---
I have a dear friend who happens to be black and who believes Obama will be re-elected because content represents only 10% of people's judgement. He wrote a book entitled "Empowering Yourself" which reveals how the game of life is played.
We do agree on one thing: 'if Obama is re-elected and continues to be the disaster he has already proven himself to be, then we deserve what we get.' (See 1 and 1a below..)
---
Efforts and plans to steal the next election are alive and well. (See 2 below.)
---
Just who are the 1%? (See 3 below.)
---
Faber not upbeat! (See 4 below.)
---
Black on black and a decision only money and votes could buy! (See 5 and 5a below.)
----
Referencing a PJTV interview with Tom Sowell. (See 6 below.)
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) AGAINST THE GRAIN
Obama, the Underdog
Ebbing enthusiasm among the president's base points to the possibility of a
decisive defeat.
by Josh Kraushaar
This presidential election is coming down to two immutable facts that have
become increasingly clear as November draws closer: President Obama will be
running for a second term under a stagnant economy, and his two most
significant legislative accomplishments-health care reform and a job-goosing
stimulus-remain deeply unpopular. It doesn't take a professional pundit to
recognize that's a very tough ticket for reelection.
But there is a glaring disconnect between the conventional wisdom, which
still maintains that Obama has a slight edge in the electoral-map math, and
the fundamentals pointing to the possibility of a decisive defeat for the
president.
The three most recent national polls-Democracy Corps (D), Gallup/USA Today,
and the Politico/George Washington University Battleground Poll-underscore
how tough a reelection campaign Obama faces and why it's fair to call him an
underdog at this point. He's stuck at 47 percent against Mitt Romney in all
three surveys, with the small slice of undecided voters tilting against the
president. His job approval ranges from 45 percent (Democracy Corps) to 48
percent (Battleground). Those numbers are hardly devastating, but given
today's polarized electorate, they're not encouraging either.
Obama's scores on the economy are worsening, even as voters still have mixed
feelings on who's to blame. In the Battleground survey, nearly as many
voters now blame Obama for the state of the economy (39 percent) as those
who don't think it's his fault (40 percent). In both the Battleground and
Democracy Corps polls, 33 percent said the country is on the right track,
with 59 percent saying it's on the wrong track-numbers awfully similar to
the state of play right before the 2010 Republican landslide. These are
several leading indicators that suggest the trajectory could well get worse
for the president as the election nears.
And the survey data suggest that Republicans in Congress, unlike their Newt
Gingrich-led counterparts in 1996, aren't shaping up to be the reviled
opposition (yet) that the White House is hoping they'll be. The Battleground
survey found Republicans leading Democrats by 2 points on the generic
congressional ballot, while Democracy Corps found Democrats in Congress with
only a slightly higher approval score (43.1) than Republicans (41.2). If the
public favors Hill Democrats, it's by a narrow margin.
The other big red flag for the president is the waning enthusiasm of his
base-college-age voters, African-Americans, and Hispanics. The most recent
NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that fewer than half of voters (45
percent) ages 18-34 expressed a high interest in the election, down 17
points from the same time four years ago. Democratic enthusiasm overall is
down 16 points from 2008, and it now lags behind the GOP.
This is critical, because, for Obama, excitement is as important as
persuasion. It's no coincidence that Obama held his first two rallies on
college campuses. Obama campaign officials have been anticipating an upward
tick in the minority share of the electorate for 2012 to compensate for the
expected loss of older, white voters, and they are counting on college
students to organize and rally behind the president, like they did for him
in 2008. Those assumptions are hardly guaranteed.
While the campaign generated loud, enthusiastic crowds in Columbus, Ohio,
and Richmond, Va., it fell thousands short of packing the 18,000-seat arena
at Ohio State. For most candidates, gathering thousands at any event is
impressive, but for a president so dependent on that segment of his
coalition, it's a glaring shortfall. For comparison's sake: Before the 2010
midterms, Obama drew more than 35,000 students to the Ohio State campus to
rally supporters for then-Gov. Ted Strickland.
Actions speak louder than spin, and the moves of Obama's campaign officials
this past week indicate they are awfully worried about their prospects. The
most recent telltale sign is that they went up with an early, expensive $25
million ad buy on Monday in nine swing states, attempting to reintroduce the
president in the best possible way. This was no rinky-dink purchase; it cost
nearly one-quarter of the Obama campaign's war chest of $104 million at the
beginning of April. Going up with such a significant buy so early is the
equivalent of abandoning the running game in football when your team is down
by a couple of touchdowns.
The ad itself is in search of a cohesive message. The first part underscores
how severe the recession was, as a preemptive defense for why the economy
hasn't turned around faster. The second half argues that America is "coming
back," thanks to job growth over the past year. It's that part that will
prove to be a tough sell. Indeed, it was top Democratic pollster Stan
Greenberg who advised the campaign in February
<http://swampland.time.com/2012/05/07/the-view-from-one-prudential-plaza-why
-the-obama-campaign-is-so-confident/> that this is the type of message --
saying things are getting better when voters don't agree -- that polls
miserably "and produces disastrous results."
But Obama's campaign officials can't utilize the time-tested "are you better
than you were four years ago" message because it doesn't ring true, so they
have to argue things are getting a little better and the administration
needs more time. It shows how limited the Obama playbook is this time
around-mobilize the base, lambaste the opposition, and hope enough
independents will hold their nose and vote for you. It's hard to believe
that Obama's campaign is confident of victory, as Time's Mark Halperin
reported on Monday
<http://swampland.time.com/2012/05/07/the-view-from-one-prudential-plaza-why
-the-obama-campaign-is-so-confident/> . More likely, campaign officials are
putting on an awfully good game face in light of what promises to be a very
challenging reelection
1a) Obama's Second Term Transformation Plans
By Steve McCann
The 2012 election has often been described as the most pivotal since 1860. This statement is not hyperbole. If Barack Obama is re-elected the United States will never be the same, nor will it be able to re-capture its once lofty status as the most dominant nation in the history of mankind.
The overwhelming majority of Americans do not understand that Obama's first term was dedicated to putting in place executive power to enable him and the administration to fulfill the campaign promise of "transforming America" in his second term regardless of which political party controls Congress. That is why his re-election team is virtually ignoring the plight of incumbent or prospective Democratic Party office holders.
The most significant accomplishment of Obama's first term is to make Congress irrelevant. Under the myopic and blindly loyal leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats have succeeded in creating an imperial and, in a second term, a potential dictatorial presidency.
During the first two years of the Obama administration when the Democrats overwhelming controlled both Houses of Congress and the media was in an Obama worshipping stupor, a myriad of laws were passed and actions taken which transferred virtually unlimited power to the executive branch.
The birth of multi-thousand page laws was not an aberration. This tactic was adopted so the bureaucracy controlled by Obama appointees would have sole discretion in interpreting vaguely written laws and enforcing thousands of pages of regulations they and not Congress would subsequently write.
For example, in the 2,700 pages of ObamaCare there are more than 2,500 references to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. There are more than 700 instances when he or she is instructed that they "shall" do something and more than 200 times when they "may" take at their sole discretion some form of regulatory action. On 139 occasions, the law mentions that the "Secretary determines." In essence one person, appointed by and reporting to the president, will be in charge of the health care of 310 million Americans once ObamaCare is fully operational in 2014.
The same is true in the 2,319 pages of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act which confers nearly unlimited power on various agencies to control by fiat the nation's financial, banking and investment sectors. The bill also creates new agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not subject to any oversight by Congress. This overall process was repeated numerous times with other legislation all with the intent of granting unfettered power to the executive branch controlled Barack Obama and his radical associates.
Additionally, the Obama administration has, through its unilaterally determined rule making and regulatory powers, created laws out of whole cloth. The Environmental Protection Agency on a near daily basis issues new regulations clearly out of their purview in order to modify and change environmental laws previously passed and to impose a radical green agenda never approved by Congress. The same is true of the Energy and Interior Departments among many others.
None of these extra-constitutional actions have been challenged by Congress. The left in America knows this usurpation of power is nearly impossible to reverse unless stopped in its early stages.
It is clearly the mindset of this administration and its appointees that Congress is merely a nuisance and can be ignored after they were able to take full advantage of the useful idiots in the Democrat controlled House and Senate in 2009-2010 and the Democrat Senate in the current Congress.
Additionally, Barack Obama knows after his re-election a Republican controlled House and Senate will not be able to enact any legislation to roll back the power previously granted to the Executive Branch or usurped by them. His veto will not be overridden as there will always be at least 145 Democratic members of the House or 34 in the Senate in agreement with or intimidated by an administration more than willing to use Chicago style political tactics.
The stalemate between the Executive and Legislative Branches will inure to the benefit of Barack Obama and his fellow leftists.
The most significant power Congress has is the control of the purse-strings as all spending must be approved by them. However, once re-elected, Barack Obama, as confirmed by his willingness to do or say anything and his unscrupulous re-election tactics, would not only threaten government shutdowns but would deliberately withhold payments to those dependent on government support as a means of intimidating and forcing a Republican controlled Congress to surrender to his demands, thus neutering their ability to control the administration through spending constraints.
Further, this administration has shown contempt for the courts by ignoring various court orders, e.g. the Gulf of Mexico oil drilling moratorium, as well as stonewalling subpoenas and requests issued by Congress. The Eric Holder Justice Department has become the epitome of corruption as part of the most dishonest and deceitful administration in American history. In a second term the arrogance of Barack Obama and his minions will become more blatant as he will not have to be concerned with re-election.
Who will be there to enforce the rule of law, a Supreme Court ruling or the Constitution? No one. Barack Obama and his fellow-travelers will be unchallenged as they run roughshod over the American people.
Many Republicans and conservatives dissatisfied with the prospect of Mitt Romney as the nominee for president are instead focused on re-taking the House and Senate. That goal, while worthy and necessary, is meaningless unless Barack Obama is defeated. The nation is not dealing with a person of character and integrity but someone of single-minded purpose and overwhelming narcissism. Judging by his actions, words and deeds during his first term, he does not intend to work with Congress either Republican or Democrat in his second term but rather to force his radical agenda on the American people through the power he has usurped or been granted.
The governmental structure of the United States was set up by the founders in the hope that over the years only those people of high moral character and integrity would assume the reins of power. However, knowing that was not always possible, they dispersed power over three distinct and independent branches as a check on each other.
What they could not imagine is the surrender and abdication of its constitutional duty by the preeminent governmental branch, the Congress, to a chief executive devoid of any character or integrity coupled with a judiciary essentially powerless to enforce the law when the chief executive ignores them
Conservatives, Libertarians, the Republican Party and Mitt Romney must come to grips with this moment in time and their historical role in denying Barack Obama and his minions their ultimate goal. All resources must be directed at that end-game and not merely controlling Congress and the various committee chairmanships
2)The Left’s National Vote Fraud Strategy Exposed
This report reveals the Left’s vote fraud strategy for the 2012 elections. Like a KGB operation, it is thorough, multi-faceted and redundant. It has overt and covert, illegal and legal elements, the latter of which are designed, at least in part, to facilitate illegal activities later. It is a deliberate, premeditated, comprehensive plan to win the 2012 presidential election at all costs, and is in keeping with the organizational methods, associations and ethics of the Community-Organizer-in-Chief, Barack Obama.
The Left seeks fundamental structural change to our entire form of government. In keeping with their amoral, means-justifies-ends philosophy, they will register any voters, dead or alive, legal or illegal, who will then vote as many times as possible, in order to establish a “permanent progressive majority.” As two New York Democrats recently caught in a vote fraud scandal told police, “voter fraud is an accepted way of winning elections…”
Low income individuals are the perfect dupes for this strategy. An expanding welfare state makes them increasingly dependent on government benefits, a development that guarantees their vote for liberal-left candidates. At the same time, people with marginal attachment to society may be less inclined to report illegal activity at the polls—or actually participate. The “victim” narrative promoted in popular culture and press may even encourage such behavior. Meanwhile, a growing tax burden and public debt suck private enterprise dry—pushing ever more people onto the dole.
Politicians of both parties are not above engaging in vote fraud. But this kind of corruption is relegated to individual campaigns or areas where corrupt political establishments have been able to develop unchallenged. It is not a systematic component of overall national strategy, as it is with the Left.
This strategy has been under development for decades. They have constructed an entire industry devoted to this task and pursue a multifaceted strategy to accomplish it:
1. Swamp election officials with overwhelming numbers of registrations at the last possible minute, a huge proportion of which are deliberately fraudulent, in order to create systematic chaos. This accomplishes numerous goals:
- Makes verification of registrations difficult, given the small size and limited budgets of state and local election offices.
- Provides multiple opportunities for vote fraud.
- Throws the entire voting process into question, providing pretext for lawsuits where concessions may be obtained from election officials.
- When election officials challenge registrations, they are accused of “voter suppression.” This in turn serves complementary goals:
- Charge of “voter suppression” reinforces the Left’s narrative about America as an oppressive, “racist” country.
- Publicity and lawsuits intimidate election officials, who settle on terms favorable to the Left.
2. Activists sue state authorities for “voter suppression,” creating further chaos and pressuring them to become de facto taxpayer-funded voter registration operations;
3. Eric Holder’s Justice Department tacitly supports voter intimidation tactics, sues states and backs private lawsuits, and resists reform as “voter suppression.”
4. Leftist echo chamber discredits allegations of vote fraud, supports “suppression” theme, and promotes advantageous legislation.
The ultimate goal is a systematized, taxpayer-funded voting machinery that will guarantee maximum participation from the Left’s voting demographic while undermining the ability to manage elections and prevent fraud.
The ACORN Swamping Method
Key to understanding the Left’s vote-fraud strategy is the community organizing group ACORN. ACORN has become synonymous with corruption, complicity in the subprime mortgage crisis and especially vote fraud.
ACORN and its voter registration arm, Project Vote, hire marginal and unskilled workers at very low rates and use incentive bonuses or quotas to encourage them to collect as many voter registrations as possible. The resulting flood of registrations are fraught with duplicates, errors and omissions, and a large number are overtly fraudulent, including names like “Donald Duck,” “Mickey Mouse,” “Tony Romo” of the Dallas Cowboys, etc.[2] According to MatthewVadum, the senior editor at Capital Research Center, a total of 400,000 bogus ACORN registrations were thrown out in 2008 alone.
ACORN was supposedly disbanded in 2010 but resurrected itself under a slew of new names. Former ACORN President Bertha Lewis bragged that they created “…18 bulletproof community-organizing Frankensteins…” These are reproduced in the table below. Most of these groups occupy former ACORN offices, many with the same staff.
ACORN is directly connected to Obama and the Democratic Party. Counsel to The Advance Group, a strategic planning company, is Michael Gaspard, Patrick Gaspard’s brother. Patrick is currently the DNC’s executive director and President Obama’s former political director. He has worked for ACORN, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Working Families Party, a descendant of the ACORN-founded New Party which Barack Obama joined in 1996. Obama has bragged of “fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career.”
ACORN’s former deputy regional director, Amy Busefink was convicted in 2010 of vote fraud stemming from a 2008 Nevada case. Judicial Watch found that, “while under criminal indictment in Nevada… [Busefink] managed an online program for Project Vote’s 2010 Colorado campaign, the ultimate goal of which is to allow people without a driver’s license or state identification to register to vote online.” Busefink is now national field director for Project Vote.
Barack Obama established his organizing bona fides with Project Vote in 1992, when he registered 150,000 Illinois voters.
Project Vote was created and run for years by Zach Polett, who bragged that he trained Barack Obama in 1992 and said of Obama, “ACORN produces leaders.” Polett is listed in Manta.com as president of Voting for America, one of Project Vote’s former names, although his name is not on Project Vote’s website. Calls to that listing roll into a voice mail identifying the organizations as “CSI.” Polett’s extension is #3. CSI is the acronym for Citizens Services Inc., another supposedly defunct ACORN group that was used to hide over $800,000 paid by candidate Obama to ACORN in 2008.
This kind of duplicitous activity reflects a deliberate methodology. ACORN is a criminal organization.
The Cloward Piven Strategy
ACORN is the face of vote fraud, but its intellectual foundation is the Cloward Piven Strategy. Sociology professors Richard Cloward (Columbia University) and Frances Fox Piven (CUNY) were founding members of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Cloward died in 2001 but Piven lives on.
In 1966 Cloward and Piven penned an article forThe Nation magazine titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.” They posited that if the poor were organized into street armies to demand all welfare benefits available to them, they could overwhelm and crash the system.
It became known as the “Cloward-Piven Strategy,” and is credited with expanding welfare rolls 151 percent between 1965 and 1974 and bringing New York City to the brink of bankruptcy in 1975.
The Issue is Never the Issue
The Left’s solution to everything is socialism, although they are usually careful not to name it, instead identifying issues that seemingly only their policies can redress. But “the issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution” as David Horowitz has explained. The “issues” are mere distractions.
Cloward and Piven initially claimed to be agitating for a “guaranteed national income.” Such a policy is plainly unsustainable; however, it would institutionalizetheir strategy, creating an enormous, permanent drag on the whole economy precipitating an even larger crash later on. Cloward and Piven’s true goal was to find any instrument to institutionalize their orchestrated anarchy, and poor people were the tool.
Wade Rathke, a veteran of those early efforts, was mentored by Cloward and Piven. Rathke and other radicals created a new organization, ACORN,and sought ways to further extend the Strategy.
With passage of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, ACORN and other activist groups got in the housing business. They began pushing banks to offer high-risk mortgage loans to low/no income borrowers. The Clinton administration aggressively ramped up the effort. To encourage lenders and investors, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwrote the risk. Since its passage, CRA lending has exceeded $6 trillion.[ii] The mortgage crisis was Cloward-Piven on steroids.[2]
Meanwhile, Cloward and Piven had not been idle. In 1982 they created the Human Service Employees Registration and Voter Education Fund (Human SERVE) to build political momentum for a law that would turn state motor vehicle and welfare agencies into low-income voter registration offices.
Throughout the 1980s, Human SERVE field-tested legal and political strategies to promote this plan. The fruits of its labor were finally realized with “Motor Voter,” the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), signed into law with Cloward and Piven standing directly behind President Clinton.
The NVRA requires motor vehicle, military recruiting, public assistance and other state and local offices to offer voter-registration services.
The NVRA has become a beacon for vote fraud. Its minimal verification requirements opened the door to ACORN-style massive voter registration fraud, and in the confusion provide blanket opportunities for vote fraud.
Voter ID laws have become critically important. According to a Pew report, approximately 24 million or 12.5 percent of voter registrations nationally are either invalid or inaccurate, including about 1.8 million deceased individuals, and 2.75 million with multiple-state registrations.
And while the NRVA has provisions for purging the rolls in Section 8, they require a complex, process spanning multiple election cycles. In some cases, the NRVA replaced better mechanisms already in use. Many states have simply not followed these procedures with any regularity. The Left ignores all this, focusing on enforcing NRVA’s Section 7.
Section 7 Lawsuits
While capitalizing on the vote fraud swamping strategy enabled by the NVRA, ACORN, Project Vote and others sue states that don’t aggressively execute the voter registration activities required by Section 7 of the law. The narrative is always “voter suppression,” and settlements have forced state agencies to become de facto low income voter registration drives.
Not only must states develop, maintain and execute plans for assuring comprehensive registration, they are forced to report regularly to ACORN lawyers. A 2009 settlement between ACORN and Missouri’s Department of Social Servicesis illustrative. DSS must:
- Create an NVRA State Coordinator position
- Designate an NVRA Site Coordinator for Family Support Division offices
- Keep detailed records of client visits and registration activities
- Immediately send a letter offering registration to any individual who “may not have been given the opportunity to register…”
- Report detailed compliance data to plaintiff lawyers every month.
- State coordinator’s performance measured by NVRA compliance
- ACORN will receive $450,000 in settlement.
In these settlements, ACORN effectively assumes an executive role over state agencies. Notably, there is no corollary requirement to ascertain the legality of registrations or to clean up the rolls.
Project Vote has taken recent actions against Louisiana, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, and New Mexico. They just announced their intention to sue Pennsylvania.
Project Vote formed agreements with Colorado in 2008 and 2010. According to Judicial Watch, after Project Vote’s involvement “the percentage of invalid voter registration forms from Colorado public assistance agencies was four times the national average.”
Though largely unnoticed until now, this litigation tactic has been used since the 1980s, when Human SERVE’s legal allies sued state authorities for settlementscreating localized versions of Motor Voter.
While capitalizing on the vote swamping strategy enabled by Motor Voter, ACORN and Project Vote picked up the torch for SERVE, which closed its doors in 2000. Frances Fox Piven serves today on Project Vote’s Board of Directors. Significantly, President Obama has named the voter registration initiative of his reelection effort “Project Vote.”
Piven also has many other connections to Obama. She was a founding member ofProgressives for Obama. Her Democratic Socialists of America bragged that it was responsible for the success of Obama’s “ground game” in 2008. Piven was one of 130 founding members of the radical left Campaign for America’s Future. Many CAF members also sit on the board of the Apollo Alliance, the executor of Obama’s “Green” jobs initiative.
DOJ and ACORN Team Up for 2012
Judicial Watch obtained several documents showing coordination between DOJ, Project Vote and the White House.[i] In one email, Project Vote demanded action on NVRA cases. Less than a month later, DOJ sued Rhode Island for NVRA noncompliance. Similarly, DOJ’s Louisiana NVRA suit followed Project Vote’s by a few months. Project Vote is promoting prospective employees for DOJ’s Voting Rights section.
The VRA outlawed poll taxes and literacy tests for voting. Section 5 requires certain states and other political subdivisions to obtain “preclearance,” or permission, from either DOJ or the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, on any change affecting voting. Currently, preclearance states covered in whole or in part include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia. Set in 1982 to expire in 2007, Congress extended the VRA for another 25 years in 2006.
The VRA has come into sharp focus this year as the Holder administration has used VRA preclearance requirements to stall or prevent voter ID laws from being enacted. Non-preclearance states have faced stiff court challenges from other leftist groups.
Alabama – Alabama’s new photo ID law has a 2014 effective date. Alabama has not yet applied for pre-clearance.
Arizona – 9th Circuit upheld ID requirement of new law; struck requirement that voter prove citizenship.
Mississippi – A Voter ID amendment was approved by voters with a 62 percent margin in 2011. A bill to implement the amendment passed April 10, 2012. Requires preclearance. No word yet from Justice.
South Carolina – DOJ denied pre-clearance for new ID law in December 2011. State filed for reconsideration.
Texas – DOJ denied pre-clearance for new ID law. Texas filed suit with three-judge panel seeking pre-clearance; DOJ asked court to postpone trial.
Wisconsin – State judge ruled Wisconsin’s voter ID law unconstitutional (read the opinion). State will appeal.
The Wisconsin case is an example of independent groups working to sabotage reform efforts. In a suit brought by the League of Women Voters, the NAACP and others, the judge found ID laws “unconstitutional to the extent they serve as a condition for voting at the polls.” This was a bizarre ruling. Wisconsin’s Constitution clearly allows mechanisms to establish voter eligibility.
Despite the Left’s best efforts, voter ID laws have been proposed this year in 32 states.
A Personal Testimony
J. Christian Adams is a former DOJ election lawyer who worked on the Philadelphia Black Panther voter intimidation case. He resigned in protest of Eric Holder’s race-based application of the law. According to Adams’ new book,Injustice, Eric Holder became directly involved in the Black Panther case. Mr. Adams agreed to be interviewed for this report. Some highlights:
- DOJ is engaged in a massive campaign to force states to… become aggressive voter registration offices…
- DOJ announced they would not enforce Section 8 because it won’t increase turnout.
- States are infested with dead voters on the rolls.
- Investigations into eight states with widespread voter roll problems… were spiked
- Because of Motor Voter, voter rolls in many states seeing influx of illegal aliens.
- Data show that illegal aliens are participating in American elections.
- DOJ is using [VRA] Sec. 5 to stop voter integrity initiatives.
- Every one of Holder’s 113 new attorney hires is a far-left radical.
Famed civil rights attorney Bartle Bull was a poll watcher at that Philadelphia location when the Black Panthers appeared. He testified in the case, calling it “the most blatant form of voter intimidation” he had ever seen.
ACORN’s swamping method is now being replicated all over the country, especially in swing states or those with critical elections like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s recall vote. Even local communities are affected. For example, the Wake County (Raleigh/Durham) registrar described a swamping effort conducted by North Carolina’s Public Interest Research Group (PIRG).
While these organizations are nominally independent, closer inspection often reveals interlocking directorates and/or shared staff. Many are supported directly or indirectly by George Soros foundations. The chart below, compiled by North Carolina Civitas Institute, includes many organizations that worked with ACORN there.
A Textbook Case: Houston Votes
In July 2010, a newly-formed voter registration group named Houston Votes (HV) announced it intended to register 100,000 Houston, Texas area voters in a few months. Catherine Engelbrecht, Leader of True the Vote (TTV) and King Street Patriots (KSP), was skeptical. Her group checked about 1,000 HV registrations. The number of erroneous registrations submitted by HV and Democracia—a group targeting unregistered Hispanics—was, she said, “off the charts.”
They brought their results to Harris County Registrar, Leo Vasquez, who reviewed HV registrations. He found that of 25,640 submitted, only 7,193 were “apparently new voters.” On August 24, Vasquez held an unprecedented press conference,announcing:
Evidence shows that the Houston Votes and Texans Together organization is conspiring in a pattern of falsification of government documents, suborning of perjury and a deliberate effort to over-burden our processing system with thousands of duplicate and incomplete voter registration applications.
He raised concerns that HV was, like ACORN, paying employees based on the number of applications they turned in, and cited specific examples of problematic registrations:
3,531 No match for SSN or driver’s license number
1,597 Multiple apps for the same person
1,014 Pre-existing voters
1,030 Incomplete apps
25 Non-citizens
325 Minors
129 Ineligible felons
1,133 No ID
1,323 Filed past deadline
Three days later, a massive warehouse fire destroyed Harris County’s 10,000 voting machines. The fire’s timing bred suspicions, fed almost exclusively by the Left, which sought through innuendo to implicate KSP. A Huffington Post headline two days later was typical: “Possible Arson and the Right’s Texas Voter Suppression Effort.” This theme was repeated ad nauseam in the liberal media echo chamber. The Houston Fire Department later cited “an unspecified electrical short” as the cause, an explanation that satisfied no one.[iv]
HV held a press conference the day of the fire, calling Vasquez’s allegations “reckless and false” and “an apparently coordinated, partisan effort to suppress voter registration and to intimidate citizens into not voting…” They demandedthe Justice Department investigate.
HV dismissed mistakes with the familiar ACORN refrain, blaming a few low-level employees who were fired when errors were discovered. However, Vasquez specifically cited 180 erroneous registrations turned in by Directors Sean Caddle and Neil Hudelson—more errors than usually submitted in total by traditional voter registration drives.
HV boasted their group was “non-partisan” but an attentive blogger quickly proved otherwise. One of the people training volunteers for Houston Votes wasMaria Isabel, an Obama operative made famous by the photo of her office sporting a poster of Che Guevara.
BarackObama.com advertised HV’s “volunteer” deputy training. Participating groups included, Atascocita Texas for Obama, Houston For Obama, Houston Obama Leadership Team, Houston Women For Obama, and other similar groups.
HV Directors Hudelson and Caddle were quickly discovered to be long-time Democratic activists. At last notice they had returned to Caddle’s home state of New Jersey, working for Democratic Jersey City Council-at-Large candidate Sue Mack. She lost.
A little more digging revealed Houston Votes to be part of America Votes, a Soros-funded organization tied to ACORN, SEIU, and a universe of other leftwing groups.
America Votes specifically targeted Texas in its 2010 Redistricting Control Project. With 38 electoral votes, Texas is only exceeded by California’s 55. Latinos are the fastest growing ethnic group in Texas, not coincidentally home to thesecond largest illegal immigrant population in the U.S.
One quarter of Texans reside in the Houston metropolitan region and there are 25 state house seats in Harris County. Prior to the 2010 elections, Republicans held a slim majority of three seats in the Texas House. Winning in Houston had the potential to flip the House, giving Democrats control over redistricting. They wanted to “turn Texas blue.”
The Advisory Board of HV’s parent organization, Texans Together Education Fund, included a number of prominent left-wing Democrats. One was Grande Dame of Texas politics, Sissy Farenthold, who worked with the radical left Institute for Policy Studies in the 1980s. Another was Democrat Kristi Thibaut, a state legislator trying to hold her District 133 seat. She had worked for ACORN and was under investigation by the Texas Ethics Commission. Yet another was Sue Schechter, running for Harris County Clerk. Not only was HV extremely partisan, but plainly the Texas arm of Soros’s project.
America Votes failed in 2010. Republican control of the Texas state house increased by 44 seats in a nationwide sweep that brought Republican control to statehouses not seen since 1928. America Votes is targeting Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in 2012.
But the Left still wasn’t finished in Texas. The Texas Democratic Party sued the Harris County Registrar’s office, the Registrar and other employees.
Harris County had settled another suit with the Democrats in 2008 stemming from 67,554 rejected applications, mostly submitted by ACORN. Democrats had charged “voter suppression” then too, over registrations rejected for incomplete or inaccurate information—the kind ACORN excels at.
Because Texas is a preclearance state, redistricting maps must be approved. This year’s maps were challenged in court by Latino groups. This delayed the primary, neutralizing any impact Texas may have had on the Republican presidential primary process.
Voter Intimidation
KSP organized approximately 1,000 poll watchers for the 2010 elections. This outraged the Left, unused to having its inner city monopoly threatened. Texans Together Education Fund sued the King Street Patriots, True the Vote, Catherine Engelbrecht and her husband. On the first day of early voting, the Texas Democrat Party also filed a suit, a move characterized by KSP’s legal team as a naked effort to intimidate KSP-trained poll watchers.
Throughout the 2010 electoral cycle, the Left hurled accusations of “voter suppression” and “voter intimidation” at Catherine Engelbrecht, TTV, KSP and the volunteer poll watchers they trained. This narrative was promoted uncritically by the local press. Blogger Ann “Babe” Huggett, writing for EmergingCorruption.com, reported:
- ABC Channel 13 quoted Democrats suing KSP that KSP leaders could see jail time for voter intimidation. ABC’s own video, however, shows otherwise.
- Channel 26 reporter Isiah Carey asked repeatedly if the King Street Patriots hadn’t created a hostile environment. KSP offered witness testimony that it was “the other side” doing the intimidating.
- New Black Panther leader, Quanell X, threatened that his men would “protect” people from the TTV-trained poll watchers.
- Emails from communist Van Jones’ Color of Change circulated through liberal circles, charging poll-watcher voter intimidation.
- Local radio station Magic 102.1 FM repeated bogus charges about assaults on black voters… including spitting and physical assault… on black grandmothers.
But it was actually poll judges, poll workers and Quanell X’s Houston Black Panther group, who did much of the intimidating. Assistant County Attorney Douglas Ray disclosed after an investigation that Harris County poll workers and election judges had committed the violations blamed on KSP. He was silent on the Panthers.
Poll Watchers submitted 763 incident reports, detailing over 3,000 violations, to Harris County. These included intimidation, harassment and illegal voter assistance conducted by poll judges and workers. To date there has been no response from the County. Three poll watchers were willing to be identified by name and spoke to reporters at a KSP press conference. KSP invited the Justice Department to witness what was happening. Justice never responded.
Independent of KSP, poll judge Carmen Cuneo gave compelling video testimonyabout how the chief judge had her removed and threatened with arrest after she confronted Quanell X about his group’s activities at the poll.
True the Vote and the Wisconsin Recall
Union groups used the swarming method earlier this year in a recall petition of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. They reportedly submitted one million petitions, needing only 540,208. The Democrat-controlled Government Accountability Board (GAB), responsible for verifying petitions, flatly refused to do so.
In an astonishing, heroic effort, True the Vote joined an effort called Verify the Recall and developed a method to verify recall petitions online. They built a nationwide network of 14,000 volunteers almost overnight, who checked 92 percent of the petitions in 22 days. The findings were stunning:
819,233 records (not 1 million)
534,685 verified legitimate (65 percent)
In addition to numerous bogus “Donald Duck” petitions, signers included:
- 29 Wisconsin judges—one who later issued a restraining order against Walker’s Voter ID law.
- A deputy DA, 19 attorneys and dozens of other DA employees. Some had been working on a heavily criticized “secret” John Doe investigation of Governor Walker at the time.
- 25 Gannett News journalists
- Several members of WTMJ-4 news staff
- School board members
- Four University of Wisconsin regents and the university’s chief spokesman.
- A Democratic activist charged with seven felony ID theft counts and two of felony vote fraud. He signed up family members and neighbors, including a deceased man, without their knowledge or consent.
The GAB refused to consider VTR’s work and certified 900,000 petitions, but it was clear that Walker opponents had committed extensive vote fraud. The fraud would have gone undetected if not for the work of TTV.”
Leftwing “Reform” Efforts
Universal Voter Registration (UVR)
Cloward and Piven saw the NVRA as an intermediate goal. They made that clear in their book. The flurry of lawsuits and systemic fraud generated by the NVRA all build momentum to find a permanent solution. And the Left had the answer before they started: Universal Voter Registration.
UVR calls for automatically registering voters listed on various state and federal databases. Leftist groups argue it will solve all voter registration problems, but the left created most of them. UVR would create more:
- UVR undermines the Constitution.
- UVR facilitates illegal alien voting
- Homeowners with more than one property create duplicates.
- The many state & federal lists will create duplicates
- Because so many lists exist with little or no cross-checking these duplicates are likely to go uncorrected.
UVR would institutionalize the crisis strategy, and provide countless opportunities for vote fraud.
National Popular Vote
The National Popular Vote bill seeks to effectively abolish the Electoral College by enacting state laws that give all electors from those states that have passed the bill to the winner of the national popular vote. Direct elections would become universal when enough state legislatures have passed legislation to make up a majority of the electoral vote (270 of 538). Eight states and the District of Columbus, totaling 132 electoral votes, have passed NPV laws. The Electoral College was created to ensure that less populous states would not be overlooked in presidential elections. If successful, this effort will make vast swaths of our nation completely irrelevant to presidential candidates, as they would then focus all their efforts on large population centers.
Felon Voting
Project Vote disingenuously argues that rights should be restored to formerfelons. Almost every state has provisions to restore voting rights to former felons. ProCon.org claims about 5.2 million felons are “disenfranchised.” But only current prisoners have no recourse—about 1.4 million. They exaggerate the problem for unclear reasons. The “wise Latina,” Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor,favors felon voting.
Same Day Voting
Same-day voter registration in Ohio led to ACORN’s permanent expulsion from that state. Then-Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, an alumna of George Soros’s Secretary of State Project (see below), announced a “Golden Week” for same day registration and voting. ACORN submitted thousands of bogus registrations, including the notorious case where one man was paid to register 73 times.
Former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold proposed a nationwide same-day voting law in 2009, but his state’s experience with it has been disastrous. An investigation into the 2004 elections by the Milwaukee Police concluded the only way to prevent widespread fraud is to discontinue same-day voting. A 2011 study found errors in one-third of same-day voter registrations in Milwaukee County.
Nine states currently have same day voting laws.
Secretary of State Project
The Soros funded Secretary of State Project seeks to elect leftist Democrats to that critical post. SoS Project-backed Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie demonstrated the value of this program when comedian Al Franken eked out a victory in his 2008 U.S. Senate race amidst numerous, well-documented allegations of vote fraud.
The SoS Project did poorly in 2010, however. Ritchie was one of only two SoS-backed candidates to survive the Republican tidal wave.
The project’s website, secstateproject.org, is no longer operational. There is a Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/secstateproject. It does not appear to get much traffic. This may reflect a temporary lull in activity, or Soros and his minions have moved to more promising initiatives.
What Is To Be Done?
The 2012 election may be the most important election in American history. American citizens acting in the best interest of our country must be the bulwark against fraud. There are many things people can do, suitable to their time and resource constraints. Here is a list of options:
- Volunteer with True the Vote (www.truethevote.org) and join your state’s affiliate. True the Vote is conducting training all over the country. Find your state affiliate.
- Bookmark Protect Your Vote! (www.protectyourvote.us). This website provides state-by-state information about voting laws, vote fraud risk, and updated information about voter ID efforts.
- Judicial Watch has done more than any other organization to expose the activities of this corrupt administration and Justice Department under Eric Holder. Sign up for email alerts at www.judicialwatch.org.
- Read, print and distribute the Patriot’s Handbook. This free resource contains a wealth of information on how people can participate at any level.
The National Voter Registration Act was crafted specifically to bring calculated chaos to our elections, open the door to vote fraud and force states to become de facto voter registration drives heavily favorable to one political party. Similarly, Attorney General Eric Holder and his allies have abused the Voting Rights Act, turning preclearance into a political weapon to sabotage voter integrity efforts. The results are a voting system vulnerable to systemic fraud.
Our most fundamental right as Americans, to determine the size, scope and indeed the very nature of our nation, is being threatened. This must not stand.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Who Are the One Percent?
By Richard C. Morais
“If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?”
Those searing words of Shylock in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice haunt me as I read the explosive report sitting in my lap. On Wednesday the Harrison Group and American Express Publishing releases their 2012 Survey of Affluence and Wealth in America at theAmerican Express Publishing Luxury Summit unfolding at the Breakers in Palm Beach . Penta was given an exclusive look at the survey in advance. It’s a sobering document.
While the report studies all affluent earning more than $100,000 year, I am only going to zero in on the section of the report dealing exclusively with the top 1%, 390 of the 1,268 surveyed that had more than $450,000 in annual income. Here, first, their definition of the One Percent: they have median annual household income of $750,000, median assets of $7.5 million, and there are 1.2 million of them across the country.
Let’s put that annual income level in perspective. The presidents of august educational institutions like Mountain State University of West Virginia and Chapman University of California make $1.8 million and $1.5 million a year respectively. So it’s important the public realize the much-derided 1% is a rich group, yes, but they are nowhere near the 400 über-rich, the Larry Ellisons and Donald Trumps that make up the wealth mythology floridly living in our imagination.
In actual fact, the 1% look a lot more like “regular folk” than most of us really realize. According to the survey:
- 67% grew up in a middle class or poorer household.
- 85% made their wealth in their lifetime.
- 76% describe themselves as “Middle Class” at heart.
- 3% is the sum total of their assets that they inherited.
- 85% made their wealth in their lifetime.
- 76% describe themselves as “Middle Class” at heart.
- 3% is the sum total of their assets that they inherited.
“This is the triumph of the Middle Class,” says Jim Taylor, Vice Chairman of the Harrison Group. “Even when older, the [One Percent] don’t lose the degree with which they see themselves as the repository of the Middle Class. That means hard work. That means the value of education. That means the value of family and luck.”
Indeed, it’s important to understand most of these “Middle Class” millionaires rose to financial prominence by striving to create a business or idea or product of excellence. The wealth was a byproduct, came to them suddenly and unexpectedly, usually through a liquidity event, such as a big bonus at a major company, or a private equity buyout of the firm they built from scratch.
But here is what is so sad about the Amex-Harrison report: hammered in the financial markets and hammered by the public, this Middle Class made-good, these engines of economic growth for the nation, have dug themselves into the bunker, battered both emotionally and financially. They are hoarding cash, avoiding almost all risk, shunning their communities and hunkering down with a few select friends and family only.
They are, in a word, disengaged.
In 2007, the One Percent had a savings rate of 12%; in 2011, that savings rate had jumped to 34%. So no surprise their savings doubled between 2007 and 2011, from $250 billion a year to $550 billion a year. The percentage of those savings going into “personal savings and money markets,” earning low returns but relatively safe, has jumped from 24% to 54%. Conversely, and more disturbing, is the fact the rate invested in “financial products and markets” has plummeted from 76% to 46%.
That is not good for the nation. These people are, by definition, risk takers, and yet they’ve stopped taking financial risks. They are, in the words of the report, “irrationally defensive.” Taylor warns that “this is tremendously risky for the country. They’re putting their money under the mattress. They’re terribly nervous.”
Why should the public care? Very simply. Investment doesn’t follow job creation; new jobs are the result of risk-takers making investments.
It gets worse. For those who perceive themselves as “Middle Class” at heart – repositories of all those hard working and family values that added greatly to our nation’s fabric – it is a great shock to suddenly be vilified as social villains. Their response, understandably, is to pull back, to become ever more emotionally isolated and withdrawn from the public arena, precisely when they are most needed to be engaged with society.
In Q1 of 2010, 62% of the One Percent surveyed felt it was “important for me to join in social events in my community.” By the same quarter in 2012, that figure had plummeted to 44%. These very affluent folk are so circling their wagons that even their interest in socializing “with people who have achieved a similar level of success as I have” has fallen from 75% to 67% during the same period.
A staggering 92% agreed with the statement, “More and more I find I am preferring to spend my time with my very closest friends and family.” (Compared with 82% for the general population.) It’s an isolation that’s been steadily growing every quarter. In a related response, hanging out with “close friends and family” in the current year was a specific “goal” for 54% of those questioned in Q1 2011. Just a year later the figure had jumped to 62%.
It’s almost like, after several years of being blamed for all the ills in the nation, the One Percent are washing their hands of the rest of us, now too afraid to even be seen in public: 25% are “extremely/very concerned about being scorned for being in the top percent in the economy.” Cara David, Senior Vice President at American Express Publishing, warns against a nation where “success is not something you want to aspire to.”
So let’s take a deep breath. We must respect the Wall Street protestors for acting as a kind of conscience for the nation, their chants and drumming a kind of cri de coeur that all is not well with the nation. But we should also recognize that Witch Hunts are also very much a part of the country’s DNA, and the demonizing of the wealthy has finally reached a dangerous tipping point for the nation.
“We somehow have to change the storytelling about the wealthy in this country,” says David. “The more and more they pull back – it’s not good for anybody. We need the wealthy to be active and out and not be hiding. And those that aren’t [wealthy], need to have more appreciation for those that are.”
The chanting Wall Street protestors, the populist politicians, the media pundits who somehow think it is good sport to hunt down the nation’s wealthy with the soapbox equivalents of elephant guns, need to understand how they are collectively destroying the environment. It’s a simple fact: bio diversity is the sign of a healthy eco-system; kill off the elephants and we all die.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Faber Sees Crash Like in 1987 If U.S. Stocks Rally Without QE3
U.S. stocks may plunge in the second half of the year “like in 1987” if the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index climbs without further stimulus from the Federal Reserve, said Marc Faber, the publisher of the Gloom, Boom & Doom report.
“I think the market will have difficulties to move up strongly unless we have a massive QE3,” Faber told Betty Liu on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop” from Zurich, referring to a third round of large-scale asset purchases by the Federal Reserve. “If it moves and makes a high above 1,422, the second half of the year could witness a crash, like in 1987.”
The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 23 percent on Oct. 19, 1987 in the biggest crash since 1914, triggering sharp losses in stock-market values around the world. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index plummeted 20 percent.
“If the market makes a new high, it will be a new high with very few stocks pushing up and the majority of stocks having already rolled over,” Faber said. “The earnings outlook is not particularly good because most economies in the world are slowing down.”
Faber said a third round of quantitative easing would “definitely occur” if the S&P 500 dropped another 100 to 150 points. If it bounces back to 1,400, he said, the Fed will probably wait to see how the economy develops.
The S&P 500 rose 0.4 percent to 1,360.59 at 10:36 a.m. in New York as U.S. initial jobless claims fell last week to a one- month low. The gauge has dropped 4.1 percent from a four-year high on April 2 after some economic reports missed forecasts.
Equity Gains
Faber had said in an interview with Bloomberg Television on March 9, 2009, that it was “very difficult to see a scenario where you wouldn’t make any money” owning stocks over the following 10 years, while also warning the S&P 500 might lose 26 percent before the bear market ended.
The benchmark gauge for American equities began its biggest advance in five decades that day, climbing from 676.53 to 1,295.02 on Jan. 18, 2011.
In March 2007, he had said the S&P 500 was more likely to fall than rise because the threats of faster inflation and slower growth persisted. The S&P 500 then climbed 10 percent to a record 1,565.15 seven months later, and ended the year up 3.5 percent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)OBAMA'S PLAN TO DESTROY THE REPUBLIC
Exclusive: Erik Rush explains ongoing steps that culminate in martial law
On April 23, Doug Hagmann exposed Canada Free Press readers to the theory that simmering social unrest in America and (to a slightly lesser extent) across the globe is “not due to Obama’s inexperience or failed policies. Rather, it is the direct result of the implementation of his successful policies.”
I’ve been saying this for some time, but I was still gratified to hear Hagmann say it, and that his column and May 7 followup piece gleaned significant exposure. Attributing his information to an anonymous insider, Hagmann outlines how the Obama administration is covertly utilizing prominent agitators among the political left to incite chaos, and eventually violence, based on racial and class factors, while the administration continues to sabotage America’s economic engine. The latter efforts are also intended to catalyze widespread civil unrest.
The objectives here are personal power for Obama, of course, and a coalescing of the federal government’s authority; the goal, the destruction of the United States of America as a constitutional republic.Implementation of this plan is, according to Hagmann’s source, being carried out via Obama’s unelected czars and heavily involves the Department of Homeland Security. From lower-level DHS agents making payments to street-level agitators, to former green energy czar Van Jones mentoring Occupy leaders, to coordination with political allies such as the New Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan, the administration has all bases covered. Cultural balkanization and another heavy hit to the economy are calculated to result in unprecedented rioting and finally widespread public pandemonium followed by implementation of martial law.
Like the class-warfare issue, the racial component is only a part of the agenda, but this being America, it is a significant one. In the operational sense, it is both a sad irony and potentially very dangerous that the left has managed to grow up a crop of black Americans who are as ignorant, belligerent and destructive as white bigots of bygone days falsely contended.
Based on who and what I knew Obama to be – and I knew this well before he was elected – when he did win the presidency, my immediate thought was This is one mother****er who’s going to do his level best to stay in office permanently.
When I called Obama a communist in 2008 and 2009, even conservatives giggled, but it made perfect sense to me. Everyone of significance in the man’s life had either been a card-carrying communist, or their worldview was principally based on Marxism. The Black Liberation Theology (effectively an oxymoron) in which Obama was schooled for 20 years has its roots in Marxism, as does the social justice doctrine to which he, his minions and their useful liberal idiots so dearly adhere.
When racial tension increased amidst Obama’s deleterious weighing-in on issues like the Henry Gates affair in 2009, the administration’s refusal to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation and revelations that Eric Holder’s DOJ wasn’t prosecuting blacks for anything they could remotely rationalize as political (including black-on-white crime), most people saw poor leadership or a bumbling incompetent. I, however, saw nascent choreography, the subtle inflaming of black resentment and the abrading of old scars.
All of this – as I believed then as well as now – was calculated to cultivate a black populace that would be ready to take to the streets at the slightest provocation. As recently as this weekend, Obama’s mealymouthed attorney general, Eric Holder, invoked the name of Trayvon Martin at a meeting of the Detroit chapter of the NAACP.
Obama implemented his big-government takeover so rapidly after taking office that even those who had his number were surprised. Ostensibly, these were remedial measures to address the economic implosion he and his activist cronies helped bring about via collaboration with government power players, but they were over-reaching. When detractors pointed this out, Obama countered with jokes concerning people complaining about “socialist mops.”
It might be hard at times to discern whether Obama is a communist, an Islamist, or a nihilist who simply wants to see the world burn. His actions in America certainly indicate a desire to culminate 100 years of Marxist wet dreams; however, his furtive participation in the “Arab Spring” that is sweeping Middle Eastern and Arab nations suggests a yearning to touch off a global conflagration that would indeed have the world burning for decades, so pernicious are Islamists’ designs for a worldwide caliphate. This obviously could not be actualized without tens – if not hundreds of millions – of deaths.
Now, I wouldn’t want anyone to get the impression that I think I’m the only one who knew what was going on. Obviously there are others, but when you have allegedly conservative journalists and commentators suggesting that Barack Obama might be a socialist, or kind of a far-left guy (instead of a naked communist) at this stage of the game, there’s a serious perceptual problem in play. Even now, we hear people who ought to know better explaining away Obama’s sinister executive orders as boilerplate, run-of-the-mill formalities.
We’ve gone beyond the frog in the pot of water who doesn’t realize he’s being slowly boiled. The frog has been doused with gasoline and ignited, and it’s time for him to start screaming.
5a)Why Obama Flipped
Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat has two mommies.
By JAMES TARANTO
Last night brought an email from Barack Obama with the subject line "Marriage." It began: "James--Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer." What drove Obama to do something so wildly out of character?
Money, for one thing. The Washington Post reported the other day that "about one in six of Obama's top campaign 'bundlers' are gay . . . making it difficult for the president to defer the matter." Lefty Post blogger Greg Sargent added:
Some leading gay and progressive donors are so angry over President Obama's refusal to sign an executive order barring same sex discrimination by federal contractors that they are refusing to give any more money to the pro-Obama super PAC, a top gay fundraiser's office tells me. In some cases, I'm told, big donations are being withheld.
BuzzFeed.com adds that "many in Hollywood" have "been privately sharing" the view that "the Obama presidency has been a flop. . . . But, as if on cue, Obama may have changed the narrative Wednesday in one bold move--the kind of transformative act those in Hollywood have been waiting for."
Not that there's anything wrong with a politician listening to his financial supporters. Though don't hold your breath waiting for the New York Times to denounce this as an example of the corrupting influence of political money.
It is possible that Obama's self-love amplifies the workings of the Taranto principle by making him and his advisers especially sensitive to elite liberal opinion. "In the end, people close to the president say, it wasn't a close call," Politico reports:One shouldn't discount sheer moral vanity as a motivator either. Yahoo! News's Walter Shapiro speculates that "in moral terms, it is quite possible that Obama could not personally endure further equivocation." Late last night Obama (via his campaign account, @BarackObama) tweeted a photo of himself looking skyward, with a quote from himself: " 'Same-sex couples should be able to get married.'--President Obama." The text of the tweet read simply: "History."
The core of their argument against Mitt Romney is that he is an untrustworthy politician with no real core of conviction. Obama's advisers--who are acutely conscious of the media's criticism despite their professed contempt for the news cycle--simply couldn't afford to have the president appear like a coward on the front and editorial pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, according to senior Democrats.
You have to love both the cynicism and the self-contradiction of carefully calibrating a major change in position in order to serve the purpose of making the other guy look like a flip-flopper. But the bit about the Times and the Post rings 100% true, doesn't it?
What does it mean for November? The president himself, in his "Good Morning America" interview, feigned nonchalance. "It'd be hard to argue that somehow this is--something that I'd be doin' for political advantage--because frankly, you know--you know, the politics, it's not clear how they cut." Frankly!
Many of Obama's supporters in the media agree with him on the substance and are simply delighted that he has finally made public that he agrees with them. Their enthusiasm provides support for Jeff Bell's assertion that social issues constitute the left's "irreplaceable ideological core. . . . The left keeps putting these issues into the mix, and they do it very deliberately, and I think they do it as a matter of principle."
But this ideological fervor renders suspect their evaluations of the likely political consequences, which are remarkably blasé. "A Historic Moment, but One With Little Electoral Effect" is the headline on a Washington Post post by Jonathan Bernstein:
For those who strongly support Obama's new position, it's unlikely that this changes anything. Yes, some marriage-equality advocates had talked about withholding support unless the president "evolved." But realistically, there was no way that political activists--people accustomed to the normal give-and-take of politics--were not going to appreciate the wide gulf between Obama and Mitt Romney on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues. Without this statement they might have needed more careful tending, but they weren't going to walk away from their best ever ally in the White House.
The same is true for strong opponents of Obama's new position. It's highly unlikely that anyone who, otherwise was fine voting for Obama despite disagreeing with him on ending "don't ask don't tell" and each of the other measures he has supported and in many cases has enacted, would draw the line here. Nor is it likely that anyone not already energized by Obama's record on cultural issues will suddenly find this to be the thing that gets them off the couch.
And what of everyone else? The millions of Americans, most likely a large majority, who don't really care very much? They're still not going to care very much. My guess is that the conventional wisdom is correct: Anyone pushing hard on the marriage issue in either direction risks seeming out of touch with those who care a lot more about the economy or other issues.
We tend to agree with that last "guess," but how could Bernstein fail to realize that Obama's high-profile preening about his making "history" constitutes the kind of "pushing hard" that is politically risky?
And while it's no doubt true that Mitt Rommey runs a risk if he sounds harsh or obsessive in his opposition to same-sex marriage, it remains the case that he is on the side of public opinion. Victory has a thousand fathers, as John F. Kennedy observed, but defeat has two mommies. Every state that has cast a ballot on the question has voted against same-sex marriage, including three socially liberal ones (California, Maine and Oregon). North Carolina, which Obama carried in 2008, did so just this week by a vote of 61% to 39%.
To be sure, same-sex marriage is less unpopular than it used to be. Legislatures in several states have enacted it without being ordered to do so by the courts, and by now there probably are a few states in which it would be approved in a plebiscite. Not among them, however, are any of what are generally considered the swing states in this year's election, with the possible exception of New Hampshire.
National Journal's Ron Brownstein argues that Obama's announcement "reflects a hard-headed acknowledgment of the changing nature of the Democratic electoral coalition":
Indeed, historians may someday view Obama's announcement Wednesday as a milestone in the evolution of his party's political strategy, because it shows the president and his campaign team are increasingly comfortable responding to the actual coalition that elects Democrats today--not the one that many in the party remember from their youth. . . .
Obama's announcement might not significantly change the overall level of his 2012 support, especially in an election where economic issues will dominate. But the announcement may reflect the Obama camp's thinking about the likely composition of his support. It shows the president, however reluctantly, formulating an agenda that implicitly acknowledges the party is unlikely to recreate the support it attracted from the white working-class and senior voters who anchored Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal coalition. Instead, the announcement shows him reaching out to mobilize the new pillars of the Democratic electorate, particularly younger people and socially liberal white collar whites.
So Obama makes up for ceding the squares and the crackers by picking up the hipsters and the eggheads. The average age of a Democratic voter drops, while the average IQ rises. Like Spinal Tap, the president's appeal is becoming more selective.
But there are two problems with this analysis. First, squares tend to be much more reliable about actually going to the polls than hipsters do, and there aren't enough eggheads who aren't already with the Democrats to make up for the lost crackers.
Second, Brownstein seems to be taking only white voters into account. The Democratic coalition depends on overwhelming support from blacks and strong support from Hispanics. Blacks and Hispanics alike are less apt than whites to support same-sex marriage. When California passed Proposition 8 in 2008, exit polls showed it had the support of 70% of blacks, 53% of Latinos and only 49% of whites. (Brownstein concedes this point in acompanion piece, though his emphasis again is on the inverse correlation between age and support for same-sex marriage, which holds for minorities as well as whites.)
Obama's support for same-sex marriage is almost certain to cut into his support among Hispanics and even blacks, leading some to vote for Romney and others to stay home. We'll be very surprised if Obama fails to win a majority of Hispanics and the vast majority of blacks, but seemingly small changes can add up.
Example: Exit polls show that in 2004, blacks constituted 11% of the presidential electorate. In 2008 that figure rose to 13%. Blacks supported John Kerry over George W. Bush by 88% to 11% and Obama over John McCain by 95% to 4%.
That would mean Kerry got approximately 11.8 million black votes to Bush's 1.5 million, while Obama got 16.2 million to McCain's 0.6 million. Kerry's margin among black voters was 10.3 million, Obama's 15.6 million, an improvement of some 5.3 million, more than half his overall 9.5 million margin. These numbers aren't exact, given the exit polls' margin for error, but they do give a sense of how important a voting bloc can be, even when one party can take a large majority of its support for granted.
Mickey Kaus seems to realize that Obama's flip isn't likely to help him this November. He argues fancifully that the president has 2016 in mind. If Obama isn't re-elected, Kaus speculates, "I think he's going to run again, Grover Cleveland style." By 2016, Kaus expects public opinion "to have shifted further in favor of this social innovation," so that what is a risky position now will be helpful then.
It does seem to us that Obama may be looking ahead past 2012--to 2013. Remember how bitter and angry the left was last summer, when he looked like a loser--like someone who didn't "fight"? (If not, click here.) That's nothing compared to their bitterness after a Romney victory.
But if Obama loses after having endorsed same-sex marriage--and especially if his poll numbers experience an abrupt and permanent decline over the next few days--much of the left's anger will be directed outward, at "homophobic" Middle America. Obama will begin his ex-presidency as a hero and a martyr. Unlike past losers like Jimmy Carter and Al Gore, he won't have to build a single house or lose his mind to rehabilitate himself.
There's a danger in all this, however, for the Democratic Party. The more we think about it, the more it seems to us that Keli Goff is on to something with her argument that the gay mau-mauing of Obama is a racial humiliation:
The leadership in the LGBT activism community is not exactly known for its diversity. There has long been tension and resentment between the LGBT community and communities of color. Black voters were unfairly and inaccurately blamed for the Prop 8 debacle and were also strangely blamed by some for the defeat of gay marriage in predominantly white states. (Go figure.) This displacement of blame reeked of racism and was occasionally accompanied by blatantly racist language. . . .
There have also been plenty of vocally anti-gay black activists.
But President Obama is not one of them. Yet it seems that there are members of the gay community who will simply never trust him because he is black and a Christian and therefore must be anti-gay until he does everything they ask, when they ask it, to prove that he is not. This litmus test, which I have seen applied to no other leader, smacks of subtle prejudice, and yet his critics are too busy trying to prove that he is homophobic to see it.
If the electoral repudiation of the first black president is widely understood to have resulted from his being pressured to adopt a position the vast majority of blacks find repugnant, perhaps that will be the means by which the half-century-old bond between black America and the Democratic Party is dissolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Robinson talks to economist Thomas Sowell about his book, "Intellectuals and Society." Robinson and Sowell discuss the fact that intellectuals play a disproportionate role in society, as evidenced by linguist Noam Chomsky's influence on liberal politics. Is a fancy education a high speed rail ticket to fallacy? Find out as Professor Sowell discusses the pride and fallacies of the intellectuals, and the unused brilliance of the masses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment