Upper-Income Taxpayers Look for Ways to Sidestep Obama Tax-Hikes

From ABC


President Barack Obama's tax proposal – which promises to increase taxes for those families with incomes of $250,000 or more -- has some Americans brainstorming ways to decrease their pay, even if it's just by a dollar. "



This isn't really news. What is interesting is the poll ABC attaches to this article, which asks: VOTE: IS IT FAIR TO REDUCE YOUR SALARY TO AVOID TAXES?



Fortunately, most answered yes. But I want to know why they even asked the question. Is the phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" now an American ideal? Is it now considered "unfair" not to produce just as much so more of it can be taken by force and given to others? Collectivism doesn't just want your money, but your life. It's slavery, period. Atlas Shrugged is becoming more relevant by the day.



"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." - John Galt



"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low aspossible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays thetreasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinisterin so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands." - Judge Learned Hand

The Media's Top 10 Worst Economic Myths of 2008

The media has a leftist agenda to be sure. But what makes them truly dangerous is their constant socialist, anti-free enterprise propaganda based on lies and convenient myths. The Business Media Institute has compiled the 10 worst of 2008:

10. Capitalism is dead or dying.
9. Gas at $4-a-gallon, blame the oil companies.
8. Fannie’s failure
7. Barack Obama sends stocks soaring, but not sinking.
6. Alternative energy: All gain, no pain
5. The economy has a fever and the only prescription is more bailouts.
4. Attack of the Killer Tomatoes
3. Oil prices will skyrocket to $200 a barrel, gas to $15.
2. Welcome to 1929: Great Depression II
1. America needs a new, New Deal.

Number 1 is the most important now as Obama and his congressional sidekicks get ready to repeat the failed dictatorial and socialist policies of FDR. They are banking that Americans will believe the most enduring economic myth of all - that FDR knew what the hell he was doing. He didn't.

Here it is:

1. America needs a new, New Deal.
Media myth: Time magazine and other media outlets pushed the idea that Obama must be the next FDR, but they are misrepresenting the impact of the New Deal.

Imagine the classic image of FDR sitting in his car grinning, with a cigarette perched from his mouth. Now imagine it had the face and hands of president-elect Barack Obama instead of FDR.

No, it wasn’t a dream – it was the cover of Time magazine on Nov. 24 which made it clear the media had crowned Obama the new FDR and wanted him to institute a new New Deal.

The photo illustration of Obama and FDR came with a headline that declared: “The New New Deal: What Barack Obama can learn from F.D.R. – and what the Democrats need to do.”

But even before Obama was elected, journalists were looking for FDR. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked before the election, “who’s gonna be FDR as opposed to Herbert Hoover?”

In a discussion of economic stimulus packages, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos said on Oct. 19 that he thought Obama “would want to do something like what FDR did in 1932.”

Guests and experts also sounded the call. On CNN, Jeffrey Sachs of the Earth Institute at Columbia University called for a revamped New Deal more than once. Sachs was a favorite expert of CNN in October appearing on 10 of the first 23 days of the month.

But what news reporters, anchors and guest didn’t tell viewers is that according to several economists FDR’s New Deal actually prolonged and deepened the Great Depression.

In a 2004 study, two University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) economists found that FDR’s policies lengthened the suffering of the Depression by seven years. The two economists specifically blamed anti-free market measures including the National Industrial Recover Act (NIRA) and later the National Relations Act.

Another free-market economist who has written about FDR’s negative impact on the economy is Robert Higgs. Higgs told the Business & Media Institute that a new, New Deal would be disastrous. “I cannot imagine a worse course of action, short of outright socialization of the entire economy. The measures comprised in a new New Deal will not hasten general economic recovery, but will only bulk up the power of government and transfer income to privileged interest groups at the expense of taxpayers and consumers,” Higgs said.”

Killing Off Capitalism

WASHINGTON -- Congress and the White House inched toward a financial rescue of the Big Three auto makers, negotiating legislation that would give the U.S. government a substantial ownership stake in the industry and a central role in its restructuring.

Nowhere in the constitution does the government have the right to own the means of production, which is the very definition of Socialism. The management and shareholders are willing to sell their capitalist souls in order to avoid the uncertainty of the bankruptcy courts.

In return their companies will be run by politicians, whose interests do not include sound business practices and the taxpayers will yet again pay the price for their incompetence. Even the French finally saw the folly of a sclerotic government attempting to compete in a worldwide competitive market when it privatized Renault.

Socialism is not only immoral, it never works. But their are always power hungry statists who believe they are the gifted enough to do the impossible.

Most of the cars I've owned have been American. If this Anti-American plan goes through, I wont buy another one again.

This is only the beginning. When Democrats take full control of the Government, we will go headlong down the road to economic destruction and the loss of liberty.

The Triumph of The Eco-Marxists

Barack Obama gave a speech to the Bi-Partisan Governors Climate Summit
that was full of the typical boilerplate lies of the Global Warming hoax along with the predictable solutions of an even more heavy handed government.

He will get his way and this nonsense will be piled on top of a fragile economy already crippled by government meddling and social engineering. And the only solutions on the table is more of the same. The enslavement of the populous by the fascist/socialist elite is almost complete. The irony is that most of the slaves voted for it:

"Few challenges facing America - and the world - are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We've seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season."

This is the most audacious use of the Big Lie in history. Non - Scientists Obama, AlGore and their Eco-Marxist allies either wilfully ignore contrary views or ridicule and blacklist detractors with propaganda from the lap dog media. Obama and his leftist congress along with useful idiot Republicans have vowed to address this mythical problem through higher taxes and energy costs, more regulation and less individual liberty.

Nevertheless, 31,000 American scientists alone have signed the following petition:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

We also have this extensive list of real experts that are skeptical at best of this "crisis". It also comes as no surprise that the True Believers refuse to subject their claims to even the most basic requirements of Scientific Theory.

In fact, not one person has stepped to claim the $500,000 prize in The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge:

$500,000 will be awarded to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming. The winning entry will specifically reject both of the following two hypotheses:

UGWC Hypothesis 1
Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.

UGWC Hypothesis 2
The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered."

Here's some video from The Great Global Warming Swindle.



More Info and Links at Junk Science

Tax Takers Aren't Doing Their Fair Share

Have you ever heard a Democrat seriously talk about the government doing with less? Of course not since the state is the secular church and that would be blasphemy. IBD gives us some facts:

..."Sacrifice" is evidently not lacking on the tax side of the federal
fiscal equation. The spending side is a different story, however.
If there is a lack of "sacrifice," it lies not with the taxpayers but with the "tax takers."...

...Washington's talk of "sacrifice" is no more than a stalking horse in the left's hunt for higher taxes. This call for higher taxes is not so much about funding the war against terrorism as it is about the left's desire to use the tax code to redistribute income.

The contrast between taxes and spending during the current and past three conflicts could not be starker. And it could not demonstrate more clearly the left's divergent view of taxes. It differs fundamentally from the rest of America's. For most, taxes are a necessary evil as disagreeable and inevitable as death.

For the left, they are a good to be pursued, a means to an end. Not simply needed to expand government, they are sought to smooth the perceived inequities arising from a market economy's distribution of wealth.

Washington's call for "sacrifice" therefore rings hollow on every front.

Here Comes the Tyrants

Obama wins and now we will have a President who is at best ambivalent about his own country, its history and its very constitution. He will have the cooperation of a like minded congress that will move swiftly towards as much more government control of the individual in every aspect of life.

** The best example so far of Democrat congressional arrogance and contempt for dissent is Jim Moran who decries "the simplistic notion that those who have wealth are entitled to keep it." He then goes on to berate those who would even suggest that Democrats had any responsibility for the mortgage crisis. Expect a lot more of this intolerance and heavy handedness. This is what you get when ask government to improve your life by force.






Chuck Schumer has already started to justify coming attempts at censorship by setting up an incoherent and illogical comparison of talk radio to pornography.




These are just two examples of the type of dictatorial high-handed attitude we will see constantly from an imperious Democrat controlled federal government. Remember, to them the state is the church and to question the hierarchy is blasphemy

Obama vs Obama

Here's a video from Mary Katharine Ham that will go into the I told you so file should The One get elected. What's more frightening than the bad lying is that Obama's head is so far up his ass he doesn't know which end is up.

Obama: Bankrupt 49% Of Our Energy

"So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted."

When a Presidential talks about bankrupting any U.S. company or industry, it should disqualify him for any high office, much less the Presidency. Unfortunately there may be a majority of Americans who either A) Don't know anything about The One other than he's The One or B) Are ignorant of economics, history and just about everything else and actually think his statist philosophies are a good idea. Or C) Do know all this and will vote for him anyway because they don't believe a collectivist dictatorship could happen here. Yeah, well they thought that in Russia, Germany, Cuba, Zimbabwe and hundreds of other places.

The coal industry has responded:

"Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America's coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it...

"It's evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state's voters.

Gee! Ya think?

Moving on, Obama tells us that he actually does understand something about economics:

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

And then from the above video we have more plans from Lord Obama to dictate how we should live.

Q: How do you convince people to change their lifestyles, to live differently, or to turn the question on its ear, are voters ahead of the politicians on this stuff? Do they get it, and maybe the politicians don’t?
A: Well, I think, uh, I think voters do understand it. I think it is important for us to send some price signals to change behavior.

This is the crux of Obama's economic philosophy. Use the tax and regulatory structure to force individuals into behaving the way the anointed believes they should. It will never stop, it never does. Statists like Obama see individualism and free will as a threat to their power and their unrelenting quest to re-order society to their liking.

If you accept the notion that it's government's role to tell you how much energy to use, then why not the food you eat, the place you live or the things you say or believe?

Here's more from Comrade Obama telling us that Electricity will "necessarily have to skyrocket".

Obama Plans to Lower Expectations

From the London Times:

"Barack Obama’s senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week’s election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harbouring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve. The sudden financial crisis and the prospect of a deep and painful recession have increased the urgency inside the Obama team to bring people down to earth, after a campaign in which his soaring rhetoric and promises of “hope” and “change” are now confronted with the reality of a stricken economy."

Sudden financial crisis my arse. Obama's promises have never passed the smell test and there never was a way to raise the $450 billion or so needed annually f0r his $4.2 trillion worth of a harebrained schemes, no matter what the economy does.

His tax hikes on the "rich", the definition of which gets lower by the day, don't even begin to make a dent in the current debt much less the socialist nonsense The One has been peddling. It's the spending, stupid.

I guess Obama has concluded that he's wrapped up as much of the Bubblehead vote as he's going to get with his snake oil economics. Now he's trying to figure out the least damaging way of putting the shiv in their backs.

Lil' Obama Spreads the Wealth

And then we have Obama misleading his ignorant followers with this defense of his socialist plans for legalized theft:

"By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten," Obama joked before an estimated crowd of 28,000 people. "I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

No Barry. When you voluntary share your toys and PB&J with others we call that charity and kindness. When you force others to share their toys and PB&J's with people of your choosing we call that Socialism., Communism, Marxism, Fascism or whatever the hell you want to call your tyrannical, crackpot ideas.

Howard Fineman: Just Lie Barry!

Since when does Obama need to be told to blow smoke in our faces? Well just to make sure, Howard Fineman reminds The One of Democrat campaigning 101.

CHICAGO – Here’s my advice to Sen. Barack Obama’s supporters: Stop predicting that the Democrats will sweep into the White House and Congress come January with a mandate to expand Big Government.

That prospect, coupled with some of your candidate’s own tax and health-care plans, could scare swing voters you need next Tuesday...

...Obama needs to underscore — there's no risk of doing it too much — that he doesn’t like government for its own sake, but for the sake of individuals and families.

And now for the Big Lie:

"On these and other issues, he also needs to reassure voters that he will not necessarily march in lockstep with resurgent Democrats who will want to launch a top-to-bottom New New Deal and reverse the Reagan Revolution 28 years after it took place. "

That's right. Forget the fact that Obama has never voted against his party, for less government or lower taxes. Obama will do a complete about face on the statist philosophy he's held his entire adult life. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Socialism is Evil

In all the hub bub over Obama's Marxist redistributionist designs on the country, some say "what's so bad about that?" An old column by Walter Williams addresses that very question:

...Regardless of the purpose such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, social security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first through intimidation, threats and coercion take that dollar from some other American.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft legal or illegal is despicable. Or, put another way: reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal", I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And, I'm sure that if you asked God if it's okay just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.

Part II

The End of Prosperity

The history of government meddling in free markets has such a long record of failure that only the wilfully ignorant and die hard socialists can fail to see it. FDR's constant and unpredictable inteference prolonged the Great Depression by several years. Nixon's wage and price controls and Carter's windfall profits taxes were among the many things that turned the 70's into an economic disaster. Arthur Laffer explains:

"When markets are free, asset values are supposed to go up and down, and competition opens up opportunities for profits and losses. Profits and stock appreciation are not rights, but rewards for insight mixed with a willingness to take risk. People who buy homes and the banks who give them mortgages are no different, in principle, than investors in the stock market, commodity speculators or shop owners. Good decisions should be rewarded and bad decisions should be punished. The market does just that with its profits and losses.

No one likes to see people lose their homes when housing prices fall and they can't afford to pay their mortgages; nor does any one of us enjoy watching banks go belly-up for making subprime loans without enough equity. But the taxpayers had nothing to do with either side of the mortgage transaction. If the house's value had appreciated, believe you me the overleveraged homeowner and the overly aggressive bank would never have shared their gain with taxpayers. Housing price declines and their consequences are signals to the market to stop building so many houses, pure and simple.

But here's the rub. Now enter the government and the prospects of a kinder and gentler economy. To alleviate the obvious hardships to both homeowners and banks, the government commits to buy mortgages and inject capital into banks, which on the face of it seems like a very nice thing to do. But unfortunately in this world there is no tooth fairy. And the government doesn't create anything; it just redistributes. Whenever the government bails someone out of trouble, they always put someone into trouble, plus of course a toll for the troll. Every $100 billion in bailout requires at least $130 billion in taxes, where the $30 billion extra is the cost of getting government involved."

Trick or Treat

Weather Underground's Plans for Genocide

William Ayers says he wishes he'd done more. I imagine he would since his revolution didn't come to fruition, yet. What was his group's plan if they were successful? Watch this video to see what probably still is the plan of Obama's pals and their fellow travellers.

Hat Tip to No Quarter

The Argument Against Obama

The folks over at Hot Air have assembled a compendium of the arguments against an Obama Presidency with supporting video. If nothing else, their service allows me to memorialize a big fat "I told you so" should he be elected along with a Reid/Pelosi congress:

"What follows is by no means comprehensive, but it does shed some much-needed light on a number of Obama’s positions, statements, and associations about which he has been less than honest. We’ve attempted to boil each issue down to a succinct explanation with an accompanying, brief video clip—often
starring Barack Obama in his own words. Before pulling the lever for someone who hopes voters will ignore his paper-thin resume, unsavory associations, and hard-left voting record, each citizen has a duty to do his due diligence.In short, we hope this “closing argument” is compelling and clear, and we encourage
you to share this essay with undecided or wavering family members, friends, and co-workers." LINK

Killing the Goose

Today's WSJ lays out the what will be the job killing result of the Obama (Democrat) tax hikes:

"Barack Obama declared last week that his economic plan begins with "one word that's on everyone's mind and it's spelled J-O-B-S." This raises the stubborn question that Senator Obama has never satisfactorily answered: How do you create more jobs when you want to levy higher tax rates on the small business owners who are the nation's primary employers?" - More...

My only problem with this editorial is that it assumes Obama doesn't know that his policies will reduce job formation and chase capital overseas. They do know that and their economic plans are part of a larger plan to discredit free markets and consolidate the power of the state.

When the economy grinds to a halt the villains will be the "traitorous and greedy" capitalists who wont sacrifice their own well being for the collective whole. That will be the excuse for more government punishment of "the rich" and more government power over the economy in order to counteract the "flaws" of the free enterprise system.

In other words, Obama will distort the free market with government meddling, then blame the free market's natural reaction when it fails and offer more government meddling to fix the problems government caused in the first place. In the end equality is achieved. Equality of poverty, misery and slavery.

This is what created the sclerotic European economy. On the extreme this blame the victim strategy of the left has given us Cuba and North Korea, with Venezuela trying to catch up to those socialist utopias. The only differences are a matter of degree.

**On a related note. Thomas Sowell asks what exactly is the change we are talking about?

"Yet many today seem to assume that if things are bad, "change" will make them better. Specifics don't interest them nearly as much as inspiring rhetoric and a confident style. But many 20th century leaders with inspiring rhetoric and great self-confidence led their followers or their countries into utter disasters. These ranged from Jim Jones who led hundreds to their deaths in Jonestown to Hitler and Mao who led millions to their deaths."

The Plumber and The Nurse

Joe the Plumber has become a reluctant symbol of Obama's dedication to the leftist goal of government forced "fairness". If Joe works too hard and takes too many successful risks, then it's only right that Joe "give back" some of his money for The One to spread around to his grateful subjects, less the government's cut of the loot of course.

One person Obama would give Joe's money to is the less known symbol of political charity: Hannah, The Nursing Student.

At another campaign stop, Obama had this encounter:

" ...Obama met a 19-year-old nursing student named Hannah, already deep in debt with student loans.
HANNAH: I'm paying for school myself, so-
BARACK OBAMA: How much, how much you in debt?
HANNAH: Right now about $24,000 and I'm only 19.
OBAMA: Alright well we're gonna try to see if we can provide you some relief, alright?
HANNAH: Yeah I need it because the grants aren't enough.
OBAMA HUGGING STUDENT: I know, I know! I appreciate it, c'mon. Nice to meet you.
HANNAH: Thank you.

Did Obama wonder if she had any responsibility for her plight or what she might be able to do for herself in order to further her career? No, of course not. That would mean one less victim, one less malleable dependent, one less vote. The grants (gifts) taken from her fellow citizens "isn't enough".

It's also much easier for her to hire Obama to put a gun to Joe's head and take his money by force of law than do it herself and risk jail. Besides, she needs it more than Joe even if it is his property. He can "afford' it because the anointed tell us so.

It doesn't matter if Joe will have less for his family, employees or business because he not only made "too much" money, he did it without pledging loyalty to The Party, as Hannah most assuredly will. The fact that Hannah has done nothing to earn the right to Joe's money is irrelevant since Obama has determined that she needs it more than he does.

Obama also doesn't wonder why Hannah's tuition is so high and has been rising much faster than the rate of inflation longer than anyone can remember. The education system is also protected by The Democrat Party and will never be called on the congressional carpet to explain themselves. That kangaroo court is reserved for capitalists. It would be counterproductive anyway since a lot of Joe's money already goes to these leftist incubators in order to create more Hannahs.

Obama's leftist philosophy is not about compassion or concern for the downtrodden. If it were, he and his running mate would have given more of their money to private charity than the miserly amounts they've given.

But charitable giving doesn't return the benefit of control over the recipient's lives. And it competes for funds with the politically motivated charity of the state. In short, it's about power. The forceful sacrifice of the individual to tyrants that use stolen property and force to mold the populace to their liking.

Obama and the Democrats don't believe they are taking Joe's money since they never considered it his to begin with. The only money he has is that which the government allows him to keep. Question: What do we call it when someone is forced to work for another's benefit? You know the answer.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison

"We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money." - Congressman Davy Crockett

"There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head." -- P.J. O'Rourke

"It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master." - Ayn Rand

The Real Obama

Thomas Sowell tells us the difference between associations and alliances with his usual clarity and incisive thinking.



From Part I



We all have associations, whether at the office, in our neighborhood or in various recreational activities. Most of us neither know nor care what our associates believe or say about politics.


Associations are very different from alliances. Allies are not just people who happen to be where you are or who happen to be doing the same things you do. You choose allies deliberately for a reason. The kind of allies you choose says something about you.


Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, William Ayers and Antoin Rezko are not just people who happened to be at the same place at the same time as Barack Obama. They are people with whom he chose to ally himself for years, and with some of whom some serious money changed hands.

And in conclusion:

The old phrase, "a man of high ideals but no principles," is one that applies all too painfully to Barack Obama today. His words expressing lofty ideals may appeal to the gullible but his long history of having no principles makes him a danger of the first magnitude in the White House.

The Company He Keeps

Via Public Secrets via Hot Air we have a great video with old news footage of Obama's terrorist friends.

Question: Does Obama have any friends or associates that aren't either terrorists, racists, Marxists, crooks or all of the above? There's a reason we say that people are known by the company they keep. Friends tell us what one finds attractive and valuable in others. The people we choose to spend time with is the strongest outward indication of our values and beliefs.

Obama seems to associate exclusively with radicals and thieves on the fringes of mainstream society. That makes him far more qualified as the subject of a federal investigation than President of the United States.