Obama's "95% Tax Cut" Ruse

As we patiently listen to Sen. Obama's tedious torrent of socialist mantras like "economic fairness" and "leveling the playing field", we would all do well to clearly remember just who pays the taxes in these United States.

When speaking about tax policy with Obama disciples, we must intellectually challenge them with, among other truths, this verifiably indisputable FACT:

"According to the IRS, 75% of tax filers in the top
5% income bracket are small busniness owners who create
75% of new jobs in America."

To help lead our liberal friends further into the light, here's a breakdown of what portion of total taxes collected is already paid by the various income brackets:

Top 5%..........60%
Top 10%.........70%
Top 25%.........86%
Top 50%.........98%
Bottom 50%.......0%

This straightforward IRS breakdown means that Obama's oft-repeated and seductive promise of a "tax cut" for 95% of taxpayers is shamelessly misleading. (In impolite circles it would be called a "lie".) Simply put, since 50% of low and middle income earners pay no tax, then 50% of Obama's 95% figure will NOT get a tax cut. What they will get is a bread-and-circuses, vote-buying welfare check. Again, not a "tax cut".

Finally, history has proven over and over and over again that taxing business stymies job growth and economic prosperity. Thus, imposing higher taxes on the top 5%--75% of whom are small businesses which create 75% of new jobs--would severely hurt the very people whom the liberals loftily profess they so desperately want to help. Unblievable. The twisted logic of socialism.

Now that this is off my chest, let the Obama chicanery resume--but, in part, pre-exposed this time around. And let's none of us be reluctant to enlighten those Obamaniacs who, despite the intrusion of facts in their lives, opt to see and "feel" otherwise.

Dems Concede Defeat on Drilling Ban Extension

We count our blessings while we can.

With prospects of Senate passage of HR 6899 dim and anticipating a Bush veto if it were, yesterday the Dems dropped their bid to extend the 1981 offshore drilling ban which expires on September 30th. A singular victory for American consumers and a tribute to the dogged determination of the Republican minority on the otherwise infamous Hill.

While the Democratic concession doesn't portend imminent federal sale of offshore oil and gas leases, it likely stems any immediate speculative spikes in oil prices and certainly buoys the spirits and aspirations of the "drill here, drill now" crowd.

So, for the moment, American consumers can breathe a sigh of relief. Now if D.C. can but untangle the morass of bureaucratic red tape to expedite actual drilling operations.

One step at a time, I guess. And we'd best watch our backs: the ever-ruthless party-first Pelosi-Reid diumverate will continue to shamelessly conspire against any actual drilling operations and any commonsense and comprehensive "all of the above" energy policies as well. Loyalty to their enviro-lobbyist buddies still very much outweighs their loyalty to country.

Pelosi's Energy Bill a Shameless Hoax

Without floor debate or committee discussion, on Tuesday, September 16th, Nancy Pelosi, in her usual tyrannical and heavy-handed manner, ramrodded HR 6899 through the House of "Representatives".

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) labeled the Pelosi bill a "bait and switch" which "won't produce one drop of oil for many years to come."

The American Petroleum Institute (API) characterized the bill as "a dry hole for the American consumer...[which] will make Americans more dependent on foreign energy."

Looks like our Machiavellian me-first San Fran Nan and her liberal "party-first" minions have done it again: swindled "we the people". Let's pray for cooler heads in the Senate where this preposterous bill is headed.

Passing along essentially party lines, this so-called "compromise, comprehensive, all-of-the-above energy bill" permanently prevents America's accessing 80%--that's 80%!!!--of its offshore energy reserves, prohibits exploration in nearly 90% of the outer continental shelf, blocks energy production in the Western US, and, for the first time, prohibits energy production in arctic Alaskan waters. It also prohibits construction of any nuclear plants and, the coup de grace, levies $18B in taxes on the oil industry, the cost of which will, of course, be passed on to American consumers. And, yes, folks, there is pork. It's just too tantalizing for our "reps" on the Hill to resist.

In effect, this travesty of an energy bill extends the current moratorium on domestic drilling which would otherwise have expired on September 30th.

More specifically, the fine print imposes a 50-mile coastal ban on drilling where the largest known energy supplies exist, and allows drilling within 50-100 miles of the coast--but only with state approval and without any incentivizing revenue sharing mechanism in place to ensure state buy-in. Beyond the 100-mile range where there is precious little energy to be had, drilling is mercifully allowed by Politburo Chief Pelosi.

Nancy's environmental lobbyist contributors must be positively giddy and already feverishly scibbling checks for the DNC. And, of course, they must all be salivating in anticipation of a White House and Congress controlled by Dems and their socialist allies in November.

During these profoundly precarious economic times, wouldn't you think the Dems would try to do what's best for America first and not their environmentalist contributors? Or have they really shown their true colors for all to see? And, once again, those colors aren't red, white and blue! Imperiously ignored by autocratic congressional "leadership" once again, just when will the American people rise up and toss Comrade Pelosi and her elitist socialist bums on the street where they belong!

Better that Congress, the sop of special interests, were still on vacation than be allowed to perpetrate this debilitating hoax on America. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia, among other oil producers--and those pesky speculators lurking in the shadows--are most certainly buoyed by this outrage. Look for higher oil prices soon if the Senate rubberstamps this or a similarly odious energy bill.

Boy, are we in trouble. When our own "representatives" work at cross purposes with those they are supposed to represent--YOU and ME--what is our recourse?

("The citizen can bring political and governmental institutions back to life, make them responsive and accountable, and keep them honest. No one else can." John Gardner)

("The surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colours breaking through." Alexis de Tocqueville)

("A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." Edward R. Murrow)

Just What is a "Community Organizer"?

Bland though the subject may be, in view Sen. Obama's claim to community organizing fame, I felt it personally compelling to more precisely define what a Community Organizer really is. Allow me to share my meager findings.

When asked by his college classmates what a community organizer (CO)is, Sen. Obama is quoted in his autobiography as having stated "I couldn't answer them." Since my research is unable to develop an accurate, authoritative and widely accepted definition either, his reply, though unenlightening, is nonetheless some source of solace.

Though being protested, here is Wikipedia's tentative definition of "community organizing": "a process by which people living in close proximity to each other are brought together to act in their common self-interest. CO's act as area-wide coordinators of programs for different agencies in an attempt to meet community needs for various services. CO's work actively, as do other types of social workers, in community councils of social agencies and in community action groups. At times the role of CO's overlap that of social palnners."

Though Wikipedia is having a devil of a time defining CO and seems to concede that the definition may ultimately be a subjective exercise, it's important to note that the U.S. Occupational Outlook handbook doesn't list "community organizer" as a job listing. However, according to the U.S. government CO's "come under paid for nonprofits" and are defined as "activists [who] recruit and organize members of a common community to work for a cause, they publicize and lead community gatherings and discussions and meet with government agencies and the leaders of nonprofits."

(You may now stretch.)

Though this is probably more than you ever wanted to know about the subject, by the Wikipedia definition I gather that the local military recruiter could be said to be a CO. For that matter, a godfather of organized crime could be considered a CO. And though never self-identifed as such, Mahatma Ghandi, Marthin Luther King Jr., Christ, albeit our savior, and leaders of gay rights and anti-war activists could also be described as CO's.

So, after all is said and done, it appears that CO's are, in shorthand, "activists who recruit and organize members of a community to work for a cause." Just what cause is entirely up to the CO in question, and in Sen. Obama's case my research exposes precious little in the way of specific, substantive or otherwise remarkable accomplishments. (Perhaps CO accomplishments are not measureable, but who really knows.) So, how his CO experience has any significant relevance to his presidential qualifications is, at best, still painfully elusive.

Of special interest and concern to me, however, is the fact that during my research "community organizing" as a regimen/field/discipline/occupational speciality, especially as it relates to Chicago's South Side, appears to be built upon the socialist philosophy of one Saul Alinsky, a radical socialist who wrote "Rules for Radicals" (1971) and "Reveille for Radicals"(1946).

Alinsky championed "social reform", aka "change", which had as its aim the destruction of the upper and middle classes through political struggle and the redistribution of income. Alinsky's name continually popped up in my CO research, for it was his socialist activities and principles that guided the Developing Communities Project in Sough Side/Chicago for which Sen. Obama worked in 1985 for a $13K salary and the use of an automobile.

So, is it mere serendipity that such populist and seductive terms such as "change", "fairness", "economic security" and "social justice" are at the very core of Sen. Obama's presidential campaign rhetoric? I think not. For when one considers his choice of radical associations over the years and the strong expressions of support, outright endorsements and praise extended to him by the likes of the Democratic Socialists of America, Fidel Castro, Hamas, George Galloway, MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, Louis Farrakhan, ACORN, Daniel Ortega, Hollywood elites, Qaddafi, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden and the Communist Party USA, among other far-leftists, the obvious answer to my query is academic. And it is on that basis that I believe America's got a very serious problem, perhaps insuperable, on its hands, i.e. a stealthy socialist takeover of the American government in November by a wily CO.

With the toxic specter of an Obama Administration in league with a Democratically-dominated Congress before us, it looks like all we can do is pray and work very hard to elect decent and well-grounded Republicans and Conservatives to Congress, continue to expose the excesses and chicanery of the Democratic elites at every turn, and to soundly defeat Obama at the polls. Let's wish ourselves and this great nation, already under seige, copious good fortune in this challenging endeavor.

McCain Proposes a "League of Democracies "

During a speech before the Hoover Institution on May 1st, Sen. McCain spoke about the formation of a "League of Democracies" which would enable "democratic friends and allies...to build a new global order of peace...that can last...for a century: and "where the dangers and threats we face diminish and where human progress reaches new heights."

Call me a wild-eyed idealist--of the conservative genre, of course--but such a pioneering concept in these treacherous and transformative times is, for me, very appealing and definitely worth exploring. Despite cynical detractors both on the left and the right, it's my belief that new challenges call for new approaches and, hopefully, remedies. For that reason, formation of the League is definitely worth pursuing.

Though I was unable to cull a lot of spedific information on this proposal, from what I've gleaned such a league is intended to be a viable and constructive alternative to a UN rife with parochial interests, corruption and ineptitude. It appears that the League would not supplant the UN; rather, it would, in parallel, independently supplement UN capabilities.

The theory goes that the nearly 100 democracies which would comprise this coalition would share common values and similar viewpoints on important matters, thus better ensuring more effective unified action on international issues and challenges of common concern. And, of course, as long as we don't delude ourselves in believing that such a league would morph into a "Grand Alliance" or otherise diminish the need for existing military alliances, such as they are, then a League of Democracies just might make the positive differences on the world scene McCain is hoping for.

Though international organizations have been inherently and notoriously ineffective, the League's greatest asset would be its constructive example which might well help to invigorate burgeoning democracies while encouraging a UN woefully in need of major reform to do so.

As a respectable international watchdog of sorts--with credible ecoomic, political and military leverage to boot--the League would be unconstrained by unconstructive and pftem irresponsible Security Council vetoes. Chances are probably better than even that a League of Democracies would be able to more effectively and quickly intercede in acute humanitarian crises like the Rwanda massacres and Darfur. As an international aid worker in my past life, possessing an aggressive humanitarian capability (my words) alone would render the League's formation well worth the effort. I suspect that the UN's role would be appropriately reduced to that of handling those humanitarian crises with which it would be more adept and familiar, e.g. UNICEF, UNHCR and less politically challenging disaster relief and peacekeeping operations worldwide. And, of course, the UN would continue to be a venue where international crises and concerns would be discussed--just not the only one.

In any event, I hope this concept has legs. Though it hasn't been talked about much by either Sen. McCain or the media, I believe it has genuine merit. If nothing else, it would serve to reinvigorate America's international diplomatic purpose and clout while enhancing the Free World's collective security as well. One would hope so anyway.

("Freedom lies in being bold." Robert Frost)

Obama's Policy Positions a Clear and Present Danger

Over the past several months, I've attempted three times to responsibly outline Obama's policy positions, and despite his myriad "clarifications" and outright reversals I believe I have managed to pull together what is--today, at least--a fairly accurate picture of where he stands on many key issues.

Because of his more unscrupulous and nimble flip-flops on public financing, NAFTA, Iran, Iraq, Jerusalem, special interests, Cuba, gun control, wiretapping, illegal immigration and the decriminalization of marijuana, I have necessarily and heavily relied upon his actual voting record and his verifiable public pronouncements to more accurately gauge what are most likely his core beliefs, principles and positions. For better or for worse, here it is:

During his tenure as a state legislator in Illinois, he supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of hand guns and opposed the right to carry concealed weapons; he opposed a bill which would have prohibited anyone other than a parent to accompany a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion; he voted against SB 1661 which would protect a child born alive during an abortion from being denied medical care after birth; and he voted in favor of HB 3396 which would deny the right to a secret ballot to organize a union if 50% of eligible workers publicly supported unionization.

During his time as a U.S. Senator, he opposed listing Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization; he voted to restore habeas corpus rights to GITMO detainees; he pledged to remove all troops from Iraq by March 2008 (irrespective of the conditions on the ground); he supports the imposition of socialized/universal health care; he opposes school vouchers; he voted against banning partial birth abortions; he supports "alternative sentencing” and rehabilitation; he voted against the Bush tax cuts and repealing the Death Tax; he opposes declaring English as the official language of the U.S. government; he voted against confirming justices Alito and Roberts (and expressed his preference for justices like Ginsberg); he supports extending welfare, health care and social security benefits to illegal aliens; he pledges huge cuts in defense spending inclusive of funding for the anti-missile defense system and most other weapons research and development programs; he favors increasing the upper income tax bracket to 40% and supports levying a 12.5% FICA tax on ALL incomes, thus effectively rendering a 60% tax bracket for incomes over $250,000, the third highest rate in the world; he would nearly double the capital gains tax to 28% and nearly double the dividend tax; he supports passsage of the Global Poverty Act (an $845 billion boondoggle supported by the U.N. which insanely believes that such a gargantuan expenditure by American taxpayers will magically eliminate poverty in the developing world); he would require Homeland Security to notify terror suspects they are under investigation within seven days of starting an investigation; he would prohibit Homeland Security's search and seizure of documents unless there is "probable cause that the targeted individual is linked to a specific terror group" (vs the current standard that the search be "relevant to a terror investigation"); he opposes nuclear power, shale conversion, ANWR and offshore oil drilling.

I can already hear the flight of American capital as it flutters into offshore accounts and overseas investments.

Historically, the economic positions he champions have proven over and over again to be unworkable and economically destructive. The economic disincentives his policies would create and his massive spending plans would effectively debilitate America's economic competitiveness and, by most estimates, would increase the current deficit to a stifling $1 trillion by 2011!

To achieve his economic and political makeover of America, the scope and power of the government would also be grossly expanded well beyond even the limits advocated by the most progressive interpreters of the Constitution.

Apparently, his far left-wing formula for ostensibly improving Americans'lot in life is premised on what clearly appears to be his elitist and alien belief that individuals are incapable of helping themselves (despite all the evidence to the contrary), that the middle class needs to be bought off (with dollars exprpriated from the "wealthy"), and that the "upper income" class should be cut down to size, all in a Marxist effort to achieve "fairness" and "equality" through income redistribution and tighter government control over Americans' lives. (For verification of his socialist game plan, listen for the endless socialist code words "fairness" and "equality" in his florid and otherwise vapid rhetoric.)

Saul Alinksy, Karl Marx and liberal elites both in DC and on the ivy league circuit will be immensely proud of Obama, their student, if he can pull this off in November.

The crucial question is this: will enough Americans see the socialist which lurks beneath Obama's shiny veneer in time to save themselves and their country from him? Incredibly, it's still too early to tell.

Many Americans are loathe to allow a socialist takeover of an America whose traditions and values are so deeply ingrained and honored and for which so many friends and relatives have died defending.

Thank God the 2nd Amendment--though always under assault--is still alive and well.

("The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing what happened." Norman Thomas, Socialist Party of America, cir 1925)

("[Saul Alinsky] taught [community organizers] to ridicule opponents when the arguments of their opponents could not be refuted by logic, evidence, or argument; for Alinsky, the middle class was a pawn with which he could produce his desired "change" [aka social revolution] by convincing the middle class to side with him in its own destruction; Alinsky taught that power was everything and that image, words, and positioning were just methods to capture power, working from communities up." Dr. Jerome Corsi)

Critique of Obama's 9/4 Interview with O'Reilly

In short, you didn't miss a thing. It was totally uninformative and nauseatingly predictable. Obama's responses were hackneyed and characteristically nuanced. I honestly believe the man is either viscerally incapable of telling the truth or has been so blinded by his own shortsighted ideology that he cannot see the truth.

A prisoner of his finely honed talking points, Obama still couldn't bring himself to unambiguously admit the screamingly obvious fact that the "surge" has worked. And, as revealing, he again refused to admit that his opposing the surge was a mistake. So much for political courage and honor.

With a platform invested from the beginning in America's defeat in Iraq, he also disingenuously implied that the seminal Anbar "awakening"(rejection of AQI) was nothing more than a fortuitous phenomenon totally unrelated to the surge and to Gen. Patreaus's enormously successful counterinsurgency strategy.

And, of course, when queried about our enemies in the world, noticeable was his studious avoidance of the term "Islamofascism."

Yup. The "community organizer" and flimflam man from Illinois remains an accomplished spinmeister with the character of an asp.

Global Warming or Global Cooling?

Though difficult, one can still cull authoritative information which scientifically contests politically correct viewpoints regarding global warming. And with costly global warming-friendly legislation such as cap-and-trade threatening us all, we should do our best to stay informed.

In my June 9th post, I reported on the May 2008 submission of a petition to Congress and the President by 31,000 scientists representing the Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine which debunked doomsday global warming scenarios (such as those advanced by Gore and his political allies) and which warned against ill-conceived legislative fixes.

Now these latest tidbits from the scientific community:

1. Canadian climatologist T. Ball warns that "if we are facing a [global climate] crisis at all, it is that we are preparing for warming when we should be preparing for cooling."

2. Australian scientist Peter Harris asserts that "the Earth is nearing the end of the typical interglacial cycle and is due for a sudden cooling climate change." He goes on to say that "based upon careful analysis we can say that there is a 94% probability of imminent global cooling and the beginning of the coming ice age." He notes that climate is currently unstable and that "most of the natural climate processes we are witnessing now are interdependent and occur at the end of each interglacial period, ultimately causing sudden long-term cooling."

3. Noting that over the last 500,000 years there is a 100% correlation between gravitational cycles to the beginning and ending of global warming cycles, in his book, Global Warming - Global Cooling, Natural Causes Found, the culmination of 19 years of research, meteorologist D. Dilley writes that "by 2023 global climate temperatures will become similar to colder temperatures in the
1800's."

4. The Russian Academy of Sciences warns that "Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells which started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate and no such thing as the hothouse effect." In a companion story, Oleg Sorakan of the Academy notes that "carbon dioxide is not to blame for global change," and goes on to say that "solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind."

5. Victor Herrera, a Mexican geophysicist, reports that global warming prognostications "are incorrect because they are based solely upon mathematical models and present results from scenarios that do not include solar activity." He concludes that "in 2 years or so there will be the beginnings of a little ice age that will last 60-80 years" and that "the immediate consequences of this will be drought."

6. UK astrophysicist P. Corbyn asserts that "there is no evidence that CO2 has ever driven or ever will drive world temperatures and climate change. Worrying about CO2 is irrelevant." And where have we heard that before?

7. A recent U.S. Senate committee report highlighted Russian physicists' collective projection that "global temperatures will cool--not warm--within the next decade."

So, despite the politicization of the subject, and the beltway's general acceptance of global warming as an incontrovertible fact of life, what is actually occurring in our global climate is still hotly contested among rank and file scientists.

On such a weighty subject, transparent and responsible scientific discussion of the subject at the national level should be demanded. A "climate change commission" comprised of scientists--not political hacks--who represent a variety of scientific viewpoints and perspectives on the subject of climate change should be immediately convened to develop a coherent body of data and recommendations for the consideration of both Congress and the President. Our government's attempting to legislate without the benefit of intelligent, apolitical scientific discussion is both shortsighted and insane. The damage to the country caused by the lethal mix of politics with science could be incalculable.