But I have a second question for Mr. Khalidi. And I know he doesn’t want to take it, but I will ask it anyway. How about the children and innocents who are living outside of the Green Line? Is it OK to murder them or is …

KHALIDI: I would argue that the killing of civilians anywhere, under any circumstances, is a war crime.

PIPES: Good.

SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second right there. I think that answers the question.

And, professor, you said the New York Post misquoted you. I want to read you another quote and see if this is also a misquote, because I think you have answered your charges thus far very eloquently. There was, of course, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who you supposedly called “a fanatic, extreme right-wing Zionist.” You said that Israel is a “racist” state with an “apartheid system” and that America has been “brainwashed” by Israel. Now, did you say those things, yes or no? And if you did say them, do you believe that American politicians have been brainwashed by Israel?

KHALIDI: I have to tell you, Joe, I don’t recognize any one of those quotes.


KHALIDI: I do think—let me answer your question. I do think that we are in the unfortunate situation of having an administration in which, instead of people who have real expertise about the Middle East being called upon, people in the Central Intelligence Agency, people in the Defense Intelligence Agency, people in the State Department, we have a bunch of ideologues, a bunch of people who follow one narrow political philosophy and who, generally speaking, couldn’t find their way from the airport to the Hilton without a minder in most Middle East capitals, in the office of the secretary of defense, in the vice president’s office, leading us around by the nose.

Now, some of these people are extreme American nationalists. Some of these people are virulent supporters of Israel. And some of these people are supporters of other philosophies.

KHALIDI: I think that they are leading us down the garden path. And I think that their policy on the Palestine-Israel question and their policy on Iraq is mistaken. And we can see the fruits of it before our eyes.

SCARBOROUGH: OK, I am glad you said that, Professor, because I’ve got to tell you, one of the things that frustrates me so much is, I hear people saying how right-wing, how fanatical, high Zionist this administration is. But if that’s the case, then forget just this administration. Why have Bill Clinton and George Bush so aggressively tried to create a Palestinian state, have set up—I mean, George Bush was attacked by his own right-wing when he tried to set up his road map for peace. And it seems like, every time we start taking those first steps toward Palestinian statehood, Hamas detonates another bomb and blows the peace process up. What’s happening there?

KHALIDI: I think what’s happening there is, MSNBC and ABC and all the rest of you are not doing a very good job of covering what goes on. Hamas and the Israeli army are engaged in a very deadly dance. The fact that Hamas is attacking Israelis—which, in my view, is reprehensible—I am a much more severe critic of Hamas than Mr. Pipes is—is not the whole issue. It is part of the issue. They are working to derail efforts that would take them away from the center of politics, but so is the Israeli army.

You guys never quoted the Israeli minister of defense, when he said: We have to show the Palestinians. We have to make them understand that they are a defeated people. You never quote Israeli journalists who talk about how the policy of assassination is provoking these hideous suicide bombings. I think that you all are not doing a very good job of covering the Middle East, frankly. You repeat the same little bits again and again, the same little bits of conventional wisdom. You have the likes of Mr. Pipes on. But you don’t really show exactly who, not just Hamas, but also, for example, the Israeli army or the settlers, are working against this road map and working against a settlement.

SCARBOROUGH: We are running out of time.

PIPES: Quickly, can I add something?

SCARBOROUGH: I’ve got to have a quick response from you, Mr. Pipes. Then we’ve got to go.

PIPES: Mr. Khalidi denied calling Paul Wolfowitz “a fanatical, extreme, right-wing Zionist.”

PIPES: Let me give the reference for it, Mr. Khalidi. It was an article called “Bush Winds Back U.S. Policy,” Australian Financial Review, February 8, 2001. Your viewers can go see it. Mr. Khalidi is, as usual, not quite fully telling the truth.

Mr. Khalidi plays word games. Whenever he openly speaks radically, and is quoted as saying such, he immediately claims he was misquoted, or has no idea what your reffering too. In public he claims to be anti violence, but every once in a while he states a true opinion. He does skirt the line in his Anti-Israel stance. In this video he implies that the Israeli “Occupation” of the Gaza Strip is the same as a Nazi Police State through description, without actually saying it. Shrewd indeed.

In his New York Times Opinion Editorial titled: “What You Don’t Know About Gaza” he states that any loss of life is tragic, even as he blames Israel for any continuaton of violence because they maintain the Gaza blockade, even while admitting the rocket attacks against Israel declined but did not stop.

During the 2008 campaign Rashid Khalidi became an issue due to very close ties to Obama.  In an LA Times article titled “Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama” they detail just how close this relationship is:

A special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, 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.”

Several attempts to bring this information to light were made by the McCain Campaign as well as the fact that The Woods Fund Foundation (which was chaired by Barack Obama and William (Bill) Ayers) gave the Arab American Action Network (run by Khalidi and his wife) Several thousand dollars over years. Here’s a Hannity special on Rashi Khalidi

However the left wing media worked to make the Khalidi connection disappear, and they had a smoking gun. While the McCain campaign was demanding the LA Times release a video of the goodbye party for Rashid Khalidi where Senator Obama stated how close they were, The liberal media uncovered that McCain too had a financial connection to Rashid Khalidi and ridiculed the Obama-Khalidi connection out of existence. I give you the ever wonderful Keith Olberman.

Even though several calls for the tape to be released of Obama at the Khalidi goodbye diner were made, and even a substantial reward was offered, the tape was never released. The fact that McCain too financed a Khalidi group forced the McCain campaign to drop the issue.

Rashid Khalidi is anti-Israel. He admits it. He admits how radical he is, then backpedals and claims it’s a misquote. You can see those dinner table chats with Rashid Khalidi coming out in Obama’s foreign policy with Israel. And now Mr. Khalidi has contributed funds to build a ship, which will attempt to illegally break through the Israeli blockade,  named after a book written by Barack Obama.  Mr. Khalidi however denies knowing the name of the ship according to The Washington Post:

The news of Khalidi’s involvement in the boat has already led the National Review to call for a Justice Department probe of the academic for providing material support of a terror group.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment. In response to an e-mail asking whether the appeal is embarrassing to the president, Khalidi said that he was not aware the boat would be named after Obama’s book when he agreed to add his name to the list of sponsors.

“But if the name is a problem for the administration, it can simply insist publicly that Israel lift the siege: end of problem, end of embarrassment,” he wrote, “That of course would require it to respond to the systematic mendacity of those in Congress and elsewhere who support the siege, and indeed whatever else the Israeli government does.”

Khalidi added: “I signed because the siege/blockade of Gaza, which is effectively supported by the United States, is a disgrace. I support the idea because it may cause the media to pay attention to the effective imprisonment and collective punishment of 1.5 million people who by the admission of Israeli officials, are being subjected to this ordeal in order to bring down their government. As the Goldstone Report suggested, this may rise to the level of a war crime, in which our country is complicit. That is truly embarrassing.”

Regardless of whether or not he knew the ships name, he is fully aware of the last flotilla’s actions and is now helping fund a new one. Once again supporting violence without saying he is supporting violence. Yet any ship that approaches Gaza, and refuses to stop and change course, will inevitably be met with violence. Israel is saving Israeli lives by enforcing their legal blockade, and people like Rashid Khalidi force Israel to respond with force in order to keep the peace.

Many Private-Sector Employees May Be Independent Contractors Soon

The last eighteen months have been the most traumatic to America’s businesses community ever.  The Obama administration started out by bashing those who run companies and those who invest in them: CEOs and Bankers.  Oddly enough, now those two demographics are a little punch drunk and unable to do what the American economy needs: make money, invest, grow, hire.


In the eyes of corporate America, President Barack Obama relied on a healthy dose of industry-bashing to sway votes in Congress for health reform and the new Wall Street regulations signed into law Wednesday.  Now those efforts threaten to undermine the one agenda item essential to Democrats’ hopes in the midterms and Obama’s chances for reelection: turning around an economy still just a half step out of recession.  Some corporate leaders said Obama’s comments prove that he’s hostile to business. Others cited corporate fears of a credit crunch as banks comply with financial reform or the possibility of significant tax hikes if the Bush administration tax cuts are allowed to expire.  But it all adds up to a lack of confidence in Obama among some in corporate America — and that’s fueling a reluctance among executives from Wall Street to Main Street to deploy their large cash reserves to make new investments and hire new workers.

And the Daily Caller chimes in on the tone-deafness of Obama’s circle of anti-business cronies:

“By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses,” said Seidenberg, who had been one of Obama’s strongest allies in the business world up to that point.

General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt said around the same time that “government and entrepreneurs are not in synch,” and said the Obama White House and business leaders were not getting along.

By early July, the charge that Obama is anti-business had become a mainstream idea, with everyone from Newsweek to speakers at the Aspen Ideas Festival voicing doubts about whether the president understands markets and their interaction with government policy.

If the Obama administration’s attitude wasn’t enough to get businesses to re-think their hiring and investment strategies (yes, of course hiring is a form of investment – but progressives might read this and it must be explained), he went on a wreck-loose, anti-business revolution via massive government reforms.

First, health care reform.  This legislation puts massive new responsibilities on companies – companies that really just want to make money, expand, hire, invest, make more money.  Now they have to mind how much insurance and what kind of insurance their employees have or pay a penalty.

If health care reform didn’t put business owners over the edge, how about this idiotic push by Congress.  According to an article at, Obama and his lackeys are forcing companies to report how much they pay each employee broken down by race, gender, national origin – heck BMI may not be far away.  This is intended to force fairer pay practices, but as usual with government overreach, will do the opposite.

The same CNSNews piece continues:

But critics charge that the Paycheck Fairness Act will be harmful to small businesses and the economy. The National Association of Manufacturers issued a statement about the bill in April.

“The Paycheck Fairness Act, which purports to prevent instances of illegal gender-based discrimination, could outlaw many legitimate practices employers use to set employee pay rates, even where there is no evidence of intentional discrimination and employers act with reasonable belief that their pay policies are lawful,” the statement said.

“Manufacturers strongly oppose unlawful discrimination in any form, but the Paycheck Fairness Act would impose unparalleled government control over how employees are paid, among even the nation’s smallest businesses,” it added.

“It would drastically alter the Equal Pay Act to allow unprecedented penalties of unlimited punitive and compensatory damages in cases of alleged discrimination,” the statement said.

James Sherk, Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy in the Center for Data Analysis at conservative The Heritage Foundation, said that the law would be a boon to trial lawyers seeking damages from employers for their clients and would allow the courts to “micro-manage” American businesses.

Unionization has been an issue for quite some time.  Their demands for outlandish benefits and ridiculous compensation has put a stranglehold on American industry.  Independent contractors may represent a way to weaken the those organizations.  Why would businesses collectively bargain with a union when a hungry contractor will certainly take a contract over a promise?

A good businessman or woman knows that success is all about adapting to change.  The government assumes that the only changes a business will make are those that their newest shiny tax or rule intended.  Fortunately for the economy entrepreneurs are in business to make money, not make the government happy.  So what will businesses do?

Adapt – and as usual, not in the way the government intended – I believe they will be increasingly going to go to contract labor models.

Contract labor changes the relationship between the consumer of services and the producer.  In standard employment situations, the relationship is employer-employee.  For contract labor, the business becomes the client and the worker is now the business.  According to the IRS, it uses three characteristics to determine if the relationship between two entities is employer-employee or client-contractor:

Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?

Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)

Type of Relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?

Businesses must weigh all these factors when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Some factors may indicate that the worker is an employee, while other factors indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. There is no “magic” or set number of factors that “makes” the worker an employee or an independent contractor, and no one factor stands alone in making this determination. Also, factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another.

Why would business choose this model?  First, overall costs for contract labor are estimated to be 20-30% less than an equivalent employee.  Consider what a business provides to or pays for employees:

  • Social Security taxes (6.2% up to the annual maximum)
  • Medicare taxes (1.45% of wages)
  • Federal unemployment taxes (FUTA)
  • State unemployment taxes (SUTA)
  • Social Security (Employee pays 6.2%)
  • Social Security (Employer pays 6.2%)
  • Medicare (Employee pays 1.45%)
  • Medicare (Employer pays 1.45%)
  • health care insurance (soon to be required)
  • worker’s compensation
  • tools, computers, facilities

For independent contractors businesses supply:

  1. Only what is stipulated in a negotiated contract

In some cases, like Fed Ex, the trucks are actually leased or purchased from fed ex by the operators.  Imagine that model where you work.  Lease your computer, tools, fax machine, etc.  Nothing prevents it other than those IRS characteristics mentioned earlier.

Granted, for critical business functions, a company may not choose the volatility the independent contractors represent.  If there is even the hint that the relationship is indefinite, the IRS may very deem the contractor as mis-classified and demand back taxes.

From a purely theoretical position this sounds plausible but expected, right?  Guess again: reported

Chicago-based payroll company SurePayroll, which releases a monthly “scorecard” based on data from more than 25,000 U.S. small businesses, calculates small business contracting grew 19 percent last year while staff hiring grew only 3.4 percent. “There was a much greater percentage growth in contractors than there was in the overall small businesses,” says SurePayroll President Michael Alter.

Examples of Companies that went independent contractor:


Fed Ex

In closing, note that the IRS has noticed and has become fond of this new model as well


“It’s easier and quicker to audit smaller businesses”

For decades the IRS has played a game of find-the-freelancer at businesses where independent contractors remain on the payroll for months or even years. Companies, especially small ones, increasingly rely on such workers because they offer greater flexibility—and because they’re cheaper. Employers can save as much as 30% on wages by avoiding payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation coverage, and benefits they provide regular employees.

Now both the IRS and state agencies across the country are redoubling efforts to uncover long-term “temps.” In February the IRS launched a three-year program that will examine 6,000 companies to find permanent workers misclassified as freelancers in violation of the Tax Code. President Obama’s proposed 2011 budget includes funding for 100 additional federal staffers to pursue such cases, and it would repeal a 32-year-old rule allowing companies in industries ranging from construction to health care to legally classify long-term employees as independent contractors. What’s more, a 2008 initiative linking the computer systems of various agencies makes it easier for the IRS and states to share data on how companies classify employees.

The only question is how will businesses adapt to this government action?

« Older Entries