Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for September, 2008

>America Has Moved To Communism

>

Is America A Communist Nation?

By Don White

The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848 by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. In it they use words like proletariat (the exploited working class) and the bourgeoisie (the ruling class, maybe even middle class or capitalists).

In theory the proletariat will hate this exploitation so much that the workers will rise up against the upper crust and overthrow the system of capitalism. The dictatorship of the working class will briefly rule over the landed few and communism would emerge.

_____________

In his Manifesto Marx described the following ten steps as necessary steps to be taken to destroy a free enterprise society. Pay attention to the ten items and how our own American society has changed so much that it has already embraced many of the ten conditions foreign to the principles on which the American republic was founded. This change in America didn’t happen on its own.

It happened as a direct result of efforts of socialist activists—some of it in the name of racial equality such as Barney Frank’s and Charlie Rangle’s successful efforts to lower bank lending standards so that all poor people, including poor blacks, could buy a house. This became possible because of the lowering of loan standards not only by the Fed, Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, but local banks and other lending institutions. These same low loan standards are now coming back to haunt all Americans in what we call in September 2008 the Wall Street real estate credit meltdown. It is so serious that it has economists saying the “sky is falling in” with a total collapse of our economy and way of life if Congress fails to bail out Wall Street. It is serious, but the sky is not falling.

Here are the ten points of Communism that, like it or not, America has unwittingly adopted:

1) Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover adopted zoning ordinances. Before that time landowners could carry on any activity they wanted in an unrestricted manner. The Supreme Court ruled “zoning” to be “constitutional” in 1921 and private owners of property had to gain permission from government relative to the use of their property. At the same time, federally owned lands began competing for rents with the private sector, as those lands were for the first time leased for grazing, mining, timber usages, the fees being paid into the U.S. Treasury instead of the lands being sold to individuals. The excuse was that government wanted to preserve these lands for the eventual use of the masses. In some states like Utah, for example, the Federal Government owns about two-thirds of the land. This is far in excess of that needed for parks.

2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Gradually, this became the law of the land starting with the Corporate Tax Act of 1909. The 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, brought the Revenue Act of 1913, section 2, called the Income Tax. Many Americans believe that these laws have been purposely misapplied against American citizens to this day. Ocala, Florida’s Wesley Snipes, the actor, thought so, and now he’s spending three years behind bars.

3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Partially accomplished by enactment of various state and federal “estate tax” laws taxing the “privilege” of transferring property after death and gift before death. If elected, Barak Obama will change our current law which eliminated inheritance tax and begin anew in confiscating the property of the so-called “rich” which is all of us today. It has been estimated that if all of his taxes are inacted he will bankrupt the country, thus accelerating and legitimizing U.S. communism.


4) CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS. (The confiscation of property and persecution of those critical – “rebels” – of government policies and actions, frequently accomplished by prosecuting them in a courtroom drama on charges of violations of non-existing administrative or regulatory laws.)

5) Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913- -the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt “money” in circulation.

6) Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. (Federal Radio Commission, 1927; Federal Communications Commission, 1934; Air Commerce Act of 1926; Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938; Federal Aviation Agency, 1958; becoming part of the Department of Transportation in 1966; Federal Highway Act of 1916 (federal funds made available to States for highway construction); Interstate Highway System, 1944 (funding began 1956); Interstate Commerce Commission given authority by Congress to regulate trucking and carriers on inland waterways, 1935-40; Department of Transportation, 1966.) Obama would further federalize all radio stations and put conservative talk show hosts out of business. If this isn’t communism, I don’t know what is.

7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Depart-ment of Agriculture, 1862; Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 — farmers will receive government aid if and only if they relinquish control of farming activities; Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 with the Hoover Dam completed in 1936.) Please blog on with current examples of government taking over factories and other instruments of production. There are many examples out there.

8) Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture. (First labor unions, known as federations, appeared in 1820. National Labor Union established 1866. American Federation of Labor established 1886. Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 placed railways under federal regulation. Department of Labor, 1913. Labor-management negotiations sanctioned under Railway Labor Act of 1926. Civil Works Administration, 1933. National Labor Relations Act of 1935, stated purpose to free inter-state commerce from disruptive strikes by eliminating the cause of the strike. Works Progress Administration 1935. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, mandated 40-hour work week and time-and-a-half for overtime, set “minimum wage” scale. Civil Rights Act of 1964, effectively the equal liability of all to labor.)

9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. (Food processing companies, with the co-operation of the Farmers Home Administration foreclosures, are buying up farms and creating “conglomerates.”)

10) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. (Gradual shift from private education to publicly funded began in the Northern States, early 1800’s. 1887: federal money (unconstitutionally) began funding specialized education. Smith-Lever Act of 1914, vocational education; Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and other relief acts of the 1930’s. Federal school lunch program of 1935; National School Lunch Act of 1946. National Defense Education Act of 1958, a reaction to Russia’s Sputnik satellite demonstration, provided grants to education’s specialties. Federal school aid law passed, 1965, greatly enlarged federal role in education, “head-start” programs, textbooks, library books. Obama wants free education from cradle through college.

(Research source: Encyclopedia Britannica.)

Advertisements

>Is Now A Good Time To Buy A House?

>

June Fletcher of the Wall Street Journal weighs in today on whether it’s a good time to buy a home. My answer isn’t quite like hers–I say wait until the financial market meltdown settles out and take another look and prepare now by reading SELLING FAST, a great book if you want to sell your home NOW or later.

But she says, sure for some it’s a great time, especially if you have money stashed away. Oh, really?

I may differ to a large degree, but let’s hear her out:

Q: Given what’s happening in the financial markets, is now a good time to buy a home?

A: For some people, yes. If you…

  • have access to credit
  • have fat cash reserves
  • aren’t already over-exposed to real estate
  • have a secure job or income stream
  • expect to hold the property for at least two years

…then now is an excellent time to buy.

Everyone else should take a breather.

The above five bullet points almost eliminate everyone. Who in this dizzy market today has a “fat cash reserve and isn’t already over-exposed to real estate?”

A lot of people are stuck. They bought at the height of the market frenzy and suddenly the bottom fell out. Then they lowered their price to sell and the market kept falling. They couldn’t react fast enough so they are left with two houses on their hands. Or, in many cases, they have already lost the speculation house or will shortly. How can the average American make two simultaneous house payments? And most of those second houses were bought on ARMs, meaning their interest rate and monthly payment has probably doubled since they bought and they are “stuck.”

Continue with June Fletcher:

The reason: It’s still too early to tell whether the dire predictions many government officials and economists are making about the potential collapse of our economy without a bailout are crying wolf–or if the wolf is really at our door.

For those who are cash-rich, either because they are too wealthy to be badly hurt by any economic swing, or because they were presciently pessimistic and liquidated their portfolios before the meltdown, the coming months—and perhaps years– of uncertainly will provide an unprecedented real estate buying opportunity, of both trophy estates and income-producing investment properties. “The smart people know that the world is not coming to an end,” says Lanse Robb, an agent with LandVest, a brokerage on Boston’s toney North Shore. “They’re making their moves.”

But the average buyer probably doesn’t have the cash to gamble on real estate–and shouldn’t, at least for now.

Now you’re talking. Most of those reading this blog fit smack-dab in the middle of Mr. and Mrs. Average American. Right? So sit tight if you can until the market debacle in Washington clarifies. And that could be soon.

Or it may not be soon. There is now a real difference of opinion in the halls of Congress as to whether the “sky is falling in” or not. There are a lot of members of the House of Representatives–both Republicans and some Democrats–who have voted as late as today, September 30th, 2008 against a bailout. Now their talking Newt Gringrich talk. He advocates that we not bail out the stock market or anyone. That we merely let the market adjust, which I think is wise. There isn’t a run on any banks that I know of. Things are moving along just fine, to listen to the bankers.

Read my last blog in AngstBlogger. (“Bush Should Fire Hank Paulson Today!) It came from Family Matters and is well enough documented. There won’t be a bailout. Maybe there will be a “workout” where the American taxpayer loans Wall Street some money, but it certainly won’t be $700 billion. That number was fabricated by Hank Paulson by taking the percentage of people in America who had foreclosed homes–which is 5%–and multiplying that by the Gross National Product or some such number. So it’s totally a bogus number to start with. An estimate at best.

Shame on you Hank Paulson for messing with our minds. Shame on you for giving President Bush and Congress bad advice. And shame on you, too, Ben Bernanke, for being complicit in this whole ruse. It smells to high heaven and some heads should fall starting with Barney Frank’s, a blowhard congressman with a strange New York accent who jumped right into this mess with both feet.

In fact I think Barney Frank caused it. His insistence, and Charley Rangle’s, that America was being racist because blacks couldn’t afford houses under the regular Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac regulations did cause Congress and the president to loosen loan requirements. That is documented. That’s what started this mess. Barney, hand in your badge to the House and go home and hide your face.

Income growth has stalled for the vast majority of Americans for the past eight years, and home equity has been vanishing rapidly since the peak of the boom in 2005. (Last month, median existing home prices nationwide fell 6%, to $221,900.) The roiling stock market is hardly a comfort either, as everyone who has peeked at a 401k statement over the past week knows.

Even with that, McCain was right. The American economy is not moribund. It is sort of robust and will rally if we leave it alone. Don’t listen to Wall Street. They’re all a bunch of losers–many of them have the socialistic idea that government should pay so they can play–and they want to suck the American taxpayer into their morose.

But June Fletcher would have us believe the sky is really falling in. She reports that “. . . jobs are evaporating at an alarming pace. According to government statistics, the unemployment rate rose to a five-year high of 6.1% in August.”

Imagine that? Under Jimmy Carter we had higher unemployment than that with inflation nearing 20 percent and we didn’t cave.

But Mr. White, she says, “there have been eight consecutive months of job losses, with a year-to-date total of 685,000. And layoffs aren’t likely to end soon, since factory orders fell 4.5% last month—twice the rate that analysts expected.

My reaction. “Yes, Dear, and if you elect Obama expect job losses to soar even higher. That’s because he wants to saddle business with higher taxes when America has the second highest business taxes, 35 percent, in the world. Ireland has the lowest at 11 percent and what is to stop US companies from moving offshore if they can become more profitable. Absolutely nothing. Then let’s see who’s hollering about US job losses. They’ll be yelling “Impeachment” for Barak Obama because he didn’t listen to the conservatives. His Communist ideals will come back to haunt him.

June says that “without healthy job growth, it’s likely that the supply of unsold homes will grow. Currently it’s at 11 months, more than double the median supply of two years ago. Until that inventory is burned off, home prices will continue to stagnate or fall in most markets. A government bailout that unfreezes credit markets and staunches the flood of foreclosures that are also depressing prices should help, but the fix will take a long time.”

I’m not so sure anymore, and neither are millions of Americans.

“That doesn’t mean that the housing market is doomed;”

What wisdom! and thank goodness for that.

“Ultimately, it will get better,” June says. Of course it will, it always does. Let the market take care of the overage of houses. Yes, there will be joblessness. Yes, there will be too many houses, but that drives down prices and we all know they are too high.

Credit Suisse estimates that, nationally, the ratio of median home prices to household incomes will return to their historical average of 2.86 in another 18 months.

“In the meantime,” she wisely advises, “if you’re feeling insecure about your job or low on cash, hang tight and save your money. And if you must move, rent.”


>Bush Should Fire Paulson Today!

>

Conservative House Republicans Save the Day

Vincent Gioia

It has been reported that conservative Republican members of the House of Representatives have offered a “free-market alternative” to the $700 billion plan to bail out the mortgage industry proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson, Fed Chairman Bernanke and President Bush. A vote today in the House failed, though Democrats will continue twisting arms and cajoling House Democrats to change their vote the next time around.

I don’t believe a bailout as proposed is necessary to save the economy from a major failure of multiple financial institutions at the same time.

There are different opinions by a lot of smart people who know Wall Street, banking and the economy quite well. Some will tell you that a bailout is absolutely essential but over 400 economic experts, including some Nobel Prize winners, are skeptical. There is a pending financial crisis mainly because Paulson says there is. He raised the issue by going to the public in a very high-profile way, not just with his concern, but with a kind of “Chicken-Little, the-sky-is-falling” demand” and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Once Treasury Secretary Paulson announced there is a pending financial collapse, “perhaps as great as the Great Depression”, congress was in the position it felt it must act. However many members of congress were stunned at that news, and were equally surprised they didn’t hear from bankers in their districts. Some members called bankers and heard a different story. Business author David Freddoso reported local bankers as saying “I think things are just fine.” Freddoso also said he talked to one banker who said, “Gosh, we’ve got money, and we’re liquid, and we’re making a profit. And we’re in the market selling loans, and we’ve got competitors trying to sell loans against us.”

Paulson claims we will have a catastrophe of generational proportions that could go worldwide but what is reported from banks other than the huge Wall Street houses like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley is quite different. Few if any of the local bankers are indicating they can’t borrow money. If Paulson was right, after he announced on Friday that there was a crisis of liquidity that threatens the entire nation’s financial solvency and Americans’ jobs from coast to coast would be lost, you would expect that community bankers around the country would call their representatives to demand something be done and that they would ask them to back Paulson’s proposal; but that did not happen.

Paulson has asserted we are in deep trouble but he is not convincing to all bankers and he has not had everyone rallying to his side saying he’s absolutely right. Those in the banking business should be saying and calling for the government to get involved if they were experiencing the crisis Paulson claims exists. It looks to me that if there is a problem, the problem is Paulson himself and his desire to help big brokerages like Goldman Sachs where he came from.

With the type of drastic “solution” being proposed, why can’t congress take the time to learn about the problems and deliberate in a reasoned manner (at least to the extent congress can) and wait a little longer, to make sure a bill is produced that is right?

I’m cautiously optimistic that we can solve any real problem but congress needs to hear from more expert economists with differing opinions. For example, the insurance proposal some suggest may be significantly better. There are clearly undesirable implications in the language of earlier executive drafts that would have the government take ownership interest in all the banks that have so-called “toxic” assets to be bought. I have a real problem with deviating from the free market system and allowing government to own a huge sector of our economy by buying assets or even partially controlling them. Can you imagine a banking system where the government owns as much as a third of our banks, or perhaps even half?

John McCain went to Washington and said “Here are my five points, and beyond that, I’m with House Republicans.” In response Paulson used fear; some say “fear-mongering”, in an effort to stampede the Congress. The only people standing in his way at the time were House Republicans; they kept congress from passing Paulson’s bad idea which was to give him $700 billion to spend without restrictions. We all should be grateful to these House Republicans.

All polls show the public opposes the bailout by huge margins; this could be another situation like the oil drilling and amnesty issues where the public caused congress to reverse the Democrat and Bush administration direction. That’s why conservatives, and clear thinking Republicans, want to distance themselves from Bush and his domestic policies. As for Paulson, this should be a good example to all future Republican administrations not to include Democrats in the cabinet.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Vincent Gioia is a retired patent attorney living in Palm Desert, California. His blogs at www.vincentgioia.com and he may be contacted at gioia@gte.net.

>

Are Hurricanes Getting More Out Of Control?

by Jarred Sadler

Since the year 2000, it seems that steamy storms and hurricanes are stirring more frequently, and with more intensity. Are hurricanes actually increasing in number and severity or decreasing? There are many opinions within the scientific community. To form your own judgment, it’s valuable to examine the number and types of storms we’ve experienced in this decade.

The first year of the new millennium saw a total of 4 stifling depressions, 7 humid storms, and 8 hurricanes. The most significant storm of the 2000 flavor was Hurricane Keith, which caused copious fatalities and was blamed for large amounts of injury in Belize, Nicaragua, and Honduras.

The 2001 term was a strange year, with no storms actually making landfall in the United States. However, even although the hurricane eye never came over U.S. soil, Hurricane Allison still caused widespread flooding in Houston, Texas. Hurricane Iris caused death and serious injuries when it made landfall in Belize as a Category 4 storm. Hurricane Michelle was also a spartan storm, causing loss of life and serious injuries in Jamaica, Cuba, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

The Longest Month
During the first 21 days of September 2002, there were 8 newly shaped storms which made that month seem the longest.

The 2003 Atlantic hurricane period was another evidence-tide. Traditionally, the twister time runs from June 1 through November 30. However, in 2003, Storm Ana twisted on April 20th, which launched the spell early for the first time in fifty years. During 2003, there were 21 stifling cyclones, 16 of which shaped into named storms and 7 of which reached typhoon repute. The strongest of these was Hurricane Isabel, which formed near the Lesser Antilles and landed in South Carolina as a Category 2 whirlwind. Isabel caused $3.6 billion in damage to property and was blamed for 51 deaths in the Mid Atlantic locality of the United States.

Hurricanes Clear Into December
The 2004 typhoon spell was another total year, with hurricanes clear into December. Hurricane Otto was responsible for this addition, with the storm lasting into the December. 2004 was also prominent as one of the most costly and deadly, with 3,132 deaths and gruffly $50 billion U.S. dollars in spoil caused by hurricanes and sultry storms.

The 2005 Atlantic tornado term was noted as “most active,” with 5 storms making U.S. landfall: Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. The most catastrophic property damage of the period was felt in New Orleans and neighboring areas of the Louisiana coast like Biloxi, Mississippi when a 30-bottom storm surge from Hurricane Katrina caused widespread flooding and deaths.

The 2006 Atlantic hurricane period was much less active than 2005. Like 2001, it was an uncommon year in that no hurricanes actually made U.S. landfall.

In 2007, the spell was off to an early birth with the formation of subtropical storm Andrea on May 9, 2007. The season also ran dead that year, with tropical storm Olga developing on December 11, after the season was officially over. Overall harm was estimated at $7.5 billion U.S. dollars, and the casualty toll was recorded at 416. Also noteworthy is the actuality that 2007 was one of four existence that had more than one Category 5 storm. 2007 was also the trice season on video in which more than one storm made U.S. landfall on the same day (Felix and Henrietta).

Are hurricanes and other tropical storms trending weaker? Much of the U.S. storm history might deem so, particularly with the shock of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, which made headlines for many months after the storm. In fact, to this day, New Orleans has still not totally recovered from that storm.

Are We Getting Used To Hurricanes?
On the contrary, are tropical storms actually becoming more everyday and more rigorous? We’re don’t know yet. One thing we do know is that scientific notation-custody is far more accurate today than it was some fifty living ago. Only time will tell what hurricanes may do in sicceeding years. Meantime, we can learn from the former by preparing ourselves for the coming.

>Sarah Palin Will Do Great!

>I responded to a typical elitist article, cutting and critical of Sarah Palin. It was written by Ruth Marcus and appeared in the liberal Washington Post this morning. There is nothing like the envy and malice that one less successful woman has for a truly successful woman. I want you to read my comments before clicking onto the Marcus article.

Ruth Marcus, you didn’t need to write more than the first paragraph before we caught the vindictive side of you. We who will vote for Sarah Palin and John McCain don’t worry too much about a candidate’s library unless it’s full of Mein Kampf, Karl Marx, and Frederich Engles. We worry about her mind, her heart, and her desire to serve. Where is your mind?

Sarah’s library is one that most working mothers aspire to–she reads things that will help her family. Family means much to Sarah Palin as it does to most Americans. What a pity that those of you who write these silly anti-Palin articles can’t see how much more important it is to teach our children true principles than it is to graduate from Harvard and Yale, than it is to have traveled to St. Petersburg, Moscow, Rome, and Paris.

In the long run her credentials to become president or vice president are just as valid to the masses of common folk in America as John McCain’s vast knowledge and understanding of history. If she were thrust into the presidency the important thing is that she would make sound judgments about the people (experts) around whom she would surround herself. Isn’t that, really, all that the inexperienced Barak Obama can offer?

Not all great presidents have been Harvard- or Naval Academy- trained, or much more than that of the common man. Take Harry Truman, for example, a haberdasher who operated a men’s clothing shop. He was a common man and—like Sarah Palin—an honest person who ran for office. That’s rare today, play it up. Don’t denigrate it. When he ran the Republicans did not try to smear his character and education as you, my dear, are attempting to do to Sarah Palin. Are we living in such different times? Are we that much poorer in spirit than our fathers and mothers?

Think it over—start being fair and balanced. Quit hating and finding fault, for the fault is in you. Truman was respected and treated well by both sides of the isle for his soundness of judgment and not for his vast historical library. Has American society retrogressed so much that political writers must stoop so low as to criticize without knowing what a great human being they are dragging through the mud? The trouble with you elitists who write for the liberal papers is that you assume all Americans are just like you. They aren’t. Get real! You’re out of touch. True Americans are kind and considerate. And you, madam, are not the fount of all knowledge and understanding. Sarah Palin will do just fine in any setting. She may surprise many by the way she is able to help clean up the mess that the preceding group of pseudo-intellectuals have caused, both on the financial front and in foreign policy.

Have an intellectually challenging day!

Don White

http://PoliticalDisconnect.blogspot.com

To read the Marcus story:McCain vs. Palin

>Obama: Communist Sympathizer?

>


What Obama Has In Common With

Putin, Hu Jintao, Raul Castro,

Hugo Chavez, and Kim il Sung

What are the links that logically take us to the conclusion that Barak Obama acts, talks, and looks like a practicing communist?


I would first suggest the reader refer to the Accuracy in Media blog and an article by Cliff Kincaid published August 7, 2008. In a great measure this column is a review of Jerome Corsi’s book, The Obama Nation.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-cover-up-continues/

Obama has been asked before and is now in denial about his communist activities and connections.


John McCain should ask that question again in the next debate before millions of TV viewers. Obama will again deny it, making it easier for us to make our case because a presidential debate denial opens up a Pandora’s box of imponderables and places to take this. Guess what? NY Times reporters may start asking the same logical question.


But listen to Kincaid: “In a surprising admission that could become a major scandal in the presidential race, Barack Obama’s 40-page so-called “rebuttal” to Jerome Corsi’s book, The Obama Nation, acknowledges for the first time that the senator once had a personal relationship with identified Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member Frank Marshall Davis, a key high-level operative in a Soviet-sponsored network in Hawaii.


“But the 40-page report, advertised and sold to the media as a refutation of Corsi’s “lies,” doesn’t identify Davis as a hard-core communist and it dishonestly edits an article about Davis to eliminate references to his admitted involvement in CPUSA activities and make the black revolutionary writer and “poet” look like a civil rights activist.”


Selective Editing

The Obama report admits that “Frank” was in fact Frank Marshall Davis—something AIM confirmed back in February. But in trying to rebut Corsi’s charge that Davis was a significant negative influence over Obama, the Obama report on page 10 quotes “an article on Davis” that describes him as being involved in the “labor movement” with other “African-American intellectuals” and committed to racial integration and harmony. No title or name of the author of the article is given. The article is simply identified as being from the Western Journal of Black Studies (WJBS).


Questia is an online library of books and journals and a source for the following. The article, “Frank Marshall Davis: A Forgotten Voice in the Chicago Black Renaissance,” was written by Dr. Kathryn Takara, an Obama supporter who has been critical of Accuracy in Media’s attempt to document Davis’s involvement in the CPUSA and his mentorship of Obama.


Takara is a radical poet herself, having written poems in honor of Communist Party member Angela Davis and convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. She was recently quoted in an Associated Press article that portrayed Davis as a positive influence on Obama and ignored his CPUSA membership. So much for the AP’s once ballyhooed fairness and honesty reporting doctrine. I should know of its former credibility, I was an AP newsman many years ago.

The pro-Davis quotes in the Takara article in the WJBS, which are cited in the Obama report, are actually preceded by Davis’s own incriminating words, in which he says: “From now on I knew I would be described as a Communist. . .”

In yet another part of the article the Obama report ignores, Takara writes that “Davis joined the League of American Writers, a national united front

organization for the Communist Party mobilized by the alarming rise of power of Hitler and Mussolini.”


In fact, Davis signed a statement by the League of American Writers in June

1941 opposing war against Nazi Germany at a time of the Hitler-Stalin pact. This was a reflection of the CPUSA line. Davis went from anti-war to pro-war after the Nazis attacked Stalin.


So here we have it: another official acknowledgement by an Obama (and Davis) supporter that Davis was involved in a CPUSA front. But the Obama report doesn’t admit anything of the kind. In fact, Davis’s entire record of involvement in the CPUSA and its fronts is completely covered-up.


All of which raises the question that we have asked on numerous occasions: why are Obama and his followers in the media ignoring his documented relationship with a CPUSA member? And why did Obama only refer to Davis as “Frank” in his book?


I shall answer this question in a second blog.

>Seventeen Reasons Obama Is Dangerous

>By galljdaj, 09-08-08, 09:30 PM

Seventeen Real questions! (From Zimbabwe Star)

1) How Obama won his first election (to the Illinois State Senate) by having his lawyers knock all his opponents — including the black, female incumbent — off the ballot on technicalities, so he could run unopposed.

2) How Obama voted to deny medical care to babies born alive after abortion — a bill too extreme even for Nancy Pelosi (Freddoso has an exclusive interview with the nurse central to the case)

3) A story Obama would like to stay buried in Chicago: How he used his clout as a U.S. Senator to save the corrupt Cook County Political Machine when reformers of both parties tried to challenge the entrenched political bosses

4) How Obama’s wife Michele’s salary nearly tripled in 2005 — the same year he was sworn in to the U.S. Senate and he began earmarking funds for her employer.

5) How Obama’s friendship with the hate-spewing Reverend Jeremiah Wright was no accident — but a carefully thought out personal and political decision.

6) Why Obama thought his association with ’60s-era terror-bomber Bill Ayers wouldn’t matter — an exposé of the insular radical chic of Chicago’s Hyde Park politics

7) How state Senator Obama was paid more than $100,000 for legal work — then helped his client’s company get $320,000 in taxpayer grants. How, at a time when he says he was short of work and short of cash, Obama obtained $112,000, plus campaign contributions, from someone he later made into a government grantee through his public office.

8) Inside Obama’s 17-year relationship and irregular land deal with developer Tony Rezko, whose livelihood depended on sapping the taxpayer for subsidies “I’ve never done any favors for him,” says Obama about Rezko. But he has — lots of them, as Freddoso shows. Why Rezko’s conviction for corrupting public officials might become the Whitewater scandal of Obama’s campaign.

9) How Obama speaks of the days when his family was making $240,000 per year as if he had been suffering poverty — while, just last March, he voted to raise your taxes if you make over $32,500 per year. Then at the Oxford, Mississippi debate he claimed he would not raise taxes on anyone making up to $250,000.

10) The Chicago Machine politician who “made a U.S. senator” out of Obama by giving him plum committee assignments and high-profile legislation in its late stages (often removing the original sponsors), and helping him spread money around through earmarks and “targeted” grants.

11) How Obama avoided taking unpopular stands in the state Senate by voting “present” about 130 times — or simply by absenting himself from tough votes altogether.

12) Obama’s little-known vow to Planned Parenthood in July 2007 — and why it would mean the end of every state, federal, and local regulation of abortion, and the end of all restrictions on government abortion funding.

13) A “new politics”? How, in less than four years as a U.S. senator, Obama has voted for some of the worst special-interest legislation to move through the chamber.

14) How Obama opposes school choice through vouchers or tax credits — while sending his own children to an elite private school.

15) How Obama wants — and has voted — to abolish secret-ballot elections in the workplace when employees determine whether to unionize, allowing unions to intimidate and harass workers who don’t support them.

16) Why Obama’s foreign policy would take its cues from Jimmy Carter’s “Post-partisan”?

17) Why the respected National Journal named Obama the most liberal member of the United States Senate in 2007 — beating out Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton… and the previous title-holder John Kerry.