The Conservative Revolution

Senator Obama is a tax and spend liberal. There is no doubt about that. He supports raising the capital gains tax even though he admits that it will not increase government revenue. He argues that raising this tax is merely an issue of “fairness.” He does not seem to care about the harmful economic impact of raising such taxes.

Consistent with his redistributionist tendencies, Obama also wants to raise the payroll tax on Social Security for anyone making over $250,000. Here is a good critique of that policy from Lawrence Lindsey:

“Obama’s plans would provide a powerful incentive for the highest-earning Americans to work less, invest less and contribute less to the economy.”

This would fundamentally change the purpose of Social Security. It was never meant to be a welfare program based on a progressive taxation scheme. It was only meant to provide income to retirees with money from current workers.

The federal government doesn’t need more revenue, it needs to cut spending and lower tax rates. Otherwise, if Obama gets his way and pushes through massive new spending on things like health care or universal pre-school, he will have to substantially increase taxes on everyone to pay for it.

With the economy slowly moving along, the worst thing we could do is increase taxes and spending, and cause capital to flee our shores. Let’s hope the American people realize this before they sign on to Obamania.

While The New Yorker’s cartoon depiction of Barack and Michelle Obama as radical terrorists is making lots of news, the interesting article inside the magazine on his rise in politics seems to be getting little attention. But this is one of the best articles I’ve read about Obama, and all voters should be familiar with its content.

The theme of the 18 page article by Ryan Lizza entitled, “Making It: How Chicago Shaped Obama“, is that Obama is a very practical politician not afraid to do what it takes to win. Lizza recounts the story of Obama using technicalities to bump his primary opponents off the ballot in his race for the Illinois Senate. Lizza writes, “he was able to remove not just Palmer’s name from the ballot but the name of every other opponent as well.” This doesn’t sound like “a new style of politics” but like the rough and tumble Chicago politics that Obama was engaged in for the last few years.

The article also provides further evidence of the relationship between Obama and Tony Rezko, who raised 10% of Obama’s funds for his first campaign. Lizza notes that Rezko and Obama dined together often and even vacationed together. This is in stark contrast to Obama’s assertion that he was not closely linked with the corrupt real estate developer.

Then there is the story about Obama’s near fight with another state senator on the floor. The senator involved says that Obama told him “I’m going to kick your ass!” Again, this doesn’t really seem like the politics of “change” or “hope.”

The best quote from the entire piece is the following:

“Perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them.”

The open question is whether independent voters will see Obama for what he is: just another power-seeking politician, rather than the political messiah that some of his younger, more idealistic supporters think he is. We may have an answer to this question on November 4th.

The scandal surrounding the Dodd-Countrywide mortgage bailout bill continues to grow, as news has surfaced that Senator Barack Obama received a suspicious deal on a home mortgage in 2005 from Northern Trust in Illinois.

So much for the politics of “change.”

read more | digg story

Robert Dreyfuss of the liberal magazine, The Nation, has an interesting piece in the latest edition of the magazine on Barack Obama’s shifting foreign policy views.

Though he is against the idea of the United States imposing democracy abroad, Obama does propose a sweeping nation-building and democracy-promotion program, including strengthening the controversial National Endowment for Democracy and constructing a civil-military apparatus that would deploy to rescue and rebuild failed and failing states in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

The magazine points out that it is difficult to decipher Obama’s beliefs from his rhetoric. Who is the real Barack Obama when it comes to foreign policy? The Obama that would pull our troops out of Iraq immediately or the Obama that would leave a “residual force” and safely withdraw the troops? These are questions that liberals and conservatives are only just beginning to ask.

For a candidate that preaches so much about “changing Washington” Barack Obama has proved himself once again to be just another Washington politician. One of the most fundamental reforms he talks about is ridding the system of lobbyists and special interests. He and John McCain both support restrictions on political speech in the form of campaign finance laws.

For the record I think they are both wrong for supporting an unconstitutional measure to restrict free speech. But what makes it worse for Obama is that he is also a hypocrite. At least McCain is going to take public financing this election year. But Obama announced this week that he would forgo public financing and instead rely upon private donations to fund his campaign. The reason? He blames it on 527’s and other “outside groups” that will be running ads and educating the public from their point of view. But as The New York Times and The Politico have pointed out, there is no real presence on the right that is ready to attack Obama through a massive ad campaign. He just needs to place the blame on someone else while deflecting criticism away from his own hypocrisy. Even The Washington Post agrees that Obama’s excuse for not taking public financing like he promised is ridiculous.

So much for the politics of “change.” Obama is just another politician. For someone running on a platform of fundamentally reforming the system, Obama sure seems to be comfortable saying one thing while doing another.

The blogs are abuzz with rumors of a tape that shows presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s wife referring to white people with the derogatory term “whitey.” Here is a YouTube video from Fox News where they discuss the possibility of such a tape. I’ll post updates as I find out more. Keep in mind this could be just a rumor.

UPDATE: My fellow blogger Jim Geraghty believes that there is nothing to this story. I’ll keep updating this post as more information comes to light. My gut tells me it is probably a rumor, but it would not surprise me if it were true.

Barack Obama faces another embarrassing spiritual adviser situation this week. Watch this video of Rev. Michael Pfleger making asinine statements about Hillary Clinton and “white supremacy.” As I’ve said before, Obama doesn’t just have a Rev. Wright problem, he has a lunatic church problem. These sorts of comments seem to be encouraged and embraced by the entire congregation, as you can see in the video. Obama’s mentors and their belief in Black Liberation Theology are going to present a serious problem for him throughout the campaign season.

Sean Hannity examines the link between Barack Obama and William Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the video below. The Weather Underground was a radical domestic terrorist group that bombed the Pentagon, New York City police headquarters and planned an attack on Fort Dix. Ayers told the New York Times on Sep. 11, 2001 that he didn’t regret setting off the bombs. In fact, he wished he could have done more damage in his war against The United States.

Why does Barack Obama’s campaign spokesman say that he has a “friendly relationship” with William Ayers? Hannity explains the connection in the video below. Also, be sure to read the short biography of Ayers on Discover the Networks. As the Reverend Wright story will fade for a while, journalists should ask tough questions about the unrepentant terrorist’s connection to Barack Obama.

And I think he is right. Hillary is done. Get ready for the general election between Senator Obama and Senator McCain. Here is the video from MSNBC.

There is some debate over whether or not Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s comments matter when considering the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. For a few key reasons, I believe that this relationship does matter.

Yesterday’s speech at the National Press Club was a big mistake on Wright’s part. He kept his name in the news and refused to back down from his ludicrous claim that the government created AIDS to kill black folks. He made the outrageous statement that criticism of him is “an attack on the black church.” And he praised the racist and kooky leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan.

Barack Obama is running a campaign based on being a post-partisan and post-racial candidate who will change America. And he argues that his judgment trumps the experience of John McCain and Hillary Clinton. If we are to assess Obama’s ability to lead based on his “judgment” then we must conclude that he doesn’t have very good judgment at all. Would someone with good judgment stay in a black supremacist church that promotes black liberation theology? Would someone with good judgment maintain friendships with Tony Rezko and William Ayers? I think not. This is not guilt by association, but guilt by volition. Obama knew what kind of characters he was dealing with, and still made bad decisions by continuing these relationships and associations. His judgment is lacking, and without that, what is his rationale for being president?

There is another reason why the Rev. Wright controversy matters. His blame-America first ideology is part of mainstream leftist thought. The arguments he makes against America’s history and social organization fit right in with arguments made by leftist icons Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and Che Guevara. There is nothing new here, just the same tired rhetoric meant to deconstruct America and, by extension, the West. This analysis is best exemplified by Dan Flynn’s book Why the Left Hates America. It makes sense for someone with a Marxist view of the world to vilify the country that best proves the Marxist paradigm to be unworkable and a nightmarish system for human beings. Rev. Wright, along with the other plethora of leftist academics and politicians, hurl attacks at this nation and its representative government because they cannot allow it to prove their leftist worldview to be the miserable failure that is is.

When you consider that Obama has made an issue over wearing the American flag on his lapel, and his wife has repeatedly bashed this country, it makes you wonder whether they agree with Rev. Wright’s comments. This is why Rev. Wright’s comments matter to the broader debate about who should, or should not, be president.

UPDATE: Obama denounces Wright

Obama just gave a press conference where he disavowed Wright’s statements at the National Press Club. Clearly the pressure from bloggers and the media convinced him he had to throw the pastor under the bus. I really don’t know whether Obama agrees with Wright and is just trying to save his political career, or disagrees with Wright but has not wanted to disown him. Either way, this won’t put the issue to bed. But I am glad that he at least addressed Wright’s statements more directly.