Ann Dunham’s choice of major and career is both interesting and fitting, as the discipline had been on the cutting edge of extreme left progressivism since Margaret Mead’s controversial work “Coming of Age,” a book about sexual liberation of women it the South Pacific was published in 1928. Though the book has since been discredited, however it was a cornerstone of radical feminism and sexual liberation that drove the sexual revolution in the 1960s. The discipline of anthropology had been leaning further and further toward the radical left for some thirty years, but by the early 1960s it had become a bastion of liberalism with many dominant figures espousing socialism.

It was a natural home for someone like Ann Dunham. It is also, in a historical sense, an ironic one. The discipline of anthropology began to expand and earn distinction as a unique and useful science to western governments in the advancement of colonialism. Through the employing of anthropologists, governments could come to better understand the natives, cultures, traditions and norms of those places brought under colonial rule. Anthropologists found gainful employment with the military during wartime. Close association with the US government caused much tension within the discipline. “Many served in the armed forces but others worked in intelligence (for example, Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the Office of War Information). At the same time, David H. Price's work on American anthropology during the Cold War provides detailed accounts of the pursuit and dismissal of several anthropologists from their jobs for communist sympathies.”[2] 

Of course, not all anthropologists are socialists, however a noted above the discipline becomes a natural home for those of that political and philosophical bent. Much of the leftward leaning influence in anthropological circles may be attributed, ironically, to that which enabled it to be recognized in the first place. Those espousing progressive socialism harbor a deep-rooted resentment for the technologically advanced societies that they view as harmful to other cultures and peoples. They see the inequality of wealth and power as an undue encroachment and a destructive influence in the world, the haves taking yet more from the have-nots. In this sense, their resentment becomes anti-western, anti-capitalist, anti-colonialist and in the case of Ann Dunham and her contemporaries, especially those who were educated at colleges and universities during the 1960s through the early 1970s, rabid and extreme anti-Americanism.

To better illustrate the general ideological thrust of those espousing and advocating socialism in and through anthropology, especially considering the influence of socialist ideology upon the discipline throughout the 60s and 70s, useful information may be gleaned through the work of Dr, Eugene E. Ruyle. Dr. Ruyle, who earned his PhD in Anthropology from Columbia University in 1971, and who was Professor of Anthropology at CSU, Long Beach is currently a candidate for United States Representative in California’s District 10, is endorsed for the seat by the Peace and Freedom Party.[3] His positions reflect a lifetime of immersion in radical-left and progressive socialist circles, and advocacy of these causes in the classroom.

In a position paper entitled, “Why Socialism,” Dr. Ruyle explains:

For most of my professional career as an anthropologist, I have been concerned with understanding our species, the problems we face as a species, and the role of my country in finding solutions. After considering all the alternatives and all the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the problems we face as Americans and as a species are all products of capitalism and cannot be solved within the framework of capitalism. A new social and economic system, socialism, is necessary to provide the framework to address issues such as war, poverty, racism, sexism, pollution, health care, education, immigration, and global warming.

Socialism will come to America when the American people want it; socialism cannot and should not be imposed on Americans against their will. By the same logic, however, the United States does not have the right to prevent other nations from adopting socialism or any other economic system they chose. Yet this has been the dominant aim of U.S. foreign policy since WWII. This has not benefited the freedom and well being of the American people. Americans are less free and less secure because of U.S. meddling in the internal affairs of other nations to make the world safe for U.S. corporations.[4]

In order to allow the reader a better understanding of what radical advocates of progressive socialism seek to achieve, a partial list of the immediate and log-term goals of socialist politicians, advocates and sympathizers as outlines by the Peace and Freedom Party follows:

·        Double the minimum wage, and index it to the cost of living.

·        Guarantee the right of all workers to organize and to strike; forbid striker replacement.

·        Socially useful jobs for all at union pay levels.

·        Equal pay for equal work, and for work of comparable worth.

·        A 30-hour workweek with no cut in weekly pay; longer paid vacations.

·        Guaranteed dignified income for those who cannot work.

·        A Universal Basic Income to alleviate poverty and homelessness.

·        Tax the income and assets of the rich to meet human needs.

·        International trade agreements must guarantee the protection of workers and the environment in all participating countries; abolish NAFTA, GATT and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

·        End homelessness; abolish vagrancy laws; provide decent affordable housing for all.

·        Social ownership and democratic control of industry, financial institutions, and natural resources.

·        The United States should take the initiative toward global disarmament by eliminating nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

·        Withdraw U. S. troops and weapons from other countries, and reallocate the resulting "peace dividend" for social benefit.

·        Abolish the CIA, NSA, AID and other agencies for interference in other countries' internal affairs.

·        Convert from a military to a peace-oriented economy, with jobs for displaced workers.

·        Self-determination for all nations and peoples of the world, including Puerto Rico and all U. S. territories.

·        Defend and extend liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

·        End discrimination based on race, sex, age, sexual orientation, or disability.

·        Restore affirmative action, guarantee full education and employment rights for all.

·        Abolish the death penalty.

·        No prison labor for private profit.

·        Support the right of working people to keep and bear arms.

·        Democratic elections through proportional representation; full political, social and economic rights for resident non-citizens.

·        Honor treaties with Native American nations; recognize California's Native American nations. Defend and extend Native American rights and sovereignty.

·        Provide full free quality public education through university level. Teach the history of workers' struggles and labor's creation of society's wealth and progress.

·        Restore and strengthen bilingual education. Uncensored government funding for ordinary people to create and enjoy art.

·        Scientific and technological research to benefit ordinary people, not the capitalists.

·        Free high-quality health care for everyone, including birth control, abortion, pre-natal and childhood health care. No forced sterilizations.

·        Legalize marijuana, decriminalize drug use, and make substance abuse treatment freely available.

·        Give special attention to preventing epidemics of communicable diseases such as AIDS. Guarantee the rights of people living with AIDS.

·        Restore and protect air, water, land and ecosystems.

·        Promote conservation and develop solar and other renewable energy to replace nuclear power and fossil fuels.

·        End environmental racism: no toxic dumping in anyone's back yard.

·        Massive development of public transportation available free or at nominal fares.

·        Outlaw clear cutting and protect remaining old-growth forests.

·        Promote an environmentally sound agricultural system which meets human needs and protects farm workers' labor rights and standard of living.[5]

A paper presented by Dr. Ruyle at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Anthropological Association in San Diego, California, in April 1977 is summarized thus:

This paper attempts to clarify the Marxian concept of socialism and concludes that social evolution will culminate in a world socialist system. By viewing sociocultural systems from an ecological perspective it is argued that individuals tend to maximize their consumption of labor energy, and minimize their own expenditure of labor energy. This minimax principle underlies the succession of human ecosystems: the process of the emergence, development, and overthrow of class rule. The earliest social order was the primitive communism of the hunting and gathering world, marked by an equal obligation of all in labor and consumption. As this classless society became large and sedentary, a ruling class emerged and feudalism followed. However, in developing the productive forces of society, the feudal rulers generated a new ruling class, the bourgeoisie, and capitalism soon replaced feudalism. According to the Marxian analysis of capitalism, it too will pave the way for a new social order. Unemployment, poverty, crime, racism, freedom of thought, critical social science, free press, and democratic institutions will give the working class both the reason and the power to overthrow capitalism. Finally, because socialism will provide roughly equal levels of consumption and the free development of individual potential, it will become a lasting social order.[6]

The point of mentioning Dr. Ruyle and his socialist speech at an anthroplogical convention is to make the point that a distinguished professor would not gave given such a speech advocating such overtly socialist views at such a major event in his discipline if the contents were not reflective of the mainstream ideology held to by those making up that convention.  The singling out of Dr. Ruyle’s works and positions is in no way intended to belittle or to diminish his accomplishments to his profession and discipline. It is intended only to demonstrate for the reader the general ideological outlook and mindset of those who are immersed in radical progressive socialist thought and lifelong advocacy of that particular strain of political thought. What is clear from even a most casual observation of Dr. Ruyle’s positions and political goals for society is that they are very, very far removed from the reality of how most of us view the world around us and our place in it, vis-à-vis the role of the individual versus the role of government. They are, in a word, anti-American.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology

[2] Ibid.

[3] http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/vote/ruyle_e/

[4] http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/vote/ruyle_e/paper2.html

[5] http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/vote/ruyle_e/paper3.html

[6] http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/36/de/e2.pdf

1. Restoring progressive taxation to the levels before the Reagan administration and
enacting massive cuts in wasteful defense spending;

2. Enacting single-payer universal health insurance and expanding public initiatives in child
care, elder care and pension security;

3. Passing the Employee Free Choice Act as part of a broader effort to rebuild a powerful
labor movement capable of achieving equity in the labor market; and

4. Implementing a U.S. foreign policy that promotes global institutions that advance labor,
environmental, and human rights and regulate transnational corporations.

The document, though not, of course, any sort of official endorsement of Obama is as close as one is going to get. It is, as I have previously intimated, realistic in its scope assessing and understanding Obama the candidate and potential President vis-à-vis the Democrat Party, yet the document also sheds light on the fact that the DSA understands the game very well and furthermore, understands the bigger political picture, so to speak and specifically acknowledges that a progressive President with the aid and assistance of a progressive majority in both houses of the legislature can fundamentally change the playing field and serve as a tool to move the Democrat Party, the machinations of government and the nation more and more to the left and clever closer to conformity with its socialist ideals.

Some brief excerpts of the document state in part:

1.  Obama promises to restore to American workers the right to organize; to renegotiate
international trade agreements so they enforce and do not retard labor, environmental, and
human rights; to re-regulate the financial sector and end speculative excess; to bring troops home
from Iraq and invest the saved funds in domestic needs; and to move toward universal health
care. That’s a program worth electing a president on– or fighting for in the event the president
and his party renege.

2.  Thus, DSA has no illusion that a Democratic presidential victory, combined with bulked-up
Democratic majorities in both houses of the Congress, will in itself bring about significant
democratic reform. We do believe that such a political landscape would provide the most
favorable terrain upon which mobilized, assertive social movements can pressure the government
to appoint decent federal judges and agency administrators and enact desperately needed
universal health care legislation, labor law reform, and a federally funded Marshall Plan to
develop green technologies and green jobs.

3.  While recognizing the critical limitations of the Obama candidacy and the American political
system, DSA believes that the possible election of Senator Obama to the presidency in
November represents a potential opening for social and labor movements to generate the critical
political momentum necessary to implement a progressive political agenda.

If that is not an endorsement for an Obama Presidency, I am at a loss as to what is. As I have previously related, those on the extreme left, socialists and the like, take their ideology very, very seriously. It is their very identity and therefore they tend to be uncompromisingly defensive of it in every aspect. They will viciously defend that with which they concur and equally as viciously attack that which they oppose. These are not a lukewarm segment of the population, but rather they are active and radical in every way.   One need only to spend a few minutes glossing over the latest banter on the Daily Kos or other far left blogs and websites and you will soon get the point. One can only conclude, then, that for such serious ideologically and determined radicals to so endorse the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States is tantamount to saying that they identify with him ideologically, and this poses a very serious concern for the future of this republic as we know it, because if these people can throw their unwavering support to a man that they view as their best hope to advance the cause of socialism in this country, then suffice it to say that they identify Barack Obama as a socialist.

It is these types of glaringly obvious facts that no one in the mainstream media wants to let out. It is exactly these types of facts that condemn the mainstream media as at the very least complicit if not active participants in the massive cover-up of Obama’s lifelong socialist connections and associations, because it is never reported. The only notable exception has been the controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s longtime spiritual advisor.

It is such blatant contradictions as these that raise red flags en masse amongst those who study politics, and in particular, among those who have a working knowledge of the politics of the far left.   Though the general populous may well be fooled into thinking that perhaps these people are throwing their support behind Obama simply because he is really the only realistic candidate they could choose from is to misunderstand those who live to advance radical socialist ideology entirely – indeed it is to misunderstand socialist ideology itself entirely. 

One would think, for example, that those of such socialist bent would in the past have endorsed a candidate like Ralph Nader, Presidential candidate of the Green Party and certainly a man with far left if not socialist leanings, yet they did not affirm Nader as a viable vehicle through which to promote their cause with an official statement from the Party itself. Remember, the document entitled “Statement on the 2008 Presidential Election” is an official statement of the position of the DSA with regard to the election, and though not an official “endorsement” per se, it can easily be translated to “this Obama is the best chance we have got, a once in a lifetime opportunity to implement a progressive agenda and move the government and nation decidedly to the left. Vote for Obama and encourage everyone you know to vote for Obama.”

It is a curious thing, is it not, that a man who claims to embody traditional American values and thought in his few writings and on the campaign trail, and who disavows any accusations that he harbors socialist beliefs and tendencies finds himself being endorsed by radical and extreme socialist political parties?

The average American voter knows frighteningly little about Barack Obama, and that is exactly the way he and his handlers want it to be, for with an obscured and shadowy history and the assistance of the mainstream media the candidate is thus free to re-define himself as he wishes to be packaged to voters. Politicians always want that packaging to be as attractive as possible, and so distancing oneself from such “progressive” ideas as restoring progressive taxation to the levels before the Reagan administration and enacting massive cuts in defense spending is essential. 

The historical record of Obama’s life, however, will prove otherwise. It will show definitively that Obama has always been heavily steeped in socialist ideology, at first by circumstance, but later by choice. And now he is applying his vast wealth and knowledge of political activism and radical tactics that he amassed as an eager and brilliant student of the subject over the course of his life through his associations and affiliations with many controversial figures and institutions. He is giving the performance of a lifetime during this all-or-nothing campaign. It is the purpose of this series to assist in the concerted effort to expose the true, deep-rooted and extreme socialist ideology Barack Obama has espoused throughout his entire life, and to inform the American that a Barack Obama Presidency will play a significant role in the demise of this republic as we know it. In the pages ahead the reader will see why and how Barack Obama is perhaps the most dangerous man in American Political history.

In his incontestable star-power, Obama is a uniquely American phenomenon: a highly charismatic man and gifted orator who can deliver a prepared speech extremely well, who began life with little and is now a multi-millionaire running for the most powerful elected office in the world. It is, in a very true sense, a story that could really only happen in America, which is sadly ironic because he is a man who hates America as it is. In fact, his love-hate relationship with America and his ideal of America is a prime example of the dichotomy that is Barack Obama. He despises America as it is; yet he says he loves America at every campaign stop. He is not lying, per se, but is withholding the whole truth of his belief about America. When he says he loves America, what he is saying is that he loves America as he envisions it becoming once it succumbs to even more socialist ideology and policy and moves ever more decisively toward becoming the socialist utopia he has dreamed of since his youth.

Socialism is the fundamental change he wishes to bring to America, yet in preparing to do so he must operate stealthily and speak in vagaries, because he knows full well that if he were to openly speak of such things that are well understood to be core socialist principles even many of his own party would abandon him for fear of such ideology, and rightly so. Yet he does, in a sense, speak freely of such things, as he cannot help but to do so. He speaks in a manner employing specific words and phrases with double meanings, meanings that could be understood as well-intentioned and benign, yet clearly understood by those of a decidedly socialist bent as being code for pronouncing his unwavering commitment to core socialist principles. For example, phrases such as “economic justice” are defined by the campaign as meaning something to help the poor, while that same phrase is clearly understood by the far left as well as the far right, though much less enthusiastically, as referring to the basic socialist principle of massive redistribution of wealth through heavy progressive taxation.

Indeed Obama’s life is filled with radical acquaintances, friends, and mentors who were or are not only avowed socialists, but also some who were known and admitted Communists and members of the Communist Party, USA, a front for Moscow during the Cold War, who worked aggressively to further the Communist cause in the US. In fact, even today Obama has found favor with the extreme left, as evidenced by the section of his website named “Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama.” The link is here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/MarxistsSocialistsCommunistsforObama. Here is the description of this section: 

“This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat. Though the Democratic Socialists of America or the Communist Party of America may have more socialististic values, it is pointless to vote for these candidates due to the fact that there is virutally no chance they will be elected on a National level. The members of this group are not Leninists, Stalinists, etc. and do not support or condone the actions of North Korea, China, Cuba or any other self-procalimed "Marxist States." They do not in anyway represent the Marxist philosophy nor do they represent Socialism/ Communsim. We support Barack Obama because he knows what is best for the people!”[1]

One would think that a man who campaigns as a “mainstream” American who shares typical American values and beliefs would shudder at a public endorsement by Marxists and socialists on his official campaign website. It is important to note that the above is not an official endorsement by the CPUSA or the Democratic Socialists of America, as these to not officially endorse major party candidates.

Obama’s ties to the extreme left can be easily traced back to his earliest political races, and even prior to that. In fact, in one glaring example of Obama demonstrating his solidarity with the far left and their socialist agendas, the Investors Business Daily notes in an article published on August 20, 2008 in a multi-part series on Obama’s links to socialism that:

“In 1995, he sought the endorsement of the New Party for his 1996 state Senate candidacy. The party — a collection of anti-capitalist ex-communists and socialists that disbanded in 1998 after six years of trying to push the Democratic Party even further left — gladly gave Obama its support.”

“Obama also was endorsed in that election by the Democratic Socialists of America, the largest socialist group in the U.S. While the name might sound benign, the DSA has a poisonous agenda. Its goal is to establish ‘an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics’ and is committed to ‘restructuring society.’”[2]

The same piece aptly concludes, “these groups usually reserve their endorsements and support for fringe candidates, not someone from a major party. That's not the case this time around. They seem to have their man.”[3]

In visiting the Democratic Socialists of America website, they immediately state their purpose:

Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.[4]

In a part of the DSA website entitled, “Where We Stand: the political perspective of the Democratic Socialists of America,” is found a document that states their purpose and intent. It is a concise summary of their particular bent of socialist worldview. Section 4 of this document is entitled, “A Strategy for the Next Left.” It begins thus:

Socialists have historically supported public ownership and control of the major economic institutions of society -- the large corporations -- in order to eliminate the injustice and inequality of a class-based society, and have depended on the organization of a working class party to gain state power to achieve such ends. In the United States, socialists joined with others on the Left to build a broad-based, anti-corporate coalition, with the unions at the center, to address the needs of the majority by opposing the excesses of private enterprise. Many socialists have seen the Democratic Party, since at least the New Deal, as the key political arena in which to consolidate this coalition, because the Democratic Party held the allegiance of our natural allies. Through control of the government by the Democratic Party coalition, led by anti-corporate forces, a progressive program regulating the corporations, redistributing income, fostering economic growth and expanding social programs could be realized.[5]

Section 5 is called “the Role of Electoral Politics,” and states, in part:

Democratic socialists reject an either-or approach to electoral coalition building, focused solely on anew party or on realignment within the Democratic Party. The fundamental task of democratic socialists is to build anti-corporate social movements capable of winning reforms that empower people. Since such social movements seek to influence state policy, they will intervene in electoral politics, whether through Democratic primaries, non-partisan local elections, or third party efforts.

Much of progressive, independent political action will continue to occur in Democratic Party primaries in support of candidates who represent a broad progressive coalition. In such instances, democratic socialists will support coalitional campaigns based on labor, women, people of color and other potentially anti-corporate elements.

Electoral tactics are only a means for democratic socialists; the building of a powerful anti-corporate coalition is the end. Where third party or non-partisan candidates mobilize such coalitions, democratic socialists will build such organizations and candidacies. However, to democratize U.S. electoral politics - whatever its party form -requires serious campaign finance reform both within and without the Democratic Party.[6]

Finally, section 6 of the document is entitled, “The Role of Democratic Socialists,” and states in part:

The founding document [of the DSA] called for carrying out a strategy and program that were already the mainstays of mass liberalism, but moving this broad liberal coalition considerably to the left. DSA's new document points in another direction, toward the founding of a new progressive movement...a next Left.

The success of global capitalism demands that traditional democratic standards of justice, equality, and decency be undermined. [Emphasis mine] For the simple dream of a comfortable standard of living, of community, and of equity to be realized, radical political, economic, and social changes in the established order are required.

The belief is widespread that we stand at the beginning of a new political era -- that the Left must create a new vision and a new mission rooted in a new sense of purpose. Democratic socialists have an historic opportunity and responsibility to play a central role in the founding of a next Left, and DSA is prepared to meet this challenge.[7]

It is glaringly obvious that that the DSA, just as any true socialist organization, operates via an ”ends justify the means” philosophy. It is also clear that while they would prefer to remain a “third party” entity and amass power and influence by building their own organizations and extending their own power base, that they readily acknowledge the improbability of being able to do so. Thus they recognize the necessity of operating within an already existing power base and legitimately recognized third party unstained by the stigma of the images that the word “socialist” conjures up. They therefore are open to, if not enthusiastic about, operating within the major political party with which they can most closely ideologically identify, that being the Democrat Party. The DSA is realistic in its assessment that at times even Democrat candidates will be at odds with the socialist principles being advanced by the DSA, but are willing to wait for those candidates to come along with whom they can most closely identify and who will likely be more sympathetic to the socialist cause.

To that end, the Democratic Socialists of America are more excited and optimistic about the 2008 Presidential election than they have been in recent memory. They are so excited that they have released a statement on the 2008 Presidential Election that offers encouragement to the DSA Party faithful regarding the prospects of an Obama Presidency. Though neither the DSA nor the CPUSA will actively officially endorse or campaign for even a far left Democrat, they will support him because they understand the reality that the political scene in the United States is such that such candidates are their best hope to manipulate and influence the system to conform to its radical agenda.

[1] http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/MarxistsSocialistsCommunistsforObama. 

[2] Finding Friends On Far, Far Left By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008

[3] Ibid.

[4]http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

[5]http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.html

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

Barack Obama, a virtual unknown until 2004 when he was invited to give a prime-time address at the Democrat National Convention in Boston, has shot to the forefront of the national political scene and become the quintessential political “rock-star” almost overnight. His is a compelling and historical candidacy of firsts, not the least significant of these being that he is the first African-American to win the nomination of a major political party for President of the United States. But the flip side is that Obama’s candidacy is also a first in some questionable ways. For instance, there has never been, in the history of this nation, a candidate for the highest office in the land who has simply come out of nowhere and so quickly and successfully captured national attention and approval and yet accomplished this without revealing who he is or, with the glaring exception of a few hot button issues, what he believes. We know disturbingly little about Senator Barack Obama, and as time goes on it becomes all the more clear that this is not by accident. 

Indeed, there is so little in the way of writings (none) wherein he divulges his true thoughts and opinions on divers political matters as to allow potential supporters and voters to come to a full and well-rounded understanding of the “real” Obama that the initial researchers, journalists and anyone wanting to gain an in depth understanding of who this man is and what he believes at his core must resort to combing through news paper stories and articles previously written about him; and, for the most dedicated, this also meant the necessity of travel to the four corners of the globe to track down and interview those people with whom Obama spent the various period of his life. This author is most grateful to those who have undertaken such difficult and grueling work, because that work has come at a price.

Those who first began researching Senator Barack Obama to report on his life, his beliefs, where he has been and what he has done and said have at first had to largely rely upon the works penned by Obama himself: Dreams of My Father, The Audacity of Hope, and Change We Can Believe In, Obama’s campaign-plan for fundamentally changing America. Initially authors were heavily reliant upon these works while digging into Obama’s past to find something, anything, to corroborate Obama’s version of his life. 

What these first intrepid investigators found was very interesting, if not disturbing. In many cases they found seemingly contradictory evidence from what Obama himself has claimed, but what is most alarming is that in many, if not most cases, they either found nothing – as in absolutely nothing to either contradict or affirm Obama’s version and claims; or, they found themselves completely stonewalled by Obama supporters and even staff at the various institutions where they were conducting their journalistic investigations. Of course no one the mainstream media would want to look any deeper into “fringe” and “conspiratorial” journalists claims of a cover-up by Obama’s people and campaign, and yet the harder researchers push the more we see that the depth and scope of this cover-up boggles the mind.   

As if that were not disturbing enough in and of itself, the evidence that was being uncovered by researchers who sought out those who were Obama’s acquaintances and friends, who dug into his family life and began to ask what would otherwise be normal questions, were viciously and ferociously attacked when they printed their findings. And many of those findings are very disturbing. And as one compares the evidence of his early life and formative years with his young adulthood, college days, law school, community organizing and eventually politics, a pattern emerges of a man who was from his very earliest days steeped heavily in extreme socialist ideology of the “radical-on-the-fringe-of-society variety,” and who took great pains and went to great extremes to not leave any sort of trail that would reveal his true self and his true intentions.

In fact, it could be said that Barack Obama, in the sense of carefully choosing what he has said and how he said it throughout his adult life, has arguably out-Clintoned Bill Clinton, an undisputed master of the science of political doublespeak. Indeed, Obama has not merely been careful to the extreme about not letting on to what he really thinks and believes by the cautious use of vague language, but he has also been deliberately deceptive in many instances so as to purposefully mislead the public into assuming that he is saying he believes one thing while all the evidence of research reveals something entirely different. 

As the subtitle of this piece suggests, Barack Obama has been immersed in the extremes of socialist ideology from his earliest years, and it is this very ideology that has determined and shaped precisely who Barack Obama is, what he believes, what he would do and how he would govern if elected President of the United States. It is a sobering if not fearful assessment of the man.

While his vagaries served him well during his earlier years, in college and even at Harvard Law, once he entered into the radical world of “community organizing” and social agitation, and then into politics, Obama’s ability to deliberately avoid leaving a paper trail became largely diminished, much to his dismay to be sure. One need at that point only to research the news articles written about him or his policies and votes, to look into those organizations with which he was employed, and to dig into his personal and political associations in order to formulate an accurate image of who and what Barack Obama is. It is not a pretty picture.

The image that emerges is one of a man whose extreme version of socialist ideology, radical belief system totally anathema to that of mainstream America, and radical associations to controversial and dangerous people represent the core of who this man is.   It is the image of a man who long ago make the conscious decision to advance his beliefs and career by employing the Marxian the motto, “the ends justify the means.” This is the image of a man who will do or say whatever it takes to further his agenda, and having masterfully defined the parameters of debate as well as the field of play such that he could be the one to define himself, all he really needs is willing accomplices to carry out his designs which, thanks to his adoring fans and rabid recruiting machine in the mainstream media, he now has millions of. 

These Obama fans constitute an adoring army that will bark on command to refute rock-solid evidence that Obama is far from the prophet of hope and change he purports to be. In fact, in true “Alinskyesque” fashion, the Obama website even has a section on his website called “Fight the Smears. Help push back on the false and divisive methods of our opponents. Spread the truth.” Ah, yes, and the truth shall set you free. Through this section of the Obama website he instructs his army of rabid progressives to assault any attempts to portray Senator Obama as anything other than the beneficent One for whom the world has been waiting with overwhelming force, shock and awe. For example, the site lists “smears and lies” and instructs the faithful on how to combat them, for example by calling into right-wing radio shows and tying up the phone lines when controversial anti-Obama guests will be on.

Because there was, and by the standards used to gauge most politicians on the national scene still is, so little evidence to help one to formulate an accurate image of him in the sense of being able to know about and see and assess every aspect and detail of his life, there have naturally been many attacks that have been debunked, and rightfully so, for no man or woman ought to be smeared or slandered with labels that are untrue. However, the fact remains that Barack Obama is a contradiction, a dichotomy who, to appropriately paraphrase Karl Marx, operates as a mole moving beneath the surface while leaving no trace on the surface of his direction or true intent.

Here’s a news-flash you won’t see on CNN, FOX, or any other media outlet of ill repute for that matter: the US Government thinks you are stupid. So do the politicians we continue to elect to “represent” us at the legislative and executive levels. So do the bureaucrats that are appointed and hired by the government. They all think we are stupid, and they might even be right.

Why would I even suggest such a thing, that we the people might just really be as stupid as the politicians assume us to be? Here’s my answer: because we are acting like it. And if we don’t wake up real soon and take some serious action we are going to be jolted awake one morning only discover that we no longer live in a free republic, and all the evidence, coupled with the total economic impact of the events of the last several weeks suggest that we are coming perilously close to that day.

Many, if not most, who are reading this would agree with this assessment, but for the sake of those who haven’t been paying attention to history, have no clue that we have a Constitution that is being knowingly and continually violated with seeming impunity by our elected representatives, bureaucrats and judges, and for those who, being either blissfully ignorant about the truth regarding the economic catastrophe our once-free market has become or who simply nod their heads at the assurance of government that they are working hard to fix the problem and everything is going to be OK, I have some disturbing news for you: the government and the politicians you elected are all lying to you – because they think you are stupid. And if you continue to believe them, then you are stupid.

Here is the ugly truth: In the last month your government has committed to spend approximately $1 trillion to bail out various Wall Street financial institutions, along with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. That brings the officially acknowledged federal deficit to roughly $10 trillion. And there will most certainly be more regardless who wins the election: more spending, more promises of programs to help homeowners in over their heads, more debt. The Treasury will have to continue bailing out the FDIC as it (the FDIC) has already paid out the $45 billion fiscal insurance policy it holds to the many banks that have already failed. Amid all this chaos the government officials and elected representatives and candidates for office step up and promise they’ll fix it. One of these reprehensible bulwarks of all that is wrong in the world, Rep. Barney Frank – a man who is at the very least (along with his many Democrat and Republican comrades) complicit if not guilty of gross negligence in facilitating this mess has promised to do “major surgery” on the nation’s financial system. 

If Frank and his compatriots in the Congress hold true to their promise you can bet there will be more bank failures and this current recession will likely devolved into a long depression. Why? Because the whole reason the world’s financial system is on the verge of total collapse is because of government meddling in the economy by trying to manipulate and perpetuate artificial conditions of a growing economy. This is called central economic planning, a long discredited manipulative policy that has been proven unsustainable over time, as we are currently witnessing. You will never hear your Congressman or Presidential candidates speak of this, for to do so would betray the truth, and the truth would set us free, so to speak. 

Speaking this truth would be the equivalent of admitting that our planned and over-manipulated economy is no more a true free market system than was the Soviet economy that imploded in 1991 – and as this ugly truth stares us in face all we hear from politicians and bureaucrats is that “greedy Wall Street CEOs” are the ones to blame. In fact, some in Congress are already holding hearings featuring testimony from CEOs of several of the companies recently bailed out or that have failed. The Congress has the sheer audacity to lay 100% of the blame at the feet of these CEOs, who certainly deserve their share of the blame to whatever degree they jumped on the high-risk bundle bandwagon, while conveniently overlooking their own actions that directly contributed the creation of an environment where such catastrophically stupid business practices were not merely possible but were strongly encouraged. One party accuses the other of deregulating the finance industry as if that were the cause while the other accuses the first party of enacting senseless regulations as if those were the cause – and to an extent, both are correct. What was had prior to deregulation was a lot of bad regulation that was replaced by nothing that would solve the problems the bad regulation created, and most would agree that this is so.

However, while enacting laws for the purpose of regulation of commerce is a legitimate function of the Congress, enabling the Federal Reserve to secretly enact policy of its own, and for which it is unaccountable and un-auditable, specifically designed and intended to manipulate the money supply and interest rates to create and perpetuate a false prosperity nicely contained in a bubble that is an anomaly of free market operation, is not. In fact not only does the existence of a central bank go against the advice of the Founding Fathers of our country, it essentially violates all of the core principles upon which the Constitution is founded.

The Founders knew all too well the pitfalls of a fiat currency, that is, a currency of paper money that derives its “value” by the arbitrary authority of government declaring it’s worth, as it is in reality not backed up by any tangible assets. During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress financed itself partly by its self-produced Continental currency – paper money like we use today – that was not backed up by gold or anything else of any intrinsic value. The people were forced to use it, and the government simply was able to produce more of it by printing it, until they had printed such an overabundance of it that the currency itself became entirely worthless. Unfortunately the geniuses in government and those at the fed have not correctly understood the warnings of the Founders, because we have been doing the same thing since 1971 when Nixon took us of the gold standard. Either that or they know exactly what they are doing, which would be even more disturbing.

The fact of the matter is that those running the Fed are not stupid – everything they do is calculated. So why would they deliberately choose to destroy the dollar, because that is exactly what our government’s economic “rescue plan” or bailout will achieve if it continues the current charted course. They are destroying the dollar because the fundamental element of this “rescue plan” is the infusion of massive amounts of cash into the monetary system. The problem is that the treasury has none, and so it is left to the Fed to print it. With each new dollar that gets printed and injected into the system, the value of all the other dollars out there is diminished so they become worth even less on the market; therefore the buying power of individuals is likewise diminished as the value of the dollar goes down. The more currency produced, the less value it has. 

This is “inflation 101” and everyone on Capitol Hill and in Washington ought to know that. But, then again, these are by and large the same folks who signed on to creating the conditions that ultimately brought about this catastrophe, so it is not entirely surprising that they would sign on to allowing massive amounts of money to be printed and injected into the system. My dark theory on this is that in doing so they are inviting hyperinflation, which is when so much fiat currency is produced that it becomes essentially worthless (take Italy, for example, where you would pay 10,000 Lira for a pack of cigarettes). Perhaps they know this. Perhaps they don’t care. At the very least, they’d tell us, they are working hard and doing something to “fix the problem. 

But that is exactly the root of the problem in the first place, and so here is where the idea of individual responsibility and self-government comes in. The people are running like sheep in whatever direction the government leads – even if it is off a cliff- and unfortunately they have become so conditioned to looking to government to solve their problems that to do otherwise is often not even an afterthought. The people are not asking the right questions either – if they’re asking them at all. But, they are demanding that government “do something.” If they were living up to their civic responsibilities in the first place they would have been paying attention and seen this coming and would have been able to put enormous pressure on their elected representatives to stop the insanity before the crash became inevitable. 

The fact that this is happening in a Presidential election year makes the idea of individual self-government all the more important. The people are panicking as they see a long and deep recession looming, the politicians are panicking because they are afraid they’ll not be re-elected, and no one wants to tell the truth about how we got here in the first place. And now with the totality of the erosions of our Constitutional liberties having been much accelerated in recent years and the government nationalizing massive segments of industry, taking over individual home mortgages to presumably have courts renegotiate rates or perhaps dictate them, a complacent and uninformed electorate is only weeks away from electing a relatively unknown, unprepared, and untested politician who has spend the vast majority of his life immersed in the world of radical socialist ideology while pretending not to be. Our economy, our nation, our republic is being handed to him like John the Baptist’s head on a platter.

The people are crying, “Do something!”   Be careful what you ask for, because now that the government is doing something everything is going to get worse. You don’t believe that? Then name something outside of the realm of military action or law enforcement that the government does well. Incidentally, the national defense and law enforcement are really the only useful Constitutionally mandated obligations of the Federal Government, aside from the construction of roads, and the legitimate regulation of commerce. 

Also of note is Article I, Section 8. Under the title “Power Granted to Congress,” paragraph 5 reads: “To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin and fix the Standard of Weights and measures.” Note that nowhere in this paragraph is there mentioned an entity known as “The Federal Reserve,” nor is the authority to coin money and fix its value given to a single principal in the person of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Furthermore, it is important to note that the Constitution as written is binding as the Supreme Law of the Land, except where amended and ratified. No amendment created the Federal Reserve; rather, by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 did the Congress unconstitutionally give charter to the Federal Reserve and illegally abdicate its obligation to coin money and set its value. Indeed, as if the creation of the Fed as an illicit central bank wasn’t bad enough, think for a moment of the sheer audacity and arrogance in thinking that one person with even the best and brightest minds to assist them, could ever permanently manipulate the forces of the free market to create a condition of permanent prosperity. And that is a major part of the problem.

If the markets were left to themselves there would indeed be periods of growth and periods of correction; however, absent mountains of poorly defined or ill-scoped regulation and meddling politicians abusing their lawful authority to implement self-serving policies pandering to their own constituencies and thereby exerting massive, undue influence and encroachment on the machinations of the free market, those corrections would be comparably mild and sort-lived. Yet those very persons responsible for creating those conditions encouraging greed and corruption are now the same who demand of us still more of our money and our trust. The talking heads on the TV, with few notable exceptions, tell us repeatedly that as unfortunate as it is, we have no other option. 

To those who suggest as much I say this: economic freedom and liberty are inseparable – you cannot have the one without the other. If the market can be so easily manipulated by the arbitrary will of government for the benefit of the few, then the market is not free and neither are those who participate in it. If, on the other hand, the market is allowed to dictate unto itself and to its participants the worth of goods and services and the worthiness of those who seek them, then all are able to prosper to the extent that they wish to share in that prosperity. Such is free-market capitalism is spared undue meddling of government. That is our other option, indeed our only option; for if we do trust these power hungry fools again, the hegemony of the government, then we are exactly as stupid as they think we are, and we deserve the misery that shall most certainly befall us. If not for liberty we would only then have no other option but follow along like sheep and give to government all that it demands. We are now at a crossroad in the history of this nation, and the decisions to be made and the actions to be taken in the immediate future will have a profound and perhaps irreversible impact on our lives and those of our children. 

Let us not fool ourselves: we have been asleep at the wheel for far too long, and if we don’t immediately wake up and grab the wheel we run the very serious risk of driving right off the cliff. If you don’t believe in the possibility of an authoritarian socialist regime in the United States you are either very naïve or ignorant of history, because the possibility is not only very real but is staring us in the face. Right now our system is still the best in the world, albeit imperfect. It would be even better and we would be returned to great prosperity if our representatives and government were actually abiding by the Constitution. They will not do so unless we the people force them too.

It could be argued that we are in the beginning stages of tyranny, of the proverbial “benevolent dictatorship.” The government is moving now, through the Fed, to take over controlling interest in even more of the banks in the US. The government is also planning on purchasing mortgages and will thus become the largest homeowner in the world. As they “loan” billions to the auto industry and then, doubtless, to others they will likewise require oversight, if not “public ownership” in those companies. Does “public ownership” sound familiar?   Once government encroaches on a segment of the private sector it will not extricate itself unless the people force it to do so. Remember, the New Deal was sold to the people on the premise that it was a temporary measure to meet the needs of an extraordinary crisis. This same line is being sold to us today. Don’t believe it.

At a time when government encroachment into the private lives of citizens at the federal and state level is at an unprecedented level, where state executives and legislatures usurp the rights of parents by mandating that children receive certain “vaccines,” where the Federal Government is pursuing a course to take over massive segments of the economy, where private sector jobs are being lost while government jobs are being created, and where the most likely winner of the upcoming Presidential election will seek to force state run health care, “world” taxes payable to the UN, and the elimination of the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, complacency is not an option. We must be organized and united starting today, for we must take back control of our government and make it work for us and not against us. Government encroachment into areas heretofore left to the individual self-government and personal responsibility of each citizen is out of control, and if left unchecked it will consume us. Keep this in mind: our Founding Fathers sacrificed their very lives for the liberty we are letting the government illicitly usurp piece by piece. So, as you witness these current events continue to unfold, keep asking yourself this question each day: “Am I sovereign or a subject?” Wake up, America, before it’s too late.

You may want to read Part I , Part II , and Part III prior to reading this, as this is a multipart series.

Part IV

A Government Sponsored Culture of Corruption

Freddie and Fannie took on increasing amounts of high-risk debt because they could do it with impunity: they are backed up with an implied guarantee from the government, so for them high-risk is really no risk at all – even if the loans go into default, Fred and Fan will be OK because they know the government will throw lots of money at them. Why? Because they own more than one half of the mortgage debt in the US. So they, and the government, encourage privately owned financial institutions to get on board the high-risk-high-profit gravy train and they also begin assuming high-risk debt. Banks and holding companies begin to consolidate and merge – money is flowing all around, the economy is humming right along and the Dow hits record highs. Unfortunately for the rest of us, many of those companies and individuals who were raking in the money were doing so because of what would otherwise have been considered unethical business practices had government not been promoting it.   An atmosphere of corruption facilitated and even encouraged by the government is only going to breed more corruption. 

Housing was more in demand than ever, so… the price of housing goes up, and up, and up. The demand is still there, so when the opportunity presents itself to make even more money, people and institutions will do it. Given the fact that the government was at least tacitly blessing these questionable activities, if not outright threatening regulatory enforcement if companies refused to participate, many people were taken advantage of by such relatively new inventions as so-called Ninja loans (No Income, No Job and no Assets) where said loans were made when there was really no probability that it would ever be paid back. Granted, one would think that when pursuing a loan for a home that one would have adequately assessed one’s financial standing and come up with a line in the sand that was an absolute limit, knowing they could afford nothing more. You can’t argue with ignorance or sheer stupidity. 

If people are too stupid to understand what they can or cannot afford, there’s not much one can do to help. A substantial part of the problem here, and certainly a part that only served to feed the beast and make matters even worse is the “credit culture” that practically puts having as many credit cards as you want in the Bill of Rights and very bad regulations that allow banks and financial institutions to give credit cards to an unemployed homeless guy with leprosy and dementia, and then encourage him to seek even more credit. 

Credit cards are great, right? You only have to make the minimum payment each month and you can spend as much as you want – and, the more you spend the bigger your credit line seems to get. Let the reader understand that I am not making excuses, but simply relating a contributing factor. When you go into a broker and sit down to get pre-approved to buy a home and you have determined that your absolute maximum price you can afford is $200,000 you have given this a fair amount of thought. Then the broker sifting through your paperwork tells you that your assets show that you can really afford a $285,000 home. And then you start thinking about the one you saw last week that you thought was out of your price range and reconsider – and buy it. Eventually you realize too late that the broker was wrong and you were right in the first place. You default, the bank takes the house and turns around and sells it and continues to make money – that is until people stop buying houses. Then the whole bubble bursts and the ugly truth rears its head. And that is what happened leading up to the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Let me reiterate once more: I am not advocating excuses for any people who knowingly overextended themselves and ended up in foreclosure sitting under mounds of debt that they could not pay off. Fiscal responsibility is an individual responsibility, and most of us understand and adhere to it. Unfortunately there has been a general attitude of entitlement in this country for a long enough period of time that many people simply think that having credit so they can get stuff they know they cannot afford is a Constitutional right. And, it doesn’t help matters when the government steps in and acts as if this were so, creating a regulatory structure that not only encourages but forces banks and financial institutions to make loans to people it otherwise wouldn’t because of quotas and threats of enforcement of anti-discrimination statues, etc.

The people on Wall Street and those who administer the financial markets of this country are not stupid. If someone with no job, no assets, no income, and no way of ever paying off a loan can to them and asked for a loan to buy a nice house in the suburbs, under normal circumstances the banks would have turned them down flat. But the government stepped in and said, in effect, “you have to give them a loan because they deserve a home and a line of credit, and if you refuse we will have to audit your business practices.” In the beginning, the banks weren’t given a choice. In the end, they succumbed to greed as they apparently could no longer resist the temptation to get themselves in deeper and deeper, issuing more bogus loans and justifying it by the “collateral” supposedly backing up those loans. But, the wealth of the companies was measured in terms of the “pledged collateral” and assets backing up those loans, so on paper they were rolling in money. In reality they were being bled dry.

To say that the bursting of the mortgage bubble caught some off-guard is completely and utterly moronic, because common sense ought to dictate that when you make a loan to someone with no assets, job, or income, you will not be getting that money back anytime soon. The people who were making the decisions at these institutions are not by any means stupid: they knew full well what they were dealing with and what they were doing. They knew exactly the risks they were taking, and believed the potential for profit was worth the risk. And they were wrong. And they were warned many, many times.

Some people, however, apparently did see the eventual bursting of the bubble. In fact, the Bush Administration proposed some sweeping overhauls back in 2003. In a New York Times article dated Sept. 11, 2003 the Times reported that, “Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.” This was seen as “is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken.”

Furthermore, then Treasury Secretary Snow said that “Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.”

However, “The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.”

So, even though people in the know were openly acknowledging a very major problem and preparing somewhat for the inevitable downturn that they had to know would lead to a financial collapse, there was still little incentive to alter the prevailing practice of the day when both companies were exempted from antifraud provisions of federal securities laws. The result? No changes, just more debt. Freddie and Fannie continued to accrue debt and sell it to other firms, all of which were now totally on board the high-risk mortgage gravy train.

Not everyone saw a problem with this, however: “’These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,’ said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ‘The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.’'' You see, to some politicians, most of them progressive Democrats, pandering to a voting bloc is more important than the financial stability of the nation.

So for the far-left progressives who are in denial that their precious pandering policies are about to ruin the nation financially, and continue to blast the current President and any conservative thinker who would dare to question the validity of the standard progressive, or for that matter Congressional, solution of throwing as much money as possible at problems, might I inquire as to who you think will be paying for this? The progressive left blames the free market, but the real problem is that the market is not free and hasn’t been for decades due to government meddling in things it has no business meddling in. And now it owns businesses – and a ton of debt. That means YOU own a ton of debt, and you and your posterity will be responsible for paying it off because, despite its assertions to the contrary amidst the clatter printing presses running overtime in the basement of the Fed, you know and understand if you have read some of my previous articles on the subject of the government and its debt, that the Federal Government is flat broke. It has no money, and only keeps running because the Treasury auctions off that debt to the entity – or country – bidding to charge us the lowest interest rate.

This brings me to a final point. Remember that $2.3 trillion dollar figure we were discussing a while back?   Well, that seems to have changed too. Recently the Fed printed out another $180 billion to pool with other central banks from around the world and pump into the global economy. Congress will likely will approve the recommendations of Fed chief Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Paulson and authorize close to $1 trillion for a new government agency and program to by up all the bad debt in the country. It’s amazing how fast things can happen in Washington when those responsible for it realize that the proverbial you-know-what has hit the fan and splatter all over their vile and corrupt faces. You may also factor in the very real possibility of Congress approving even more that the $1 trillion figure requested so it can bail out homeowners. There will also be more industry bailouts, because now that the government kitty has been tapped, there will be no end to the number of industries holding out their hands for money.

Finally, as if the news could not get any worse, consider that a certain far-left progressive who would be President will tack on an additional 800 billion to 1 trillion dollars to these figures with new government programs. 

It is time to act sensibly here and do something about this mess before we totally implode. 

What can we do about it? For starters bombard your representatives with angry email. Flood their accounts. Flood their phone banks. If you scare them they will react, because for the most part, they are cowards. Then in early November ask yourself this question before you go to the polls: “If two quasi-government agencies and a bunch of corrupt, rotten and unaccountable politicians got us into this mess, how will the same people and more government get us out?” Then vote.

You may want to read Part I and Part II prior to reading this, as this is a multipart series.

Part III

An Economic Bermuda Triangle

Those who are to blame for this crisis are the ones who engaged in predatory lending practices and those who enabled them to do so. Who would that be? Let’s start at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and then skip on over the Capitol Hill and the White House.

Who’s been working over at Freddie and Fannie? Funny you should ask that. According to the Investors Business Daily, when “Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud. Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million. Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses. In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.” Hey – isn’t that the same Jaime Gorelick who was on the 9/11 Commission? And isn’t that Franklin Raines the same guy who was Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget under Clinton? Coincidence, or...?

Below is a list obtained from OpenSecrets.org: 

Top 12 Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

Name                             Office State Party     Grand Total    Total  PACs   Total Individuals 

1. Dodd, Christopher J     S         CT        D          $165,400      $48,500           $116,900

2. Obama, Barack            S          IL         D          $126,349      $6,000            $120,349

3. Kerry, John                  S          MA      D          $111,000      $2,000             $109,000

4. Bennett, Robert F         S         UT       R           $107,999      $71,499            $36,500

5. Bachus, Spencer           H         AL       R            $103,300      $70,500          $32,800

6. Blunt, Roy                   H         MO      R            $96,950       $78,500             $18,450

7. Kanjorski, Paul E        H          PA      D            $96,000        $57,500            $38,500

8. Bond, Christopher S    S          MO     R            $95,400        $64,000            $31,400

9. Shelby, Richard C       S          AL       R           $80,000        $23,000             $57,000

10. Reed, Jack                  S          RI        D           $78,250        $43,500           $34,750

11. Reid, Harry                S          NV       D           $77,000        $60,500           $16,500

12. Clinton, Hillary          S          NY       D           $76,050        $8,000              $68,050

Nancy Pelosi is number 17 on the list. The full list names just about everybody in both houses of Congress. Get the picture? 

At the very least since the Clinton Administration took power, and likely long before – like circa 1970 – there has been a financial Bermuda triangle between the White House, Congress and Freddie and Fannie. Money and power and influence and corruption swirl round and round, yet the data, evidence and memories of those involved in government sanctioned corruption seems to just disappear into thin air – especially when the good times go bad and someone else has to be blamed. It seems that it is always the same people involved in making your money disappear – and right into their own bank accounts in one way or another. Ah, the revolving doors of Washington DC!

When you look at this list of politicians who took Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae contributions over the last twelve years and read their names and party affiliations, one quickly realizes that the spirit of bipartisanship is indeed alive and well, at least when it comes to taking campaign contributions from quasi-government agencies chartered by Congress, certainly with that potentiality in mind.  

The whole list it is very incriminating to politicians of both parties. It is interesting to note, however, that most of the high dollar recipients were Democrats. This by no means absolves the Republicans - in fact it damns them. Not the number one recipient of these contributions, Senator Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. This Senator also received a sweetheart deal on a loan, as it turns out. Surprised? You needn’t be, because he is not alone. 

According to Portfolio.com, “Kent Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota, chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the Finance Committee, refinanced properties through Countrywide’s “V.I.P.” program in 2003 and 2004, according to company documents.”

Here’s something else that won’t surprise you, because the MSM and the Democrat Party don’t want you to know about it, lest your feathers get a bit ruffled. “Other participants in the V.I.P. program included former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, and former U.N. ambassador and assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke. Jackson was deputy H.U.D. secretary in the Bush administration when he received the loans in 2003. Shalala, who received two loans in 2002, had by then left the Clinton administration for her current position as president of the University of Miami. She is scheduled to receive a Presidential Medal of Freedom on June 19.”

Have you noticed anything that these folks, I mean crooks, have in common. They all worked… for a certain guy… at a particular address on Pennsylvania Avenue… Have you figured out the connection yet? Here’s one more clue just to help you out: “James Johnson, who had been advising presidential candidate Barack Obama on the selection of a running mate, resigned from the Obama campaign after the Wall Street Journal reported that he received Countrywide loans at below-market rates.”

There are many, many more. All of these former high ranking government officials who worked for a particular Democrat who served two terms between 1992 and 2000, and who received VIP treatment were referred to in Countrywide company emails and documents as “FOA”s, or Friends of Angelo – Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo. 

It appears, again according to Portfolio, that Angelo had many, many friends in very high places. “Henry Cisneros, who served as secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Clinton administration; former White House staffer Paul Begala, now a commentator on CNN; and Postmaster General John Potter. Countrywide also offered special discounts to Congressional staffers involved in housing issues.”

Angelo’s tentacles were far reaching: Countrywide spent over $1.5 lobbying Capitol Hill in 2005. Here’s an interesting anecdote. “Jimmie Williams, a Countrywide lobbyist in Washington, was remarkably candid in emails about the purpose of V.I.P. loans. In November 2002, for instance, Williams urged Feinberg’s boss, Doug Perry, to give “specialized handling” to an application from a staff lawyer for the House subcommittee that monitors the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD regulates real estate settlements and closing costs and runs the Federal Housing Administration, the agency that guarantees mortgages. Williams pointed out that Clinton Jones III, senior counsel of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, was “also an adviser to ranking Republican members of Congress responsible for legislation of interest to the financial services industry and of importance to Countrywide.” Jones borrowed $101,800. So what. Who is this Clinton Jones, anyway?

Clinton Jones III is now vice president for industry relations at Fannie Mae. The lobbyist, Williams, is currently state director for federal residential-mortgage bundler Freddie Mac – you know, the guys who bundles up all this bad debt and sells it to firms on Wall Street. Also worthy of note is the fact that depending on the year, Fannie Mae bought anywhere from 10 to 30 percent of its loans from Countrywide, which they would bundle with other bad loans and then sell again. Are you holding your nose yet? Wait – there’s still more! 

Many current and former Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae executives received VIP loans from Countrywide. Former Fannie Mae C.E.O. James Johnson was given home loans at relatively low interest rates, and Countrywide waived points for him. In fact, company documents show that after leaving Fannie Mae, Johnson received more than $7 million in VIP loans. Just in case you forgot, that’s the same James Johnson who Senator Barack Obama appointed to vet his potential VP candidates. I think you get the point.

These were the just some of the players involved in the high-risk mortgage game. Granted, many of these people just named would have no problems paying back the loans, but when one is given such VIP treatments and so many of these types of VIP loans are made that may preclude a company such as Countrywide from adequately covering its costs, who do you think that cost gets passed on to. Did your Countrywide mortgage rate increase over the last couple of years? Mine did. Gee, I wonder why?

So, you had at least one major mortgage company giving away sweetheart deals to those who wield political power and leaving the rest of us to make up the difference coupled with pressure from the Clinton Administration to approve loans to millions of people who couldn’t afford them and shouldn’t have been given loans and lines of credit in the first place. What, then, do you have? According to the left you have a conspiracy theory, for it is understood in official circles that there were no Democrats involved. That means the MSM doesn’t tell you about it – so you have to hunt around to find the information, even though everyone in Washington knows who did what.

According to Politico, Nancy Pelosi had this to say “Eight years of weakened regulation of our nation’s financial system — including a failure to regulate risky, and often predatory, lending practices — by the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress have led us to this point, and could further erode our nation’s economic health.”

Doesn’t seem to jive, now does it? Remember too that Pelosi has a vested interest in NOT being found complicit I this scandal – she’s Speaker of the House and number 17 on the recipients list for Freddie and Fannie. Funny how these things always seem to triangulate in Washington, isn’t it? 

Obviously, if you’re thinking that there might be some hearings on this little matter of our entire financial sector imploding, you can forget it. The left will blame Bush and McCain and the MSM will ignore the inconvenient fact that Obama is up to his ears in this mess – if for nothing else than really, really bad judgment in appointing or having anything whatsoever to do with a miscreant like Johnson. If everyone is making some money, then all is well among the corrupted elite; no harm, no foul, right? That is at least if you’re the DC insiders making the money, cutting the deals, brokering power and influence, and covering your tracks – or at least trying to.

So, as the financial feeding frenzy really ramped up, Freddie, Fannie and the bulk of the remaining major lenders began delving into the high-risk loan market and issuing lines of credit and approving loans for more and more people who shouldn’t have had them while jumping in bed with Congress and the apparently the whole former Clinton White House. They just couldn’t control themselves, I guess, with the potential sitting there for such huge, monetary gains and political favors waiting to be granted. 

Part II

Here’s the Deal-eo

Before I get into the down-and-dirty politically-incorrect reality of what is presently transpiring in the national cesspool known to most people as Washington DC, let me first provide the reader with a breakdown of where we are so far. The government has thus far exceeded its Constitutional authority in bailing out the following companies and financial institutions: Bear Stearns $29 billion; Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae $200 billion initially (with a potential ceiling of $1.5 trillion, yes, trillion, due to the debt they carry); AIG 85 billion; the “officially” acknowledged version of the federal deficit $400 billion; loans floated to various other smaller banks and institutions, plus FDIC replenishment $109.6 billion. Put this all together and as of today we’ve just tacked another $1.2 trillion onto the taxpayer’s bill. 

But it gets better, as we may as well just factor in the actual debt that Fannie and Freddie have accrued, $1.5 trillion, because you and I both know the bottom line is that when the government steps in to pay for something, they pay the full asking price. So the real number up to $2.3 trillion. But we’re not done yet. Far from it. You know that “official” deficit figure of $400 billion? Well, that does not include the obligatory welfare/nanny-state social and financial programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, federal education loans, grants and the like. Oh, and don’t forget the trade deficit where we lose big to foreign tariffs and, of course, the interest we will ultimately have to pay to all those other corporations and foreign central banks who are buying up US debt auctioned off by the Treasury like candy. So just keep that little $2.3 trillion kiss-in-the-mail in the back of your mind and understand that the actual figure is far, far higher. 

On September 15 the Investors Business Daily published an Op-Ed piece called, “The Real Culprits In This Meltdown.” This piece sums up the current financial crisis nicely and places the proper blame exactly where it ought to be placed – on those people who were responsible and complicit in the criminal activity that resulted in the unprecedented action of the US Government nationalizing industry. 

First off, let us understand exactly what was the catalyst of this mess. Subprime lending is a high-stakes financial game played by massive financial institutions, most notably Freddie and Fannie, where loans are made with the higher expectation of risk and are therefore made with a higher interest rate than normal. This means loans are made to people or entities that the lender understands may not be able to pay back, and so a higher interest rate is the price of the loans. If the loan is paid back the lender wins big. But if the loan is defaulted upon, the lender loses all.

The notion of subprime lending generally refers to those types of loans in categories apart from those specified in loan guidelines established by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which is a bit of irony seeing as the whole problem snowballed from these two institutions. Loans would be considered subprime due to several factors including, but not limited to, income, income and job history, and the credit status of the borrower. “Subprime” also denotes bank loans taken on property that cannot be sold on the primary market and such lending encompasses a variety of credit instruments, including mortgages, car loans, and, of course, the all-American staple that those with no money just can’t do without, credit cards.

Now that we understand what we are talking about, let us move on.

Let’s jump back in time to the late 1970s for a moment. You remember it, don’t you? The booming economy, massive economic development, national pride abounding, and all under the leadership of the best President that the United States that has ever had: Jimmy Carter! You remember that little gem he got Congress to pass called the Community Redevelopment Act that was meant to promote minority home ownership? Well, that particular piece of legislation was employee by the Clinton Administration fro the first days he was in office to ensure that he could declare how he was the champion of the poor and of minorities and how it was he who was able to provide them with “affordable housing.” Do you know what “affordable housing” is? “Affordable housing” is when people who can’t afford it buy a house and you and I pay for it. 

So, Clinton used this legislation to pander to minorities and the poor. In doing so, he also put the full weight of the Federal Government behind it so as to “encourage” lenders to “help” the “less fortunate” to obtain “affordable housing.”   What that really means is that Clinton resurrected the Community Redevelopment Act and to make good on his campaign promise to provide said “affordable housing,” it quickly became well understood that every lender had to make “affordable loans” “available” to basically anyone who was not of white Anglo decent who wanted one. Of you were a lender, you did not want to turn anyone down, because then you were subjecting yourself to bearing the full brunt of the US Government penal code as enforced by the relevant agencies. You could be investigated for anything from “unfair” loan practices to racism and discrimination, and as we all remember after Waco and Elian Gonzales, Janet Reno was more that anxious to wield her power.

Caught up in the hysteria of the typical liberal obsessions of enforcing multiculturalism and pandering to the poor, the Administration was more than willing to levy hefty fines and other penalties on those who did not share the Administration’s enthusiasm for such high risk lending. Any anyone who does not think that such conditions not only enable but strongly encourage predatory lending practices – that is lending to people that you know will never be able to pay it back – needs to pull their head out of their hind-side and get with the reality of the actual situation as it was and as it presently is.

Part I

Here We Go Again…

OK. By now you’ve probably heard that the US government has seized control of yet another failing company, AIG and the Federal Reserve is going float them a sustenance loan to the tune of $85 billion. The government will have 79.9% control of the company and the loan must be will be repaid in 24 months, at an interest rate of 11.56%.

When the Fed and the Treasury and the President’s “economic working-group” decided on this course of action, they did not call Congress for approval. This is a big deal, and just in case you don’t know, Congress and Congress alone holds the purse strings of this nation’s government. Per the Constitution, no monies in the Federal treasury can be appropriated without the approval of the Congress. Not only did the Fed in it’s infinite wisdom opt not to contact the Congress and even inform it that they had decided upon another multi-billion dollar bailout for AIG, they also talked with a bunch of central banks from around the world and decided to inject $180 billion into the global monetary system.

But don’t worry, because according to the government they didn’t really need to get approval from Congress to do this because they were not going to spend money we already had, they just printed more! Get the picture?

Did You Know…

Let me put this as clearly and succinctly as I can: there is nothing Federal about the Federal Reserve. It is not a branch of the US Government. It is a bank. It is a central bank of the exact type that our Founding Fathers warned not to create. It is an entity that operates entirely outside of the constraints and limitations of the Constitution because it is entirely unconstitutional. It is completely and utterly unconstitutional, yet is the de facto controlling agency of the US Government. Congress is supposed to hold the purse strings, yet it is the fed that routinely dictates to the Congress what it intends to do, and then summarily receives a blessing to do so. It operates with impunity, and you and I pay the price it’s activity incurs.

An article entitled U.S. to Take Over AIG notes that: “It puts the government in control of a private insurer - a historic development, particularly considering that AIG isn't directly regulated by the federal government. The Fed took the highly unusual step using legal authority granted in the Federal Reserve Act, which allows it to lend to nonbanks under ‘unusual and exigent’ circumstances, something it invoked when Bear Stearns Cos. was rescued in March.”

Some economic analysts and talking heads are speculating that this could be a good thing – that when the loan is repaid, the government will actually make money on the deal because of the steep interest rate. They must be assuming that the loan will actually be repaid. And you know what happens when you assume, right? They think this is a good thing because they have totally lost sight of the fact that the US Government has absolutely no Constitutional authority whatsoever to seize control of a privately owned business and bail it out with taxpayer money.  

What is going on here is sheer, unadulterated, unconstitutional, government-run-amok madness, and its high time we took the gloves off and stopped dancing around the issue of why we are here in the first place, and start naming it for what it is. And naming names. We may as well do that here in the blogosphere, because you sure as hell know that these subjects and names of the people responsible for this mess will never, ever, come before Congress. I don’t think I need to tell you why.

Elections are as funny and entertaining as they are serious, and if you can’t find the humor in this stuff you’d better make sure you don’t miss taking your blood pressure medicine, because the differences between the candidates in this race are indeed striking, and the very future of our republic hangs in the balance.

Politicians are funny too – especially Senators and anyone running for President.  You’ve got to expect gaffes and goofs and stupid things.  And you ought to laugh at them, if for no other reason, than because it’s good for the soul.  But I digress…

Don’t you just love watching the elite intelligentsia try to relate to us every four years?  I do – I can’t get enough of this stuff!  Now, GOP and Democrat candidates have markedly different ways by which they demonstrate that they are just like us.  The Republican multi-millionaires will dress casual, which means they don’t wear a tie with their slacks, blazer and loafers; and they’ll go to local coffee shops and restaurants and talk to the folks and try their best to come off as a regular Joe or Jane.  Sometimes the GOP candidates from the plains or the west even wear jeans. Oh, audacity of hope!

The Democrats are more fun I their approach.  Bars and rodeos.  I mean, what normal, average, everyday American doesn’t like bars or rodeos?  We’re talking proletarian-paradise here.  Corn-dogs, beer, cowboy hats and, of course, don’t forget the rodeo clowns wearing cowboy hats!  Ah, Americana at its best!  And speaking of clowns in cowboy hats, I’ll tell you, when I saw the image of Senator Obama in a cowboy hat doing his best John Wayne, I just couldn’t help but be moved.  No, no, not that kind of movement – and not the “tingly-leg” thing either.  It was more of a moment of self-reflection and identity.  It was like I jumped out of myself because it was like I was looking at myself, you know?  I just wanted to scream out, “WOW!  He’s just like me!  This progressive, socialist leaning liberal Democrat understands ME!  Hallelujah!  Hallelujah!  HE IS JUST LIKE ME!  This man GETS IT!”

And he’s into electronic devices, too, although I admittedly kind of lost my enthusiasm momentarily when I thought about how I only have a little Razor cell phone and therefore can’t really relate to a guy with a few million dollars in his pocket who can bring a teleprompter to the rodeo.  But I digress yet again…

Seriously though, when is the last time you saw even a closet socialist wearing a cowboy hat?  I can only think back to when Gorby visited Reagan’s ranch in California and when Khrushchev visited President Eisenhower in 1959 and stuffed his face with good old American corn (because they didn’t grow enough in the Soviet Union, maybe?).

I also got a chuckle thinking about something else: Mike Dukakis sitting down on the T on his way into Boston, holding his latte-frappa-doosie, and opening his Boston Globe only to see Senator Obama’s picture in the cowboy hat there staring at him.  Yes, one need only muster a little imagination to guess what was going through the Duke’s mind as he reacted to the photo of Obama as if it were saying, “Howdy pilgrim.”   Can you picture him thinking back to the photo that killed his campaign as he bolted out of his seat shrieking, “NOOOOOOOOOOOO!” before collapsing back into the seat and leaning his head against the window, silently watching the suburbs pass by and lamenting yet another lost opportunity to advance the cause of the Proletariat.  Yeah, kind of makes you smile, huh?

Oh, the lamentations of the Duke!  “How could this be?”  I don’t know.  I wonder if Obama had ever seen that photo of Dukakis in the tank.  I mean 1988 was only 20 years ago.  Well, maybe Obama was too busy organizing communities and multiplying fish and loaves for the downtrodden masses to have seen the picture.  Oh, yeah, and in his spare time he was probably in church praying for the rise of world socialism and rejecting middle-classness, and fist-bumping Jeremiah Wright after his radical sermons, after which he would read and memorize Saul Alinsky books.  And when he went on to Harvard he was still far too busy to seek out the Duke for his political savvy and advice for the future.  Not to mention the fact that the Duke taught at Northeastern after the election, and no respectful member of the Harvard elite intelligentsia would be caught dead hanging out in the Fens at Northeastern.  Please!

Yep, that Barak Obama, why he’s just like me, and I can really relate to him, except for all that money he has, and the radical black liberation theology to which he subscribes, and the degree from Harvard, and the “community organizer” thing, and his proclivity toward socialism.  Oh, and the teleprompter at the rodeo.  Yep, just like me!  Yes we can! Hope! Change, change, change!  Yes we can!

You know, come to think of it, I think I can actually relate a little bit better to Dukakis - at least the Duke was in the Army for real, long before the photo ops.

McCAIN AND OBAMA CAMPAIGNS

With the expected news of a poll-bounce for the GOP in the wake of the Republican National Convention comes the unexpected, albeit much welcomed news for conservatives that the McCain-Palin ticket has pulled ahead of Obama-Biden. Real Clear Politics averaged the major poll results and came out with McCain at 48.0% and Obama at 45.6%, a 2.8% lead for McCain. The pollsters from whom these averaged results were taken ranged from CNN/Opinion Research and Rasmussen Tracking polls showing the two candidates tied at 48%, to a USA Today/Gallup poll showing McCain ahead by ten points at 54% to Obama’s 44%.

Clearly the McCain-Palin ticket has succeeded in stealing Obama’s thunder, but a 2.8% lead is still a statistical dead-heat, and although the GOP ought well to take a measure of pride in surpassing Obama in the polls for the time being, gloating and/or complacency could prove fatal.   Momentum has shifted, but the deal is far from sealed. So how does the McCain-Palin ticket seal the deal? This is a difficult question with many potential answers.

First, it is noteworthy that in the weeks prior to the Republican National Convention Obama was generally the frontrunner. The week just after to the Democrat convention in Denver saw Obama ahead by as many as 8 percentage points (Gallup). The week prior to the DNC event in Denver revealed a general trend of an Obama lead, but that lead only ranged between 1 and 4 percentage points. This is significant, because in the weeks beginning 01 July and ending 25 August, Obama was up as high as 9 percentage points the week of 13 July, but averaged only a 4 to 5 percentage point lead until the week of the Democrat convention. In the days immediately following the Democrat convention Gallup Tracking and CBS had Obama with an 8 percentage point lead over McCain, while Hotline/FD gave him a 9 percentage point lead. On the low end, a CNN poll result showed Obama with only a 1 percentage point lead that week.

PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL

Why is this significant? It is significant because at no point in the several weeks leading up to the Democrat National Convention was Obama leaving McCain in the dust, which is what one would expect if things in this country were perceived as being really as bad as Obama campaigns on. Indeed, there is real discontent with President Bush as he currently has a 32.8% approval rating with 64.0% of voters polled indicating disapproval of his administration. With a disapproval rating twice that of the incumbent Republican’s approval rating, one would rightly assume that voters should be flocking to Obama in droves. Despite the messianic coverage of Obama by the mainstream media, this is apparently not the case; and, this is a very interesting thing, because in general, one can view approval ratings and disapproval ratings of the incumbent President as a referendum on the party as a whole during a combined general and presidential election year. 

This next set of numbers, however, is very telling about the current electoral climate when looked at in context with numbers cited above.

CONGRESS AND GENERAL ELECTION PREDICTIONS

First is the Real Clear Politics Congressional Job Approval average of four polls over the period from 12 to 31 August. The RCP average gives Congress a meager 17.8% approval rating and a staggering 73.8 disapproval rating. The approval ratings for Congress were as follows: Quinnipiac from 08/12 to 08/17 16%; LA Times/Bloomberg from 08/15 to 08/18 17%; Hotline/FD from 08/29 to 08/31 at 18%; and FOX News from 08/19 to 08/20 at 20%. The disapproval ratings show FOX News and LA Times/Bloomberg at 73%, Quinnipiac at 74%, and Hotline/FD at 75%. 

This next set of numbers is very telling, again when taken in context with the previous results. 

The polls for use in predicting the emerging trends for the general Congressional electoral results for November averaged by Real Clear Politics from 15 August through 07 September give Democrats a 5.4 point advantage with 45.8% of the vote over the Republicans an average of 40.4%. The two extremes were the NBC News/Wall St. Journal poll conducted between 08/15 and 08/18 that show Democrats likely gaining 47% which is 11 percentage points above the Republicans 36%. The other extreme was the USA Today/Gallup poll conducted between 09/05 and 09/07 showing the Republicans up 5 percentage points likely gaining 50% of the vote to the Democrats 45%. It is noteworthy that the remaining three polls in the RCP average, Democracy Corps, Hotline/FD, and FOX News showed marked advantage for the Democrats, with that party polling ahead 5, 7, and 9 percentage points, respectively. 

SUMMARY

1. Emerging trends for the General Election: Beginning with the last batch of numbers, these clearly show that the Democrat Party has the overall advantage going into the November general Congressional election with the combined RCP average showing them up 5.4 percentage points over Republicans. Clearly the result demonstrates a widespread dissatisfaction with both Congress and the Republican Party. This is interesting because it is indicative of a distorted perception that the Democrats in Congress are doing a better job that the Republicans, when this is clearly not the case as evidenced by the Congressional approval ratings.

2. Congressional Job Approval: The interesting factor here is that the Democrat Party is the majority party in Congress that the polls show overwhelming dissatisfaction with. Congress gets a 73.8% overall disapproval rating and is ruled by the Democrat Party, yet the emerging trends above show this same party with a 5.4 percentage point advantage over Republicans going into the general election.

3. Presidential Approval: President Bush and his Republican Administration are disapproved of by voters by a margin of 2 to1, or 64.0% overall disapproval to 32.8% overall approval.

4. Presidential Campaigns: On 7/01 Obama had a 5.9 percentage point lead over McCain. His lead decreased to 2.3% on 8/04, and then climbing back to 4.8% on 8/12, dipping to 1.2% on 8/20 the week prior to the Democratic convention and then climbing to 6.4% on 9/02. Immediately upon entering into the Republican convention, and following the significant development of McCain announcing Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, Obama’s numbers began to fall off from a 6.4% lead on 9/02 and continued to drop as momentum appears, at least for now, to have shifted to the McCain camp with a 2.4% lead as of 9/08.

CONCLUSIONS

Clearly this is as tight a race as has been in recent history, with the poll results showing mostly a statistical dead heat once these polls are averaged together. What is certain is that the announcement of Sarah Palin’s addition to the Republican ticket served to give the GOP a definitive boost in the numbers, and once both candidates’ acceptance speeches were delivered at the GOP convention, erased Obama’s lead and put the McCain camp ahead. This is largely due to the fact that Palin is viewed by the conservative base of associated with the Republican Party as a solid conservative, fiscally and socially, and is also seen as a true reformer with a proven record.

That notwithstanding, the McCain ticket is clearly hurt to some degree to whatever extend the Obama-Biden camp can sell the argument that McCain is the equivalent of President Bush, a fellow Republican with a 64.0% disapproval rating. This is where things get as interesting as they do confusing. While the high rate of dissatisfaction with President Bush and his administration can be understood as a referendum on the entire Republican Party, and so while it is no surprise that the polling for emerging trends and predictions for the general Congressional elections gives the advantage to the Democrats, the advantage is not as large as one would think, a mere 5.4 percentage points. What is truly interesting here is the fact that Congressional disapproval ratings are averaged at 73.8%, down only slightly from a high of 77% in July. 

What this data show is that the country is still sharply divided politically. But what is more surprising is that given the increasing overall dissatisfaction with President Bush, the numbers have not swung more steeply in favor of Democrats. The data suggest a strong distrust of both parties as evidenced by the President’s disapproval rating, but no solid referendum for a different direction even while the RCP average taken between 08/19 and 09/07 that only 20.0% approve of the direction the nation is going in, with 75.7% disapproving.

For McCain, this is all good news and for Obama it is worthy of concern. For both campaigns it is worthy of very careful attention and much reflection. Obama, a highly charismatic person and eloquent speaker, has yet to complete the sale to the American voters. Given the state of dissatisfaction with government in general, Obama ought to be clobbering McCain, and yet he has barely pulled out a lead better than a statistical dead heat when all the poll results are averaged together.

McCain has seen momentum shift in his favor, and this is largely due to his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, he acceptance speech, and his follow up acceptance speech which reassured the conservative base by telling them what they needed to hear to get behind the ticket, and making an appeal to undecided voters. What is certain is that prior to the GOP convention, most conservatives were very leery about McCain and if even inclined to support his candidacy did so only grudgingly and as an affront to Obama. 

What is equally certain is that by choosing a staunch conservative reformer who is solid on social and fiscal issues of concern to the conservative base, who is relatively unknown and who is a woman has undeniably galvanized and energized that same base and thereby the whole of Republican Party. McCain drastically increases his chances at victory if he stays to the right, and in picking Palin he has signaled his intent to do exactly that. What the campaign needs to do next is to take the message to the people that the Democrats are the majority party in the Congress they so disdain and hammer the point home with voters to disassociate the Republicans from the failures of a Democrat controlled Congress.

McCain must also be careful not to be perceived as being George W. Bush redux, which ought not be too difficult a task; especially in making the case that he and Palin are the candidates of real reform and change, especially on wasteful government spending. If McCain-Palin can accomplish these things, they can easily beat Obama in November. The conservative base is largely on board now, and so the sale needs to be taken to the undecided’s and independents. 

Clearly the Palin pick has put Obama-Biden in a box in a way they never saw coming, and they are still reeling and assessing what is the best move and direction to proceed. McCain put them there and only he can keep them there. Right now it’s his race to lose, though far from over.