Barack Hussein Obama's Deceptive and Socialistic Campaign - 2012
Obama’s foreign donors
By Dick Morris - 10/09/12
In September, the Obama campaign got
1.8 million donations from small contributors who did not break the
$200 threshold requiring that their information be reported to the
Federal Election Commission. They gave the campaign 98 percent of the
$181 million it raised that month, a figure vastly higher than its take
in any previous month.
Is the Obama campaign financing
itself through foreign money funneled in through a website owned by a
private businessman, living in China, that uses the name Obama.com?
In 1997, we learned — too late —
that the Clinton campaign had relied heavily on thinly disguised
Chinese government money for much of its early blitz of issue ads in
the 1996 election. The early intimations of funding fraud in the
campaign (Al Gore’s exploits with the Buddhist monks) shaved off half
of Clinton’s margin, cutting his lead from 14 to 7 points in the weeks
before the election. But the full dimensions of the scandal were not
apparent until then-Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) held hearings the
following year revealing the depth of the campaign’s reliance on
Now, in the last month of the 2012
race, Newsweek magazine has raised serious questions about Obama’s
fundraising and its possible reliance on foreign donors and outright
fraud to generate its funding.
Newsweek raises questions, in
particular, about Robert W. Roche, the co-founder and chairman of the
board of Acorn International Inc., a media and branding direct-sales
company based in Shanghai. He also owns the Obama.com website, which
appears on the Internet throughout the world. Roche’s site links to
Barackobama.com, the official campaign site, where it invites people to
donate to the campaign. Obama.com gets 2,000 visits a day, two-thirds
of which are from foreigners. Is it a giant money-laundering operation
to feed foreign money into the Obama campaign?
Despite the disclaimer on the
campaign site stating that foreign nationals cannot donate to Obama,
the suspicion remains that Roche’s vigilance in assuring that Obama.com
is on the Internet throughout the world has led to a significant influx
of foreign cash into the coffers of the president’s reelection effort.
It will be too late to wait until
2013 to find out. The House Oversight Committee should immediately
investigate, using its subpoena power, to see if there is, indeed, a
flow of foreign money, via Obama.com, into the president’s campaign.
Roche, by the way, has visited the White House 11 times during Obama’s tenure, according to the visitor log.
These questions arise because the
Obama campaign, unlike Romney’s or, for that matter, Hillary Clinton’s
in 2008, refuses to ask donors for their CVV number (the number on your
credit card that one is often asked for after giving one’s name and
expiration date). The CVV is designed to assure that the donor is
actually physically holding the card.
The Obama campaign is no stranger to
fraudulent donations funneled in through phony names. In 2008, The
Washington Post reported that Mary Biskup was reported to have donated
more than $170,000 to the Obama campaign in small donations. But Biskup
says she never gave any money to the campaign. Some other donor must
have given the money in her name.
Given these past problems and the
Obama campaign’s sudden influx of small donors, Newsweek wonders why
the campaign does not require CVV numbers to minimize the chances of
The magazine noted that the
campaign’s past scandals “make it all the more surprising that the
Obama campaign does not use … the card verification value [system].”
The magazine added that “the Romney campaign, by contrast, does use the
CVV — as has almost every other candidate who has run for president in
Let’s find out the facts before the
election. If a president who promised ethical transparency is using
small donations — too small to trigger the federal reporting
requirement — to funnel in foreign donations, we need to know. Before
Morris, a former adviser to Sen.
Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Clinton, is the author of Outrage,
Fleeced, Catastrophe and 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan.
Obama admits some ads go 'overboard'
Published September 24, 2012
In a set of dueling interviews aired
Sunday night, President Obama conceded his "biggest disappointment" is
that he hasn't significantly changed the tone in Washington since
taking office -- and acknowledged sometimes his campaign ads go
"overboard" and contain "mistakes."
Mitt Romney, meanwhile, touted his
campaign's competitiveness as he emerged from a rocky week. "We've got
a campaign which is tied with an incumbent president to the United
States," Romney told CBS' "60 Minutes."
The Republican presidential nominee
said his campaign, despite heat from the media and grumbling from some
conservatives, "doesn't need a turnaround." Romney expressed confidence
he's "going to win this thing."
The interviews aired as both
candidates were launching a new wave of campaigning. Romney arrived in
Colorado Sunday for the start of a weeklong tour through battleground
states. Obama's campaign on Monday launched a new offensive with a TV
ad blasting Romney for criticizing Americans who don't pay income taxes
without having "come clean" about his own.
At the same time, Obama told CBS that his ads are not always 100 percent accurate.
"Do we see sometimes us going
overboard in our campaign, are there mistakes that are made, areas
where there is no doubt that somebody could dispute how we are
presenting things? You know, that happens in politics," Obama said,
arguing that the "vigorous debate" helps better define each candidate's
vision. The exchange was not aired on television but was posted online
Amid the sustained toughness of the
campaign trail tone, Obama conceded to "60 Minutes" that the tone in
Washington remains more caustic than he'd like.
"Change has happened and positive
change for the American people," Obama said, adding: "I'm the first one
to confess that the spirit that I brought to Washington, that I wanted
to see instituted, where we weren't constantly in a political slugfest
but were focused more on problem solving that, you know, I haven't
fully accomplished that."
Obama said he hasn't "even come close in some cases."
"And, you know, if you ask me what's
my biggest disappointment is that we haven't changed the tone in
Washington as much as I would have liked," the president said, adding
that "as president I bear responsibility for everything, to some
Obama also defended his foreign
policy record amid anti-American rage in the Muslim world, firing back
at suggestions from Romney that the president has been weak with allies
and enemies alike.
In the interview Sunday night the
president said, "If Gov. Romney is suggesting that we should start
another war, he should say so."
In the companion interview to
Obama's appearance on CBS' "60 Minutes," Romney broadened his reproach
to include Israel, criticizing Obama's failure to meet with the U.S.
ally's head of state, Benjamin Netanyahu, during the annual U.N.
gathering. Romney called it a mistake that "sends a message throughout
the Middle East that somehow we distance ourselves from our friends."
The White House has said scheduling
precluded a meeting between the two leaders, who won't be in New York
at the same time. With the final six weeks of a hard-fought election
hanging over the U.N. summit, Obama has opted out of face-to-face
meetings with any of his counterparts -- not just Netanyahu -- during
his compressed U.N. visit.
But Obama pushed back on the notion
that he feels pressure from Netanyahu, dismissing as noise the Israeli
leader's calls for the U.S. to lay out a "red line" that Iran's nuclear
program mustn't cross to avoid American military intervention.
"When it comes to our national
security decisions, any pressure that I feel is simply to do what's
right for the American people," Obama said. "And I am going to block
out any noise that's out there."
In a wide-ranging interview
conducted the day after U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was
killed in an attack on Benghazi, Obama defended his foreign policy
successes, noting he'd followed through on a commitment to end the war
in Iraq and had nabbed Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden.
He also waxed optimistic that
winning a second term would give him a mandate to overcome
obstructionism from congressional Republicans whose No. 1 goal, he
said, has been to prevent his re-election.
"My expectation is, my hope is that
that's no longer their number one priority," Obama said. "I'm hoping
that after the smoke clears and the election season's over that that
spirit of cooperation comes more to the fore."
Romney, in an interview conducted
last week, sought to deflect attention from his running mate, Wisconsin
Rep. Paul Ryan, over their differences in Medicare policy: "I'm the guy
running for president, not him."
While reaffirming his commitment to
lowering all income tax rates by 20 percent, Romney expressed no unease
about his refusal to offer specifics, such as which loopholes and
deductions he'd eliminate to pay for the cuts.
"The devil's in the details. The
angel is in the policy, which is creating more jobs," Romney said,
adding that he doesn't want to see overall government revenue reduced.
The "60 Minutes" interviews came as
Romney's campaign strove to turn the page after a secretly recorded
video showed Romney writing off his prospects for winning over the
almost half of Americans who he said pay no taxes, are dependent upon
government and see themselves as victims. Ahead of an evening campaign
stop at a Denver-area high school Sunday, Romney huddled with senior
advisers in Los Angeles to rehearse for the three upcoming presidential
debates, which his aides see as the best opportunity to get his
campaign and its message back on track.
Amid mounting pressure to spend less
time raising money and more time explaining his plans to voters, Romney
was refocusing his schedule on the most competitive states. After
Colorado, Romney was to begin a three-day bus tour in Ohio on Monday
followed by a stop in Virginia -- states that Obama won in 2008 but
that Republicans claimed four years earlier.
While national polls remain tight,
polls in several of the most closely watched states, including
Colorado, suggest Obama has opened narrow leads. Obama won Colorado by
9 points four years ago, but the state went to a Republican in the
previous three presidential elections.
Obama, allies exploiting Americans' tax ignorance
What standard of fairness dictates
that the top 10 percent of income earners pay 71 percent of the federal
income tax burden while 47 percent of Americans pay absolutely nothing?
Posted: September 2, 2012
By Walter Williams
If you listen to America’s political
hacks, mainstream media talking heads and their socialist allies, you
can’t help but reach the conclusion the nation’s tax burden is borne by
the poor and middle-class while the rich get off scot-free.
Stephen Moore, senior economics
writer for The Wall Street Journal, and I’m proud to say former GMU
economics student, wrote “The U.S. Tax System: Who Really Pays?” in the
Manhattan Institute’s August 12 issue. Let’s see whether the rich are
paying their “fair” share.
According to IRS 2007 data, the
richest 1 percent of Americans earned 22 percent of national personal
income but paid 40 percent of all personal income taxes.
The top 5 percent earned 37 percent and paid 61 percent of personal income tax.
The top 10 percent earned 48 percent and paid 71 percent of all personal income taxes.
The bottom 50 percent earned 12 percent of personal income but paid just 3 percent of income tax revenues.
Some argue these observations are
misleading because there are other federal taxes the bottom 50
percenters pay such as Social Security and excise taxes.
Moore presents data from the Tax
Policy Center, run by the liberal Urban Institute and the Brookings
Institution, that takes into account payroll and income taxes paid by
different income groups.
Because of the earned income tax
credit, most of America’s poor pay little or nothing. What the Tax
Policy Center calls working class pay 3 percent of all federal taxes,
middle class 11 percent, upper middle class 19 percent and wealthy 67
President Obama and the Democratic Party harp about tax fairness.
Here’s my fairness question to you:
What standard of fairness dictates the top 10 percent of income earners
pay 71 percent of the federal income tax burden while 47 percent of
Americans pay absolutely nothing?
President Obama and his political allies are fully aware of IRS data that shows who pays what.
Their tax demagoguery knowingly exploits American ignorance about taxes.
A complicit news media is only happy to assist.
We might ask ourselves what’s to be said about the decency of people who knowingly mislead the public about taxes.
Of course, I might be all wrong, and true tax fairness dictates the top 10 percent pay all federal income taxes.
Aside from the fairness issue, 47 percent of taxpayers having no federal income tax liability is dangerous for our nation.
These people become natural constituents for big-spending, budget-wrecking, debt-creating politicians.
After all, if you have no income tax liability, what do you care about either raising or lowering taxes?
That might explain why the so-called Bush tax cuts were not more popular.
If you’re not paying income taxes, why should you be happy about an income tax cut?
Instead, you might view tax cuts as a threat to various handout programs that nearly 50 percent of Americans enjoy.
Tax demagoguery is useful for politicians who prey on the politics of envy to get re-elected, but is it good for Americans?
We’re witnessing the disastrous
effects of massive spending in Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and
other European countries where a greater number of people live off of
government welfare programs than pay taxes.
Government debt in Greece is 160 percent of gross domestic product, 120 percent in Italy, 104 in Ireland and 106 in Portugal.
Here’s the question for us: Is the U.S. moving toward or away from the troubled EU nations?
It turns out our national debt to GDP ratio in the 1970s was 35 percent; now it’s 106 percent of GDP.
If you think we’re immune from the economic chaos in some of the EU countries, you’re whistling Dixie.
And when economic chaos comes, whom do you think will be more affected by it: rich people or poor people?
WALTER E. WILLIAMS is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
The Most Divisive Campaign in American History
SUNDAY, 12 AUGUST 2012 07:19
In 1980, when President Reagan asked
Americans, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago", it
was still possible to campaign on a theme as simple as the job
performance of the other guy. But now, 32 years later, the campaign
hinges on a much more fundamental split among the voting population.
Romney appeals to voters who are
dissatisfied with the last four years. Obama appeals to voters who are
dissatisfied with America.
This basic gap was obscured in the
2008 campaign by the window trappings of inspiration. Among all the
plastic pillars and stolen quotes from poets who stole them from
sermons, it was harder to see that the underlying theme of the campaign
was dissatisfaction with America. But in 2012, Obama can no longer run
as a reformer or an optimist.
The coalition that he committed to
last year is a coalition of those who are unhappy with America, not in
the last four years, but in the last two-hundred years. Its core is
composed of groups that fear democracy and distrust the will of the
people. There is no optimism here, but a deeply rooted pessimism about
human nature and the country as a whole. It is the Democratic Party's
coalition against democracy.
After 2010, the numbers were
crunched, and it was clear that Obama and the Democrats could not win a
mainstream campaign. Instead, they targeted narrow groups, stirred up
conflicts over issues aimed at that group, whether it was union
pensions, racism or birth control. There was no more pretense of a
national election, only a frenzied rush to polarize as many groups as
possible and join them together into an acrimonious coalition, not so
much for anything, as against Republicans.
There isn't any inspiration here.
Just paranoia over everything from gay marriage to abortion to racial
profiling to illegal immigration. A dozen illegal benefits being handed
out with the explicit threat that they will be lost if Romney wins. A
dozen mini-civil wars being stirred up to divide Americans and set them
at each other's throats for the benefit of the Obama campaign.
From Occupy Wall Street to
Wisconsin, from Trayvon Martin to Chick-fil-A, the goal of these
manufactured conflicts has been to divide and conquer the electorate by
emphasizing group rights over individual economic welfare.
Obama can't win on the economy. He
can't win on foreign policy. He can't win on any aspect of his
administration. All he can do is stir up violence and then promise to
heal the country in his second term while winking to all the
representatives of the grievance groups. It's not a new game, but the
Democratic Party has never played it quite this baldly in a national
election. And if it succeeds, then national politics will have finally
been reduced to the level of a Chicago election.
We were expected to believe that the
typical Obama voter in 2008 was hoping for a better country, but in
2012 there is no more hope, only hate and fear. The typical Obama voter
is not acting as an American, but as a representative of an entitled
group looking to secure and expand those entitlements at the expense
and the detriment of the country at large.
To vote for Obama after years of
grotesque economic mismanagement that has no precedent in history, that
exceeds the worst actions of Andrew Jackson or Ulysses S. Grant, is not
the instinct of an American, but a selfish greedy looter scrambling to
grab a few dinner rolls off the tray while the ship is going down.
There is no policy justification for voting for a man with the worst
economic and foreign policy record in the country's history. There is
no American justification for voting for him. Only the UnAmerican
motivation of carving up a dying country into group fiefdoms
privileging identity politics over the common good.
This is an UnAmerican campaign. It
is an Anti-American campaign. It is a campaign by those who hate and
fear what America was and who resent having to care about anyone
outside their own group. Its group jingoism, its dog whistles and
special privileges are repulsive and cynical, treating the people of a
great nation like a warren of rats eager to sell each other out for a
prize from the Cracker Jack box of identity politics entitlements.
There is not a single Obama voter
anywhere in the land who believes that another four years of him will
make this country better. Not a single one from coast to coast. No,
what they believe is that he will make the country a worse place for
those people that they hate. That he will have four more years to sink
their ideas deeper in the earth, regardless of how many families go
hungry and how many fathers kill themselves because they can no longer
take care of their families. What they believe is that Obama will grant
their group more special privileges and the rest of the country can go
In his DNC keynote address in 2004,
Obama said, "There is no Black America or White America or Latino
America or Asian America, there is just the United States of America."
And now he has completely disavowed it. He isn't campaigning to lead
the United States of America, instead he is running for the presidency
of a dozen little Americas, Trayvon Martin America, Abortion America,
Illegal Alien America, Sharia America, Gay Marriage America, Starbucks
America and any others you can think of. And if he can collect enough
of these little Americas together, then he may get the privilege of
running the United States of America into the ground for another four
Obama has never been the President
of the United States of America. He has been the president of
Washington D.C., of Wall Street and of Solyndra. He has been the
President of Green America and of Chicago. He has been the President of
Warren Buffett, George Soros, Bill Gates, Penny Pritzker and James
Crown. He is the President of George Clooney, Harvey Weinstein and Anne
Hathaway. And now, facing disaster, he still isn't running to be
President of a country, but of a dozen little countries with money from
freshly bailed out Green America and Wall Street, not to mention
The Obama campaign is not
accidentally divisive. It did not stumble into divisiveness. It is not
even divisive as a byproduct of its real aims. Divisiveness is its aim.
Divisiveness is the only way that a divisive administration can hold on
to power. The anger and the violence are not an accident, they are the
whole point. Set one group against another, feed the hate, massage the
grievances and very soon there is no longer a nation but a handful of
quarreling groups being roped into a mutual alliance to reelect their
lord protector whose appeal is that of the outsider becoming the
Bain is a metaphor whose details
don't truly matter. The target audience for that swill doesn't really
care where Romney was when a steel plant was shut down. It doesn't care
that like so many private equity bigwigs, the man who actually was in
charge is one of Obama's bundlers. This isn't about truth, it's about
menace. The Bain message is that Romney is a man who takes things away.
That is the image that the UnAmerican alliance is meant to take
away. The ominous sense that Obama's era of giving them things is about
to come to a close and Romney's era of taking away things will begin.
It doesn't take much prompting for
the UnAmericans to come to this conclusion. Thieves are always looking
over their shoulders. They always expect to have their ill-gotten gains
taken away from them. And that is Obama's true achievement. Like
Tammany Hall, he has corrupted a massive section of the population and
made it complicit in his criminality. What the old political machines
did to cities or small groups of vested interests, the Zero has done to
tens of millions, if not a hundred million people, who want him in
power not because they think he's the best man for the job, but because
he's their crook. The middle man for a crime ring that begins with him
and ends with them.
The true insidious evil of the man
is that he is the face of a machine of power and privilege that turns
Americans into UnAmericans, that corrupts and degrades every ideal and
principle, suborns every office and picks every pocket, while wrapping
that thievery in the flag and every bit of history that it can filch.
The Hussein Way is the clearest expression of the rot at the heart of
the Democratic Party, the marriage of leftist agitation and
powermongering with the old urban political machines for a level of
abuse usually seen only in banana republics.
The abomination in Washington is a
welfare-state technocracy that mixes crony capitalism with radical
social policy. It steals from everyone and gives back to some. It plays
the game of divide and conquer with the panache of marketing executives
knowing that the worse the economy is, the more likely everyone is to
look in everyone else's mouth. Its worst aspect is its insistence on
cloaking its cynicism as righteousness, wrapping every ugly means in
the glorious flag of the ends when the truth is that its means are its
Divide and conquer isn't just a
means to the greater end of giving Zero Hussein another four years. And
perhaps another four years after that. It's also the end. Every tyrant
from Joseph Stalin to Saddam Hussein knew that a divided people are
easier to rule. The more you divide them, the less likely they are to
give you any trouble when you're raiding their last pennies to pay for
the latest Green gimmick that your billionaire backers have thrown up
all over Wall Street.
Obama is the ultimate Post-American
figure passing himself off as the embodiment of all that is truly
American. But the UnAmericans got the real message in 2008 and in 2012
there is no other message. There is no more hope and faith, and the
ones who have been waiting for are the UnAmericans who think that they
are about to come into their own, when they are little more than pawns
being used to rob and destroy a great nation.
This is the Post-American,
Anti-American and UnAmerican campaign to divide up, carve up and toss
aside the laws and traditions of the United States and replace them
with the power of arrogance. It is the last stand of a beleaguered
nation facing barbarians inside its gate. Every previous election was a
contest between two American candidates who wanted to preside over the
This is an election contest between
the United States and an emerging Post-American order. That entity will
be an American EU run by unelected bureaucrats, governed by politically
correct technocrats and upheld by corrupt financial pirates disguising
the collective bankruptcy with numbers games so elaborate that they
make every billion-dollar con game and pyramid scheme that has come
before seem as simple as child's play.
The entity is already here. Its
czars are running things in D.C., and its judges are dismantling both
constitutional government and democratic elections. It creates a crisis
and then makes sure that it doesn't go to waste. It has excellent
design skills and terrible planning skills. It has all the money in the
world and none at all. It is the Post-American America, and 2012 is its
big referendum. The one that will decide whether this Post-American
America, this horrid graft of E.U. governance and Mussolini economics,
Soviet propaganda and FDR volunteerism, Tammany populist criminality
and U.N. foreign policy will be permitted to devour the United States
Obama cannot win an American election. But he isn't running in an American election. He's running in a Post-American election
Young Voters Pay A High Price For Being Attracted To President Obama's "Coolness"
August 9, 2012
According to a recent USA
Today/Gallup poll, Americans under the age of 30 favor Barack Obama
over Mitt Romney by almost a two-to-one margin. This is a startling
statistic. What explains the lopsided support for Obama among younger
I think the two main reasons are ideological and personal.
It’s no revelation to say that young
people tend to be more liberal about issues like the redistribution of
wealth. You may have heard the old adage, “Anyone who is not a
socialist when he is 20, has no heart; anyone who is still a socialist
when he is 30, has no mind.” I lived that adage. I was a young
socialist 40 years ago who voted for the likable-but-too-conservative
George McGovern. Then, after emerging from the collegiate cocoon,
weaning myself from financial dependency on others, and seeing the
real-world devastation wrought by socialism, I embraced capitalism.
The fact of the matter is that our
intellect develops more slowly than our feelings. In my case, my
youthful concern for the poor never left me. I simply recognized that
free markets, however imperfect, are far more effective at reducing
poverty than government programs and socialist dystopias. Likewise,
today’s youth generally have good intentions; they just don’t always
perceive the optimal means to attain their goals. When you combine that
intellectual immaturity with the barrage of leftist indoctrination that
many colleges inflict on them, it is no wonder that the under-30
segment of our population favors Obama.
As significant as the ideological
factor is for explaining the millennials’ support for Obama, the
president’s personal attractiveness to them looms equally large.
Indeed, the young are not unique in voting in response to a
presidential candidate’s likability. We have known at least since the
Kennedy-Nixon race (JFK’s fresh-faced handsomeness contrasted with
Nixon’s off-putting jowly, 5 o’clock shadow during their televised
debates) that many Americans vote for a president on the basis of the
wrapping rather than the contents of the package—the triumph of image
over substance. This may not speak well for our country’s political
maturity, or perhaps even for democracy itself, but personality often
I have spoken to several under-30s
recently, and I was struck by how often they referred to Obama as cool
or “hip.” Indeed, Obama can be very winsome. He has that charismatic,
incandescent smile; the ability to project gravitas and dignity in one
moment and then to be disarmingly informal and down-home normal in the
next; the talent for delivering a text in tones that are alternately
inspiring, warm, soothing, or fired with passion; and a knack for
coming across as level-headed, genuine, reasonable, quietly confident,
and so very accessible in his well-crafted television commercials.
If young Americans want to vote for
Obama because he is cooler than Romney, that is their right and
privilege. It is sad, though, that they seem oblivious to the high
price they are paying for “coolness.” Underneath the hip, attractive
surface is a president who says many of the “right” things about
helping America move forward, and then cynically acts in ways that
hamper progress. Many young Americans (and not a few older ones) who
find Obama attractive have a hard time connecting the dots and
comprehending just how disastrous his policies have been for young
Do the under-30s really want a
president who has tried and succeeded in raising the price of
electricity and gasoline; who has hastened the day of Social Security’s
insolvency by cutting the revenues to that program; who has raised
future taxes on young Americans through the reckless addition of
trillions of dollars to the national debt; whose policies have pushed
food prices higher; who has tried to keep home prices from falling to
levels that would make them affordable to younger Americans?
Do they want four more years of an
aggressively anti-business, hyper-regulatory administration that has
squelched job growth and employment opportunities?
Do they want to continue down the
path to a European-style welfare state like Spain, where close to half
of young adults are unemployed?
I think not, but that is the kind of country they may vote for. Too
many young Americans don’t connect the current economic stagnation with
Obama’s policies. They are charmed by the president’s personality while
being harmed by his policies. Obama is like the Pied Piper, wooing,
attracting, and seducing the young, who merrily and blindly follow his
bewitching tune along a path that leads to a tragic end.
Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an
adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social
policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.
Obama's desperate 2012 reelection strategy
By Frank Donatelli
Published July 18, 2012
What to do if you’re an incumbent
president running for reelection with no accomplishments to your name?
You’re presiding over the most anemic economic recovery in 70 years.
Unemployment is still above 8% three years after the recession
supposedly ended. Your signature stimulus and health care bills are
massively unpopular, and your approval rating hasn’t broken 50% in
That’s the task facing President
Obama as he campaigns for another four year term. Gone is the “hope and
change” rhetoric or the pledge to “change the way that we do business
Gone indeed is any attempt by the
incumbent to offer a strategy to improve our common economic
circumstances and prospects. In its place, Obama is attempting to
assemble support with parochial appeals to separate pieces of the
electorate, hoping he can tape together an electoral majority. He has
overladen this approach with a healthy dose of cynicism and class
warfare rhetoric designed to focus the public’s anger on other
Americans – anyone besides the man in charge.
I cannot help but call this
President Obama's Humpty Dumpty reelection strategy. Just who are the
specific targets of the Humpty Dumpty strategy? Here's my list:
Liberals. Start with President
Obama’s relentless focus on the “1%” of wealthy Americans who he
constantly attacks and, worse, implies are responsible for our poor
economic circumstances. Never mind that the 1% already pay
approximately 37% of all federal income taxes. Never mind that his plan
to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and implement the so-called
“Buffet rule” would have virtually no impact on our long term deficit
picture or create one single new job. The ploy here is purely
political, designed to pin the economic blame elsewhere through class
warfare and fire up far-left liberals who favor economic
Women. There has been a gender gap
in America for years so it must be because Republicans are waging a
“war on women.” Obama’s weapons here focus heavily on yet more federal
laws supposedly mandating equal pay for “similar” positions.
(Note: Equal pay has been the law of the land for many years.) He
is also placing heavy emphasis on free contraception and access to
abortion drugs, going so far as to require every health plan to cover
these costs. Obama is even willing to throw the Catholic Church and the
First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom under the bus in
pursuit of another wedge issue.
African Americans. At the recent
NAACP convention, Vice President Biden renewed a 25 year old feud with
retired Judge Robert Bork, who currently serves as co-chair of Governor
Mitt Romney’s justice task force, attacking Bork for wanting to roll
back civil rights in America. In 1987, as chair of the Senate Judiciary
Committee and a budding presidential candidate, Biden attempted to ride
to the White House with attacks on Bork’s judicial record. He succeeded
in defeating Bork’s Supreme Court nomination, but his presidential
aspirations were cut short when he was caught plagiarizing his speeches
from a British politician and quickly dropped out of the race. At
the same NAACP convention last week, Attorney General Eric Holder
lashed out at GOP-inspired state voter registration laws requiring
individuals to show an ID before voting, arguing that such laws would
be harmful to minority voters. Though Democrats are skilled at playing
the race card, the dance is more complicated this year since, for
political reasons, Obama will have to utilize surrogates like Biden and
Holder to handle this grubby business.
Hispanics. Having done nothing for
four years to effectively reform immigration, Obama issued an executive
order this year suspending arrests of certain categories of illegal
aliens. Obama also sued Arizona over a state law that essentially
requires the state to help enforce federal immigration law, something
the feds have refused to do themselves. The Supreme Court unanimously
upheld the law’s centerpiece and rejected Obama’s position.
Gays. In 2008, Obama made a big deal
of his “opposition” to gay marriage. Most everyone suspected he didn’t
mean it, and indeed after “careful consideration,” he now supports gay
marriage just in time for this election. Most Americans rightly see
this as a purely political conversion. He was against it before he was
for it. Obama’s views even on issues of this magnitude are disposable
The common denominator with all of
these piecemeal campaign strategies is that they form no coherent
whole, no larger vision for America. All are primarily designed to
enhance DNC and Obama Campaign talking points and contribute very
little toward solving the major problems we face. Worse, they divide
Americans because their primary purpose is to focus blame on anyone and
everyone but President Obama.
Politics is a rough and tumble
business, and thankfully, Americans tune out most politicians and
political promises. But any Obama victory based on this Humpty Dumpty
strategy would be achieved at a high price.
His divisive platform would have no
mandate for anything positive, allowing the country’s downward drift to
worsen while he scrambles to address the great economic crises we face.
Bipartisan cooperation would be difficult to achieve, and the 2012
election would have provided little focus or clarification for any way
This year, the only thing worse for Obama than losing this election might be winning.
Frank Donatelli is chairman of
GOPAC, an organization dedicated to educating and training the next
generation of Republican leaders. He served in the Reagan
administration as Assistant to President Ronald Reagan for Political
and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Uniter Obama's Divisive Campaign Wages War On Women
By THOMAS SOWELL
June 6, 2012
Investor’s Business Daily
Among the people who are
disappointed with President Obama, none has more reason to be
disappointed than those who thought he was going to be "a uniter,
rather than a divider" and that he would "bring us all together."
It was a noble hope, but one with no
factual foundation. Barack Obama had been a divider all his adult life,
especially as a community organizer, and he had repeatedly sought out
and allied himself with other dividers, the most blatant of whom was
the man whose church he attended for 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.
Now, with his presidency on the line
and the polls looking dicey, Obama's re-election campaign has become
more openly divisive than ever.
He has embraced the strident "Occupy
Wall Street" movement, with its ridiculous claim of representing the
99% against the 1%. Obama's Department of Justice has been spreading
the hysteria that states requiring photo identification for voting are
trying to keep minorities from voting, and using the prevention of
voter fraud as a pretext.
But anyone who doubts the existence
of voter fraud should read John Fund's book, "Stealing Elections" or J.
Christian Adams's book, "Injustice," which deals specifically with the
Obama Justice Department's overlooking voter fraud when those involved
are black Democrats.
Not content with dividing classes
and races, the Obama campaign is now seeking to divide the sexes by
declaring that women are being paid less than men, as part of a "war on
women" conducted by villains, from whom Obama and company will protect
the women — and, not incidentally, expect to receive their votes this
The old — and repeatedly discredited
— game of citing women's incomes as some percentage of men's incomes is
being played once again, as part of the "war on women" theme.
Since women average fewer hours of
work per year, and fewer years of consecutive full-time employment than
men, among other differences, comparisons of male and female annual
earnings are comparisons of apples and oranges, as various female
economists have pointed out. Read Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson
Institute or Professor Claudia Goldin of Harvard, for example.
When you compare women and men in
the same occupations with the same skills, education, hours of work,
and many other factors that go into determining pay, the differences in
incomes shrink to the vanishing point — and, in some cases, the women
earn more than comparable men.
But why let mere facts spoil the emotional rhetoric or the political ploys to drum up hysteria and collect votes?
The farcical nature of these ploys
came out after House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi declared that
Congress needed to pass the Fair Pay Act, because women average 23%
lower incomes than men.
A reporter from The Daily Caller
then pointed out that the women on Nancy Pelosi's own staff average 27%
lower incomes than the men on her staff. Does that show that Pelosi
herself is guilty of discrimination against women? Or does it show that
such simple-minded statistics are grossly misleading?
The so-called Fair Pay Act has
nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with election-year
politics. No one in his right mind expects that bill to become law. It
was blocked Tuesday by Senate Republicans and has no chance whatever of
getting past in the House of Representatives.
The whole point of this political
exercise is to get Republicans on record voting against "fairness" for
women, as part of the Democrats' campaign strategy to claim that there
is a "war on women."
If you are looking for a real war on
women, you might look at the practice of aborting girl babies after an
ultrasound picture shows that they are girls.
These abortions are the most basic
kind of discrimination, and their consequences have already been
demonstrated in countries like China and India, where sexually
discriminatory abortions and female infanticide have produced an
imbalance in the number of adult males and females.
A bill to outlaw sexually and racially discriminatory abortions has been opposed and defeated by House Democrats.
Obama Used Church for Political Gain
Friday, May 18, 2012
During a recorded interview,
President Obama's former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright said the Obamas
used church to gain voter support, saying that "church was not their
Wright made the comments during an interview with author Edward Klein for his new book, The Amateur.
The Blaze has just released audio clips of the interview between Klein and Wright.
Earlier this week, Klein released
the three-hour recording to Fox News' Sean Hannity of his interview
with the man known for his inflammatory rhetoric. The Blaze posted
portions of the audio clips on Thursday.
In them Wright is heard recounting
to Klein his personal experiences with the president during the past
few years and his sadness over their deteriorated relationship.
Wright also addressed some of his
own controversial sermons, the alleged political payoff of a fellow
preacher by the Obama camp, as well as the president and first lady's
"We know it wasn't his, but she was
not the kind of black woman whose momma made her go to church, made her
go to Sunday school," Wright says. "She wasn't raised in that kind of
environment so the church was not an integral part of their lives
before they got married, after they got married."
A Republican super PAC is deciding whether or not to use the comments in an ad campaign against Obama.
GOP presidential front-runner Mitt
Romney has decided to stay away from the issue and focus his campaign
on the economy rather than character assassinations.
AdWatch: Obama highlights Romney, Bain Capital
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press
NEW YORK (AP) — TITLE: "Steel"
LENGTH: Two minutes and six minutes.
AIRING: Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia
KEY IMAGES: The Obama campaign ad
features interviews with several former employees of GST Steel, a
Kansas City, Mo.- based company bought in 1993 by Bain Capital, the
private equity firm Republican Mitt Romney co-founded and was running
at the time of the purchase. The workers describe GST before Bain as a
robust employer of several thousand people who received good wages and
benefits. "That stopped with the sale of the plant to Bain Capital,"
one steelworker says, over images of Romney on the campaign trail
saying "I know how business works."
The workers and a union
representative who handled negotiations for the workers then describe
how Bain's management reaped profits as they drove GST into bankruptcy,
forcing the plant to close and lay off 750 workers. "It was like a
vampire came in and sucked the life out of us," a worker says, over
images of the abandoned plant and newspaper accounts of the layoffs.
"We view Mitt Romney as a job
destroyer," said one worker. Another said: "If he's going to run the
country the way he ran our business I wouldn't want him in there. He'd
be so out of touch with the average person in this country."
ANALYSIS: The hard-hitting ad aims
to undermine the central premise of Romney's candidacy: that his
experience in the business world gives him the knowledge and tools
necessary to create jobs and revive the economy. The former
Massachusetts governor claims to have created 100,000 jobs through
By airing an unusually long ad in
swing states less than six months before the election, the Obama
campaign is clearly eager to define Romney for voters before he is able
to do so himself.
It fails to mention the overall
decline in the steel industry during the 1990s and the fact that Romney
had left Bain two years before GST's bankruptcy in 2001.
Private equity firms like Bain buy
companies with loads of debt, cut costs and do other things to make
them more efficient. They then cash out by taking the companies public
on a stock exchange or, recently, selling them to other buyout firms.
The business model thrived for years, leading to the creation of more buyout firms and more bids for companies.
Obama's deputy campaign manager,
Stephanie Cutter, said Monday that "no one is questioning the private
equity industry as a whole." But by using GST as an example, the
campaign argues that Romney's years at Bain were spent maximizing
profits for himself and other investors rather than creating
middle-class jobs. Using unemployed steel workers to tell their
personal stories, the ad packs considerable emotional heft and
illustrates the human costs that come with a company's failure.
Romney's tenure at Bain became an
issue during the Republican nominating contest when Texas Gov. Rick
Perry labeled Romney a "vulture capitalist" and brought up GST's
closure as an illustration. A super PAC backing Newt Gingrich ran a
28-minute film blaming Bain for the demise of several companies. But
that video was riddled with so many inaccuracies that even Gingrich
distanced himself from it.
The Obama campaign ad is on safer
ground by focusing on a single company and highlighting specific ways
Bain's management affected workers, such as cutting their pensions and
health care benefits as the company faltered.
But Bain's management was not the
only reason GST suffered. The availability of alternative materials and
huge wave of imported steel, particularly from Asia, cut U.S. steel
production during the 1990s and led to a string of bankruptcies of
The ad also neglects to mention that
GST's bankruptcy took place in 2001, two years after Romney had
relinquished day-to-day management of Bain in order to head up the 2002
Olympic Games in Salt Lake City. Cutter insisted that Romney "set this
in motion" and noted he was still earning investment income from Bain
at the time despite his hiatus from full-time involvement.
Associated Press writer Bernard Condon and AP News Researcher Julie Reed contributed to this report.
Obama's Shameless Electioneering
by FRED BARNES
May 7, 2012
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
President Obama is breaking new
ground in his campaign for re-election. He is going where incumbent
presidents have never gone before. He is doing things for which
President George W. Bush would have been pilloried. And Obama is doing
all this in plain view.
Yet the media have rarely found the
new ploys and gambits of Obama's campaign worth mentioning, much less
spotlighting. For instance, in his address at the National Prayer
Breakfast in February, Obama treated his agenda and Jesus Christ's as
one and the same. Since the media didn't raise any flags, one might
have concluded a comment such as Obama's was normal for that event. It
Obama offered his own version of the
WWJD question — what would Jesus do? — on the issue of raising taxes on
the rich. Obama wants to, arguing that seniors, young people, and the
middle class shouldn't be forced to "shoulder the burden alone."
Instead, "I think to myself, if I'm
willing to give something up as somebody who's been extraordinarily
blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually
think that's going to make economic sense," he said. "But for me as a
Christian, it also coincides with Jesus' teaching that 'for unto whom
much is given, much shall be required.' "
Linking his tax plan to Jesus was
anything but routine. Presidents have been speaking to the prayer
breakfast, a Christian-sponsored event, since the 1950s. Their talks
have tended to be mildly Christian, not at all political, and never
exploited as a vehicle to claim Christ's endorsement of their policies.
Obama, however, got off without so
much as a slap on the wrist from the press. There's a double standard
here. Had Bush linked his tax policy to Christ, the media would have
not only reported it, but no doubt assailed him for breaching the wall
between church and state.
Obama, by the way, also said his
plan to tax the rich "mirrors the Islamic belief that those who've been
blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or
the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others."
In April, speaking to newspaper
editors in Washington, D.C., the president took a unique approach to
the 2013 budget passed by the House. "I want to actually go through
what it would mean for our country if these [spending] cuts were to be
spread out evenly," he said. "So bear with me."
The editors and the media covering
the speech did just that. From all appearances, they accepted the
spread-the-cuts-evenly tactic as perfectly legitimate. It wasn't. It
was neither honest nor fair.
The GOP budget, which would increase
the national debt by $3 trillion over 10 years, distributed cuts quite
unevenly. That's the way budgets are put together: Some programs are
cut, others have their spending increased. In both cases, changes are
imposed from a higher spending base, reflecting inflation and expected
growth in programs.
That didn't stop Obama. He insisted
college students would lose $1,000 in aid, 1,600 medical grants to
research Alzheimer's, cancer, and AIDS would disappear, and two million
mothers and babies would be dropped from a program that "gives them
access to healthy food."
That's not all. Weather forecasts
would be less accurate because fewer satellites would be launched.
There would be flight cancellations, plus shutdowns of air traffic
control systems at some airports.
"This is math," Obama said. Only it
wasn't. It was make-believe. "This is not conjecture," he said. "I am
not exaggerating. These are facts." In truth, they were facts based on
a false premise. Which means they were fiction.
Another departure by Obama began
last September when he summoned a joint session of Congress to unveil
his new "jobs bill." This has two twists. It was crafted to be rejected
by Republicans in hopes of creating the impression of a "do-nothing
Congress." To make sure Republicans wouldn't seek a compromise, Obama
said he wouldn't negotiate. It was take it or leave it. The media
The president devoted weeks to
traveling the country and demanding that Congress "pass this bill."
Indeed, Majority Leader Harry Reid could have brought it to the Senate
floor for a vote. And if Obama had wanted him to, he would have. But
Obama's urgent-sounding plea was a sham. There was no vote, though
several individual parts of the bill were passed later.
Obama has used similar fakery again
and again. He's relentless in touting the Buffett Rule, despite zero
chance of its passage. It would require those making more than a
million dollars to pay at least 30 percent of their annual earnings in
federal income taxes. He's threatened to veto a Republican bill to
prevent a doubling of the interest rate on college loans on trumped-up
grounds, hoping to tag them as opposed to the popular aid program.
And last month, the White House
spread the word about its need for executive action to govern, as the
New York Times put it, "in the face of Congressional obstructionism."
This is a straw man. Obama is eager to create the illusion he's been
forced to rely on executive orders because Republicans are blocking his
But it's the Senate, controlled by
Democrats, that has become the graveyard of legislation. It has refused
to pass a budget for the third straight year, and Reid has said he'll
call as few votes as possible this year. Rather than a do-nothing
Congress — in other words, Republicans — there's a do-nothing Senate,
led by Democrats.
In running for re-election, Obama
has already set records. As of March 6, he's held more fundraising
events (104) than the previous five presidents combined (94). And I
suspect Obama has set the record for blaming his predecessor for his
own troubles. If he hasn't, there's still time. The election is six
What's Hidden in Obama's 'Julia' Campaign
May 4, 2012
U.S. News & World Report
The Obama campaign has launched a
webpage called "The Life of Julia," about a fictional woman who
benefits from Obama-supported government programs all her life.
The fact that the Obama campaign
chose to tell her story in highly stylized graphics—not with live
actors, "Harry and Louise" style—was a deliberate choice. It allows the
campaign to convey much more partisan information than a 30-second ad,
it appeals to younger women, and it looks hip. (Even the New York Times
called it "slick.") The campaign also made an intentional choice to
make the story fictional, presumably because the campaign couldn't find
enough actual women who are willing to say they depend on government
programs for everything they need in life. In fact, had they gone
looking, they might have learned that many of us find the notion of
women needing so much help to be insulting.
So what we know about Julia: She is
a college grad who benefits from Pell grants and tax credits and
student loans; a surgery patient who stays on her parents' health
insurance; a Web designer who sues for equal pay and gets free birth
control; a single mother whose son has great teachers thanks to
President Obama; a small business owner who hires employees thanks to
an Small Business Administration loan; a Social Security and Medicare
recipient who gets affordable healthcare and monthly benefits. But
let's look at what Julia is not.
First of all, she's not a man.
Because she's a woman, the message becomes one of a benign, paternal
state taking care of vulnerable women. It's far less threatening than
if we were watching an able-bodied man sliding into increasing
dependency on the welfare state over the course of his life. Plus the
Obama campaign knows that Romney has been consistently leading among
male voters in the polls. He may have the upper hand with women voters,
but what no one talks about is Obama's gender gap among men. Very few
men would identify with Julia's life, and the campaign knows that.
Second, she's not a taxpayer. There
is no mention of her paying for the cost of any programs she's
benefited from, other than repaying her student loans. It's clear the
campaign is purposely putting Julia squarely in the near-majority of
Americans who no longer pay any federal income taxes, emphasizing an
entitlement mentality at the expense of hard-working taxpayers who have
to pay for it all. If the choice is between working people who pay
taxes and those who rely on government assistance, the Obama campaign
is not going with the taxpayers.\
She's not a minority or an
immigrant. There's a reason the campaign chose the generic name
"Julia." Can you imagine the outrage if the character was called
"Juanita" or had been drawn to look African-American? The disapproval
would be off the charts, because it would imply that black or Latina
women in particular are unable of succeeding without government
handouts. Despite the fact that Obama has double-digit leads among
African-Americans and Hispanics, the campaign knew better than to
portray the beneficiary of so much government money as a minority woman.
She's not married, she doesn't do
anything that reveals she's religious, and she's not a homeowner.
There's a reason for all those, too—because poll after poll shows that
Obama doesn't do as well with married women; he's more popular with
single women and college grads. The National Association of Realtors
reports that the vast majority of homeowners are married couples, not
single women; again, most married couples vote GOP. When it comes
to religion, Pew Research shows that Democrats have a two-to-one lead
among those who say they are "unaffiliated" with a church. Hence, Julia
doesn't go to church, doesn't pay a mortgage, and isn't married. The
campaign knows exactly who it wants to see this—and if those voters
could send it to their girlfriends via Facebook, that would be even
And finally, we don't know what
happens to Julia between ages 42 and 65, her prime earning years. At
42, she's dressed for casual Friday as she starts her own business; by
65 she's in granny glasses and her hair in a bun, looking for her
Medicare check. What happened in those 23 years, and how many other
government handouts did she get thanks to Obama—99 weeks of
unemployment benefits? Food stamps? Welfare? Public housing? Was
Medicaid still solvent enough to send her a check?
Here's a thought. Maybe those 23
years are missing from "The Life of Julia" for a reason. Perhaps her
small business became wildly successful—so she started paying taxes,
got concerned about the debt crisis facing our nation, and started
voting Republican. If that's the case, there might be a happy ending to
this story after all—one that the Obama campaign couldn't bear to tell.
Obama ad uses conservative church
Joel Gehrke | Published: March 9, 2012
President Obama's campaign recently launched an outreach group, African
Americans for Obama. But the church he depicts in the ad when appealing
to Christians to support his campaign is actually a conservative
Virginia church. Its website contains a "pro-life info" section, and
its pastor told The Washington Examiner that he will not allow Obama or
any other candidate to set up a "congregational captain" among their
The campaign ad includes video footage of the Reformed Presbyterian
Church of Manassas (Va.) while Obama, speaking over the video, asks
people to rally supporters in their "faith community."
"We don't do an official endorsement of any political campaign," the
Rev. Dr. William Allen Church, pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian
Church of Manassas, said. "But because of our conservative theology,
biblical points of view -- for instance, we're pro-life and that sort
of thing -- so the practical implications of that come into play when
people go cast their ballot," he said. "But I do not give a precise
The pastor noted that historically African-American churches exist in
the neighborhood, but his church does not identify as such. "We are
multi-racial, but we don't describe ourselves according to race," he
said. Church also said that -- with respect to political allegiances --
the congregation is mostly composed of Republicans and independents,
with "maybe some Democrats.
"The political differences
between Obama and the church are fairly apparent even on the church
website, which features a "pro-life info" page that explains why the
congregation believes that abortion is unbiblical and directs women to
a local crisis pregnancy center. "In the future, they might want to do
more careful research for that sort of thing," Church suggested.
The church did not know the building would be depicted in the ad before
seeing it in Obama's video. The pastor said they have no relationship
with the campaign. "The only relationship is that we do pray for all of
our civil authorities," the pastor said.
Rev. Pat Mahoney, whose ordination ceremony took place in the Reformed
Presbyterian Church of Manassas, said that the use of the video
reflects Obama's insensitivity to Christian communities. It shows how
the Obama administration treats faith as an absolute commodity,"
Mahoney, head of the Christian Defense Coalition, said. "They just
wanted what they thought was a pleasant-looking church."
Church agreed that his church was featured "more for convenience" than
any other reason, but was not as offended as Mahoney. "It's amusing
more than it was offensive," he said, but allowed that "it would have
been a totally different issue if the president had stood in front of
the church or had the church been depicted throughout most of his
WORD FAITH INDEX
CATHOLIC CHURCH INDEX