RINOs and modern McCarthyism

Everyone is familiar with Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.). In the 1950s, McCarthy made a cottage industry of searching out and finding hidden communists throughout the federal government. In the post-WWII era, communism was a real threat. McCarthy, however, was a charlatan.

McCarthy’s inquisition began on Feb. 9, 1950 with a speech to the Republican Women’s Club of Wheeling, W.V. What McCarthy said wasn’t recorded, but, according to “The Politics of Fear” by Robert Griffith, the senator waved a piece of paper in his hand and proclaimed, “I have here in my hand a list of 205 names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”

We now know that McCarthy was lying. His list of names, the number of which frequently varied, was never fully revealed. Many of the “communists” revealed by McCarthy were innocent of the charge, the victims of shoddy investigations, bullying tactics, and circumstantial evidence. In other cases, McCarthy specifically targeted his critics. People who were outspoken against his tactics might well find themselves being labeled as a communist in McCarthy’s next appearance.

McCarthy’s reign of terror came to an end after the Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954. At the height of the hearings, McCarthy accused a young lawyer of pro-communist sympathies. As recounted in “A Conspiracy So Immense,” Joseph Welch, a lawyer for the army, responded indignantly, “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” When McCarthy tried to continue, Welch demanded that the chairman call the next witness, prompting applause from the gallery.

McCarthy’s tactics have been used more recently in American politics as well. Many times in the past, liberal politicians have accused conservatives of racism, a charge that, like that of being a communist, is easily made and not easily dispelled. Many conservatives, from Trent Lott to Shirley Temple, have been accused of racism. Often the charges are based on seemingly innocuous remarks, political “dog whistles” that only those in the know can decipher. (Ironically, pundits on the left are very adept at picking up these dog whistles.) Even discussing the health hazards of fried chicken can be construed as racist. To many liberals, any opposition to President Obama is rooted racism. Even Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain was targeted with accusations of racism.

Now some conservatives have adopted the McCarthyistic tactic of making wild and unsubstantiated accusations toward political opponents. The new pejorative is the charge that a conservative is a “RINO,” a “Republican in name only,” or perhaps the equally dismissive term, “establishment.”

The term “RINO” is not new. A 2009 list of the top 10 RINOs on Human Events cited the American Conservative Union voting records as an objective standard upon which to gauge a Republican’s liberal tendencies.

The current RINO hunters reject this objective standard. In many cases, Republicans accused of RINO-ism are among the most conservative senators according to the American Conservative Union (Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Tom Coburn, John Cornyn, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain to name a few). Several are on the National Journal list of the 15 most conservative senators (Pat Roberts, Tom Coburn, and John Cornyn). One Tea Party Facebook user attempted to explain away this apparent inconsistency saying, “The ACU rating has become a joke since the ACU got infiltrated by the establishment.”

Anti-RINO activists claim that some Republicans “actually agree with the liberal position to some extent.” When asked who these Republicans are and on what issues they “agree with the liberal position,” they are typically able to only supply a generic list of alleged RINOs. The accusations are typically not specific.

In some cases, the RINO hunters base their accusation on procedural votes like the debt ceiling increase earlier this month. Senator Ted Cruz forced fellow Republicans into an unpopular and unnecessary vote to invoke cloture. Cruz then criticized the Republicans who voted for cloture without explaining how the GOP senators could have won a battle against majority Democrats according to the Washington Post. Other anti-RINO activists are similarly silent on how Republicans can force legislation through the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Other Facebook users indicate that some RINOs are so devious that they may even establish conservative voting records. One user commented that even though some Republicans, such as Mike Huckabee and John McCain had conservative voting records, he considered them RINOs because he doubted their sincerity and backbone.

As with charges of being a communist or a racist, an accusation of RINO-ism can be difficult to shake. The amorphous, subjective nature of the charge makes it difficult for targets to fight the smear. Any objective evidence, such as American Conservative Union ratings, is dismissed as biased or unreliable, tainted by “establishment” forces or the mainstream media.

Criticism of the RINO hunters is frequently met with attacks like those experienced by Drew Pearson. For example, many conservatives who have written columns critical of Ted Cruz have found themselves cast as “RINOs,” “establishment,” “progressives,” or even “closet Democrats.” Even conservative stalwarts such as Thomas Sowell and Charles Krauthammer are not immune.

Anyone who is not in total and enthusiastic agreement with the self-appointed “true conservative” mavins is subject to the RINO charge. This includes former Tea Party heroes such as Senator Marco Rubio, who made the mistake of proposing an immigration reform plan in 2013. Rather than debating the plan on its merits, Rubio was attacked for supporting “amnesty.”

Such bullying is not consistent with the conservative principles of truth and justice. Indeed, these tactics have more in common with Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals (numbers five, six, eight, and 12 in particular) than anything from the playbook of Ronald Reagan, a man who, some anti-RINO activists privately admit, might be considered a RINO today. Nevertheless, the attacks on alleged RINOs will likely continue until conservatives finally see through the baseless accusations and begin to ask, “Have you no sense of decency?”

Originally published on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Captain Kudzu's Letter in USA Today

On May 16, I had a letter printed in USA Today. The printed version was edited by the newspaper. Here is the full, unedited version:

DeWayne Hickham underestimates white voters. The willingness of white voters to vote for a black candidate has been shown time and time again, both in this and other campaigns.

The problem that Obama faces is not the color of his skin, but his Marxist political philosophy and his radical associations. Obama is calling for a US surrender in Iraq, massive tax increases, new regulations on business and industry, and would roll back gains in civil liberties such as second amendment rights and the right to life. Most Americans will find these positions far out of the American mainstream. Obama is dogged by his record, not as a uniter, but as the most liberal senator in the entire US Senate.

The people with whom he chooses to associate are also out of the mainstream. Jeremiah Wright, his pastor of twenty years, is virulently anti-American. William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Weather Underground terrorists from the 1970s, helped kick off Obama's political career. Communist Frank Marshall Davis was Obama's mentor as he grew up in Hawaii.

Equally disturbing is the Obamania from dictators around the world. Anti-American leaders from Hugo Chavez to Daniel Ortega and countries from Russia to North Korea have indicated that they prefer an Obama presidency. A Hamas representative said, "We like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election."

There are myriad reasons for Americans of all colors not to vote for Barack Obama in November. To suggest that race is the dominant factor, either for or against any candidate, is itself a racist proposition. The American people, as Martin Luther King suggested, as judging Obama, not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.

The link to the letter is :
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/05/dont-underestim.html

Obamania Around the World

Barack Obama is proud to trumpet many of the endorsements that he receives in his campaign for president of the United States. Among his supporters are celebrities, soldiers, and politicians of all stripes. There are several prominent Obama supporters from around the world that Barack Obama would probably prefer the average American voter to remain unaware of.

Hamas has been classified as a terrorist group for years. The group was a prime force behind the Intifada against Israeli occupation of Gaza and Palestine. One of the main weapons in their struggle was the suicide bombing of civilian targets. Hamas’ political wing won the Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006, and ultimately took control of Gaza after winning a civil war with Fatah in 2007. The Hamas charter states, “There is no solution to the Palestinian question except through jihad.”

Knowing what Hamas represents, Obama should cringe when Ahmed Yousef, a ranking Hamas official, released a statement that said, “We like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle…” The response of the Obama campaign was that it was “flattering” to be compared to John Kennedy.

Daniel Ortega, the president of Nicaragua, gushed that Obama is “laying the foundations for revolutionary change” in the United States. Given the nature of the communist Sandinista revolution that Ortega led in Nicaragua, his excitement over a similar revolution coming to the US should alarm most Americans.

Gleb Pavlovsky is an advisor to Vladimir Putin, former president and current prime minister of Russia, as well as Putin’s successor, Dmitri Medvedev. Putin has led a resurgence of nationalism and nostalgia for the Soviet Empire in Russia. Under his leadership, the Russian military has rearmed and become leaner and more efficient. Putin formed a military and economic alliance with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran, a terrorist state. Putin’s Russia also has also strong-armed neighboring countries by threatening to shut off an oil pipeline. Pavlovsky said that John McCain is the worst choice for president and that Barack Obama, who is “less tied” to the Cold War, is the best.

President Ahmadinejad has not specifically endorsed Obama, but Iranian television featured a fictional John McCain in an animated television show. The fictional McCain meets with spies and dissidents to try to plan a regime change for Iran.

President Hugo Chavez has nationalized segments of Venezuelan industry and is attempting to consolidate more power for himself, including a failed referendum to remove presidential term limits. Chavez is known for referring to President Bush as “the devil.” Chavez has not specifically endorsed Obama, but has said that McCain is a “man of war” and that he hopes the next president “will be open to improving relations with Venezuela.”

North Korea’s government-controlled newspaper has accused John McCain of trying to mount “a base and ridiculous challenge” to North Korea in an attempt “to strangle it.” North Korea is in violation of a 1994 agreement to dismantle its nuclear weapons program and allow inspections. They have also threatened to discontinue the armistice that ended the Korean War. The North Koreans have also been implicated in a project to build a nuclear reactor in Syria. This reactor was destroyed by the Israelis in 2007.

Why are so many world leaders, especially anti-American world leaders, friendly towards Obama and hostile to John McCain? The answer can be found in Barack Obama’s statement that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations without preconditions. His plan for removing US troops from Iraq without winning the war also plays into the hands of our enemies. He would also jeopardize the relationship with US allies, such as Pakistan, by initiating unilateral military action inside their borders.

These leaders recognize that Obama would be weak and ineffective on foreign policy. Obama would give our enemies in Iraq what they cannot win on the battlefield. These leaders realize that, while America would remain a powerful nation, President Obama would be unlikely to be willing to exercise that power. North Korea and Iran would engage in meaningless negotiations to buy time as they build their arsenals of WMDs.

Additionally, Obama’s economic policies of heavy taxation and income redistribution would hurt the American economy. This would, in the long run, make the US less likely to intervene against these rogue leaders in the future.

For Americans who believe that the United States is an “arsenal of democracy,” Obama’s support from anti-American leaders around the world should raise a red flag. While Barack Obama probably does not support these leaders, or want support from them, their statements reveal that they believe that an Obama administration would be beneficial to them and their nations. What is good for anti-American dictators around the world is not necessarily good for Americans.

Sources:
“Our Enemies and the Election,” Wall Street Journal, May 10-11, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121038058620282293.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/flattered_by_hamas_obama_campaign_is
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/14/america/LA-POL-Nicaragua-Ortega-Obama.php
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brandozilla/2008/mar/26/hugo_chavez_endorses_mccain_for_president
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-general-/iran-accuses-john-mccain-of-us-spying-plot-2.html
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brandozilla/2008/mar/26/hugo_chavez_endorses_mccain_for_president
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080423/wl_afp/nkoreanuclearweaponsussyria_080423210123

Che’ Guevara: Hero or Mass Murderer?

In recent years, Che’ Guevara has regained popularity. His image adorns t-shirts and posters on college campuses. Barack Obama was even embarrassed by a Che’ flag that a supporter had placed in one of his campaign offices. Who is Che’ Guevara? Is he really someone that people in a modern, progressive and free society should place on a pedestal?

Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara Lynch de la Serna was born in Rosario, Argentina on June 14, 1928. He was the eldest child in a liberal, middle class family. His nickname, ‘Che,’ translates as “buddy,” “pal,” or “the kid.”

Che’ studied medicine at the University of Buenos Aires. While in school there, he spent breaks traveling around South America on a motorcycle with a friend. On such trips in 1951 and 1952, Che’ spends time at a leper colony in Peru. His experiences there convince him that equality can only be realized through socialism. He later writes about his travels in his book, the Motorcycle Diaries. In 2004, the Motorcycle Diaries was made into a movie produced by Robert Redford.

After participating in riots against Argentine President Juan Peron in 1952, Che’ travels to Bolivia and then Guatemala. In Guatemala, he aids in resistance against a coup backed by the CIA (and authorized by Presidents Truman and Eisenhower). After the coup, Che’ flees to Mexico.

While in Mexico, Che’ meets Fidel Castro. Castro is in exile after a failed coup attempt against Cuban dictator, Fulgencio Batista. Che’ quickly joins Castro’s band of revolutionaries as a medic and trains in guerilla warfare. In December 1956, Castro launches an attack on the Batista regime, which fails dramatically. Only twelve guerillas, including Che,’ Fidel, and Raul Castro, survive and escape.

The defeat is a defining moment for Che.’ He later writes, “I was confronted with the dilemma of dedicating myself to medicine or my duty as a revolutionary soldier. I had in front of me a rucksack full of medicine and an ammunition case, the two weighed too much to carry together. I took the ammunition and left the rucksack behind." The healer had become the killer.

Che’ becomes Castro’s chief lieutenant and then the comandante of one of the largest guerilla bands. He is ruthless, frequently executing suspected traitors quickly and dispassionately. In a 1957 letter to his first wife (he remarried to a fellow guerilla in 1959), Che’ writes, “I'm here in Cuba's hills, alive and thirsting for blood." In a letter to his father, he writes, “I really like killing.” Che’s instructions to a subordinate are simple: “If in doubt, kill him.”

By 1959, with US aid cut off, the Batista regime is finished. Batista flees the country on New Years Day and the US recognizes the interim government six days later. After a vacation through Africa, Asia, and Yugoslavia, Che’ returns to Cuba where he is placed in charge of Comision Depuradora, which includes the military courts and killing squads for former Batista supporters and government officials. All defendants are considered murderers and the appellate court automatically confirms all sentences. Habeas corpus rights are abolished. Che’ says that rules of evidence are an “archaic bourgeois detail.”

He is placed in charge of La Cabana prison, where the majority of the executions take place. According to the Black Book of Communism, by the mid-1960s, 14,000 Cubans have been executed without fair trials. 500,000 Cubans were incarcerated in labor camps. At one point, in 1961, one of every 19 Cubans was a political prisoner. Che’ plays a major role in developing Castro’s penal system and defends the executions publicly in 1964 after he had ceased to command the prison. He even dismisses his victims as “all CIA agents” before his death in 1967.

During the 1960s, Che’ is instrumental in aligning Cuba with the Soviet Union. Che’ begins meeting with GRU (Soviet military intelligence) operatives, mostly Spanish communists who had fled to the Soviet Union after the Spanish Civil War, soon after the fall of Havana. Soviet agents help to establish Cuba’s G-2 secret police force. As Cuba draws closer to the Soviet Union, the US imposes trade restrictions and, finally, an embargo and travel ban.

Che’ holds several posts in the new Cuban government. He begins as head of the National Bank of Cuba and of the Department of Industry of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform in 1959. In 1961, he becomes Cuba’s Minister of Industry. His economic policies include price controls, heavy taxes on the wealthy, and restrictions on private capital. Land is seized from the rich and given to the government. Virtually everything is nationalized in a war on capitalism and personal property.

Che’s authoritarian economic policies, together with the US trade embargo, cause the once powerful Cuban economy to decline. Che’s plans at industrialization fail, sugar production collapses, and rationing is introduced. Che’s economic deputy, Ernesto Betancourt, later says that Che was “was ignorant of the most elementary economic principles.” Eventually, Cuba relies on sugar exports and Soviet subsidies (the equivalent of eight Marshall Plans, $72 billion) to survive. As the Cuban economy falters, Che’s popularity begans to wane.

Che’ also writes Guerra de Guerilla (Guerilla War). This book serves as a guide for revolutionaries throughout Latin America and the Third World. In Latin America, only one of these movements, in Nicaragua, is ultimately successful. Che’s goal is to spread his brand of Marxism to other countries. After touring the world, he resigns from his duties in Cuba in 1965.

Che’s next move is to lead a group of Cuban fighters to aid in a communist revolt in the Congo. One of his rebel allies there, Pierre Mulele, occupied Stanleyville and was known for murdering everyone who could read or who wore a tie. The people of the Congo do not support the rebellion and Che’ eventually leaves.

Che’ briefly returned to Cuba, but quickly left for Bolivia where he joins another guerilla movement against the government. His goal is to create another Vietnam in South America. In Bolivia, Che’ found virtually no support from the peasants. The Bolivian army, with US support, was soon on his trail.

A series of tactical, strategic, and logistical errors by Che’ and his forces cause problems for the revolt. Even the Bolivian members of his guerilla band do not speak the dialect of the peasants, making recruiting difficult. Che’ wrote that “The ... masses don't help us in anything and instead they betray us." An English journalist and a French writer, Regis Debray, leave the group and are soon captured by army troops. Che’ divides his tiny army and one group is destroyed by the Bolivian army. Che’s health deteriorates in the jungle and he loses his asthma medicine to the pursuers. He is reduced to riding on a pack mule as the remainder of his army tries to escape.

Bolivian Rangers are deployed to the area and, on October 8, 1967, Capt. Gary Prado and his men surround the remainder of Che’s force in the Quebrada de Yuro, a steep ravine near La Higuera. The guerillas try to escape. In the ensuing firefight six guerillas and two soldiers are killed. Three guerillas, including Che,’ are captured. Three guerillas eventually escape to Chile and three elude capture and hide out in Bolivia.

The prisoners are held in a nearby school, and Che,’ wounded in the leg, receives medical treatment. At the time, Bolivia has no secure prison facilities and it is thought that a trial would be media circus and attract other leftists to Bolivia. Bolivian President Rene Barrientos orders the execution of the prisoners in hopes of avoiding further problems.

Che’ and the other two prisoners are executed on October 9, 1967 and buried at an airfield in Vallegrande. His remains were exhumed by the Cubans in 1997 and reburied in Santa Clara, Cuba, the site of one of his most famous battles against the forces of Batista. His summary execution is a fitting end, given his role in Cuba’s executions.

A footnote to Che’s story is that he planned terrorist attacks against New York City long before 9/11 or the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. In 1962, while Che’ headed Cuba’s Foreign Liberation Department, the FBI stopped a plot Cuban UN officials and members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (made famous by Lee Harvey Oswald) to detonate 500 kilos of TNT (five times the amount used in the Madrid bombings) and incendiary devices in Macy’s, Gimble’s, Bloomingdale’s, and Grand Central Station. These bombings, set for the week after Thanksgiving, would have killed thousands of New Yorkers, mainly women and children.

Che’ and Castro’s goal in the New York bombing plot was probably to start a war between the US and the Soviet Union. If Cuba were implicated in the attacks, the US would retaliate. In a war, the USSR would probably intervene to protect its ally. If the conflict had gone nuclear, a distinct possibility, deaths would have numbered in the millions.

The Cuban leaders had tried to start a war the year before during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Che’ and Castro had argued for a first-strike against the US before Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, agreed to withdraw the Soviet missiles from Cuba. They dreamed of telling the Americans, “Say hello to my little friends!” as missiles rained down. In 1962, Che’ told the London Daily Worker, “If the missiles had remained, we would have used them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York City."

Che’ Guevara was a sadistic killer. He enjoyed killing and torturing. His writings preach hatred against capitalism in general and the United States in particular. He was also incompetent. He almost single-handedly destroyed the Cuban economy and his only military successes came against the Batista regime, whose army was weak and ineffective, only after the US withdrew support in 1958. According to some reports, Che’ was betrayed in Bolivia by Castro, who instructed the Bolivian Communist Party to pass information on his movements to the army.

Che’s latter day disciples fall into two categories. The first are committed socialists and anti-Americans who eagerly consumed Castro’s propaganda after Che’s death. Many of these people are Lenin’s “useful idiots,” who live in free and prosperous societies, but dream of socialist utopias and look the other way at communist atrocities. This is the same “Blame America First” crowd who cry for appeasement to dictators and Islamic radicals.

The second group is the people who don’t really know or understand who Che’ was. They see the long haired, “Guerilla Hero” image as a symbol of youthful rebellion and social change. Few, if any, fathom Che’s depravity or have any clue as to the number of lives that he destroyed.

On a per capita basis, the number of people killed and imprisoned by Che’ and Castro rivals that of Hitler and Stalin. Che’s legacy is one of mass murder, assaults on human rights, and the enslavement of entire nations. The world is a better place without Che’ Guevara in it.

Sources:
http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/guevara.html
http://www.time.com/time/time100/heroes/profile/guevara01.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2107100
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/index.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200707/NAT20070730a.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200707/NAT20070731b.html
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1535
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1985/SDR.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/09/MNVASLK4R.DTL&feed=rss.news
http://www.autentico.org/oa09924.php

Barack Obama’s Radical Side

Over the past several months, numerous chain emails have circulated around the country. These emails make several misleading claims about Democratic Presidential candidate, Barack Obama. These emails made claims that Obama was a Muslim who took his oath of office on the Koran rather than the Bible, that he refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance to the US flag, and that he was educated in radical Muslim schools. All of these claims were either totally false or exaggerated. The truth about Barack Obama would be almost as disturbing to most mainstream Americans.

Throughout his life, Barack Obama has kept company with leftist radicals and anti-Americans. Obama’s long association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright is now widely known and discussed in the media. Despite admitting to a personal friendship with Wright and attending his church for twenty years, Obama claims to never have heard any of the myriads of anti-American diatribes delivered by Rev. Wright.

Among the controversial comments of Rev. Wright are his claim that 9/11 represented “America’s chickens coming home to roost” as a result of US support of Israel and South Africa. He also claimed that the US government gave drugs to blacks in order to be able to imprison them and created the AIDS virus to kill black people. On at least one occasion, Wright claimed that blacks should sing “God damn America” rather than “God bless America.”

In his book, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama discusses his association with a poet named “Frank.” Obama describes Frank as a person who was much like a father and who gave him advice on his career. Frank has been identified as black poet and Communist Party-USA member, Frank Marshal Davis.

Davis was identified as a communist by the Commission on Subversive Activities report to the Hawaiian legislature in 1951. The House Un-American Activities Commission also identified Davis as active in several communist front groups. During its heyday of the 1950s and 1960s, the CPUSA was received funding and support directly from the Soviet Union.

While campaigning for elected office in 1995, Obama became friends with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Ayers and Dohrn were convicted members of the Weather Underground, a 1960s leftist terror group. The group was involved in a Brinks truck robbery in which a guard and two New York State Troopers were killed, as well as the bombings targeting US military officers. In 2001, Ayers told the NY Times, “I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough.”

More recently, a key Obama fundraiser, Chicago businessman, Tony Rezko, was arrested in January 2008 on charges of hiding assets while on a bond. He was originally arrested several years earlier on corruption charges relating to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

Rezko’s association with Barack Obama goes back to 1990 when a Rezko executive read an article by Obama in the Harvard Law Review. The executive introduced Obama to Rezko when he learned of Obama’s interest in politics. When Obama ran for office in 1995, Rezko became one of his first contributors.

When the Obamas shopped for a house in the Chicago area, they found a $1.65 million dollar mansion with four fireplaces, a wine cellar, and a wrought iron fence. The problem was that the house was owned by a doctor who also owned a vacant lot next door and wanted to sell both properties at the same time. The Obamas could not afford both properties. The Obamas closed on their house in June 2005 and, on the same day, Rezko’s wife bought the vacant lot for $625,000. The Rezkos later sold a portion of the property to Obama for $104,500 and paid $14,000 to build a fence on the property line.

Obama remained a friend of Rezko throughout Rezko’s criminal investigation. The friendship finally cooled after Rezko’s indictment. Obama reportedly may be called as a witness in Rezko’s corruption trial due to the fact that he engineered $10,000 in illegal contributions to Obama’s campaign.

When we view Obama’s past associations, it is easier to understand Michelle Obama’s comment that “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.” Based upon the people whom Obama chooses to associate with, and whom he courts as political allies, he may very well share his wife’s pessimistic views of the United States in spite of his denials.

It is also interesting to note who Barack Obama’s supporters are around the world. Daniel Ortega, communist President of Nicaragua, said that Obama lays “the foundation for revolutionary change” in the US. Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro, called a hypothetical Obama-Hillary ticket “invincible.” Most Americans would probably prefer not to have the support of Communist dictators.

A closer look at Obama’s record as a public servant, both in Illinois and in the US Senate, would also disturb most Americans. National Journal named Obama as the most liberal senator in the entire US Senate in 2007. (Hillary Clinton was 16th.) He has ratings of 100% from the Planned Parenthood, NAACP, Illinois Environmental Council, and the National Organization for Women, as well as 92% from the AFL-CIO. Conversely, he was 0% by the National Right to Life Committee, Americans for Tax Reform, and Federation for Immigration Reform. He was also given 8% by the American Conservative Union and an ‘F’ by the NRA.

With respect to abortion, while in the Illinois state senate, Obama voted against a law that have guaranteed the right to life for any baby born alive. This law would not have affected legal abortions, but would have prevented the killing of any baby born living. Obama also said that he did not want his daughters “punished” with a baby for making “a mistake.”

On fiscal issues, Obama is a proponent of tax increases. Obama has floated plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts and to increase the Social Security payroll tax. Obama specifically plans to raise taxes on the “wealthiest Americans.” He also opposes ending the Death Tax, the Estate Tax, even though this tax causes many family businesses to fail. Obama voted to repeal the capital gains tax cut. The capital gains tax affects millions of Americans who sell homes or own retirement accounts. Tax increases have historically caused the economy shrink and reduced tax revenues.

Ironically, Obama used his influence as a senator to win tax breaks for companies in Illinois. His campaign stated that tax breaks "lower costs for customers and create jobs." This is correct, but it is not a policy that Obama seeks to implement beyond his home state.

Obama’s healthcare plan would reduce market forces in the health care industry and replace them with government mandates. His plan calls on government subsidies, which in turn require massive tax increases to provide funding. He also wants to define minimum benefits and place limits on deductibles and co-payments. These regulations would strangle innovation and efficiency. In spite of his claims, Obama’s healthcare plan is not truly universal coverage. It does retain some freedom to choose not to purchase coverage.

Obama’s energy policy is centered on cap-and-trade of carbon emissions and renewable energy. Cap-and-trade involves the buying and selling of pollution credits. Companies would be required to bid for a limited number of these pollution credits. In a growing economy, demand for these credits would send their prices skyrocketing. This would further increase the cost of consumer goods and drain the bank accounts of American families.

Renewable energy sources are inadequate and impractical with current technology. Biofuels require more energy to create and transport than they would supply. Creating enough biofuels to make a meaningful impact on oil imports would require that prohibitively large areas of the US be dedicated to crops for biofuel production. Diversion of crops to biofuels causes food prices to increase. Similarly, solar and wind power requires large areas of land dedicated to solar collection. There are also problems with storage of electricity from solar and wind power, as well as the changing nature of the winds and clouds. Nuclear energy, the most promising and cost effective renewable energy source, is seldom mentioned.

With respect to the War on Terror, Obama would remove all US combat troops from Iraq within sixteen months. This would create a power vacuum that would be filled by either Al Qaeda on Iranian-backed Shiite groups. The sacrifices of the US and Iraqi troops would be squandered. Thousands of Iraqis who have aided the Coalition-supported government of Iraq would be murdered. American prestige would suffer and our enemies would gain control of Iraq’s oil fields, further endangering the American economy.

Barack Obama is neither a moderate nor a consensus builder. His associates and his record portray him as an extreme leftist who is far from the American mainstream. His excellent public speaking skills are no substitute for experience and understanding of economics and diplomacy. Should we really expect the most liberal senator in the country to bring us together?

Sources:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/18/quotes-rev-jeremiah-wright/
http://www.postchronicle.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=58&num=132576
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/michelle-obama-remarks-st_n_87346.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/01/rezko/
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/14/america/LA-POL-Nicaragua-Ortega-Obama.php
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2825114320070829
http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/01/obama_ranked_most_liberal_sena_1.html
http://newsbusters.org/node/9574
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Obama-s-gruesome-abortion-record.html&Itemid=99999999
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/03/obama_babies_ar.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3638710&page=1
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-25-tax-breaks_N.htm
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8266
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/930258/biofuel_problems_may_offset_benefits/index.html?source=r_science
www.barackobama.com