Author Archives: John Smith (twitter: @StopObama2012)

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 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

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.

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.

Cap & Trade, Crime Inc, and Maurice Strong

Harry Reid is once again working on a Climate Change/Cap & Trade/ Energy/Pollution Bill and Obama just wanted to remind you what to expect:

That’s right, “Prices will necessarily skyrocket.” And that’s just the minimum you can expect from this oh so wonderous 20 lbs. of legislation. According to Politico:

Reid confirmed the bill will have four parts: an oil spill response; a clean-energy and job-creation title based on work done in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; a tax package from the Senate Finance Committee; and a section that deals with greenhouse gas emissions from the electric utility industry.
Underscoring the delicate nature of the issue, Reid insisted that the proposal he will introduce in about 10 days should not be called a cap-and-trade plan or even a cap on emissions.
“I don’t use that,” he said. “Those words are not in my vocabulary. We’re going to work on pollution.”
In other words, It’s Cap & Trade with another Progressive name change. This will be the most lifestyle affecting legislation in history and will force an unprecedented change on each and every single American. This is quite simply a lifestyle killer, a job killer, a free enterprise killer, and an economy killer. This will be the final blow to our economy and our liberty.
I will explain below, but first you need to meet the man behind the scenes, Maurice Strong.
Maurice Strong is a very powerful Billionaire. He is also currently on the Chicago Climate Exchange Board of Directors, a silent partner in Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management Company, the “godfather of the U.N.’s 1997 Kyoto treaty”, and so much more. Here you can find an extensive dossier by DiscoverTheNetworks.Org.

Here is Maurice Strong in a 1972 BBC Interview:

That’s right, all around Climate Change fear mongering, Global Governance, and licenses for babies due to “over population”

The main thing you need to know about Maurice Strong is his plan, because Obama is following it to the letter. In the following book excerpt you can see the plan take shape, part disguised as an idea for a novel:

This is taken from Chapter 24 of The Creature from Jekyll Island © 2002 by G. Edward Griffin


The use of compulsion is an important point in these plans. People in the industrialized nations are not expected to cooperate in their own demise. They will have to be forced. They will not like it when their food is taken for global distribution. They will not approve when they are taxed by a world authority to finance foreign political projects. They will not voluntarily give up their cars or resettle into smaller houses or communal barracks to satisfy the resource-allocation quotas of a UN agency. Club-of-Rome member Maurice Strong states the problem:

In effect, the United States is committing environmental aggression against the rest of the world. … At the military level, the United States is the custodian. At the environmental level, the United States is clearly the greatest risk. … One of the worst problems in the United States is energy prices – they’re too low. …

It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class … involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and `convenience’ foods, ownership of motor-vehicles, numerous electric household appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning … expansive suburban housing … are not sustainable.

Mr. Strong’s remarks were enthusiastically received by world environmental leaders, but they prompted this angry editorial response in the Arizona Republic:

Translated from eco-speak, this means two things: (1) a reduction in the standard of living in Western nations through massive new taxes and regulations, and (2) a wholesale transfer of wealth from industrialized to under-developed countries. The dubious premise here is that if the U.S. economy could be reduced to, say, the size of Malaysia’s, the world would be a better place. … Most Americans probably would balk at the idea of the U.N. banning automobiles in the U.S.


Maurice Strong believes – or says that he believes – the world’s ecosystems can be preserved only if the affluent nations of the world can be disciplined into lowering their standard of living. Production and consumption must be curtailed. To bring that about, those nations must submit to rationing, taxation, and political domination by world government. They will probably not do that voluntarily, he says, so they will have to be forced. To accomplish that, it will be necessary to engineer a global monetary crisis which will destroy their economic systems. Then they will have no choice but to accept assistance and control from the UN.

This strategy was revealed in the May, 1990, issue of West magazine, published in Canada. In an article entitled “The Wizard of Baca Grande,” journalist Daniel Wood described his week-long experience at Strong’s private ranch in southern Colorado. This ranch has been visited by such CFR notables as David Rockefeller, Secretary-of-State Henry Kissinger, founder of the World Bank Robert McNamara, and the presidents of such organizations as IBM, Pan Am, and Harvard.

During Wood’s stay at the ranch, the tycoon talked freely about environmentalism and politics. To express his own world view, he said he was planning to write a novel about a group of world leaders who decided to save the planet. As the plot unfolded, it became obvious that it was based on real people and real events. Wood continues the story:

Each year, he explains as background to the telling of the novel’s plot, the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead. With this as a setting, he then says: “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? … The group’s conclusion is `no.’ the rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? …

“This group of world leaders,” he continues, “form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can’t close. The rich countries…” And Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out the window.

I sit there spellbound. This is not any storyteller talking, this is Maurice Strong. He knows these world leaders. He is, in fact, co-chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He is in a position to do it.

“I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this,” he says.

And there you have the plan. In order to” save the world” we must bring the most industrialized nations to their knees and force them to be ruled under Global Governance and redistribute wealth in the form of Carbon Credits.

Harry Reid’s Energy Bill will target power plant emissions according to the New York Times:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is drafting legislation to limit carbon emissions at the nation’s power plants, a risky political maneuver that faces divisions within his own party and a Senate clock that is quickly winding down.

Reid (D-Nev.) will place the contentious carbon provision in a broader energy bill that tightens rules around offshore oil drilling, encourages clean energy production and jobs, and reduces oil consumption — things that might be difficult for some lawmakers to oppose.

According to America’ “Half of the electricity that heats our homes, lights our schools, and powers our businesses comes from coal.”

By placing a tax on Coal Power Plants they will be forced to either go bankrupt, as Obama stated, or simply produce less electricity. That’s half of the electricity in the United States gone or severely cut. From this alone you can expect “skyrocketing” prices due to supply and demand, as well as energy rationing, and rolling blackouts. There simply won’t be enough electricity available for everyone, even if you can afford it.

But don’t take my word for it, let’s look at the UK. In an Article titled “Blackout Britain Faces Big Turnoff” the Express.Co.UK  explains that green hysteria is causing disruptions in their power grid:

BRITAIN faces years of blackouts and soaring electricity bills because of the drive toward green power, a leading energy expert warned last night. A growing obsession with global warming and “renewable” sources threatens the stability of our supply.

Derek Birkett, a former Grid Control Engineer who has a lifetime’s experience in electricity supply throughout Britain, warned that the cost of the crisis could match that of the recent banking collapse. And he claimed that renewable energy expectations were now nothing more than “dangerous illusions” which would hit  consumers hard in the pocket.

“We are going to pay a very heavy price for the fact there has been a catalogue of neglect by the former Government which has focused on renewable energy sources,” Mr Birkett said.

“We need a mix of sources and this takes time. Renewables have the problem of being intermittent, particularly wind, and we need more back-up capacity. By having all our sources in one basket we are risking disruption.

“There is a lot of over-enthusiasm by governments to push global warming, which makes me very suspicious.” Less than five per cent of our energy comes from renewable sources but the “disproportionate” cost of implementing green technology runs into many millions of pounds, he said.

In a new book, When Will the Lights Go Out, published this month, Mr Birkett claims things will only get worse. He said the “lavish incentives” being offered to developers of green energy are being passed on to customers as the UK struggles to meet EU directives on carbon emissions.

He also warned that a growing reliance on renewable energy is creating widespread uncertainty in the electricity supply chain.

With many nuclear power stations and coal plants ending their lives and being taken out of service we “can’t rule out” people being left without power. The real problem is the cost of making sure this does not happen, and Britain’s lights “do not go out”, he warned.

“The country is going to have to make a choice whether to go along with green ideas of renewable generation or go back to coal and nuclear power.”

We too will have high prices, blackouts, and insane carbon standards. Any “Green Energy” currently available is intermittent and not dependable. Due to this American Manufacturing will suffer. If they are able to get the electricity to be productive, the trickle down affect will in turn skyrocket the price of American made merchandise. Factories will close. Businesses will cut costs by layoffs or simply close up shop. Small and Large Business will fail. If you have an electric car, you can’t afford the electricity to charge it, if any is available. You certainly can’t afford the gas prices for a traditional car, not to mention whatever emissions penalties they tie to it. No more air conditioning. No more liberty. The economy will fail. They will claim the Free Market failed.

Maurice Strong, who will make a fortune through trading Carbon Credits at the CCX, will have seen his plan come to fruition through Obama, and delight at the fall of the US economy. Obama will use this failure to enact his Marxist Plan and Nationalize all business and industry in order to save the U.S. from the “Free Market” All in the name of the greatest scam in the world, Climate Change/Global Warming

Follow StopObama2012 and Conservative Daily News on Twitter

Check out CDN’s Cap and Trade Section

Welcome to Obama’s Nanny State

In a post for Conservative Refocus I wrote about the Obama Administration and control. There are many more examples that must be brought to the attention of the American Public. Here’s a video on some of the more spectacular medical suprises that were within the Health Care Bill which was passed and is now law.

and here are several articles on much more including general provisions, Tax changes,  marriage penalties, Menu labels for chain restaurants and vending machines,  Breastfeeding rooms, Student Loan takeover, and “Home Visits”.

In addition to the above goodies the law also contained provisions for a type of Private Army. Judge Andrew Napalitano explains:

So to recap we have a forced system of HealthCare, controlled by the Federal Government, that will provide care to illegal aliens, ration care and procedures for all,  mandate all American Citizens (as a condition of citizenship) purchase a healthcare plan, and promote euthanasia for the elderly.

This law also creates a paramilitary force, gives the President authority to control the National Guard of the individual states even absent a war. This is unprecedented and must not be taken lightly.

The nanny state provisions for “Home Visits” and mandating restaurant and vending machine labels should not be overlooked. The Obama Administration is trying to regulate every aspect of our lives. As explained by CNS News our individual BMI index is being recorded and kept in the new mandated Electronic Health Records.  Also consider Barack Obama’s Executive Order titled Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council with the purpose of:

(a) provide coordination and leadership at the Federal level, and among all executive departments and agencies, with respect to prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices, the public health system, and integrative health care in the United States;

(b) develop, after obtaining input from relevant stakeholders, a national prevention, health promotion, public health, and integrative health-care strategy that incorporates the most effective and achievable means of improving the health status of Americans and reducing the incidence of preventable illness and disability in the United States, as further described in section 5 of this order;

(c) provide recommendations to the President and the Congress concerning the most pressing health issues confronting the United States and changes in Federal policy to achieve national wellness, health promotion, and public health goals, including the reduction of tobacco use, sedentary behavior, and poor nutrition;

(d) consider and propose evidence-based models, policies, and innovative approaches for the promotion of transformative models of prevention, integrative health, and public health on individual and community levels across the United States;

(e) establish processes for continual public input, including input from State, regional, and local leadership communities and other relevant stakeholders, including Indian tribes and tribal organizations;

and then Sec. 5. National Prevention and Health Promotion Strategy.

Not later than March 23, 2011, the Chair, in consultation with the Council, shall develop and make public a national prevention, health promotion, and public health strategy (national strategy), and shall review and revise it periodically. The national strategy shall:

(a) set specific goals and objectives for improving the health of the United States through federally supported prevention, health promotion, and public health programs, consistent with ongoing goal setting efforts conducted by specific agencies;

(b) establish specific and measurable actions and timelines to carry out the strategy, and determine accountability for meeting those timelines, within and across Federal departments and agencies; and

(c) make recommendations to improve Federal efforts relating to prevention, health promotion, public health, and integrative health-care practices to ensure that Federal efforts are consistent with available standards and evidence.

The nanny state in writing. They will come up with legislation to force you to be healthy by overtaxation of items they are against, (cigarettes, etc) or simply outlaw it like the Progressives did with the prohibition of alcohol from 1920 to 1933.

This is a nudge. The Federal Government controls healthcare and will ration it in a Communist manner. “From each according to his abilitiy, to each according to his need.”  If you smoke, if you exceed your BMI, if you are elderly, you go to the bottom of the list for treatment or, as Obama says, “Maybe your better off not having the surgery but taking a pain pill.”

Add these provisions from the Health Care law to the provisions of the Executive Order and you can see the Nanny State forming around us, replacing liberty with a lack of options and oppressive and invasive regulations. Cities, States, and school districts have already begun to act on these provisions and more. California has been the leader banning trans fatssoda’s from schools, and  Happy Meal toys. New York has even attempted to ban salt. Massachusetts schools have begun to send home with kids “Fat Reports” in order to inform parents that their children are obese.

What would the Nanny State be without instructions? Enter Thats right you now have direct instructions from the Federal Government on how to be a daddy including:

Gather your already read books and donate them to a local library, school, or shelter. The books will be enjoyed again, you will reinforce to your children the value of reading, and they will gain a better understanding of the importance of giving to others.
Turn off the water while you brush your teeth in the morning and before bedtime. You can save up to eight gallons of water a day.
Many electronic devices and appliances use power even when they’re switched off or not in use. You can save money and energy by unplugging items when they aren’t being used.
Earth-friendly cleaning products are widely available and are kinder to our air and water. Or you can make your own cleaning supplies with white vinegar, lemons, baking soda, and other basics you probably have in your kitchen already. Check online or at your local library for the step-by-step of cleaning green.
Bike or walk to a park, trail, or other outdoor spot. Leaving the car at home will reduce carbon emissions and you will add exercise to your day without even trying.
For Father’s Day, let your family know you would like to share a family activity rather than receive gifts. Instead of collecting another tie, take photos of yourself and your children enjoying your time together. Eliminating wrapping paper and taking digital photos generate less waste on dad’s special day.
Take a break from the summer heat with a craft project you and your children can work on together indoors or in the shade. Gather magazines, newspapers, fabrics, and other materials that are scheduled to be thrown away and turn them into attractive and useful items such as greeting cards you can send to family and friends.
Visit a farmers market or farm where you can pick your own produce. Locally grown fruits and vegetables do not need to be shipped, which contributes to reducing carbon emissions. Before your trip, go online with your children to find out what is in season in your area and how you can use those items in putting together a fresh, healthy dinner menu.
Bring your own bag to the grocery store. You probably can pack more items per bag and many stores offer a discount for using your own bag. Repurpose old backpacks, handbags, and tote bags you already have at home.
Instead of buying Halloween costumes, help your children create them using items you already have at home. Or ask a group of friends to join you in swapping (recycling!) costumes the kids wore for previous Halloweens.
Buy compact florescent light (CFL) bulbs, which last about 5 years and use less energy. Switching just one standard bulb to a CFL can help you reduce your electricity bill by as much as 75 cents per month.
In 2008, Americans spent nearly $11 billion on more than 8 billion gallons of bottled water, and then tossed more than 22 billion empty plastic bottles in the trash. Instead of buying bottled water, use a water filter on your tap and keep a pitcher of filtered water in your refrigerator to fill a reusable bottle.

Welcome to Obama’s Socialist Nanny State where parents mean nothing and the state rules all. Since you can’t think for yourself the Government will provide instructions. Since you can’t keep your kids skinny we will embarass them with a “Fat Report” as we take away happy meal toys since you parents are just to irresponsible to say “No” to your children. Since you can’t eat responsibly we are just going to take everything away, no salt, no trans fat, no options for you. If you don’t get that BMI in gear “Mom” little Timmy goes to the bottom of the transplant list, but don’t worry, here’s a pain pill.

Defining Obama – In His Own Words

With the current decision of the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice regarding the charges being dropped against the New Black Panther Party because, according to whistleblower J. Christian Adams there was a policy handed down by an Obama admin political appointee that there would be no prosecution of voter intimidation in any cases where black individuals or groups are intimidating white voters. J. Christian Adams quit his job because he could not accept this miscarriage of justice based on any skin color. With such charges against the Obama Administration we must take another look at Obama and his own words in order to determine his stance on racial issues and other policies.

First lets go back to his books and take a look. I include the quotes in entirety to avoid being accused of “Cherry Picking”

I compile these book quotes from Snopes and :

Dreams of My Father: Introduction: (p. xv)

When people who don’t know me well, black or white, discover my background (and it is usually a discovery, for I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites), I see the split-second adjustments they have to make, the searching of my eyes for some telltale sign. They no longer know who I am. Privately, they guess at my troubled heart, I suppose – the mixed blood, the divided soul, the ghostly image of the tragic mulatto trapped between two worlds. And if I were to explain that no, the tragedy is not mine, or at least not mine alone, it is yours, sons and daughters of Plymouth Rock and Ellis Island, it is yours, children of Africa, it is the tragedy of both my wife’s six-year-old cousin and his white first grade classmates, so that you need not guess at what troubles me, it’s on the nightly news for all to see, and that if we could acknowledge at least that much then the tragic cycle begins to break down…well, I suspect that I sound incurably naive, wedded to lost hopes, like those Communists who peddle their newspapers on the fringes of various college towns. Or worse, I sound like I’m trying to hide from myself.

This tells me he was ashamed to admit he was both white and black and was at war with himself. He resented the part of him that was white and how white kids and people treated him because it, and chose to hide it.

Dreams of My Father (Pgs 100-101)

She was a good looking woman, Joyce was with her green eyes and honey skin and pouty lips. We lived in the same dorm room my freshman year, and all the brothers were after her. One day I asked her if she was going to the Black Students’ Association meeting. She looked at me funny, then started shaking her head like a baby who doesn’t want what it sees on the spoon.

“I’m not black,” Joyce said. “I’m multiracial.” Then she started telling me about her father, who happened to be Italian and was the sweetest man in the world; and her mother, who happened to be part African and part French and part Native American and part something else. “Why should I have to choose between them?” she asked me. Her voice cracked, and I thought she was going to cry. “It’s not white people who are making me choose. Maybe it used to be that way, but now they’re willing to treat a person. No – it’s black people who always have to make everything racial. They’re the ones making me choose. They’re the ones telling me I can’t be who I am…”

They, they, they. That was the problem with people like Joyce. They talked about the richness of their multicultural heritage and it sounded real good, until you noticed that they avoided black people…

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints. We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated. But this strategy alone couldn’t provide the distance I wanted, from Joyce or my past. After all, there were thousands of so-called campus radicals, most of them white and tenured and happily tolerated. No, it remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.”

In the end he proved Joyce right, he made it about race and chose “loyalty to the black masses”. He admits “happily tolerating” whites but only those that fit his Communist goals.

Dreams of My Father (pgs. 141-142)

I had all but given up on organizing when I recieved a call from Marty Kaufman. He explained that he’d started an organizing drive in Chicago and was looking to hire a trainee. He’d be in New York the following week and suggested that we meet at a coffee shop on Lexington.

His appearance didn’t inspire much confidence. He was a white man of medium height wearing a rumple suit over a pudgy frame. His face was heavy with two-day-old whiskers; behind a pair of thick, wire-rimmed glasses, his eyes seemed set in a perpetual squint. As he rose from the booth to shake my hand, he spilled some tea on his shirt …

He ordered more hot water and told me about himself. He was Jewish, in his late thirties, had been reared in New york. He had started organizing in the sixties with the student protests, and ended up staying with it for fifteen years. Farmers in Nebraska. Blacks in Philadelphia. Mexicans in Chicago. Now he was trying to pull urban blacks and suburban whites together around a plan to save manufacturing jobs in metropolitan Chicago. He needed somebody to work with him, he said. Somebody black. …

He offered to start me off at ten thousand dollars the first year, with a two-thousand-dollar travel allowance to buy a car; the salary would go up if things worked out. After he was gone, I took the long way home, along the East River promenade, and tried to figure out what to make of the man. He was smart, I decided. He seemed committed to his work. Still, there was something about him that made me wary. A little too sure of himself, maybe. And white – he’d said himself that that was a problem.

The question becomes was Obama unsure of the man because he was white, or only because the man himself said it was part of the problem. Obviously the man has an impressive resume as far as Community Organizers go, which should outshine how Obama felt about the man’s appareance.

Here is a youtube compilation. Inside it are text from his books, coupled with Obama doing the voice over for his audio book. Most of it is quite shocking.

Describing his grandmother as a, “Typical white person”

In this 1995 audio interview Barack Obama not only exposes a racial bias and discuss Redistribution of Wealth/Economic Justice, but also shows his belief in “Collective Salvation” a tenet of Black Liberation Theology
A different view with add ins

Indepth into the Redistribution of Wealth interview

Here is a look into Black Liberation Theology!

and a video compilation exposing that Obama lied to reporters about hearing hateful rhetoric within Rev Wrights church for 20 years

When you add this all up you can see a clear racial bias as well as an anti-wealth bias which explains why when asked, in an interview, if he had spoken directly to BP CEO Tony Hayward he responded with

“I have not spoken to him directly and here’s the reason. Because my experience is when you talk to a a guy like a BP CEO, he’s gonna say all the right things to me. I’m not interested in words, I’m interested in actions”

Is a BP CEO a “typical white person”? Or a “white executive living out in the suburbs that doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner city children”

Having gone through Obama in his own words, lets look at someone he chose to represent him in 2004 The Reverend James Meeks. Yet another radical preacher with hateful rhetoric comparable to Rev Wright.

Barack Obama indeed has a racial bias as well as a plans to implement Socialism in order to assure “Collective Salvation” and the Redistribution of Wealth in accordance with Black Liberation Theology.

Want to express your own opinion on what kind of person Obama is?  respond to the CDN Poll: What is Obama

Follow StopObama2012 and Conservative Daily News on Twitter

Securing Our Southern Border

While the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has declared that “The border is as secure now as it has ever been” which is a complete joke, there are several reports of Illegal Aliens committing murder, home invasions, and rapes, more and more reports of gunfights on and over the border, heavily armed drug smugglers, and human trafficking.

The President of the United States, Barack Obama took a different view.In a speech about Immigration Reform (not border security) he echoes Napalitano that the borders are as secure as ever by stating that, “We have more boots on the ground on the southwest border than at any time in our history “, “Crime along the border is down” and “The Southern Border is more secure today then at any time in the past 20 years.” he later backpedaled with this statement,

“But our borders are just to vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols, it won’t work.Our borders will not be secure as long as our limited resources are devoted to not only stopping gangs and potential terrorists but also the hundreds of thousands who attempt to cross each year simply to find work.”

Well Mr. Obama, you can and need to secure the border because your policy, on We can’t do it, is endangering American Lives. Now here’s my plan:

1. The Mexican Drug Gangs, have turned the American border into a warzone, then we must mobilize our military to respond to this naked aggression. These gangs even have terroristic plans to blow up a dam in Texas , maintain lookout towers in the Arizona desert, have made assassination threats on Arizona police, and have even conducted a coordinated attack on the Mexican Army.

If that doesn’t constitute a war zone then tell me where to buy fairie dust to feed my unicorn because I’m freshout.

US Army and National Guard Border Defence Initiative

Deploy the Army and National Guard to secure the Border

1. FOB Forward Operating Base, Main base for localized US forces and Command Hub for all operations within that FOB’s determined jurisdiction.

2. Static Guard/Overwatch posts Strategically spaced to control all traffic attempting to enter the US through illegal avenues of approach.

3. LP/OP Listening Posts/Observation Posts to maintiain lookouts on possible avenues of approach in either a static or random patrol fashion.

4. Vehicle/Foot Patrols of known high traffic areas, and random sweeps of other areas on a random basis.

5. Aerial patrols with coordinated QRF Quick Reaction Force response to control the situation on the ground.

6. I/R Internment & Resettlement camps. Hasty ones setup at the static overwatch posts and large rear facilities at the FOB will be maintained to turn over Illegal aliens to ICE. Subjects will be transfered from hasty to rear as soon as possible and in turn to the INS as soon as possible.

Its a simple plan, highly possible, and no doubt costly, but the problem cannot be ignored.
While the military is holding down the border the Federal Govt needs to begin building a wall that would make the Great Wall of China blush. Said wall must be reminiscent of a Castle/Fortress wall. Border patrol will maintain lookout towers and response teams on and within the wall.

This secures the border and will attempt to hold back traffic the rest is up to the Federal Govt. With the Military holding down the border, ICE agents & Border Patrol are freed up to pursue those that overstay tier Visa’s and hold them accountable, as well as conduct true illegal immigration raids on businesses as opposed to “Silent Raids” which leave the illegal without a job, but not a deportation, which gives them a choice between becoming a criminal or living off of Welfare Programs. Businesses need to be held accountable for the employment of illegals and steep penalties and aggressive enforcement must be conducted. Also necessary is to simply turn off each and every entitlement that Illegal Aliens are able to draw from. If there are no benefits to coming illegally, they will simply stop coming that way.

All this depends on the Federal Govt, which has made its case that everythings fine on the border, its America’s laws that are bad. Therefor the burden has fallen to the states to defend themselves. My recommendation for that is

State Border Defense Program

The state must attempt to secure its International Border because the Federal Government refuses to do enough to handle it properly.
1. Deploy the National Guard. I know this is a difficult one because the states are all near the fiscal edge.

2. Border Patrol Cooperation. Provide Law Enforcement officials and experienced volunteers, once cleared by a background check, to augment and assist The Border Patrol in day to day operations.

3. Independent Law Enforcement Sweeps. In the absense of Federal Cooperation the State must still attempt to have a back-up security ring behind the failing Border Patrol. The State can then accept and clear experienced volunteers, form them into teams led by Law Enforcement Officials and patrol known locations of High Activity for Drug Gangs and human trafficking. Patrols can be on foot, vehicle, or horseback. Detainees would be handled by Sworn Law Enforcement Officials only and overturned to ICE as soon as possible.

The key to security is high visibility, if they know you are active and there, they may stop coming, especially if all the benifits of crossing illegally have been removed. If you accept the Obama’s Imigration speech at face value, then we are all xenophobic hate-mongers trying to hold down people from another country simply looking for a better life, and that is far from the truth. The concern here is National Security, rampant crime, and loss of life, and we must put a stop to it and encourage people to come in the front door, not the back.

Bill Ayers and Obama – Why It’s Important

William (Bill) Ayers is more than a controversial figure – he is an unrepentant violent radical terrorist and probably a rapist as well.  During the 1960’s he co-founded a violent left wing organization called the “Weather Underground” Which conducted riots and bombing campaigns including the 1969 “Days of Rage” where 300 activists attacked police and civilians in a campaign of violence, property damage, and destruction. More information on Bill Ayers and his activities can be found here.

A documentary on the Weather Underground can be found here.

So we know this man, who is now a college professor, and author of several books, was a very active terrorist in the 1960’s There is also an accusation of “Date Rape” made later in 2006. Donna Ron explains in sordid details her experience with Bill Ayers, his brother Rick Ayers, and Bill Ayer’s roomate at the time in the article “Remembering a Sixties Terrorist

Ancient History right? For Ayers maybe, but is it for us? We know who Bill Ayers was and what he and his group did. Now let’s explore what they had planned for the future.

Larry Grathwol was an undercover operative for the FBI and infiltrated the Weather Underground to bring down the terrorist organization. His duty within the Weather Organization was to take orders from the Heads to the Different Groups. In this video interview, Grathwol asks the group, “what’s going to happen if we take over?” The answers he got are chilling and horrifying. Re-education Camps and mass murder were proposed to deal with hardcore capitalists. Also proposed was ceding territory to foreign Communist nations.

In a different interview Doug McAdam of the University of Arizona recounts the last “Above ground” meeting of the Weather Underground and the disturbing subject matter, “Was it or was it not the duty of every good Revolutionary to kill all newborn white babies?”

We know now who they were, and these shocking objectives. After one of the groups own bombs exploded during assembly wounding innocent people the group went into hiding.
In 1980 Bill Ayers and others surrendered to the authorities. All charges were dropped based on a legal technicality because the FBI had failed to get warrants for all the surveillance used for the case.On the ruling Ayers himself stated, “Guilty as sin, free as a bird, America is a great country.”

In 2001 in the New York Times on September 11th the New York Times ran the story
No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen

Within which is Bill Ayers explains, ”I don’t regret setting bombs … I feel we didn’t do enough.”

(From his book ‘‘Fugitive Days”)

”Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,” he writes. But then comes a disclaimer: ”Even though I didn’t actually bomb the Pentagon — we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it.”

And his summary of the Weather UnderGround

“Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ”Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at,” is today distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. And he says he doesn’t actually remember suggesting that rich people be killed or that people kill their parents, but ”it’s been quoted so many times I’m beginning to think I did,” he said. ”It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.”

The key to this is that Bill Ayers takes nothing back, not the bombs, not the plan, regrets nothing and wishes they had done more in pursuit of their Communist Goals. He has repeatedly since that article stood by his remarks.

Speaking of Ayers Goals, in 2006 FBI agents and Bill Ayers sat down in front of C-Span Cameras and discuessed the cases and actions of The Weather Underground. In response to a question, Bill Ayers responds that the Government needed to be “overturned and has to be Radically Transformed” and “Fundamental Change is necessary”

Ayers returned to the spotlight when ties to Barack Obama were exposed by the McCain campaign and journalists during the Presidential Election. According to Investors Business Daily the Just One Minute Blog
and the US News & World Report their are extensive ties to Obama that need to be explained.

John Murtagh, who was 9 years old at the time, was wounded by a Weather Underground bombing attack states on Fox News that their are ties between Obama & Ayers dating back to the 1980’s

Now we have personal connections through fund raising organizations, possible lengthy social ties, and the fact that Obama launched his candidacy for the President of the United States from the living room of this confessed “Guilty as sin” unrepentant terrorist. The Obama Campaign was quick to dismiss ties to Ayers on their Organizing for America website.

But the news article statements they post to their defense are almost laughable if this wasn’t so serious.

Chicago Sun Times: Obama’s Connection To Ayers Is A “Phony Flap”.

“Is Barack Obama consorting with a radical? Hardly. Ayers is nothing more than an aging lefty with a foolish past who is doing good. And while, yes, Obama is friendly with Ayers, it appears to be only in the way of two community activists whose circles overlap.”

Hilarious defence, Ayers was a terrorist, but he’s ok now and yes Obama’s friendly with the terrorist, but they’re not close close. Sure.

Other defences included that the charges were dropped and that Ayers served no time, which really isnt a defence because Ayers denies nothing and wishes he had done more, and several statements that Ayers is a good and sensitive guy now. How sensitive can he be if he’s not in any way sorry for his actions and goals?

Ayers himself went on the defensive to protect the Obama campaign, On the Hardball program with Chris Matthews and Good Morning America, Ayers attempted to downplay his ties to Obama but still stood behind his belief that he “hadn’t done enough” during his campaign of terror.

Good Morning America interview

Fast Forward to the year 2009 and the Obama White House, in the interest of Transparency, releases some actual visitor logs and the Washington Post breaks it down.

Among the names listed we find :

Ayers William and Ayers William A.

The White House was quick to downplay this as well calling it a “False Positive”

“A lot of people visit the White House, up to 100,000 each month, with many of those folks coming to tour the buildings. Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few “false positives” – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else. In September, requests were submitted for the names of some famous or controversial figures (for example Michael Jordan, William Ayers, Michael Moore, Jeremiah Wright, Robert Kelly (“R. Kelly”), and Malik Shabazz). The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names.”

I leave it for you to decide for yourself, for me it’s a cut and dry case. Bill Ayers is just the kind of guy Obama would look for, based on his own words in his books. A Communist radical leftist that engaged in bombing campaigns while Obama was 8 years old would seem like an idol to him. There are enough ties between Obama & Ayers to cause suspicion, the most profound would be announcing his candidacy from Ayers living room. That is definately more than a passing social contact, I don’t care who you are, you can see through that one.

The Fact that the Ayers statements on Change and Fundamental Transformation became the rallying cry of the Obama Campaign cannot be overlooked either.

The question now is, how much of Ayers “Weather Underground” plans and ideas were transferred to Obama? Are Re-Education camp plans stirring up their in his brain next to Rev. Wrights Sermons against Whites and Jews?

I recently made the case that Obama is destroying the economy intentionally in accordance with the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and implementing the goals of Communists.  The only question left to be answered is, “How far will Obama go?” And with associates like Bill Ayers, the answer is – as far as he can.

Update 7/21/2010

World Net Daily’s Aaron Klein reported that Linda Sue Evans, a former Bill Ayers associate, and very dangerous terrorist was pardoned by Bill Clinton in January 2001. What’s shocking is who helped her get pardoned, and what she has been up to since.

A federal bill that seeks to restore voting rights in national elections to felons released from prison has been a pet project of one of the most dangerous members of Bill Ayers’ Weather Underground domestic-terrorist group, WND has learned.

Linda Evans, who herself served 15 years of a 40-year federal sentence, pushed the plan of registering convicted felons along with the radical Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. She is a recipient of the Soros Justice Fellowship, bestowed by philanthropist George Soros.

Evans was arrested in 1985 transporting 740 pounds of explosives, which she acknowledged was slated for use by the Weather Underground in bombings of U.S. government buildings. Targets of her terrorist group’s activities included the U.S. Capitol building, the National War College, the Navy Yard Computer Center and Navy Yard Officers Club and the New York Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association.

President Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, reportedly was instrumental in securing Evans’ pardon. As deputy attorney general under Clinton, The Washington Post credited him with being “the gatekeeper for presidential pardons.” Holder reportedly was a key figure entrusted with the task of vetting Clinton’s 176 last-minute pardons that included Evans.

After leaving prison, Evans became co-director of the San-Francisco-based nonprofit All of Us or None, a Saul-Alinsky-style national organizing initiative of prisoners, former prisoners and felons. The organization claims it is seeking to combat “the many forms of discrimination” faced by the prison community.

Evans since has been at the center of voter-registration drives for former prisoners, including drives organized alongside ACORN.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, for example, Evans’ group sponsored chapters throughout California that held drives in Alameda, Sacramento, Orange, San Mateo, Los Angeles and San Diego counties.

“Laws that directly affect inmates will be decided this November, so please share this information and encourage them to vote,” Evans was quoted as telling the San Francisco Bay View at the time.

In one August 2008 drive, Evans’ group provided voter information in visitor lines at San Diego Central Jail as a joint effort with ACORN. The two organizations worked together on a slew of other voter-registration drives.

Evans’ group led the charge in 2006 that took the debate about felons’ voting rights in California to court. In December 2006, the California Court of Appeal ordered the secretary of state to inform election officials that “the only persons disqualified from voting are those who have been imprisoned in state prison, or who are on parole as a result of the conviction of a felony.”

You have a convicted terrorist who worked for Ayers, who was aided in her pardon by Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder, whom has recieved honors from George Soros, that went to work after her release campaigning with ACORN for convicted felons to have their voting rights restored. That’s quite a connection indeed.

And now thanks to Glenn Beck we now have the Weathermen’s manifesto,

“You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”

It is very intense, and very disturbing. The plan for a Communist Revolution within the United States of America. The plan Bill Ayers, his wife, and others attempted to carry out.

Communism and a Progressive Presidency

In his Book “The Naked Communist” written in 1958 author W. Cleon Skousen lays out the Geopolitical Strategy of how the Soviet Union was attempting to control all World Governments. Within the pages he included a list of “Current Communist Goals.”

In 1963 the list was published into the De Land Courier by Mrs Patricia Nordman of De Land, Florida. She made a request to her Congressman Albert Sydney Herlong, Jr to read the list to Congress so that it could be made Public Record.

Now lets analyze these and see which ones are happening and which have already happened.

  1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
  2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
  3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

Obama has pushed his apology tour and appeasement campaign beyond reason. His administration has denied the existence of Radical Islam & Declared that Jihad is acceptable because it is a tenet of Islam

Appeased Hugo Chavez backed Argentina over the UK in a dispute on the soverignty of the FalkLand Islands
Has not aided South Korea in getting Justice from North Korea before the UN after N. Korea’s Navy torpedoed a S. Korean Naval Vessel.

and been reluctant to sanction Iran harshly and attempting to keep China and Russia on board by weakening the sanctions more and more. Finally we have some sanctions in placeto slow Iran down, but is it too late?

On Domestic Nuclear Weapons and Policy he goes straight for these goals.
In 2007 Obama called for a Worldwide end to Nuclear Weapons

and stated the following:

“Here’s what I’ll say as president: ‘America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons,”‘ Obama said.

“The best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons — it’s to keep nuclear weapons and nuclear materials away from terrorists,”

The article goes on:

“Aides said the process Obama envisions would take many years, not just a single presidency.”

In April Obama changed our rules on Nuclear retaliation and Proliferation and told the entire world under what circumstances we would and would not use nuclear weapons in our own defense.

In May he revealed the size of our Nuclear Arsenal to the world,
And now in July he plans to cut the Nuclear arsenal down by 40%
Well on the road to disarming the United States in accordance with the Communist Party Goals.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

This one is incomplete at this time, and one to keep an eye on.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

I give you the New World Order of Global Governance.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

As we all know by now, “Progressives” have infiltrated both Parties and are indeed working against traditional American values.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

Indoctrination into Social Justice

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

Is there any doubt Obama control the Main Stream Media? The MSM’s obvious liberal bias got him elected in the first place and continued to pine for him till the BP oil spill.

Oil Spill reporting wasn’t letting him look good anymore so reporters were hassled, cold shouldered, blacked out and now face possible felony charges for doing their job.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

Obama is well on his way in this one. He appointed Kevin Jennings as the “Safe School Czar” and he is pushing this agenda, criticizing heterosexuality,  through schools as part of Sex Ed curriculum (i.e. FistGate)

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”

The traditional religious doctring is indeed being replaced with Social Justice Doctrine.

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

This has already been done, and even religious items such as the crucifix, the bible, and rosary beads have become targets.

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

Obama on the Constitution
Obama on the Founders

Our History has been distorted and hidden only now is much of it being restored to the light of day. Instead of praising Communist Russia however, our schools programs focused on Global history, and Global citizenship.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

Is their any doubt that SEIU & The AFL-CIO amongst others are promoting Communism and are deep in bed with Obama?
BP was in bed with Obama before the spill. Goldman Sachs gave huge campaign donations to Obama. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac played a huge part in the Financial Crisis and are exempt from the Financial Regulatory Reform, which does little to Wall Street but makes it harder to open up a private small business.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

Not quite on this one, but look at whats happening with the “Nanny State” mentality. The Happy meal toy made my kid fat. No salt for you in your food. No soda’s can be sold because they make people fat. Programs at schools that take kid to get an abortion and dont even tell the parents. Parents are being removed from parenting through Social Agenda’s and school programming.They are taking away your choices and forcing you into raising a perfect little global citizen.

The Communists Goals may be from the 1950’s and 1960’s but many of them are happening right before our eyes, under Obama and his administration.

Follow StopObama2012 and Conservative Daily News on Twitter.

Obama: Keynesian Economics or Cloward-Piven Strategy

The Main Stream Media and Liberal defense of Obama’s Economic Policy has been that he is using “Keynesian Economics” to stabilize our economy and to give him time. Well it’s time to look at Keynesian Economics and see if it matches.

According to Keynesian Economics is:

..the assertion that the aggregate demand created by households, businesses and the government and not the dynamics of free markets is the most important driving force in an economy. This theory further asserts that free markets (despite the assertion of 18th century Scottish economist Adam Smith and other classical economists) has no self-balancing mechanisms that lead to full employment. Keynesian economists urge and justify a government’s intervention in the economy through public policies that aim to achieve full employment and price stability. Their ideas have greatly influenced governments the world-over in accepting their responsibility to provide full or near-full employment through measures (such as deficit spending) that stimulate aggregate demand.

According to Investopedia

What Does Keynesian Economics Mean?
An economic theory stating that active government intervention in the marketplace and monetary policy is the best method of ensuring economic growth and stability.

Investopedia explains Keynesian Economics
A supporter of Keynesian economics believes it is the government’s job to smooth out the bumps in business cycles. Intervention would come in the form of government spending and tax breaks in order to stimulate the economy, and government spending cuts and tax hikes in good times, in order to curb inflation.

My Analysis:

  1. If Obama were actually using Keynesian principles he would, in these troubled times, be giving tax breaks to the rich in order to stimulate and aid the economy, instead we are expecting massive tax increases on the rich which will kill the economy. Not renewing the Bush tax cuts equals a tax hike, exact opposite of the Keynesian explanation.
  2. The Health Care Law amounts to a tax increase on business forcing them to make cuts and layoffs as well as drop coverage to employees.
  3. The pending Cap & Trade Bill is a massive tax increase on every business and every individual. The Coal industry will be unable to continue and electricity/gas prices will skyrocket. The increased price of energy will trickle down to kill manufacturing in the USA and if anything is made here, it will be too expensive to purchase on top of raised domestic energy costs. The lack of suitable energy to replace coal will cause mass rolling blackouts. Not very economically stimulating, therefor anti-Keynesian.
  4. The Financial Reform Bill does little to Wall St. but affects banks that would loan to small businesses, in short, don’t expect any loan. No loan no business, no business no contribution to the economy, hence, anti-Keynesian.
  5. The Many Stimulus Bills, on the surface appear keynesian, borrowing money, even deficit spending, in order to stimulate the economy and create or save jobs. However once you look into to the actual projects and the prices for them, you realize the majority of these projects are complete wastes of money and are therefor frauds which have no positive affect on the US economy, lasting or temporary.

I have made the case he is not using Keynesian Economics, now I’ll explain what I believe he is doing.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy from

“First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.”

“In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.”

“The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.”

Another title to this strategy has been “The Strategy of Manufactured Crisis” to go with what we have heard from this administration we could call it “The Strategy of Never Waste a Crisis” but I digress…

The objective is quite simple, overwhelm the system with impossible demands and it will collapse, in the chaos that follows you implement a Socialist system to “Save” everyone because “Capitalism falied” them and they will simply accept it.

Are we seeing this in play? I believe we are – this has been Obama’s plan from the beginning.

  1. The National Debt is near the breaking point and we have been warned by Moody’s that if we don’t stop spending we will lose our AAA credit rating, yet Obama continues to spend frivilously.
  2. Even the EU, which is in dire straits with riots in Greece and Spain has decided to stop the spending, yet Obama chastises them for it and demands they continue spending like he is.
  3. Obama’s non-Keynesian economics do not bolster the economy, but create uncertainty. Uncertainty in business does not encourage hirings, which would stimulate the economy, but layoffs and cutbacks just in case.
  4. The way he has demonized the rich, in his own words, and other comments made by Obama demonstrate that he is no friend of business or free market but instead has Socialistic goals.
  5. The Health Care Bill did nothing to lower the costs of Healthcare itself and forces insurance companies to raise premiums in order to cover all the new people added to the rolls that have existing treatment needs but never payed into the pool. By denying them the power to raise their prices, Obama is forcing them into Bankruptcy. He will then Implement the Socialistic “Public Option” to replace the Insurance Companies. Nancy pelosi did promise us that we, “will be begging for the Public Option.”
  6. The rampant unemployment due to Obama’s economic policies is bankrupting the entire State/Federal unemployment benefit system and overwhelming it. Directly inline with Cloward-Piven goals. The majority of the 50 States are at or near bankruptcy and cannot afford to pay for their own infrastructure let alone all the unemployed in this “Recession”
  7. Those lovely stimulus bills did not spend responsibly in any way, shape, or form. You can do a simple google search and find idiotic projects next to mindboggling prices. The worst part to this waste is that quite a bit even went overseas to be wasted there. Telling Hookers to drink responsibly in China, Fossil research in Argentina, and more, which could have absolutely 0 positive affect on the US economy.
  8. The rapid expansion of Government agencies and infrastructure only hastens economic collapse, not slows it. Government by nature is a leech feeding off of private business. The Government does not generate any income only takes it from productive citizens in the form of taxes and therefor cannot pay for itself.
  9. And finally, the last straw on the US economy’s back will be the Cap & Trade bill if implemented. Any business not over-outfitted with alternative energy will cease to exist on its own. Big Business will cut production, institute mass layoff’s, and dramatically draw down operations. Small business will die. This is economic armageddon and the deathblow to free enterprise and Capitalism.

Once fully implemented the Cloward-Piven Strategy will collapse all free enterprise. Obama will then move to Nationalize everything in order to “Save the economy” This I believe is where Obama is bringing us. However, The strategy will not end peacefully regardless of what its inventors predicted. The American People will resist the implementation of Socialism and will always rally behind freedom, not control.

In my opinion this Manufactured “Economic Collapse” will bring about riots and chaos in the streets worse than we are seeing in Greece and Spain. When we have radical militant groups such as The New Black Panthers and Farrakhan’s Fruit of Islam preaching racial hatred and violence, and Unions such as the SEIU who feel storming the home of a banker is ok, you can infer that their will be great violence from the Left .  This is not part of Cloward-Piven but part of the Communist takeover. Obama prepared for the ability to use violence in January with his “Council of Governors” Executive Order wherein 10 Governors will be chosen to run the country with Obama in the event of Civil Disturbances and Martial Law amongst other factors.  Obama willl use the violence from the economic collapse, fueled by the racial divide the Left is bringing along with anti Capitalist sentiments,and the clearly biased media to implement Martial Law and suspend elections and freedom itself. They have tried to bait the Tea Party into being the violent group but that has proven ineffective so now he waits for the left to attack.
According to the Army Times we already have Soldiers with “Homeland Tours” as a “New Dwell Time Mission” beginning on October 1st. 2010 for deployment within the USA.  “They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack”.  The article goes on to detail all the extensive training they are recieving for this new mission and new equipment such as tazers.
Cloward-Piven strategy is being used as a means to an end, nothing more and according to the Left’s hero Saul Alinsky, “The ends justify the means” regardless of the suffering caused. All for their greater good unrealistic Communist Utopia.  The Cloward-Piven strategy won’t end the way its creators planned, but will have been effective none the less.

If interested in reading the original article written by Francis Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward, “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”
You can find it here at “” a website that describes itself as follows:

“ is a national nonprofit, progressive, nonpartisan citizens’ organization founded in 1997 by political activists Craig Brown and his late wife, Lina Newhouser.
We are a powerful online voice for change in America.
With millions of monthly readers, we have become one of the top progressive websites.”

Yet another link between crushing capitalism and implementing Socialism as a goal of any progressive policy.

UPDATE August 1, 2010

Heres an amazing video on Cloward-Piven Strategy

Hattip to @AlinskyDefeater

Follow StopObama2012 and Conservative Daily News on Twitter

The Case Against Arizona

The Obama administration failed to secure our borders, failed to shame Governor Brewer into submission and failed to get the American people to side with them in the immigration debate.  Obama has now presented a case against Arizona’s immigration law.  Another failure queued-up?  Perhaps the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clauseholds the key (but when was the last time Barack could be bothered with anything in the Constitution).

Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Article VI describes how Federal Law conquers State Law If their is already a Federal Law for something then its a Crime against the Nation as a whole and not an individual state. In what way does SB1070 violate this? In no way.
SB1070 Is not an immigration agent, an immigration process, or an immigration policy. It does not conflict with the supremacy of the Federal Government in any way, but aids in the enforcement of Federal Law. The Federal Law is supreme and SB1070 does not violate Federal control of immigration process or procedures.  In fact, the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii) is the basis for Arizona’s law.
Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
(c) Authority to arrest: No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.
The Federal Statute clearly says all law enforcement officers may enforce the law and legal experts state that it even specifically enumerates the State’s right to enforce the law:
“State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is no extant federal limitation on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws. Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens. Hispanic appearance alone is not sufficient.”
So as long as local laws allow (like SB1070) local Law Enforcement officers are not restricted from investigating immigration status or arresting violators, that match the examples for “Reasonable Suspicion.”
So it looks like the actual Federal Laws on the books are in Arizona’s favor but there is potential for case law against, lets take a look.
One example is the Supreme Court case of  Hines v. Davidowitz. Media Matters used this case to attack Fox&Friends’ Steve Doocy & his explanation of why SB1070 would stand.
“In the 1941 case of Hines v. Davidowitz, the Supreme Court examined a Pennsylvania statute that mandated every immigrant to register with the state once each year, provide other information and details that the state Department of Labor asked for, obtain and carry an identification card, and display it when asked by police, among other stipulations. The federal government challenged the state law because the law “encroached upon the legislative powers constitutionally vested in the federal government.” The Supreme Court agreed, concluding that the federal government: is correct in his contention that the power to restrict, limit, regulate, and register aliens as a distinct group is not an equal and continuously existing concurrent power of state and nation, but that whatever power a state may have is subordinate to supreme national law.
The Court said that the federal government had “plainly manifested a purpose…to protect the personal liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national registration system, and to leave them free from the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance that might not only affect our international relations but might also generate the very disloyalty which the law has intended guarding against.” Therefore, the Pennsylvania law was struck down.”

Of course Media Matters’ Brooke Obie forgot to mention that, gee, Immigration Laws have kinda changed a little bit since 1941.  In fact: § 1304. Forms for registration and fingerprinting
(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
Which means all legal Immigrants are required to carry proof of their status under federal law. As they are already required to carry this identification if they are not yet American Citizens anytime a police officer asks for Identification and the person is a legal Immigrant, this is what they would present, under Federal Law.
As this is the Federal Law already, Arizona has not gone above it, or outside it but is using it to seperate Legal Immigrants from Illegal Aliens. The state of Arizona knows it is subordinate to Federal Law and makes no move to usurp it but coincide with it and legally assist with its enforcement.
Next case against: Pennsylvania vs Nelson 350 U.S. 497 (1956)
According to Exploring Constitutional Conflicts The Pennsylvania v Nelson case provides a possible basis for a preemption challenge to the Arizona law.  Here’s language from Chief Justice Warren’s opinion for the Court, striking down a Pennsylvania law making it a state crime to advocate the violent overthrow of the United States government:

As was said by Mr. Justice Holmes in Charleston & Western Carolina R. Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co:
“When Congress has taken the particular subject matter in hand, coincidence is as ineffective as opposition, and a state law is not to be declared a help because it attempts to go farther than Congress has seen fit to go.”

Second, the federal statutes “touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system [must] be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.”

Congress having thus treated seditious conduct as a matter of vital national concern, it is in no sense a local enforcement problem. As was said in the court below: “Sedition against the United States is not a local offense. It is a crime against the Nation. As such, it should be prosecuted and punished in the Federal courts, where this defendant has, in fact, been prosecuted and convicted and is now under sentence.  It is not only important, but vital, that such prosecutions should be exclusively within the control of the Federal Government. . . .

Third, enforcement of state sedition acts presents a serious danger of conflict with the administration of the federal program. Since 1939, in order to avoid a hampering of uniform enforcement of its program by sporadic local prosecutions, the Federal Government has urged local authorities not to intervene in such matters, but to turn over to the federal authorities immediately and unevaluated all information concerning subversive activities….”
1. SB1070 does not go further than Federal Law in any way and is in fact lighter.
2. Arizona only apprehends, they do not prosecute but rely on ICE for determination of Immigration status and ICE will prosecute and deport if necessary, not Arizona.
3. SB1070 does not violate the third point but goes hand in hand with it. If the person has no ID and the officer has “Reasonable Suspicion” as described above, he contacts the Federal Authorities immediately (ICE) and they determine the status and handle it from there.
Now that the counter-arguments are out of the way, let’s look at the precedents in SB1070’s favor.
1. Supreme Court of the United States: Muehler v Mena March 22, 2005
The officers’ questioning of Mena about her immigration status during her detention did not violate her Fourth Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit’s holding to the contrary appears premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to so question Mena. However, this Court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure.” Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434. Because Mena’s initial detention was lawful and the Ninth Circuit did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and, therefore, no additional Fourth Amendment justification for inquiring about Mena’s immigration status was required.
And the kicker getting all the publicity lately is Rhode Island as the State is not enforcing a state law but a Governor’s Executive Order
Executive Order 08-01Illegal Immigration Control Order
State Police and Dept of Corrections are to work with ICE and recieve training from ICE agents and it is urged that all law enforcement officials, including state and local law enforcement agencies take steps to support the enforcement of federal immigration laws by investigating and determining the immigration status of all non-citizens taken into custody, incarcerated, or under investigation for any crime and notifying federal authorities of all illegal immigrants discovered as a result of such investigations. Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to supersede, contravene or conflict with any federal or state law or regulation or deny a person’s rights under the Rhode Island or United States Constitution and to this extent employees of the Executive Branch may act independently of this Executive Order in order to avoid such conflict or violation.
This Executive Order has been in effect in Rhode Island and has already survived legal challenges going up to the United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Whats important about this case are the similarities between this officers actions and the wording of SB1070.
I. Background
The events transpired in the early morning of July 11, 2006.   Plaintiff-Appellant Carlos E. Tamup (“Tamup”) was driving a fifteen-passenger van heading south on Interstate 95 in Rhode Island.   The remaining eleven Plaintiffs were passengers in that van and were on their way to work in Westerly, Rhode Island.   Somewhere near exit 4 in the Town of Richmond, Tamup failed to activate his turn signal as he switched lanes in the two-lane stretch of road.   Rhode Island State Police Officer Thomas Chabot (“Officer Chabot”) was stationed in a marked state police cruiser parked on the grassy median on Interstate 95.   Upon observing that the van had failed to signal its lane change, Officer Chabot engaged his overhead lights to stop the van.
At Officer Chabot’s request, Tamup produced his driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. Responding to Officer Chabot’s question, Tamup stated that his wife owned the van and that he and the other passengers were driving to work polishing jewelry in Westerly, Rhode Island.   Walking over to the passenger’s side of the van, Officer Chabot asked the front seat passenger, Plaintiff Guilfredo E. Camay Muñoz (“Camay”), for identification.   When Camay stated that he did not have identification on his person, Officer Chabot asked for his name and birth date.   Although there was an obvious language barrier, Camay was able to give his name and provide his birth date.
Officer Chabot opened the front passenger door and counted the number of people inside, stating that there were fifteen persons. Using Tamup as a translator, Officer Chabot asked the rest of the passengers to produce identification.   Some of the passengers produced various forms of identification:  a gym membership card, a non-driver’s license identification issued by the Rhode Island Division of Motor Vehicles, and two identifications issued by the Guatemalan Consulate.   Continuing to use Tamup as a translator, Officer Chabot then asked the passengers if they could produce documentation establishing their U.S. citizenship. None of the passengers was able to produce such documentation. According to Officer Chabot’s deposition testimony, he did not observe any unusual or suspicious activity from Tamup or the van’s passengers at this or any other time. Officer Chabot also testified, however, that he normally requested identification from passengers in vehicles he stopped, and that more than 99 percent of the passengers from whom he requests identification can supply it.
Officer Chabot then requested that Tamup step out of the van so that he could perform a pat-down search. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).   The search did not yield anything, but during the course of the pat-down, Officer Chabot asked Tamup if he and the rest of the passengers had green cards or work papers, and specifically requested that Tamup give him his social security number and green card.   Tamup stated that he only had his driver’s license and that the other passengers did not have any other documentation.
Officer Chabot returned to his cruiser and conducted a background check on Tamup.   Tamup’s license came back as valid and his criminal background check was negative.   Officer Chabot then contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and reported that he had pulled over a passenger van transporting individuals whom he believed might be illegal immigrants.”
“A. The Inquiry About Immigration Status and Contacting ICE
Plaintiffs do not contest the validity of the traffic stop, nor do they argue that it was unlawful for Officer Chabot to request identification from all the passengers in the van, a question our Circuit has not conclusively decided.  Instead, Plaintiffs argue that Officer Chabot’s inquiry into their immigration status and subsequent call to ICE prolonged the traffic stop, converting it into an unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
We cannot say, however, that it was clear as a matter of law that Officer Chabot’s brief line of questioning, nor the three minutes it took for him to receive a response from ICE, unreasonably prolonged the stop such that independent reasonable suspicion was necessary to support his inquiry into Plaintiffs’ immigration status.   The traffic stop at issue took place a year after the Supreme Court’s decision in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005).   In that case, the Court held that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status during the execution of a search warrant, but that such inquiry constitutes “mere police questioning” so long as the detention was not prolonged by the questioning.
We also note that by the time Officer Chabot asked about Plaintiffs’ immigration status, he knew that:  (1) Plaintiffs were headed to work;  (2) most were unable to produce any identification, and of the four who did, two could produce only identifications issued by the Guatemalan consulate;  and (3) they spoke little English. Officer Chabot also testified that passengers, of whom he requests documentation as a matter of routine, are able to produce valid identification more than 99 percent of the time.   All of these facts combined may well have sufficiently heightened his suspicions for him to believe that he could shift his inquiry from the traffic stop to investigating other potential criminal activity.   See Chhien, 266 F.3d at 6 (“[W]hile an officer’s actions must bear some relation to the purpose of the original stop, he may shift his focus and increase the scope of his investigation by degrees if his suspicions mount during the course of the detention.”).
In any event, the law was not and is not know clearly established, such that Chabot should have known that he could not investigate further.   We thus conclude that Officer Chabot is entitled to federal and state qualified immunity for any possible constitutional violations that he may have committed in asking the van’s passengers questions about their immigration status and in contacting ICE.
This looks overwhelmingly good for Arizona with only the admission that “the law was not and is not know clearly established” against.
“State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is no extant federal limitation on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws. Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens. Hispanic appearance alone is not sufficient.”

I stand with Arizona and believe they will win the case.

Follow StopObama2012 on twitter


Conservative Daily News on twitter

« Older Entries Recent Entries »