14 May 2012
From the Blog: Uncle Sam Is Crying
“There is no more dangerous a citizen than a person with a gift of gab, a crusading complex, and a determination to pass law as the antidote for human ills.”
Since Andrew Jackson, every President viewed the power wielded by the Executive Branch in their unique way. The Office and the President dictate the success or failure during his four-year term. Success of the President is inherent to his management style, people skills, and WHOM he appoints to lead each Department. Accomplishments are superior for those without long-term Congressional experience; ability to organize or RE-organize; and courage to manipulate the unrecognized power of the office. Until you comprehend Presidential basics, you cannot fully grasp the Marxist tactics employed by Obama or the constitutional implications thereof.
The founding fathers established The United States as a “REPUBLIC” with an exceedingly effective system of checks and balances specifically to avoid consolidation of power by any individual. Because we just declared independence from an abusive despot and they wanted to prevent any future dictator from emerging. If a president creates law by fiat, our representative gov’t is precluded and the concept of check and balance is not involved in the process. The Presidential Executive Order was formerly an exercise of power founded on existing law. Regrettably, it now unfairly programmed to be an instrument for “criminal” creation law, treason. Of course, “Where one stands depends on where one sits. “ This act violates the spirit and letter of our Constitution. We tolerate this criminal practice and so does Congress. Worse yet, it often times is concealed or kept secret from you and me in the name of expediency. Unfortunately, this and other unconstitutional scenario’s enabled Obama to devastate and cripple our nation.
Hoover once said, “There is no more dangerous a citizen than a person with a gift of gab, a crusading complex, and a determination to pass law as the antidote for human ills.” So let’s step back to move forward.
Campaigns speak of reform and reform translates into reorganization with implied transition to successful times ahead or progress. Reorganization is synonymous, if for no other reason, to claim he or she will rise above the bureaucratic dilemma and relieve the stagnation of the current elected official. Of course, the incumbent cries foul and privately blames the previous administration. Until the Obama administration, one never contemplated public blame or humiliation of the prior President. Why? It is understood, a new President/party would not be President if the prior administration were successful in by the partial public voting bloc. Such petty action (blaming) is pathetic beneath the stature of the Office.
CONTINUE READING:
http://unclesamiscrying.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/how-obama-disintegrateds-the-constitution-the-power-of-the-president-you-never-knew-existed/
Showing posts with label American president. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American president. Show all posts
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Monday, April 11, 2011
Randy’s Right Alert…TRUMP UNCOVERS TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Trump is correct, Barry Soetoro, AKA Obama is hiding something in his past that is very bad… and it may not be his citizenship. (Trump would not say this if he did not know something and he has the money to get the dirt…)
As an IRS tax examiner,one of many former federal jobs, I have seen what it appears Barry Soetoro has done, mostly by illegal aliens attempting to acquire a new identity in the U.S and/or criminals looking to acquire a new ID.
Barry, AKA Obama, was lawfully adopted by a foreign national, Lolo Soetoro, and Barry’s name was legally changed to “Barry Soetoro”. (Barry’s own admission) Barry Soetoro was also made an official legal Indonesian citizen. (again Barry’s own admission) The adoption would be noted in Barry’s vital statistics record in Hawaii on his original birth certificate…
OR Lolo Soetoro may have always been Barry’s legal birth farther. The public does not know for sure at this point who Barry’s father really was and Barry himself may not know.
Barry was raised as a Muslim in Indonesia and attended a Catholic funded school that permitted all faiths to attend.
Barry’s mother dropped him as a dependent for some reason, maybe even when Barry was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. His mother’s passport records dropped Barry as a dependent indicating Barry was no longer a legal dependent of his mothers. (The passport records of his mother have been produced showing Barry was no longer a dependent when Barry was permanently residing in Indonesia.) Barry went to Hawaii to live with his alleged grand parents after Lolo Soetoro and Barry’s mother divorced.
A “certificate of live birth” can have names changed on it including a child’s birth name, and birth parent’s names. Even a modified date of birth can be on a “certificate of live birth”. This occurs frequently for adopted children where the birth parent does not want the child to know who they are. The public has no idea who Barry’s real birth father is or who Barry’s real birth mother is. (Barry could have been adopted by his mother) The original birth certificate is the only legal vital statistics record of a person’s birth parents, birth location, birth date, etc… I can get a “certificate of live birth” for a dead person; I cannot get a birth certificate of a dead person without “Deceased” on it. (I’ve tried)
There is no evidence Barry Soetoro ever lawfully changed his name to “Barrack Hussein Obama”. There is no proof Barry Soetoro was born with the name “Barrack Hussein Obama”. I’m willing to bet the name “Barrack Hussein Obama” is not present on the real birth certificate as Barry’s birth name or as Barry’s birth father. I have pictures of me with my mother and Jimmy Buffet… that doesn’t make him my father even if I start using the name Jimmy Buffet.
The public knows Barry Soetoro finished high school in Hawaii as Barry Soetoro and attended Occidental as Barry Soetoro where he did drugs and flunked out of school. After dropping out of Occidental, Barry showed up in New York, homeless and on drugs. (Barry’s own admission) Barry then hooked up with a Pakistani to live with and traveled back to Indonesia on his new boyfriend’s dime to renew his Indonesian passport and traveled to Pakistan with him.
Ask any law enforcement officer in a large city or detective and they will tell you homeless young men on drugs in large cities usually end up as male prostitutes. Barry ended up as a world traveler with a degree… (Not likely)
Barry Soetoro returned to New York from Pakistan and began using the fictitious name “Obama” for some reason. (again Barry Soetoro’s own admission) One could only suspect that a person addicted to drugs returning from Pakistan to New York, the main route for Afghan heroin into the U.S., maybe Barry had a reason to start using a new name. There are literally over 1 million open warrants on file in New York… maybe Barry is one of them?….
After spending some time in New York allegedly working under the name “Obama”, It appears Barry used the fictitious name “Barrack Hussein Obama” for the first time to file his federal taxes in Connecticut at a Post Office Box for the purpose of evading paying taxes in New York and /or to establish a new identity. (This is a felony with no statute of limitation.)
When the IRS received Barry Soetoro’s federal tax filing, the IRS could not attach the name Barrack Hussein Obama to the SSI number provided or the address provided. So the IRS assigned the fictitious name “Barrack Hussein Obama” a tax ID number for a person from Connecticut (Where Barry unlawfully filed a federal tax form using a false name). Barry Soetoro began using the tax ID number as his SSI number when using the fictitious name Barrack Obama. This is why Barry Soetoro has a Connecticut SSI number. When I worked for the IRS, I saw this occur more than once and yes, it is a felony to knowingly file a fraudulent federal tax forms. Most of the politicians that cheat on their taxes claim it was an accident. That is how they get away with their tax cheat crimes. Using a fake name is no accident.
It appears Barry fled New York to Chicago using his new identity to get a job . He likely ordered a fake diploma to bolster his new identity as “Obama”. Fake Diploma’s were very big in the 80′s and diploma mills were even being used by federal workers to get promotions. There is evidence his alleged attendance at Columbia was faked (Barry never attended Columbia) and Barry lied his way into Harvard (he had no transcripts to get in)… Including telling the Saudi royal family he was fighting in Afghanistan with the Muslim Jihad against the Russians, so they would help him get into a law school.
The Saudi’s apparently loved Barry’s story of Jihad in Pakistan/Afghanistan and paid for Barry to attend Harvard under the name “Obama”. The Saudi family has admitted to paying for Obama to attend Harvard and gave Harvard a gift of $20 million dollars. Harvard in turn made their special attendy President of the law review a person that never wrote a single law review…. I guess that is what $20 million buys at Harvard.
It is unlikely Barry was a Jihadist and was most likely a drug mule if anything, maybe even a CIA street hire to haul Afghan heroin back to New York, so the Afghans could buy U.S. made stinger missiles with U.S. dollars to shoot down Russian helicopters?… I hired people over seas to do work below my pay grade all the time, even foreign nationals… I think this is the story Barry told the Saudi’s, but he was most likely really just a drug mule/dealer and probably still wanted on an outstanding warrant in New York.
Barry’s selective service registration is not normal either… http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/
After I looked at Barry’s selective service filing I noticed it was most likely fraudulent too based on the name he used. Barry did not start using the name “Obama” until he returned from Pakistan (long after he flunked out of school in California) His selective service record (maintained in Chicago coincidentally) shows he registered at a Hawaiian post office as “Obama” in Sept 1980… Problem, Barry was getting high in California at Occidental in Sept 1980 (Barry’s own admission) and was not using the fictitious name “Obama” at that time. Barry began using the fictitious name “Obama” only after he returned from Pakistan. The selective service filing is fraudulent.
Barry returned to Chicago and attend a semi-christian radical black church with his first female love Michelle. Barry admits keeping in touch with Phil Boener, who traveled to New York from Occidental to be with Barry and was most likely Barry’s first love.
Barry still could not get a real job, because he was still a fraud, even with his Harvard degree in hand he could lie and take the Bar exam, but he could not work as a lawyer for a major law firm without a back ground investigation and he would never pass one. So, Michelle got Barry a job at her law firm. Barry never filed a case alone and never filed a motion. He wrote lost of memos according to the law firm where Barry worked. (I think they know Barry is a fraud and don’t want to be sued by previous clients) Barry rescinded his law licenses, so as not to be disbarred for fraud. The Bar knows Barry lied on his application. Michelle also had to turn over her law license for her involvement in corruption with the Chicago mayors office.
With time on his hands Barry, a well spoken black man, was able to get elected to a state office, oddly because he looked for fraud in his opponents voter registrations and got his opponent disqualified from running. Barry a well versed liar was a natural in state politics. He used his political influence to get himself a position as a lecturer at Chicago’s law school. Barry embellished this position as a “professor of law” which everyone knows is completely false. Barry was not a professor or even a specialist at anything but lying.
On a whim Barry ran for United States Senate for the State of Illinois. Politicians do this all the time to make a name for themselves even if they can’t win. At the time the Republican Ryan was a shoe in for the Senate seat, so no real Democrat contenders entered the race, but Barry did. On a fluke after the primary Ryan’s wife Jeri Ryan (Seven of nine from Star Trek) went public that her husband was making her have sex with other people while he watched. Ryan dropped out and Alan Keys moved from Maryland to run against Barry Soetoro.
The election got all kinds of press because there was no blacks in the U.S. Senate and one of these black men was going to be a Senator. Alan Keys did his best to warn everyone Barry was not who he claimed to be, but the public saw him as a carpet bagger. Barry kept the lie going and presented himself as a clean black man that talked like a white man… Illinois elected Barry to U.S. Senate. The Democrats had already began scrubbing Barry’s back ground when Ryan dropped out.
Phi,l Barry’s boy friend from Occidental, was found working in California as a communications specialist (receptionist) for a dental hygienist school and given a diploma from Columbia and cover story. The rest of Barry’s drug friends were all given jobs or money by the Democrat machine to keep quiet.
Because Barry was such a news maker as the only Black in the Senate, and he could speak like a white man he was made key speaker for the Democrat convention. Barry then decided to run for President to keep the lie going. No one thought to question Barry’s back ground in the Democrt party… They helped cover up the ugly back ground. The only person jumping up and down warning Barry was not who he claimed to be was Alan Keys and he was discarded as just an angry loser.
Now we have a complete fraud sitting in the Office of the President. Clearly the most corrupt, inexperienced, and ignorant President in the history of the United States who’s only quality is that he can lie with a straight face.
Barry Soetoro is as much of a fraud as Bernie Madoff and his house of cards will soon fall down.
March 31, 2011
americansunited2012.blogspot.com/2011/03/trump-uncovers-truth-about-obammaaka.html
As an IRS tax examiner,one of many former federal jobs, I have seen what it appears Barry Soetoro has done, mostly by illegal aliens attempting to acquire a new identity in the U.S and/or criminals looking to acquire a new ID.
Barry, AKA Obama, was lawfully adopted by a foreign national, Lolo Soetoro, and Barry’s name was legally changed to “Barry Soetoro”. (Barry’s own admission) Barry Soetoro was also made an official legal Indonesian citizen. (again Barry’s own admission) The adoption would be noted in Barry’s vital statistics record in Hawaii on his original birth certificate…
OR Lolo Soetoro may have always been Barry’s legal birth farther. The public does not know for sure at this point who Barry’s father really was and Barry himself may not know.
Barry was raised as a Muslim in Indonesia and attended a Catholic funded school that permitted all faiths to attend.
Barry’s mother dropped him as a dependent for some reason, maybe even when Barry was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. His mother’s passport records dropped Barry as a dependent indicating Barry was no longer a legal dependent of his mothers. (The passport records of his mother have been produced showing Barry was no longer a dependent when Barry was permanently residing in Indonesia.) Barry went to Hawaii to live with his alleged grand parents after Lolo Soetoro and Barry’s mother divorced.
A “certificate of live birth” can have names changed on it including a child’s birth name, and birth parent’s names. Even a modified date of birth can be on a “certificate of live birth”. This occurs frequently for adopted children where the birth parent does not want the child to know who they are. The public has no idea who Barry’s real birth father is or who Barry’s real birth mother is. (Barry could have been adopted by his mother) The original birth certificate is the only legal vital statistics record of a person’s birth parents, birth location, birth date, etc… I can get a “certificate of live birth” for a dead person; I cannot get a birth certificate of a dead person without “Deceased” on it. (I’ve tried)
There is no evidence Barry Soetoro ever lawfully changed his name to “Barrack Hussein Obama”. There is no proof Barry Soetoro was born with the name “Barrack Hussein Obama”. I’m willing to bet the name “Barrack Hussein Obama” is not present on the real birth certificate as Barry’s birth name or as Barry’s birth father. I have pictures of me with my mother and Jimmy Buffet… that doesn’t make him my father even if I start using the name Jimmy Buffet.
The public knows Barry Soetoro finished high school in Hawaii as Barry Soetoro and attended Occidental as Barry Soetoro where he did drugs and flunked out of school. After dropping out of Occidental, Barry showed up in New York, homeless and on drugs. (Barry’s own admission) Barry then hooked up with a Pakistani to live with and traveled back to Indonesia on his new boyfriend’s dime to renew his Indonesian passport and traveled to Pakistan with him.
Ask any law enforcement officer in a large city or detective and they will tell you homeless young men on drugs in large cities usually end up as male prostitutes. Barry ended up as a world traveler with a degree… (Not likely)
Barry Soetoro returned to New York from Pakistan and began using the fictitious name “Obama” for some reason. (again Barry Soetoro’s own admission) One could only suspect that a person addicted to drugs returning from Pakistan to New York, the main route for Afghan heroin into the U.S., maybe Barry had a reason to start using a new name. There are literally over 1 million open warrants on file in New York… maybe Barry is one of them?….
After spending some time in New York allegedly working under the name “Obama”, It appears Barry used the fictitious name “Barrack Hussein Obama” for the first time to file his federal taxes in Connecticut at a Post Office Box for the purpose of evading paying taxes in New York and /or to establish a new identity. (This is a felony with no statute of limitation.)
When the IRS received Barry Soetoro’s federal tax filing, the IRS could not attach the name Barrack Hussein Obama to the SSI number provided or the address provided. So the IRS assigned the fictitious name “Barrack Hussein Obama” a tax ID number for a person from Connecticut (Where Barry unlawfully filed a federal tax form using a false name). Barry Soetoro began using the tax ID number as his SSI number when using the fictitious name Barrack Obama. This is why Barry Soetoro has a Connecticut SSI number. When I worked for the IRS, I saw this occur more than once and yes, it is a felony to knowingly file a fraudulent federal tax forms. Most of the politicians that cheat on their taxes claim it was an accident. That is how they get away with their tax cheat crimes. Using a fake name is no accident.
It appears Barry fled New York to Chicago using his new identity to get a job . He likely ordered a fake diploma to bolster his new identity as “Obama”. Fake Diploma’s were very big in the 80′s and diploma mills were even being used by federal workers to get promotions. There is evidence his alleged attendance at Columbia was faked (Barry never attended Columbia) and Barry lied his way into Harvard (he had no transcripts to get in)… Including telling the Saudi royal family he was fighting in Afghanistan with the Muslim Jihad against the Russians, so they would help him get into a law school.
The Saudi’s apparently loved Barry’s story of Jihad in Pakistan/Afghanistan and paid for Barry to attend Harvard under the name “Obama”. The Saudi family has admitted to paying for Obama to attend Harvard and gave Harvard a gift of $20 million dollars. Harvard in turn made their special attendy President of the law review a person that never wrote a single law review…. I guess that is what $20 million buys at Harvard.
It is unlikely Barry was a Jihadist and was most likely a drug mule if anything, maybe even a CIA street hire to haul Afghan heroin back to New York, so the Afghans could buy U.S. made stinger missiles with U.S. dollars to shoot down Russian helicopters?… I hired people over seas to do work below my pay grade all the time, even foreign nationals… I think this is the story Barry told the Saudi’s, but he was most likely really just a drug mule/dealer and probably still wanted on an outstanding warrant in New York.
Barry’s selective service registration is not normal either… http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/
After I looked at Barry’s selective service filing I noticed it was most likely fraudulent too based on the name he used. Barry did not start using the name “Obama” until he returned from Pakistan (long after he flunked out of school in California) His selective service record (maintained in Chicago coincidentally) shows he registered at a Hawaiian post office as “Obama” in Sept 1980… Problem, Barry was getting high in California at Occidental in Sept 1980 (Barry’s own admission) and was not using the fictitious name “Obama” at that time. Barry began using the fictitious name “Obama” only after he returned from Pakistan. The selective service filing is fraudulent.
Barry returned to Chicago and attend a semi-christian radical black church with his first female love Michelle. Barry admits keeping in touch with Phil Boener, who traveled to New York from Occidental to be with Barry and was most likely Barry’s first love.
Barry still could not get a real job, because he was still a fraud, even with his Harvard degree in hand he could lie and take the Bar exam, but he could not work as a lawyer for a major law firm without a back ground investigation and he would never pass one. So, Michelle got Barry a job at her law firm. Barry never filed a case alone and never filed a motion. He wrote lost of memos according to the law firm where Barry worked. (I think they know Barry is a fraud and don’t want to be sued by previous clients) Barry rescinded his law licenses, so as not to be disbarred for fraud. The Bar knows Barry lied on his application. Michelle also had to turn over her law license for her involvement in corruption with the Chicago mayors office.
With time on his hands Barry, a well spoken black man, was able to get elected to a state office, oddly because he looked for fraud in his opponents voter registrations and got his opponent disqualified from running. Barry a well versed liar was a natural in state politics. He used his political influence to get himself a position as a lecturer at Chicago’s law school. Barry embellished this position as a “professor of law” which everyone knows is completely false. Barry was not a professor or even a specialist at anything but lying.
On a whim Barry ran for United States Senate for the State of Illinois. Politicians do this all the time to make a name for themselves even if they can’t win. At the time the Republican Ryan was a shoe in for the Senate seat, so no real Democrat contenders entered the race, but Barry did. On a fluke after the primary Ryan’s wife Jeri Ryan (Seven of nine from Star Trek) went public that her husband was making her have sex with other people while he watched. Ryan dropped out and Alan Keys moved from Maryland to run against Barry Soetoro.
The election got all kinds of press because there was no blacks in the U.S. Senate and one of these black men was going to be a Senator. Alan Keys did his best to warn everyone Barry was not who he claimed to be, but the public saw him as a carpet bagger. Barry kept the lie going and presented himself as a clean black man that talked like a white man… Illinois elected Barry to U.S. Senate. The Democrats had already began scrubbing Barry’s back ground when Ryan dropped out.
Phi,l Barry’s boy friend from Occidental, was found working in California as a communications specialist (receptionist) for a dental hygienist school and given a diploma from Columbia and cover story. The rest of Barry’s drug friends were all given jobs or money by the Democrat machine to keep quiet.
Because Barry was such a news maker as the only Black in the Senate, and he could speak like a white man he was made key speaker for the Democrat convention. Barry then decided to run for President to keep the lie going. No one thought to question Barry’s back ground in the Democrt party… They helped cover up the ugly back ground. The only person jumping up and down warning Barry was not who he claimed to be was Alan Keys and he was discarded as just an angry loser.
Now we have a complete fraud sitting in the Office of the President. Clearly the most corrupt, inexperienced, and ignorant President in the history of the United States who’s only quality is that he can lie with a straight face.
Barry Soetoro is as much of a fraud as Bernie Madoff and his house of cards will soon fall down.
March 31, 2011
americansunited2012.blogspot.com/2011/03/trump-uncovers-truth-about-obammaaka.html
Monday, January 17, 2011
National Center for Constitutional Studies
The Founders' Amazing Monetary System Would Solve Today's Monetary Crisis
The American Founding Fathers originally intended a monetary system quite different from the one we have now. In fact, they had hoped to prevent many of the fiscal and economic problems with which our present monetary system is afflicted. Their system relied on four major principles.
The people's representatives in congress must develop and carefully control the money system and make sure the amount of money remains stable. That's why the Constitution gives this power exclusively to Congress in Article I, Section 8.
To be honest, a medium of exchange must have "intrinsic" value or in other words it must have value in and of itself. The Founders knew only money based on gold and silver would provide this value.
There must be no fractional reserve banking. As Jefferson said: "No one has a natural right to the trade of a money lender but he who has the money to lend."
In order to prevent undue pressure on the demand for money and to make sure federal officials did not have so much power they could be "bought off", the Founders clearly said that money from the federal treasury can be spent only for the 20 powers listed in Article I, Section 8, and then only if such expenditures were for the "general welfare" or in other words if such expenditures benefited the whole nation and not specific groups, locations, or businesses.
Let's look at what happened to each of these founding principles.
The Big Bankers Take Control of United States Monetary System
With the adoption of the Constitution, Jefferson hoped the nation would go back to pre-revolution days with government issuing its money based on a precious metal standard. The treasury could then set up branches for loaning money and all payments of interest would go to the general funds of the nation, thereby greatly reducing the required taxes.
The first of Jefferson's hopes was realized when the gold and silver standard was explicitly written into the Constitution. However, his second hope was shattered when Alexander Hamilton was appointed Secretary of the Treasury and came up with a plan to monetize the nation's mammoth war debt by issuing bonds and selling them to private banks. He also urged the President and Congress to allow these bankers to temporarily (for twenty years) establish a private bank in the name of the United States and be responsible for issuing money , controlling the amount, fixing its value, and financing the United States government. It was this last factor which appealed to President Washington.
There was, of course, no Constitutional authority to have the federal government set up such a bank, but Hamilton persuasively argued a theory of "implied powers" which has seriously damaged the whole concept of "limited" government ever since. Although the argument was sufficiently strong to impress Congress, Washington was uncomfortable with it. In fact, he was actually contemplating a veto of the banking act when Hamilton drew him aside and filled his mind with such glowing promises of stability and prosperity under this "temporary" expediency, that Washington finally overrode his professional instinct as one of America's most successful farmers and signed the bill. Jefferson later accused Hamilton of complicating the whole scheme with such elaborate trappings that it had confused the President. It turned out that Washington's original instinctive anxieties concerning the dangers of the bill were fully justified.
Over the decades since then and through a series of man-made boom and bust cycles, the powerful banking lobby, with the behind-the-scenes pressure from Wall Street, has persuaded Congress to give them permanent authority over our money and credit in violation of the Constitution and the express will of the people. This power was permanently consolidated in 1913 into the misnamed Federal Reserve System, which is neither "federal" nor "reserve." Time and time again the big bankers who privately control the Federal Reserve have shown elected officials in Washington that indeed they are the ones that have the real power in our land.
The very basis which gives money its value is destroyed
Anything of value requires the input of labor. If it requires little or no labor, the item becomes worthless. Historically, gold and silver have always been in demand and have always required labor to accumulate, therefore giving sustainable value. Because of its universal demand it is a perfect medium of exchange.
As do-good politicians desired to expend large sums of money for programs not authorized in the Constitution, they ran up against a major problem. If a program would cost, say $100 million of new money, then that much gold and silver would have to be deposited to back up the new money. This requirement provided a real restraint and roadblock to huge give-away programs, such as FDR's New Deal. So what did he do? In 1933, he signed an executive order taking the backing of gold from our dollars! LBJ did the same thing to fund his Great Society in 1964 and took the redeemability of silver off of our dollars. Now, not having to put up the gold and silver, the politicians could merely crank up the printing presses and distribute money at will. This, of course, came with the reminder to the welfare recipients to remember these politicians at the next election.
The Origin of Fractional Reserve Banking or Making Money out of Nothing
Dr. W. Cleon Skousen explains how banks came to "make money out of nothing" and how they hooked the United States Government into the deal:
"We call this magic formula 'fractional banking' or 'reserve banking.' Here is how it all began and how it works.
"Several hundred years ago the goldsmiths of Europe were under the necessity of building substantial vaults for their precious metals. As one might have expected, it wasn't long before many others asked to leave their gold in these vaults for safekeeping. The goldsmiths consented and gave each depositor a certificate which could be used to reclaim the precious metal at any time. These certificates were therefore considered 'as good as gold' and soon circulated in business channels as though they were gold.
"In fact, they were so much more convenient to handle than gold that very few depositors ever went back to the goldsmiths except to make more deposits.
"In very short order it became entirely apparent to the goldsmiths that since only a small percentage of the depositors came back for their gold, the goldsmiths only had to keep enough on hand as a 'reserve' to satisfy those who did come back. Realizing this, the goldsmiths decided they could safely issue considerably more gold certificates than the amount of gold 'on deposit.' By this set of fortuitous circumstances they had discovered how a shrewd goldsmith could issue certificates on gold he didn't have and thus become super rich by 'making money out of nothing.' Furthermore, these spurious certificates could be used to buy up all kinds of tangible property or they could be loaned out on interest. Here indeed was the royal road to wealth.
"Of course, it was important to keep a good "reserve" for those who did want to cash in their certificates, but this ordinarily involved only a fraction of the certificates in circulation. Thus 'fractional banking' was born.
Fractional Bankers Do Something Ordinary People Cannot Do
"It will be immediately realized that 'making money out of nothing' is selling something the money managers don't really have.
"We know it is considered criminal fraud if a person sells a house he doesn't own. The same thing is true if he sells something which doesn't exist and never will exist. Then how do the bankers get away with it? The answer is rather amazing.
"Apparently the bankers saw the danger of their position and decided to protect themselves by getting the government in on the deal. They reasoned that the government certainly wouldn't prosecute the bankers if the government itself were getting a significant benefit from the operation. So this is what the bankers set out to achieve, first in Europe and more recently in the United States.
"The trick was to create a privately owned bank for the whole country. By cutting the government in on the benefits, it became feasible to call the bank by a name which implied that it was an official branch of the government. This is precisely what William Paterson did when he set up the Bank of England. Similar banks soon appeared in every nation in Europe.
"Each of these central banks became the most powerful influence in its particular country, both economically and politically. It became the manager of money and credit for the nation. It handled major investments in agriculture, industry, homes, and factories. Best of all, it loaned money to the government, especially in times of an emergency such as a war.
"The governors of these banks soon found themselves in the position of managing the affairs of government as well as the economy.
Central Banks Suffer from Two Temptations
"The record shows that when the managers of a central bank in any particular country are looking around for ways and means to accumulate more wealth, they are often tempted by two things which are inherently evil and totally destructive to the foundation of civilized countries. One is to encourage an involvement in war so the nation will be forced to borrow heavily. Bonds (which are really government IOUs paying substantial interest to the lenders) are considered to be a most valuable form of collateral assets in a central bank.
"The other temptation is to promote a cycle of 'boom and bust' economics. This simply consists of starting a boom with generous loans at low interest and easy credit and after a few years suddenly raising the interest rates, calling in loans, and bankrupting homeowners, industries, farmers, and millions of people who had trusted the bank to continue its policies.
"Some economists, including Karl Marx, have tried to maintain that these boom-and-bust cycles are an inescapable characteristic of a free-market economy. The truth of the matter is that these so-called boom-and-bust cycles are primarily a phenomenon of manipulated economics, engineered by men who find themselves in an extremely powerful position to control money and credit but seem to lack the moral integrity to resist the opportunity of fleecing the common people who have genuinely trusted them."
The Founders' Answer to the Wall Street Mess
First of all, the people must recognize the current "crisis" is man-made and the market is trying to adjust to unnatural tampering of it by scheming financiers and politicians.
Secondly, it will do no good to put more band-aids on the boiler in the form of more debt brought about by the issuance of worthless money and credit created out of nothing. Eventually this inflated monetary bubble is going to burst unless it is gradually deflated by making basic changes to our system to restore sanity and honesty.
Thirdly, Americans must be aware that this is another attempt to further consolidate economic power. Politicians say that the credit markets are drying up, and yet the largest banks like Bank of America and J P Morgan Chase seem to have the money necessary to buyout the failing companies and banks. We seem to be fast approaching the predicted time when no one will be able to buy or sell without obeying the demands of those who have consolidated enormous economic power over us.
Fourthly, by their own admission, most politicians in Washington do not have answers to this current situation. It is definitely time, with an election coming soon, to make wholesale changes in public officials who really know the Founders proven, workable solutions and have the courage to implement them.
It is interesting that CNN, in a recent attempt to find answers, turned to a congressman who does know the answers to the current crisis. Here is what Congressman Ron Paul told CNN when asked his opinion about the proposed $700 billion bailout:
"Well, I think that's a mistake because we don't have the money. But that doesn't mean you have to do nothing. I mean, we could reform the system. We could return to sound money. We could balance our budget. We could change our foreign policy. We could take care of our people at home. We could lower taxes. There are a lot of things that we can do. But the worst thing that we can do is perpetuate the bad policies that gave us this trouble in the first place, and that is that we no longer, over the last quite a few decades, believed in free-market capitalism. Capital is supposed to come from savings. We're supposed to work hard and save.
"As a matter of fact, the Chinese work hard, right now, and they save, and they're buying up the world. But we borrow and spend and consume, and now it's caught up to us and it's undermining our whole system. ... So this $700 billion is not going to do it.
"... this plan does not help Main Street. This is Wall Street in big trouble and sucking in Main Street, now, and dumping all the bills on Main Street. ... And you can't solve the problem of inflation, which is the creation of money and credit out of thin air, by more money and credit out of thin air, and not changing policy. We have to change basic policy....
"Yes, it would be painful, but it wouldn't last so long. What they're doing now, they're propping up a failed system so the agony lasts longer. They're doing exactly what we did in the Depression.... So, yes, there are going to be losses, but everybody lived beyond their means when the prices of houses were going up. Nobody cared about it. They kept borrowing against it. Oh, yes, that was fine and dandy. Everybody was making money, and homeowners kept borrowing and living beyond their means. Now they have to live beneath their means....
"What the government is doing now -- and this new program is trying to prop up prices. You want the price structure to adjust. You want the price of houses to go down. You don't want to fix the price of housing. You can't price-fix. We've had too much of that. We need a market economy. We need to believe in ourselves. We need to believe and understand how the economy got us -- how the government got us into this mess. And believe me, it wouldn't be that tough. It would be a bad year. But, this way, it's going to be a bad decade."
Sincerely,
Earl Taylor, Jr.
P.S. Read Dr. Skousen's complete report on "The Urgent Need for a Comprehensive Monetary Reform".
National Center for Constitutional Studies
http://www.nccs.net/
The American Founding Fathers originally intended a monetary system quite different from the one we have now. In fact, they had hoped to prevent many of the fiscal and economic problems with which our present monetary system is afflicted. Their system relied on four major principles.
The people's representatives in congress must develop and carefully control the money system and make sure the amount of money remains stable. That's why the Constitution gives this power exclusively to Congress in Article I, Section 8.
To be honest, a medium of exchange must have "intrinsic" value or in other words it must have value in and of itself. The Founders knew only money based on gold and silver would provide this value.
There must be no fractional reserve banking. As Jefferson said: "No one has a natural right to the trade of a money lender but he who has the money to lend."
In order to prevent undue pressure on the demand for money and to make sure federal officials did not have so much power they could be "bought off", the Founders clearly said that money from the federal treasury can be spent only for the 20 powers listed in Article I, Section 8, and then only if such expenditures were for the "general welfare" or in other words if such expenditures benefited the whole nation and not specific groups, locations, or businesses.
Let's look at what happened to each of these founding principles.
The Big Bankers Take Control of United States Monetary System
With the adoption of the Constitution, Jefferson hoped the nation would go back to pre-revolution days with government issuing its money based on a precious metal standard. The treasury could then set up branches for loaning money and all payments of interest would go to the general funds of the nation, thereby greatly reducing the required taxes.
The first of Jefferson's hopes was realized when the gold and silver standard was explicitly written into the Constitution. However, his second hope was shattered when Alexander Hamilton was appointed Secretary of the Treasury and came up with a plan to monetize the nation's mammoth war debt by issuing bonds and selling them to private banks. He also urged the President and Congress to allow these bankers to temporarily (for twenty years) establish a private bank in the name of the United States and be responsible for issuing money , controlling the amount, fixing its value, and financing the United States government. It was this last factor which appealed to President Washington.
There was, of course, no Constitutional authority to have the federal government set up such a bank, but Hamilton persuasively argued a theory of "implied powers" which has seriously damaged the whole concept of "limited" government ever since. Although the argument was sufficiently strong to impress Congress, Washington was uncomfortable with it. In fact, he was actually contemplating a veto of the banking act when Hamilton drew him aside and filled his mind with such glowing promises of stability and prosperity under this "temporary" expediency, that Washington finally overrode his professional instinct as one of America's most successful farmers and signed the bill. Jefferson later accused Hamilton of complicating the whole scheme with such elaborate trappings that it had confused the President. It turned out that Washington's original instinctive anxieties concerning the dangers of the bill were fully justified.
Over the decades since then and through a series of man-made boom and bust cycles, the powerful banking lobby, with the behind-the-scenes pressure from Wall Street, has persuaded Congress to give them permanent authority over our money and credit in violation of the Constitution and the express will of the people. This power was permanently consolidated in 1913 into the misnamed Federal Reserve System, which is neither "federal" nor "reserve." Time and time again the big bankers who privately control the Federal Reserve have shown elected officials in Washington that indeed they are the ones that have the real power in our land.
The very basis which gives money its value is destroyed
Anything of value requires the input of labor. If it requires little or no labor, the item becomes worthless. Historically, gold and silver have always been in demand and have always required labor to accumulate, therefore giving sustainable value. Because of its universal demand it is a perfect medium of exchange.
As do-good politicians desired to expend large sums of money for programs not authorized in the Constitution, they ran up against a major problem. If a program would cost, say $100 million of new money, then that much gold and silver would have to be deposited to back up the new money. This requirement provided a real restraint and roadblock to huge give-away programs, such as FDR's New Deal. So what did he do? In 1933, he signed an executive order taking the backing of gold from our dollars! LBJ did the same thing to fund his Great Society in 1964 and took the redeemability of silver off of our dollars. Now, not having to put up the gold and silver, the politicians could merely crank up the printing presses and distribute money at will. This, of course, came with the reminder to the welfare recipients to remember these politicians at the next election.
The Origin of Fractional Reserve Banking or Making Money out of Nothing
Dr. W. Cleon Skousen explains how banks came to "make money out of nothing" and how they hooked the United States Government into the deal:
"We call this magic formula 'fractional banking' or 'reserve banking.' Here is how it all began and how it works.
"Several hundred years ago the goldsmiths of Europe were under the necessity of building substantial vaults for their precious metals. As one might have expected, it wasn't long before many others asked to leave their gold in these vaults for safekeeping. The goldsmiths consented and gave each depositor a certificate which could be used to reclaim the precious metal at any time. These certificates were therefore considered 'as good as gold' and soon circulated in business channels as though they were gold.
"In fact, they were so much more convenient to handle than gold that very few depositors ever went back to the goldsmiths except to make more deposits.
"In very short order it became entirely apparent to the goldsmiths that since only a small percentage of the depositors came back for their gold, the goldsmiths only had to keep enough on hand as a 'reserve' to satisfy those who did come back. Realizing this, the goldsmiths decided they could safely issue considerably more gold certificates than the amount of gold 'on deposit.' By this set of fortuitous circumstances they had discovered how a shrewd goldsmith could issue certificates on gold he didn't have and thus become super rich by 'making money out of nothing.' Furthermore, these spurious certificates could be used to buy up all kinds of tangible property or they could be loaned out on interest. Here indeed was the royal road to wealth.
"Of course, it was important to keep a good "reserve" for those who did want to cash in their certificates, but this ordinarily involved only a fraction of the certificates in circulation. Thus 'fractional banking' was born.
Fractional Bankers Do Something Ordinary People Cannot Do
"It will be immediately realized that 'making money out of nothing' is selling something the money managers don't really have.
"We know it is considered criminal fraud if a person sells a house he doesn't own. The same thing is true if he sells something which doesn't exist and never will exist. Then how do the bankers get away with it? The answer is rather amazing.
"Apparently the bankers saw the danger of their position and decided to protect themselves by getting the government in on the deal. They reasoned that the government certainly wouldn't prosecute the bankers if the government itself were getting a significant benefit from the operation. So this is what the bankers set out to achieve, first in Europe and more recently in the United States.
"The trick was to create a privately owned bank for the whole country. By cutting the government in on the benefits, it became feasible to call the bank by a name which implied that it was an official branch of the government. This is precisely what William Paterson did when he set up the Bank of England. Similar banks soon appeared in every nation in Europe.
"Each of these central banks became the most powerful influence in its particular country, both economically and politically. It became the manager of money and credit for the nation. It handled major investments in agriculture, industry, homes, and factories. Best of all, it loaned money to the government, especially in times of an emergency such as a war.
"The governors of these banks soon found themselves in the position of managing the affairs of government as well as the economy.
Central Banks Suffer from Two Temptations
"The record shows that when the managers of a central bank in any particular country are looking around for ways and means to accumulate more wealth, they are often tempted by two things which are inherently evil and totally destructive to the foundation of civilized countries. One is to encourage an involvement in war so the nation will be forced to borrow heavily. Bonds (which are really government IOUs paying substantial interest to the lenders) are considered to be a most valuable form of collateral assets in a central bank.
"The other temptation is to promote a cycle of 'boom and bust' economics. This simply consists of starting a boom with generous loans at low interest and easy credit and after a few years suddenly raising the interest rates, calling in loans, and bankrupting homeowners, industries, farmers, and millions of people who had trusted the bank to continue its policies.
"Some economists, including Karl Marx, have tried to maintain that these boom-and-bust cycles are an inescapable characteristic of a free-market economy. The truth of the matter is that these so-called boom-and-bust cycles are primarily a phenomenon of manipulated economics, engineered by men who find themselves in an extremely powerful position to control money and credit but seem to lack the moral integrity to resist the opportunity of fleecing the common people who have genuinely trusted them."
The Founders' Answer to the Wall Street Mess
First of all, the people must recognize the current "crisis" is man-made and the market is trying to adjust to unnatural tampering of it by scheming financiers and politicians.
Secondly, it will do no good to put more band-aids on the boiler in the form of more debt brought about by the issuance of worthless money and credit created out of nothing. Eventually this inflated monetary bubble is going to burst unless it is gradually deflated by making basic changes to our system to restore sanity and honesty.
Thirdly, Americans must be aware that this is another attempt to further consolidate economic power. Politicians say that the credit markets are drying up, and yet the largest banks like Bank of America and J P Morgan Chase seem to have the money necessary to buyout the failing companies and banks. We seem to be fast approaching the predicted time when no one will be able to buy or sell without obeying the demands of those who have consolidated enormous economic power over us.
Fourthly, by their own admission, most politicians in Washington do not have answers to this current situation. It is definitely time, with an election coming soon, to make wholesale changes in public officials who really know the Founders proven, workable solutions and have the courage to implement them.
It is interesting that CNN, in a recent attempt to find answers, turned to a congressman who does know the answers to the current crisis. Here is what Congressman Ron Paul told CNN when asked his opinion about the proposed $700 billion bailout:
"Well, I think that's a mistake because we don't have the money. But that doesn't mean you have to do nothing. I mean, we could reform the system. We could return to sound money. We could balance our budget. We could change our foreign policy. We could take care of our people at home. We could lower taxes. There are a lot of things that we can do. But the worst thing that we can do is perpetuate the bad policies that gave us this trouble in the first place, and that is that we no longer, over the last quite a few decades, believed in free-market capitalism. Capital is supposed to come from savings. We're supposed to work hard and save.
"As a matter of fact, the Chinese work hard, right now, and they save, and they're buying up the world. But we borrow and spend and consume, and now it's caught up to us and it's undermining our whole system. ... So this $700 billion is not going to do it.
"... this plan does not help Main Street. This is Wall Street in big trouble and sucking in Main Street, now, and dumping all the bills on Main Street. ... And you can't solve the problem of inflation, which is the creation of money and credit out of thin air, by more money and credit out of thin air, and not changing policy. We have to change basic policy....
"Yes, it would be painful, but it wouldn't last so long. What they're doing now, they're propping up a failed system so the agony lasts longer. They're doing exactly what we did in the Depression.... So, yes, there are going to be losses, but everybody lived beyond their means when the prices of houses were going up. Nobody cared about it. They kept borrowing against it. Oh, yes, that was fine and dandy. Everybody was making money, and homeowners kept borrowing and living beyond their means. Now they have to live beneath their means....
"What the government is doing now -- and this new program is trying to prop up prices. You want the price structure to adjust. You want the price of houses to go down. You don't want to fix the price of housing. You can't price-fix. We've had too much of that. We need a market economy. We need to believe in ourselves. We need to believe and understand how the economy got us -- how the government got us into this mess. And believe me, it wouldn't be that tough. It would be a bad year. But, this way, it's going to be a bad decade."
Sincerely,
Earl Taylor, Jr.
P.S. Read Dr. Skousen's complete report on "The Urgent Need for a Comprehensive Monetary Reform".
National Center for Constitutional Studies
http://www.nccs.net/
Friday, October 22, 2010
More evidence ties Obama to socialist party'
Obama was blunt about his desire to move' Democrats 'off the cautious center'
Posted: October 21, 2010
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Yet more evidence has emerged tying President Obama to the New Party, a Marxist-led socialist party that sought to infiltrate the Democratic Party and push it so far leftward it ultimately would become a socialist organization.
John Nichols, Washington correspondent for The Nation magazine, recalled speaking with Obama at New Party events in the 1990s.
"When we spoke together at New Party events in those days, he was blunt about his desire to move the Democratic Party off the cautious center where Bill Clinton had wedged it," wrote Nichols in a January 2009 piece published at Progressive.org.
Nichols' recollection of Obama's "desire" to move the Democratic Party leftward matches the goal of the New Party, which was a 1990s socialist electoral alliance that aimed to transform the Democratic Party to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.
While running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the New Party, according to confirmed reports during the 2008 presidential campaign.
WND previously reported on newspaper evidence showing Obama was listed as a member of the New Party.
The New Party worked alongside the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.
In his piece, Nichols referenced quotes from Obama at a 2008 town hall meeting in suburban Atlanta where the politician labeled himself a "progressive."
Wrote Nichols: "Barack Obama knows exactly what it means to say he is a 'progressive.' When he does so, he is not merely avoiding the word 'liberal,' as the sillier of his rightwing critics like to claim. Obama actually understands the subtle nuances of the American left.
"This is a man who moved to Chicago to be part of the political moment that began with the 1983 election of leftie Congressman Harold Washington as the city's first African American mayor, who studied the organizing techniques of Saul 'Rules for Radicals' Alinsky, who worked with proudly radical labor leaders to defend basic industries and avert layoffs, who used his Harvard-minted legal skills to fight for expanded voting rights, who was mentored by civil libertarian legislator and federal judge Abner Mikva, who discussed the intricacies of Middle East policy with Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi, and who learned about single-payer health care from his old friend and neighbor Dr. Quentin Young, the longtime coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program.
"And, famously, Obama did not just make anti-war sounds before Iraq was invaded, he appeared at an anti-war rally in downtown Chicago with a 'War Is Not an Option' sign waving at his side."
Nichols authored a 2004 book with avowed Marxist Robert W. McChesney, founder of Free Press, a George Soros-funded organization with close ties to the White House that petitions for more government control of the news media.
WND previously reported Free Press published a study advocating the development of a "world class" government-run media system in the U.S.
In May, WND reported Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott was named a policy adviser for innovation at the State Department.
McChesney is a professor at the University of Illinois and former editor of the Marxist journal Monthly Review.
He has argued for the dismantlement of the U.S. capitalist system.
"In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles," wrote McChesney in a 2009 column.
The board of Free Press, meanwhile, has included a slew of radicals, such as Obama's former "green jobs" czar Van Jones, who resigned after his founding of a communist organization was exposed.
Obama's "Internet czar," Susan P. Crawford, spoke at a May 14, 2009, Free Press summit in Washington, D.C., called "Changing Media," revealed the book "The Manchurian President." Crawford's pet project OneWebNow lists as "participating organizations" Free Press and ACORN.
Crawford and Kevin Werbach, who co-directed the Obama transition's Federal Communications Commission review team, are advisory board members at Public Knowledge, a Soros-funded public-interest group. Public Knowledge advisory board member Timothy Wu also is chairman of the board for Free Press.
Like Public Knowledge, Free Press has received funds from Soros' Open Society Institute.
Obama listed as socialist party member
Obama's campaign in 2008 denied the then–presidential candidate was ever an actual member of the New Party.
But print copies of the New Party News, the party's official newspaper, show Obama posing with New Party leaders, listing him as a New Party member and printing quotes from him as a member.
The party's spring 1996 newspaper boasted: "New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).
The paper quoted Obama saying, "These victories prove that small 'd' democracy can work."
The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.
New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago's Democratic Socialists of America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group's support and "encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on voter education and voter registration."
The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral "fusion," which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party went defunct in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.
According to documents from the Democratic Socialists of America, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases, was a point of controversy for Obama during his campaign for president.
In 1995, the DSA's New Ground newsletter stated, "In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN.
Founder recalls Obama in New Party
In August 2009, a former top member of the New Party recounted in a WND e-mail interview Obama's participation with his organization.
"A subcommittee met with (Obama) to interview him to see if his stand on the living wage and similar reforms was the same as ours," recalled Marxist activist Carl Davidson.
"We determined that our views on these overlapped, and we could endorse his campaign in the Democratic Party," Davidson said.
Davidson was a Chicago member and activist within the New Party. He told WND he handled some of the New Party member databases and attending most of the party's meetings.
Davidson is also a notorious far-left activist and former radical national leader in the anti-Vietnam War movement. He served as national secretary for the infamous Students of a Democratic Society anti-war group, from which the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization later splintered.
Davidson remembers Obama attending a New Party meeting to thank attendees for voting for him.
Davidson said that to his knowledge Obama was not a member of the New Party "in any practical way" – using qualifying language.
Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party's political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a "visible and active relationship" with the party.
Asked whether Obama signed the New Party contract, Davidson replied there was "no need for him to do so."
"At the end of our session with him, we simply affirmed there was no need to do so, because on all the key points, the stand of his campaign and the New Party reform planks were practically the same," Davidson told WND.
Davidson denied the New Party was specifically a socialist party, claiming, "The vast majority of active members were low- and middle-income blacks in the inner city fighting for their immediate demands."
But the socialist-oriented goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.
Among the New Party's stated objectives were "full employment, a shorter work week and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal 'social wage' to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity."
The New Party stated it also sought "the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets [and] community-controlled alternative financial institutions."
Many of the New Party's founding members were Democratic Socialists of America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA.
Obama attended several DSA events and meetings, including a DSA-sponsored town hall meeting Feb. 25, 1996, entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America." He sought and received an endorsement from the DSA.
Asked by WND whether he thought Obama has socialist leanings, Davidson stated, "The truth is that Obama was and is a liberal Democrat and an Alinskyist community organizer – which if you know much about Alinsky, is just militant liberalism."
"Obama was never a man of the left, either in his views or in being a member of an actual socialist organization," added Davidson.
With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott
Posted: October 21, 2010
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Yet more evidence has emerged tying President Obama to the New Party, a Marxist-led socialist party that sought to infiltrate the Democratic Party and push it so far leftward it ultimately would become a socialist organization.
John Nichols, Washington correspondent for The Nation magazine, recalled speaking with Obama at New Party events in the 1990s.
"When we spoke together at New Party events in those days, he was blunt about his desire to move the Democratic Party off the cautious center where Bill Clinton had wedged it," wrote Nichols in a January 2009 piece published at Progressive.org.
Nichols' recollection of Obama's "desire" to move the Democratic Party leftward matches the goal of the New Party, which was a 1990s socialist electoral alliance that aimed to transform the Democratic Party to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.
While running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the New Party, according to confirmed reports during the 2008 presidential campaign.
WND previously reported on newspaper evidence showing Obama was listed as a member of the New Party.
The New Party worked alongside the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.
In his piece, Nichols referenced quotes from Obama at a 2008 town hall meeting in suburban Atlanta where the politician labeled himself a "progressive."
Wrote Nichols: "Barack Obama knows exactly what it means to say he is a 'progressive.' When he does so, he is not merely avoiding the word 'liberal,' as the sillier of his rightwing critics like to claim. Obama actually understands the subtle nuances of the American left.
"This is a man who moved to Chicago to be part of the political moment that began with the 1983 election of leftie Congressman Harold Washington as the city's first African American mayor, who studied the organizing techniques of Saul 'Rules for Radicals' Alinsky, who worked with proudly radical labor leaders to defend basic industries and avert layoffs, who used his Harvard-minted legal skills to fight for expanded voting rights, who was mentored by civil libertarian legislator and federal judge Abner Mikva, who discussed the intricacies of Middle East policy with Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi, and who learned about single-payer health care from his old friend and neighbor Dr. Quentin Young, the longtime coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program.
"And, famously, Obama did not just make anti-war sounds before Iraq was invaded, he appeared at an anti-war rally in downtown Chicago with a 'War Is Not an Option' sign waving at his side."
Nichols authored a 2004 book with avowed Marxist Robert W. McChesney, founder of Free Press, a George Soros-funded organization with close ties to the White House that petitions for more government control of the news media.
WND previously reported Free Press published a study advocating the development of a "world class" government-run media system in the U.S.
In May, WND reported Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott was named a policy adviser for innovation at the State Department.
McChesney is a professor at the University of Illinois and former editor of the Marxist journal Monthly Review.
He has argued for the dismantlement of the U.S. capitalist system.
"In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles," wrote McChesney in a 2009 column.
The board of Free Press, meanwhile, has included a slew of radicals, such as Obama's former "green jobs" czar Van Jones, who resigned after his founding of a communist organization was exposed.
Obama's "Internet czar," Susan P. Crawford, spoke at a May 14, 2009, Free Press summit in Washington, D.C., called "Changing Media," revealed the book "The Manchurian President." Crawford's pet project OneWebNow lists as "participating organizations" Free Press and ACORN.
Crawford and Kevin Werbach, who co-directed the Obama transition's Federal Communications Commission review team, are advisory board members at Public Knowledge, a Soros-funded public-interest group. Public Knowledge advisory board member Timothy Wu also is chairman of the board for Free Press.
Like Public Knowledge, Free Press has received funds from Soros' Open Society Institute.
Obama listed as socialist party member
Obama's campaign in 2008 denied the then–presidential candidate was ever an actual member of the New Party.
But print copies of the New Party News, the party's official newspaper, show Obama posing with New Party leaders, listing him as a New Party member and printing quotes from him as a member.
The party's spring 1996 newspaper boasted: "New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).
The paper quoted Obama saying, "These victories prove that small 'd' democracy can work."
The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.
New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago's Democratic Socialists of America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group's support and "encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on voter education and voter registration."
The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral "fusion," which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party went defunct in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.
According to documents from the Democratic Socialists of America, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases, was a point of controversy for Obama during his campaign for president.
In 1995, the DSA's New Ground newsletter stated, "In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN.
Founder recalls Obama in New Party
In August 2009, a former top member of the New Party recounted in a WND e-mail interview Obama's participation with his organization.
"A subcommittee met with (Obama) to interview him to see if his stand on the living wage and similar reforms was the same as ours," recalled Marxist activist Carl Davidson.
"We determined that our views on these overlapped, and we could endorse his campaign in the Democratic Party," Davidson said.
Davidson was a Chicago member and activist within the New Party. He told WND he handled some of the New Party member databases and attending most of the party's meetings.
Davidson is also a notorious far-left activist and former radical national leader in the anti-Vietnam War movement. He served as national secretary for the infamous Students of a Democratic Society anti-war group, from which the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization later splintered.
Davidson remembers Obama attending a New Party meeting to thank attendees for voting for him.
Davidson said that to his knowledge Obama was not a member of the New Party "in any practical way" – using qualifying language.
Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party's political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a "visible and active relationship" with the party.
Asked whether Obama signed the New Party contract, Davidson replied there was "no need for him to do so."
"At the end of our session with him, we simply affirmed there was no need to do so, because on all the key points, the stand of his campaign and the New Party reform planks were practically the same," Davidson told WND.
Davidson denied the New Party was specifically a socialist party, claiming, "The vast majority of active members were low- and middle-income blacks in the inner city fighting for their immediate demands."
But the socialist-oriented goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.
Among the New Party's stated objectives were "full employment, a shorter work week and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal 'social wage' to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity."
The New Party stated it also sought "the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets [and] community-controlled alternative financial institutions."
Many of the New Party's founding members were Democratic Socialists of America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA.
Obama attended several DSA events and meetings, including a DSA-sponsored town hall meeting Feb. 25, 1996, entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America." He sought and received an endorsement from the DSA.
Asked by WND whether he thought Obama has socialist leanings, Davidson stated, "The truth is that Obama was and is a liberal Democrat and an Alinskyist community organizer – which if you know much about Alinsky, is just militant liberalism."
"Obama was never a man of the left, either in his views or in being a member of an actual socialist organization," added Davidson.
With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott
Sunday, July 11, 2010
TRUE AMERICAN
TRUE AMERICAN
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:
It never occurred to you to be offended by the phrase, 'One nation, under God.'
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:
You've never protested about seeing the 10 Commandments posted in public places.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:
You still say 'Christmas' instead of 'Winter Festival.'
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:
You bow your head when someone prays.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:
You stand and place your hand over your heart when they play theNational Anthem.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:
You treat Viet Nam vets with great respect, and always have.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:
You've never burned an American flag.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:
You know what you believe and you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:
You respect your elders and expect your kids to do the same.
God Bless the U S A ! Amen
AND YOU ARE A TRUE AMERICAN, IF YOU THINK THE NATIONAL ANTHEM SHOULD ONLY BE SUNG INENGLISH!
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:
It never occurred to you to be offended by the phrase, 'One nation, under God.'
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:
You've never protested about seeing the 10 Commandments posted in public places.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:
You still say 'Christmas' instead of 'Winter Festival.'
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:
You bow your head when someone prays.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:
You stand and place your hand over your heart when they play theNational Anthem.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:
You treat Viet Nam vets with great respect, and always have.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:
You've never burned an American flag.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:
You know what you believe and you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:
You respect your elders and expect your kids to do the same.
God Bless the U S A ! Amen
AND YOU ARE A TRUE AMERICAN, IF YOU THINK THE NATIONAL ANTHEM SHOULD ONLY BE SUNG INENGLISH!
Thursday, July 1, 2010
THE WASHINGTON TIMES: An open letter to President Obama from Jon Voight
An open letter from actor Jon Voight to President Obama: June 22, 2010
President Obama:
You will be the first American president that lied to the Jewish people, and the American people as well, when you said that you would defend Israel, the only Democratic state in the Middle East, against all their enemies. You have done just the opposite. You have propagandized Israel, until they look like they are everyone's enemy — and it has resonated throughout the world. You are putting Israel in harm's way, and you have promoted anti-Semitism throughout the world.
You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today. The Jewish people have given the world our greatest scientists and philosophers, and the cures for many diseases, and now you play a very dangerous game so you can look like a true martyr to what you see and say are the underdogs. But the underdogs you defend are murderers and criminals who want Israel eradicated.
You have brought to Arizona a civil war, once again defending the criminals and illegals, creating a meltdown for good, loyal, law-abiding citizens. Your destruction of this country may never be remedied, and we may never recover. I pray to God you stop, and I hope the people in this great country realize your agenda is not for the betterment of mankind, but for the betterment of your politics.
With heartfelt and deep concern for America and Israel,
Jon Voight
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
President Obama:
You will be the first American president that lied to the Jewish people, and the American people as well, when you said that you would defend Israel, the only Democratic state in the Middle East, against all their enemies. You have done just the opposite. You have propagandized Israel, until they look like they are everyone's enemy — and it has resonated throughout the world. You are putting Israel in harm's way, and you have promoted anti-Semitism throughout the world.
You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today. The Jewish people have given the world our greatest scientists and philosophers, and the cures for many diseases, and now you play a very dangerous game so you can look like a true martyr to what you see and say are the underdogs. But the underdogs you defend are murderers and criminals who want Israel eradicated.
You have brought to Arizona a civil war, once again defending the criminals and illegals, creating a meltdown for good, loyal, law-abiding citizens. Your destruction of this country may never be remedied, and we may never recover. I pray to God you stop, and I hope the people in this great country realize your agenda is not for the betterment of mankind, but for the betterment of your politics.
With heartfelt and deep concern for America and Israel,
Jon Voight
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
