Yes He Did/No He Can’t

Obama delivered.  Simple as that.  And the poll bump is now bumping.  Even before his Goldilocks speech last night (Goldilocks because it was “Just RIght” — not too righteous, not too soring, not to wonkish, not too churlish, not too congenial) Gallup showed him regaining momentum over McCain due to a Biden Bump.   By Monday that will be in firm double digits as his “We Can Not Walk Alone” speech works its way into the national zeitgeist.

This despite McCain’s best efforts to steal the limelight back today with his veep pick.  Even if McCain picks first term governor Sarah Palin as    For Republicans woman candidates and politicians are so much window dressing, just like Republican minority candidates.  They’re trotted out like so much chintz in  help to try and obscure the reality that the Republican party has, is and, seemingly, always will be a white man’s party. But after elections it’s the party  good ‘ol boys who run the shop.  Democrats give more than lip service to the efficacy of their female and minority candidates.  Nancy Pelosi is not window dressing.  She’s the whole window.  Ditto Barrack Obama.  He’s now the whole Democratic store.

McCain really has no choice but to go with Palin, just as the GOP really had no choice than to go with McCain.  Had the GOP nominated any of McCain’s primary rivals, candidates who, for the most part, were more in step with core Republican values than McCain himself, Obama would be up by fifteen or more points by now.

The simple fact that Republicans recognize but refuse to really act on is that Americans are finally souring on their anti-government, your on your own, you drown you drown, New Orleans, rhetoric. Republican call to dismantle government has amounted to the opening of our civic gates to the hordes of no-holds barred, loot what you can while you can barbarians masquerading as legitimate businessmen. (Fitting, in its own way, that this week also marked the 1,598th anniversary of the barbarian sacking of Rome in 410 AD. Thanks for the heads up, Mr. Colbert.)

That’s why McCain has been trying to walk the ultimately untenable tightrope of sounding  Republican enough to win his base without sounding so Republican he looses the independents and moderates.  Tain’t possible over the long haul, Johnny ‘ol boy.

Now comes the dropping of the other high heel.  Sarah Palin adds the balance in terms of youth and gender that the Republicans need which can help with the middle.  The Palin Problem is that once McCain picks a half term governor to be one seventy year old’s heart beat away from the Oval Office the whole GOP “Obama ain’t ready” campaign collapses in a heap of hypocrisy.  Once he picks a woman as running mate his luke warm support from social and religious conservatives who, not so deep down, still feel that woman should follow their men, support their men but never lead their men, turns positively tepid.  And once he picks a woman mainstream moderates, seeing the pick for the simple, political, opportunistic choice that it is, will realize that the Republicans really are that out of touch with mainstream moderates.  Diehard Hillary supporters will realize that the Democratic party really is the party that treats women as more than just wrist candy for powerful men.  Hillary Clinton was not run by the Democrats, nor did she get eighteen million votes, as a stunt, a sop to women

Last night Barack Obama proved he can.  Today, with his pick for Veep, John McCain underscores that, come November, he can’t.


14 Responses to “Yes He Did/No He Can’t”

  1. mlaiuppa Says:

    It’s really a shame that Palin is being used as a “token woman”.

    I’m sure McCain figured that among other things (like stealing Obama’s thunder and media attention) that she will bring him disenfranchised Hillary voters.

    This is just one more instance of the fact that McCain doesn’t get it. Hillary’s supporters don’t just support her because she’s a woman. And they’re not going to support McCain because Palin is a woman. Palin is Anti-Abortion. The majority of Hillary’s supporters are Pro-Choice. They’re also anti-guns, anti War in Iraq and I wouldn’t be surprised if they were against drilling in ANWR.

    I give McCain points for finding an honest, ethical Republican. Unfortunately he had to find someone really inexperienced to do it.

    And you’re right. He’ll never be able to play the “too young, too inexperienced” card again. And that’s gonna hurt.

  2. Daniel J. Smiechowski Says:

    Regarding the revelations of Vice-Presidential Nominee Sara Palin’s seventeen year old daughter as being five months pregnant in being possible political fodder for the Democrats: As a liberal democratic voter and elected member of San Diego County’s Democratic Central Committee, I say, lay off the little girl and her mother. Don’t you remember Senator Eagleton? Daniel J. Smiechowski

  3. nunya Says:

    Are you following the Sarah Saga?

    It’s not even comical anymore, it’s just… *sigh*


  4. mlaiuppa Says:

    Sarah is a book burner.

    I expect someone is going to track down Mary Ellen Emmons (Baker) for an October Surprise interview.

    No one likes a book burning fascist.

  5. Greg Says:

    Like Father, Like Son
    By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 4:20 PM PT

    Election ’08: Barack Obama’s economic blueprint sounds like one his communist father tried to foist on Kenya 40 years ago, with massive taxes and succor shrouded as “investments.”

    As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. advised the pro-Western Kenyan government there to “redistribute” income through higher taxes. He also demonized corporations and called for massive government “investment” in social programs.
    Barack Obama Sr., who died in 1982 at age 46 in a Kenya car crash.
    Writing in a 1965 scholarly paper, Obama’s late father slammed the administration of then-President Jomo Kenyatta for moving the Third World country away from socialism toward capitalism. He chafed at the idea of relying on private investors — who earn “dividends” on their venture capital — to develop the country’s fledgling economy.
    “What is more important is to find means by which we can redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all,” said the senior Obama, a Harvard-educated economist. “This is the government’s obligation.” The “means” he had in mind were confiscatory taxes on a scale that redefines the term “progressive taxation.”
    “Theoretically,” he wrote, “there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.”
    Therefore, he added, “I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development.”
    As Obama’s father saw it, taxes couldn’t be high enough, so long as the collective benefited. “Certainly there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay,” he said. “It is a fallacy to say that there is this limit, and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings.”
    His son is also pushing massive taxes and “investments” in social programs — at the expense of free enterprise.

    Sen. Obama wants to raise the top marginal income-tax rate to at least 39%, while increasing Social Security taxes on those with higher incomes by completely removing the payroll cap. That means many entrepreneurs would be paying 12.4% (6.2% on employer and 6.2% on employee) on Social Security payroll taxes alone, plus the 2.9% on Medicare taxes, for a total federal tax rate of 54%.
    In addition, Obama wants to jack up the capital-gains tax rate and reinstate the death tax.

    Echoing his father, he argues that the government should impose “tax laws that restore some balance to the distribution of the nation’s wealth.”
    And likewise, he asserts that the nation’s wealth ought to be rechanneled by government into “investments” in the economy and welfare programs that create “a new American social compact.”
    “We can only compete if our government makes the investments that give us a fighting chance” in the global economy, the Democrat presidential hopeful said in his 2006 book, “The Audacity of Hope.” “And if we know that our families have some net beneath which they cannot fall.”
    “Training must be expanded,” his father proposed as one of his government “investments.” Likewise, Sen. Obama wants to “invest” billions more in federal jobs retraining.
    His father’s critique of Kenya’s economic policy was published in the East Africa Journal under the title “Problems Facing Our Socialism.” One discovers — after reading just a few pages into his eight-page tract, where he waxes quixotic about “communal ownership of major means of production” — that he wasn’t criticizing the government for being too socialistic, but not socialistic enough.
    Obama Sr. described his own economic plan, his counterproposal, as it were, as “scientific socialism — inter alia — communism.” Yes, Obama’s father was a communist who wanted to put socialist theory into action — by “force.”

  6. mlaiuppa Says:

    Is Obama’s Father running for President?

    I thought he was dead.

  7. Daniel J. Smiechowski Says:


  8. Greg Says:

    The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree…..

    Barack Obama’s Stealth Socialism
    By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT

    Election ’08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called “economic justice.” He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.

    During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. “I’ve been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served,” he said at the group’s 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.
    And as president, “we’ll ensure that economic justice is served,” he asserted. “That’s what this election is about.” Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn’t have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.
    It’s the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we’re launching this special educational series.
    “Economic justice” simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It’s a euphemism for socialism.
    In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama’s positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.
    In his latest memoir he shares that he’d like to “recast” the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the “winner-take-all” market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).
    Obama also talks about “restoring fairness to the economy,” code for soaking the “rich” — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.
    It’s clear from a close reading of his two books that he’s a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.
    Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.
    Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He’s disguising the wealth transfers as “investments” — “to make America more competitive,” he says, or “that give us a fighting chance,” whatever that means.
    Among his proposed “investments”:
    • “Universal,” “guaranteed” health care.
    • “Free” college tuition.
    • “Universal national service” (a la Havana).
    • “Universal 401(k)s” (in which the government would match contributions made by “low- and moderate-income families”).
    • “Free” job training (even for criminals).
    • “Wage insurance” (to supplement dislocated union workers’ old income levels).
    • “Free” child care and “universal” preschool.
    • More subsidized public housing.
    • A fatter earned income tax credit for “working poor.”
    • And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.
    His new New Deal also guarantees a “living wage,” with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and “fair trade” and “fair labor practices,” with breaks for “patriot employers” who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for “nonpatriot” companies that don’t.
    That’s just for starters — first-term stuff.
    Obama doesn’t stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

  9. mlaiuppa Says:

    You want Socialism? The state of Alaska has no sales tax and the citizens don’t pay income tax because of subsidies from the oil companies. (No wonder Sarah wants to drill, drill, drill everywhere and for everything.) Oh, and the public also gets a check on top of that. $1200.

    Your point?

    And Sarah Palin is still a book burning Fascist.

  10. Greg Says:

    Negotiating a royalty fee is quite different from Obama’s “restoring fairness to the economy”

    It’s not nice to smear.

    The bogus Sarah Palin Banned Books List
    By Michelle Malkin • September 6, 2008 12:01 AM
    Palin Derangement Syndrome strikes again. This time it’s hysterical librarians and their readers on the Internet disseminating a bogus list of books Gov. Sarah Palin supposedly banned in 1996. Looks like some of these library people failed reading comprehension. Take a look at the list below and you’ll find books Gov. Palin supposedly tried to ban…that hadn’t even been published yet. Example: The Harry Potter books, the first of which wasn’t published until 1998.
    The smear merchants who continue to circulate the list also failed to do a simple Google search, which would have showed them that the bogus Sarah Palin Banned Book List is almost an exact copy-and-paste reproduction of a generic list of “Books Banned at One Time or Another in the United States” that has been floating around the Internet for years. STACLU notes that the official Obama campaign website is also perpetuating the fraud. And it’s spread to craigslist, where some unhinged user is posting images likening Palin to Hitler. Here it is again.
    The person who first spread the Palin smear is identified as “Andrew Aucoin,” a commenter on the blog of librarian Jessamyn West. West has done the right thing in keeping the bogus comment up and pointing out in her main post that “there appears to be no truth to the claim made by the commenter, and no further documentation or support for this has turned up.”
    It’s a fake. Not true. Total B.S. A lie.
    If it gets sent to you by a moonbat friend or family member, set ‘em all straight. Fight the smears. They’ve only just begun.
    The bogus Sarah Palin Banned Books List:
    This is the list of books Palin tried to have banned. As many of you will notice it is a hit parade for book burners.
    A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
    A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle
    Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
    As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
    Blubber by Judy Blume
    Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
    Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
    Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
    Carrie by Stephen King
    Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
    Christine by Stephen King
    Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
    Cujo by Stephen King
    Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
    Daddy’s Roommate by Michael Willhoite
    Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
    Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
    Decameron by Boccaccio
    East of Eden by John Steinbeck
    Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
    Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by John Cleland
    Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
    Forever by Judy Blume
    Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
    Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
    Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone by J.K. Rowling
    Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
    Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
    Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
    Have to Go by Robert Munsch
    Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
    How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
    Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
    I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
    Impressions edited by Jack Booth
    In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
    It’s Okay if You Don’t Love Me by Norma Klein
    James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
    Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H. Lawrence
    Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
    Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
    Lord of the Flies by William Golding
    Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
    Lysistrata by Aristophanes
    More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
    My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
    My House by Nikki Giovanni
    My Friend Flicka by Mary O’Hara
    Night Chills by Dean Koontz
    Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
    On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
    One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
    One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest by Ken Kesey
    One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
    Ordinary People by Judith Guest
    Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women’s Health Collective
    Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
    Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
    Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz
    Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
    Separate Peace by John Knowles
    Silas Marner by George Eliot
    Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
    Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
    The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
    The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
    The Bastard by John Jakes
    The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
    The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
    The Color Purple by Alice Walker
    The Devil’s Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
    The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
    The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
    The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
    The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood
    The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
    The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks
    The Living Bible by William C. Bower
    The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
    The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
    The Pigman by Paul Zindel
    The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
    The Shining by Stephen King
    The Witches by Roald Dahl
    The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
    Then Again, Maybe I Won’t by Judy Blume
    To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
    Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
    Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff
    Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth
    From the Anchorage Daily News story that inflamed P.D.S.:
    Back in 1996, when she first became mayor, Sarah Palin asked the city librarian if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so.
    According to news coverage at the time, the librarian said she would definitely not be all right with it. A few months later, the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, got a letter from Palin telling her she was going to be fired. The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for the firing. The letter just said the new mayor felt Emmons didn’t fully support her and had to go.
    Emmons had been city librarian for seven years and was well liked. After a wave of public support for her, Palin relented and let Emmons keep her job.
    It all happened 12 years ago and the controversy long ago disappeared into musty files. Until this week. Under intense national scrutiny, the issue has returned to dog her. It has been mentioned in news stories in Time Magazine and The New York Times and is spreading like a virus through the blogosphere.
    The stories are all suggestive, but facts are hard to come by. Did Palin actually ban books at the Wasilla Public Library?
    …Were any books censored banned? June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files Wednesday and came up empty-handed.
    Pinell-Stephens also had no record of any phone conversations with Emmons about the issue back then. Emmons was president of the Alaska Library Association at the time.
    Reader Martin: “If you read the Anchorage Daily News article, towards the bottom, you find that Palin requested the resignations not only of the librarian, but of several other township officials. Why? Because they were political appointees who openly supported her political opponent. Palin requested the resignations a few days BEFORE she assumed office, apparently for political reasons, as would be routine in ALL such situations, including in the very small town of Washington, DC. [Didn’t some no-name politician fire all of the US Attorneys?] Frankly, it’s far more remarkable (and shows a great deal of tolerance) for Palin to have KEPT Emmons in office. And you’d think people would consider the source when Emmons claims Palin wanted to ban books.”
    STACLU: “What the hell will they just make up next?”
    Answer: A bogus tale of an affair. Debunked at Hot Air.

  11. mlaiuppa Says:

    Of course the censorship issue was not mentioned in the attempt to fire of the Librarian, Mary Ellen Baker (some have Emmons as the Librarian). Or the fact that she supported Palin’s opponent. There is not doubt that Palin tried to fire the Wasilla Public Library Librarian.

    The closing of the bars three hours early in Wasilla wasn’t mentioned in the firing of the Sheriff. Nor his support of Palin’s opponent. Nor the fact that the Bars an NRA were contributor’s to Palin’s election and they complained about the Sheriff.

    And the fact that Bitney was dating Todd’s friend’s ex-wife wasn’t mentioned in his firing.

    And his failure to fire Wooten wasn’t mentioned in the firing of Monegan.

    Now they’re after Francis to be removed from the investigation. Gee, wonder why?

    And the list you refer to was an educated guess by those curious to know exactly what books Palin had in mind to ban. What books is still mystery. The fact she wanted to censor the public’s access to books is NOT. That list of books is based on the challenged book list compiled by the ALA and books the Pentacostals most want to see banned. There is no question that Sarah Palin wanted to remove books from the Wasilla Public library at her discretion without going through the established challenged book protocol. The only question is which books. As an educated guess, the list isn’t out of line considering Palin’s propensity to insert her religious and personal positions into her public decision-making.

    She’s a “book burner”. Other positions she’s taken match the definition of Fascist. Why don’t you ask Carl? He’s a professor of political science. He can give you an overview of the danger signs of Fascism. Oh, wait. I can do that:

    1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
    2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
    3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
    4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
    5. Rampant sexism.
    6. A controlled mass media.
    7. Obsession with national security.
    8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
    9. Power of corporations protected.
    10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
    11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
    12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
    13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
    14. Fraudulent elections.

  12. Greg Says:
    1: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.

    Obama’s Radical Roots And Rules

    By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, August 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT

    Election ’08: Most Americans revile socialism, yet Barack Obama’s poll numbers remain competitive. One explanation: He’s a longtime disciple of a man whose mission was to teach radicals to disguise their ideology.
    The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee’s choice of the word “change” as his campaign’s central slogan is not the product of focus-group studies, or the brainstorming sessions of his political consultants.
    One of Obama’s main inspirations was a man dedicated to revolutionary change that he was convinced “must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, nonchallenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.”
    Saul Alinsky, circa 1946: Like Obama, he wanted “change.”
    Sen. Obama was trained by Chicago’s Industrial Areas Foundation, founded in 1940 by the radical organizer Saul Alinsky. In the 1980s, Obama spent years as director of the Developing Communities Project, which operated using Alinsky’s strategies, and was involved with two other Alinsky-oriented entities, Acorn and Project Vote.
    On the Obama campaign Web site can be found a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom with “Power Analysis” and “Relationships Built on Self Interest” written on the blackboard — key terms utilized in the Alinsky method.
    The far-left Alinsky had no time for liberalism or liberals, declaring that “a liberal is (someone) who puts his foot down firmly on thin air.” He wanted nothing less than transformational radicalism. “America was begun by its radicals,” he wrote. “America was built by its radicals. The hope and future of America lies with its radicals.” And so, “This is the job for today’s radical — to fan the embers of hopelessness into a flame to fight. To say, ‘. . . let us change it together!’ ”
    Alinsky students ranged “from militant Indians to Chicanos to Puerto Ricans to blacks from all parts of the black power spectrum, from Panthers to radical philosophers, from a variety of campus activists, S.D.S. and others, to a priest who was joining a revolutionary party in South America.”
    Capitalism always was considered the enemy. “America’s corporations are a spiritual slum,” he wrote, “and their arrogance is the major threat to our future as a free society.” Is it surprising that an Alinsky disciple such as Obama can promise so blithely to increase taxes on CEOs?
    Obama calls his years as an Alinskyesque community organizer in Chicago “the best education I ever had, and where I learned the true meaning of my Christian faith.” But as radicalism expert Richard Lawrence Poe has noted, “Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. In organizing coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer.”
    Indeed, Alinsky believed in sacrificing ethics and morals for the great cause. “Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times,” Alinsky wrote in his last book, “Rules for Radicals,” adding that “all values are relative in a world of political relativity.”
    Published a year before Alinsky’s death in 1972, “Rules for Radicals” includes a dedication in which he gives “an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical . . . who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
    Alinsky’s writings even explain what often seems like Obama’s oversized ego. In New Hampshire in January, for example, the senator told an audience that “a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany . . . and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama.”
    It was a bizarre spectacle, but consider that Alinsky believed that “anyone who is working against the haves is always facing odds, and in many cases heavy odds. If he or she does not have that complete self-confidence (or call it ego) that he can win, then the battle is lost before it is even begun.”
    According to Alinsky, “Ego must be so all-pervading that the personality of the organizer is contagious, that it converts the people from despair to defiance, creating a mass ego.”
    Alinsky also readily admitted that he didn’t trust the people themselves. “It is the schizophrenia of a free society that we outwardly espouse faith in the people but inwardly have strong doubts whether the people can be trusted,” he wrote. “Seeking some meaning in life,” the middle class, according to Alinsky, “turn to an extreme chauvinism and become defenders of the ‘American’ faith.”
    This is evocative of Obama’s remark during the primaries that small-town Americans are “bitter” and “cling to guns or religion.”
    Obama is also following Alinsky’s instructions to the hard left for attaining power in America. In the last chapter of “Rules for Radicals,” titled “The Way Ahead,” is found this declaration: “Activists and radicals, on and off our college campuses — people who are committed to change — must make a complete turnabout.”
    Alinsky noted that “our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt.”
    According to Alinsky, “They are right,” but he cautioned his comrades that “the power and the people are in the big middle-class majority.” Therefore, an effective radical activist “discards the rhetoric that always says ‘pig’ ” in reference to police officers, plus other forms of disguise, “to radicalize parts of the middle class.”
    Obama’s rhetorical window-dressing is easily recognizable as Alinskyesque camouflage. New annual spending of more than $340 billion, as estimated by the National Taxpayers Union, is merely a wish to “recast” the safety net woven by FDR and LBJ, as Obama describes it in his writings. The free market is disparaged as a “winner-take-all” economy. Big tax increases masquerade as “restoring fairness to the economy.”

    Barack Obama’s “Change We Can Believe In” is simply socialism — imposed by stratagem because Americans have never believed in Marxist economics. Saul Alinsky understood this, and his ghost is alive and well — and threatening to haunt the White House.

  13. carlluna Says:

    Hi Loyal reader,

    I just deleted an ad hominem comment directed at loyal reader Greg from another loyal reader. Please keep the comments less personal as it is only on the tree of meanigful dialogue that understanding the fruits of wisdom and the flowers of understanding grow. (Read that on a bubble-yum wrapper…)
    So let’s play nice.


  14. Tax Guru Says:

    I’ve been engaged in taxations for longer then I care to admit, both on the private side (all my working lifetime!!) and from a legal viewpoint since satisfying the bar and following up on tax law. I’ve furnished a lot of advice and righted a lot of wrongs, and I must say that what you’ve posted makes complete sense. Please continue the good work – the more people know the better they’ll be equipped to comprehend with the tax man, and that’s what it’s all about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: