Monday, June 30, 2008

Obama Says It's Time For A Change, You Better Know What It Is!

The following is part one of an article that comes from Greg Ransom on April 7, 2008 You can visit this articles site directly at:

http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008/04/gregs-guide-to-barack-obamas-d.html and you can also read SELECTIONS from the paper "Problems Facing Our Socialism" by Barack Obama, Sr.

This is a bit lengthy, but it is something you need to read, it is very important information in regards to the man who could be elected to President of the United States, and believe me, after you read it, you will wonder what in the hell people who are voting for this guy are thinking!!


There's a big mystery at the heart of Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. What was Barack Obama doing seeking out Marxist professors in college? Why did Obama choose a Communist Party USA member as his socio- political counselor in high school? Why was he spending his time studying neocolonialism and the writings of Frantz Fanon, the pro-violence author of "the Communist Manifesto of neocolonialsm", in college? Why did he take time out from his studies at Columbia to attend socialist conferences at Cooper Union?And there is more mystery in the book. Why does Obama consider working in a consulting house for international business like being "a spy behind enemy lines?" Why does he repeatedly find it so hard to explain his political views to others? Why was he driven to become a left-aligned political organizer? It's a question Obama again and again can't seem to answer to the satisfaction of the interlocutors in his own memoir. If there is a mystery at the heart of Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father, one thing is not left a mystery, the fact that Barack Obama organized his life on the ideals given to him by his Kenyan father. Obama tells us, "All of my life, I carried a single image of my father, one that I .. tried to take as my own." (p. 220) And what was that image? It was "the father of my dreams, the man in my mother's stories, full of high-blown ideals .." (p. 278) What is more, Obama tells us that, "It was into my father's image .. that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself." And also that, "I did feel that there was something to prove .. to my father" in his efforts at political organizing. (p. 230)So we know that his father's ideals were a driving force in his life, but the one thing that Obama does not give us are the contents of those ideals. The closest he comes is when he tells us that his father lost his position in the government when he came into conflict with Jomo Kenyatte, the President of Kenya sometime in the mid 1960s; when he tells us that his father was imprisoned for his political views by the government just prior to the end of colonial rule; and when he tells us that the attributes of W. E. B. DuBois, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela were the ones he associated with his father and also the ones that he sought to instill in himself. (p. 220) This last group is a hodge podge, perhaps concealing as much as it reveals, in that it contains a socialist black nationalist, a Muslim black nationalist, a civil rights leader, and (at the time indicated in the memoir) an imprisoned armed revolutionary. A bit of research at the library reveals the answers about Barack Obama's father and his father's convictions which Obama withholds from his readers. A first hint comes from authors E. S. Atieno Odhiambo and David William Cohen in their book The Risks of Knowledge (Ohio U. Press, 2004). On page 182 of their book they describe how Barack Obama's father, a Harvard trained economist, attacked the economic proposals of pro-Western 'third way" leader Tom Mboya from the socialist left, siding with communist-allied leader Oginga Odinga, in a paper Barack Obama's father wrote for the East Africa Journal. As Odhiambo and Cohen write, "The debates [over economic policy] pitted .. Mboya against .. Oginga Odinga and radical economists Dharam Ghai and Barrack Obama, who critiqued the document for being neither African nor socialist enough."I have a copy of Barack Obama's paper here in my hand, obtained from the stacks at UCLA. The paper is as describe by Odhiambo and Cohen, a cutting attack from the left on Tom Mboya's historically important policy paper "African Socialism and Its Applicability to Planning in Kenya." The author is given as "Barak H. Obama" and his paper is titled "Problems Facing Our Socialism", published July, 1965 in the East African Journal, pp. 26-33. Obama, Sr. stakes out the following positions in his attacks on the white paper produced by Mboya's Ministry of Economic Planning and Development:


1. Obama advocated the communal ownership of land and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land, as part of a forced "development plan", an important element of his attack on the government's advocacy of private ownership, land titles, and property registration. (p. 29)


2. Obama advocated the nationalization of "European" and "Asian" owned enterprises, including hotels, with the control of these operations handed over to the "indigenous" black population. (pp. 32 -33)


3. Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on "the rich" even up to the 100% level, arguing that, "there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay" (p. 30) and that, "Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed." (p. 31)


4. Obama contrasts the ill-defined and weak-tea notion of "African Socialism" negatively with the well-defined ideology of "scientific socialism", i.e. communism. Obama views "African Socialism" pioneers like Nkrumah, Nyerere, and Toure as having diverted only "a little" from the capitalist system. (p. 26)


5. Obama advocates an "active" rather than a "passive" program to achieve a classless society through the removal of economic disparities between black Africans and Asian and Europeans. (p. 28) "While we welcome the idea of a prevention [of class problems], we should try to cure what has slipped in .. we .. need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now .. so long as we maintain free enterprise one cannot deny that some will accumulate more than others .. " (pp. 29-30)


6. Obama advocates price controls on hotels and the tourist industry, so that the middle class and not only the rich can afford to come to Kenya as tourists. (p. 33)


7. Obama advocates government owned and operated "model farms" as a means of teaching modern farming techniques to farmers. (p. 33)


8. Obama strongly supports the governments assertion of a "non-aligned" status in the contest between Western nations and communist nations aligned with the Soviet Union and China. (p. 26)


So what does all this tell us about Barack Obama, the father, and how does it help us fill in the gaps and decipher Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father? We know from Obama's memoir that his father is an "uncompromising" man whose ideals and principles gets him in trouble with the "big man" who ran Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta, leading to a dramatic scene in which Kenyatta personally confronts Obama the father and in one fell swoop destroys not only his government career but ultimately his life. Working with Obama's book alone it is hard to know what is going on. We get only an inkling when Obama quotes his "Granny" (one of Obama the elder's wives) as saying the following, "I would tell him he was too stubborn in his dealings with the government. He would talk to me of his principle .. " (p. 424) Now if we fill in the missing information we have now learned about Barack Obama the elder -- that he held uncompromising socialist and anti-Western views in line with Kenyatta's principle political rival Oginga Odinga -- we can understand why he had conflicts of "principle" with Kenyatta and government. And the timeline begins to make sense. TIME magazine reports the open conflict between the anti-communist, pro-Western Kenyatta and the communist-allied, anti-Western Odinga in a story from June, 1965, a story in which Odinga declares "communism is like food to me." By 1966 Odinga was out of the government. In Obama's Dream From My Father these political events and their consequences for Barack Obama the elder are described in the voice of his sister Auma:
"The Old Man [Obama], he left the American company to work in the government, for the Ministry of Tourism. He may have had political ambitions, and at first he was doing well in the government. But by 1966 or 1967, the divisions in Kenya had become more serious. President Kenyatta was from the largest tribe, the Kikuyus .. The vice-president, Odinga, was a Luo [as was Obama], and he said the government was becoming corrupt. That, instead of serving those who had fought for independence, Kenyan politicians had take the place of white colonials, buying businesses and land that should be redistributed to the people. Odinga tried to start his own party, but was placed under house arrest as a Communist. Another popular Luo minister, Tom M'boya, was killed by a Kikuyu gunman. Luos began to protest in the streets, and the government police cracked down ..Most of the Old Man's friends just kept quiet and learned to live with the situation. But the Old Man began to speak up. He would tell people that tribalism was going to ruin the country and that unqualified men were taking the best jobs. His friends tried to warn him about saying such things in public, but he didn't care. He always thought he know what was best, you see. When he was passed up for a promotion, he complained loudly. 'How can you be my senior,' he would say to one of the ministers, 'and yet I am teaching you how to do your job properly?' Word got back to Kenyatta that the Old Man was a troublemaker, and he was called in to see the president .. Kenyatta said to the Old Man that, because he could not keep his mouth shut, he would not work again until he had no shoes on his feet. I don't know how much of these details are true. But I know that with the president as an enemy things became very bad for the Old Man. He was banished from the government -- blacklisted. None of the ministries would give him work. When he went to foreign companies to look for a post, the companies were warned not to hire him .. Finally, he had to accept a small job with the Water Department." There are a couple of false notes in this account. To begin with, Barack Obama the father didn't "begin" to speak up. Obama was challenging the policies of Kenyatta's government from the left in the most prestigious forum possible, the East Africa Journal, at exactly the same moment when Vice President Odinga was challenging the Kenyatta government from the left. What is more, Obama did so in openly arrogant and condescending fashion, almost as if saying to Kenyatta and his government, 'How can you [be in charge of the economy], when I am teaching you how to do your job properly?" The last lines of Obama's EAJ paper capture the tone of the whole, "Despite my remarks, it is laudable that the government came out with the paper. But this is not to deny that fact that it could have been a better paper if the government were to look into priorities and see them clearly within their context so that their implementation could have had a basis on which to rely. Maybe it is better to have something perfunctorily done than none at all!



I told you it was worth the time to read!! The picture below is one that I found floating around on the internet, and it just seemed very fitting!



Barack Obama dropped this little message of unity, change and hope when asked why working class Pennsylvanian whites seemed reluctant to support him: 'It's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations.'


Who the hell is this guy? I hope you are all paying very close attention to what this guy is saying and are making sure you are telling everyone around you what a nutcase this guy really is. He only has one agenda folks.....SOCIALISM! He now has won out over Hillary, and he will stop at nothing to win the final election and bring his socialist agenda to light in the United States. He wants your guns, he wants your property, he wants you to work to give everything you make to everyone else, he wants CHANGE, but what he really wants is change to give him and his associates CONTROL and POWER, and he will stop at nothing to get it!
The revelations that Obama's pastor is a rabidly anti-American who clearly hates this country on their own wouldn't be that damaging, bt when combined with Obama's wife's statements that she has never been proud of this country until recently and Obama's own issues with the way he lies, then tries to cover up and change his stories, is enough to tell me that he cannot be trusted. Personally, I don't think the man likes the United States at all, and it may or may not be because he is black. I have nothing against black people, some of my best friends are black, but this man comes at me in a whole different perspective, and my black friends agree. This is a man who attended a bigoted church for many years and has the gall to say out loud that he never listened to this guy, that he did not adhere to the beliefs of this pastor. So your telling me Obama, that you sat in the pews like a stone statue hearing, seeing nor speaking no evil, kind of like the 3 monekeys, and I am supposed to buy into that line of garbage? The Rev. Jessie Jackson whole heartedly supports you and that really bothers me, cause Jessie Jackson is THE BIGGEST raciest in this country. I think this whole gig is a get even campaign. Obama strikes me as an angry man, and if you have someone running the country that is only there to get even, I pity the entire country. I think he is like a significant percentage of the Democratic left that thinks the U.S. is fundamentally flawed and wants to "Change" it to reflect the values they think it should have. Again.....SOCIALISM at the very least folks!

Obama also made another conflicting comment about "this country having always been a great country and he wants to change it". Slip of the tongue???? I think not!! If the country is great, why does he want to change it. If it is so great, why is it he has spoken out against it? His idea of change is not what we needs to happen here, we need to go back to the fundamentals of how this country was framed and we need to eliminate the out of control government and it's outrageous spending, limit them to only take care of a few basic needs, and just flat out get the government out of peoples lives. The country has been steadily changing for many years, and we are headed for the largest tax increase in history since FDR and his "New Deal". The country has literally continued to spiral out of control ever since the days of FDR and we cannot afford more taxes and more spending, but what we can afford is to get a complete government reorganization, and that means we need to fire Washington and start over!!

Lets take a look at the New Deal in a nutshell for those of you who do not know what it was all about....


New Deal programs were financed by tripling federal taxes from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and so-called "excess profits" taxes all went up. (there's a concept!)
The most important source of New Deal revenue were excise taxes levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs, wouldn't want to give any disabled people a break, that would be discrimination!), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios -- these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which meant that the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Even to listen to FDR's "Fireside Chats," you had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent." (Gee....there's a suprise!)
Until 1937, New Deal revenue from excise taxes exceeded the combined revenue from both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. It wasn't until 1942, in the midst of World War II, that income taxes exceeded excise taxes for the first time under FDR. Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs. (sounding familier??)
New Deal taxes were major job destroyers during the 1930s, prolonging unemployment that averaged 17%. Higher business taxes meant that employers had less money for growth and jobs. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls made it more expensive for employers to hire people, which discouraged hiring.....kind of like where we are going again today?
Other New Deal programs destroyed jobs, too. For example, the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) cut back production and forced wages above market levels, making it more expensive for employers to hire people - blacks alone were estimated to have lost some 500,000 jobs because of the National Industrial Recovery Act. (holy cow, the blacks getting a raw deal? By a democrat?? Oh this opens up a new topic of discussion for my next post!)


The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) cut back farm production and devastated black tenant farmers who needed work. The National Labor Relations Act (1935) gave unions monopoly bargaining power in workplaces and led to violent strikes and compulsory unionization of mass production industries. Unions secured above-market wages, triggering big layoffs and helping to usher in the depression of 1938.


What about the good supposedly done by New Deal spending programs? These didn't increase the number of jobs in the economy, because the money spent on New Deal projects came from taxpayers who consequently had less money to spend on food, coats, cars, books and other things that would have stimulated the economy. This is a classic case of the seen versus the unseen -- we can see the jobs created by New Deal spending, but we cannot see jobs destroyed by New Deal taxing. So, for defenders of the New Deal, perhaps the most embarrassing revelation about New Deal spending programs is they channeled money AWAY from the South, the poorest region in the United States. The largest share of New Deal spending and loan programs went to political "swing" states in the West and East - where incomes were at least 60% higher than in the South. (gotta buy those votes!! ) As an incumbent, FDR didn't see any point giving much money to the South where voters were already overwhelmingly on his side.
Americans needed bargains, but FDR hammered consumers -- and millions had little money. His National Industrial Recovery Act forced consumers to pay above-market prices for goods and services, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act forced Americans to pay more for food. Moreover, FDR banned discounting by signing the Anti-Chain Store Act (1936) and the Retail Price Maintenance Act (1937).
Poor people suffered from other high-minded New Deal policies like the Tennessee Valley Authority monopoly. Its dams flooded an estimated 750,000 acres, an area about the size of Rhode Island, and TVA agents dispossessed thousands of people. Poor black sharecroppers, who didn't own property, got no compensation. (Oh brother, here we go with the black people getting the shaft AGAIN by a DEMOCRAT!)
FDR may not have intended to harm millions of poor people, but that's what happened. We should evaluate government policies according to their actual consequences, not their good intentions. Kind of like what is going on right now with Obama promising crap he has no business promising, cause it can't be done!


Democratic presidential candidates as well as some conservative intellectuals, are actually suggesting that FDR's New Deal is a good model for government policy today....Yeah right!! So in other words, we are definatly headed for much bigger problems than we are already experiencing. Roosevelt entered office with no single ideology or plan for dealing with the depression. He was willing to try anything, and, indeed, in the "First New Deal" (1933-34) virtually every organized group (including the Socialist Party) gained much of what they demanded. There's the socialist agenda being patornized by yet another democrat!


The New Deal was a major milestone in the rise of America's managerial state, and it is way past time for us to reverse it before it is too late, and we are siting on the edge of too late people, we better wake up, and we better wake up NOW!

Credit: The New Deal information I provided for you here came from Jim Powell.
Jim Powell, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is author of FDR's Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Crown Forum, 2003).



No comments: