The Case Against Barack Obama

You Don’t Know Barack Obama Until You Read This Book.

This new book — "The Case Against Barack Obama" is published by the same group that brought you "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" — the book that defeated John Kerry in 2004.

Already the liberal media has condemned"The Case Against Barack Obama" because it could change the outcome of the election.

Make no doubt about it, Barack Obama is the media's darling, the fresh face of the Democratic ticket. But what does Barack Obama really stand for — and will his extreme liberal agenda and complete inexperience in global affairs endanger the country?

That's what David Freddoso, investigative reporter and National Review Online columnist, examines in "The Case Against Barack Obama."

Has any major candidate for president of the United States ever received less critical examination than Barack Obama? Who is this man, who was only elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004?

How did someone with his meager record of accomplishment become the Democratic nominee for president? How did someone with the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate and long-standing relationships with a former terrorist, a racist minister, and the corrupt operators of Chicago Machine politics end up as a supposed beacon of a newer, cleaner, bipartisan politics?

Investigative reporter David Freddoso has the answers. Doing the legwork that the mainstream media has neglected, applying a critical eye while the media swoons before the Obama-messiah, and posing the hard questions that Obama needs to answer, Freddoso reveals a politician as calculating as any other, a far-left Democrat who goes beyond "abortion rights" to supporting de facto infanticide, whose "new politics" amount to Chicago-style hardball overlain with lofty rhetoric, and who, from his positions of power, has helped his patrons.

In "The Case Against Barack Obama", you’ll learn:

• How Obama’s friendship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright was no accident, but a carefully thought-out personal and political decision
• The inside story of Obama's association with terrorist Bill Ayers wouldn’t matter — an exposé of the insular radical chic of Chicago's Hyde Park politics
• The real story of Obama as a puppet of Mayor Daley's corrupt Chicago political machine
• What Obama really did for convicted developer Tony Rezko
• Debunking the myth of Obama’s "new" politics: how Obama won his first election by throwing all of his competitors off the ballot
• The new 'Dirty Politics': how underhanded politics sabotaged Obama's opponents in his 2004 Senate race
• A story Obama would like to stay buried in Chicago: how he used his clout as a U.S. senator to save the corrupt Cook County Political Machine when reformers of both parties tried to challenge the entrenched political bosses
• How Barack Obama opposed a bill banning infanticide-by-neglect — a stance too extreme even for Nancy Pelosi. (Freddoso has an exclusive interview with the nurse central to the case.)
• Why the National Abortion Rights Action League says Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate they have ever backed
• How Obama has repeatedly steered taxpayer money to campaign donors
• And much, much more.

Sober, fair, and thoroughly researched — and all the more powerful and provocative because of it — "The Case Against Barack Obama" removes the halo from a man less qualified, and more radical, than the mainstream media has let you know.

Find out why electing this man as our Commander-in-Chief could be the most dangerous decision in American history.

David Freddoso covers Capitol Hill for National Review Online, and was previously a political reporter for the Evans-Novak Political Report and Human Events. A graduate of Notre Dame and the Columbia School of Journalism, he lives in Washington, D.C.

Senator Government

by Larry Elder

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants you -- to redistribute your wealth.

In Obamas highly publicized encounter with Joseph Wurzelbacher -- aka Joe the Plumber -- the candidate said he wanted to use taxpayers money to spread the wealth. A gutsy local Orlando television anchor interviewed Democratic vice presidential contender Joe Biden:

Anchor: You may recognize this famous quote: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. That’s from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?

Biden: Are you joking? Is this a joke?

Anchor: No.

Biden: Or is that a real question?

Anchor: Thats a question.

The none-too-happy Biden denied that Obama wants to spread the wealth -- even though Obama used that exact term. When later given a chance on Good Morning America to retract, refute or moderate the statement he made to Joe the Plumber, Obama stood his ground.

Co-host: Any regrets that you ... said spread the wealth?

Obama: Not at all. Look, if John McCains best argument is that he wants to continue the same Bush tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans it will prevent the economy from recovering.

Now comes a 2001 Chicago radio interview with then Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama. If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, said Obama, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth It didnt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.

Redistribution of wealth? Essential constraints?

Calling it congressional overreach, the Supreme Court routinely struck down major portions of considered Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal. They considered it an assault on the Constitution. Only when FDR threatened to pack the court with New Deal-friendly justices, did the court crumble and begin to interpret the Constitution through the eyes of Roosevelts collectivist eyes.

The framers of the Constitution expected a limited federal government. They viewed the Constitution as a contract between citizens and government, designed to restrain the fed from undue intrusion into our bedrooms and our wallets. For example, the father of the Constitution, James Madison, vehemently objected to a 1792 congressional appropriation of $15,000 to assist some French refugees. Madison wrote, 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.

But rarely does a politician -- even a leftist Democrat -- flat-out say he intends to take money out of Pocket A and put it into Pocket B in order to spread the wealth. Usually politicians justify the money and power grab by calling it an investment. Or they falsely and unconstitutionally call things like health care, education or job training civil rights.

The issue to Obama turns not on whether government exists to redistribute the wealth, but on how it should be done. But he intends for it to be done.

Expect an Obama presidency to try and spread the wealth in two ways -- through Congress and through the courts. He first wants to raise taxes -- income, payroll, capital gains, dividends and estate -- on the so-called rich. After all, he calls this a matter of neighborliness. Biden calls it a matter of patriotism. Second, Obama wants to appoint judges who view the Constitution not as a contract, but as an obstacle to circumvent. We need somebody whos got the heart, the empathy, he said, in describing his standards for Supreme Court justices, to recognize what its like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what its like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And thats the criteria by which Im going to be selecting my judges.

Through the feds so-called bailout of private firms and private actors -- with the approval of both Democrats and Republicans -- we now witness the greatest increase in federal power since the New Deal. More horrifying, America now stands on the brink of electing a filibuster-proof collectivist Democrat Congress with a nakedly collectivist Democrat president leading the charge.

Wurzelbacher told me that he plans to campaign -- at his own request -- for John McCain. Why? He calls Obamas spread the wealth plan scary.

Wish we could say it aint so, Joe.

 

Larry Elder, known as the sage of South Central LA, is host of the Larry Elder Show on talk radio and author of Showdown : Confronting Bias, Lies, and the Special Interests That Divide America .

• You Can't Be Half-Socialist 
  
• Obama Wants 12 Million Illegals to Get Citizenship 
  
• The Case Against Barack Obama, Part 2
  
• The Case Against Barack Obama, Part 1
  

The Case Against Barack Obama, Part 2

by Larry Elder, Libertarian Radio Host and Author, known as  the Sage of South Central L.A.

1) What about this business of Barack Obama and William Ayers?

Ayers and his wife, Bernardine, belonged to a radical terror group in the '60s and '70s called Weather Underground. The organization committed murders, bombings and attempted acts of terrorism. In a Sept. 11, 2001, article about Ayers' book "Fugitive Days," Ayers showed no remorse. Indeed, he said: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

When Obama ran for state senator in Illinois, Ayers hosted what one person present called Obama's political "coming-out party."

Ayers and Obama sat on two boards together. One -- the Chicago Annenberg Challenge -- distributed more than $100 million from 1995 to 2001 to improve Chicago schools. Their own assessments show they failed. The money went for things such as peace initiatives, multiculturalism, Afrocentrism, bilingualism and courses that condemn capitalism and encourage attacking "oppressors."

Obama and Ayers also served on the board of the Woods Fund, an organization that distributed grant money to ACORN, which pushes its leftist agenda -- "tax justice," livable wages, anti-school choice, voter registration and affordable housing. The nearly 400,000-person-strong organization is currently under investigation by state and federal authorities in several states for voter registration fraud. The Obama campaign dismisses any connection to ACORN as tangential.

But on Dec. 1, 2007, Obama spoke at the Heartland Democratic Presidential Forum before leaders of community organizing groups, including ACORN. He said: "Let me even say before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we'll be calling all of you (community organizers) in to help us shape the agenda. We're gonna be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America."

"Meet the Press" moderator Tom Brokaw called Ayers -- a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago -- a "school reformer." Ayers, on the other hand, calls himself a Marxist and a "small 'c' communist." A Venezuelan government Web site, translated to English, calls Ayers "the leader of the revolutionary and anti-imperialist group the Weather Underground, which initiated armed struggle against the government of the USA." Ayers sits on the directorate of a think tank funded by Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.

2) Is McCain's support for the Iraq war a political winner or loser?

McCain needs to clearly state that America and the world sleep easier without Saddam Hussein in power, and that Saddam intended to restart his chemical and biological programs. McCain makes a mistake by conceding, through silence, that the war was a mistake. A recent Rasmussen poll shows that more Americans than not believe that history will judge Iraq a success.

Obama was wrong about the surge, and continues to maintain -- despite clear evidence to the contrary -- that political reconciliation is not taking place. Even The Washington Post, which endorses Obama, editorialized against Obama's insistence on withdrawing troops by a date certain. Furthermore, the Post wrote: "Democrat Barack Obama continues to argue that only the systematic withdrawal of U.S. combat units will force Iraqi leaders to compromise. Yet the empirical evidence of the past year suggests the opposite: that only the greater security produced and guaranteed by American troops allows a political environment in which legislative deals and free elections are feasible."  (As Larry wrote in a pervious article, John McCain needs to take the gloves off!!)

3) Obama supports the use of our military to stop genocide in Darfur while showing indifference about a possible one in Iraq.

Brokaw, moderating a debate, asked Obama when American combat forces should be used to quell humanitarian crises that pose no threat to U.S. security. Obama -- specifically mentioning Darfur and Rwanda -- said, "When genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us." But after a 2007 interview with Obama, The Associated Press wrote, "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there." So Obama wants to use our military to stop genocide in Darfur -- a tragedy that we did not start. But he wants our military to withdraw in Iraq, possibly resulting in a genocide of our own making. Got that?

4) As for the current financial crisis, does Obama bear some responsibility?

In the subprime crisis, many people took out unaffordable loans, and lenders lent under government policies that encouraged them to make risky loans. As a lawyer, Obama and his firm filed a class action lawsuit against Citibank, alleging that the bank systematically shut out minority borrowers. According to The Associated Press: "The case was settled out of court. Some class members got cash payments, and the bank agreed to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages."

Bottom line. When the Communist Party USA approvingly says Obama would "advance progressive politics for the long term" -- run. 

·        The Case Against Barack Obama, Part 1

·        The Case Against Obama Reviewed