When Barack Obama stood behind the podium in Wisconsin, he said, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream,’ just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself,’ just words. Just speeches?”

"It’s true that speeches don’t solve all problems, but what is also true is if we cannot inspire the country to believe again then it doesn’t matter how many policies and plans we have . . . that is why we just won eight elections straight, because the American people want to believe in change again. Don’t tell me words don’t matter.”

“It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

“And the Warren court interpreted it generally the same way — that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties; it says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.”

“And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that . . . it became so court focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that.”

The real enemy of the United States of America and its people isn’t Al-Qaeda, or Iran, or any number of socialist-radical terrorists now cleverly disguised as common run-of-the-mill college professors at Chicago University. No, they are not. The real enemy of the American people is dirty rotten rich people. You know whom I mean; those worthless slugs who make millions and millions of dollars by taking advantage of poor unsuspecting American workers. Scurrilous people who steal from their corporations, and in some cases, whose greed causes them to do horrendous things to innocent little children — such as selling defective and potentially harmful goods to their parents knowing full-well their parents are too stupid to read warning labels. I write of no-good slugs who rather than running our greatest corporations, ought to be put in jail until their flesh rots from their bones. They’ve destroyed our economy, damn their eyes!

Well, at least that is what Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi and a host of other communists want you to believe. Mr. Frank has as much promised to squeeze these miserable rich bastards until our economic problems disappear. This is probably why our economy won’t recover any time soon. The problem isn’t our corporate structure; it is our socialist Congress. Many of us know this . . . but few are able to convince average Americans of the facts. Most Americans do not understand the economy, do not care how it works, and cannot bother with intelligent analysis. They are products of the American education system; they are the design and product of socialist educators.

Let us begin with this acknowledgement. There are some crooks in the corporate world. There are crooks everywhere. There are dishonest politicians, crooked cops, and there are even some cheating taxpayers. But if we think that most corporate executives are dishonest, then we are being dishonest with ourselves. There are people like Ken Lay, but there are also good, up-standing men like Bill Gates who is perhaps one of the most philanthropic men in the world today. And while we may rightly condemn Ken Lay for his dishonesty, socialists in Congress are far, far worse. Their dishonesty includes the spoken and written word, their intent, and their deeds. Yet, we elect them repeatedly.

What do our major corporations do for us? The list is long, but I’ll start with the obvious: they hire Americans, pay them a decent wage, provide benefits, and in time, may also offer pensions. In many cases, they provide the training and certification for workers to advance financially. Were it not for automotive plants, there would be no demand for corollary industries: glass, rubber, wiring, batteries, radios, upholstery, and tools. The advent of cars and trucks created a demand for motels, trailers, traffic lights, highway signs, and improved roads and expressways — each of which employ tens of millions of workers. Corporations are the engines of our economy; without them, people could not afford to purchase goods and services that create jobs for other people.

But politicians have a different view of corporations. They are cash cows for politicians who seek to increase spending on socialist programs — some of which actually benefit Americans; many do not. Barack Obama, for example, tells voters that he wants to do something about the cost of living in America. He wants to increase corporate taxes, and reduce income taxes; he wants to “give something back” to the American worker. Let’s analyze that for a moment.

Increases to cost of living depend on several variables. While corporations strive to maintain a certain level of profitability because corporate health demands it, companies pass every single dime of increased cost along to consumers. We may wonder why cars cost so much these days, as compared to forty years ago. How much have wages increased in the same period? How much have utility costs increased? How much have local, county, state, and federal taxes increased? If the cost of rubber increases, so too does the cost of every single rubber product. How many rubber parts are there on the average automobile? If an automotive union successfully negotiates a new labor contract for higher wages, so too does everyone in an affiliated union. Corporations do not drive up living costs as much as the gluttony of workers and taxing agencies.

While Congress regards corporations as a primary source of revenue, as consumer costs continue to escalate, at what point will consumers stop buying manufactured goods? In 1982, the Microsoft operating system cost less than fifty-dollars; today the improved version is three times that. When Microsoft Office first hit the market, it cost fewer than one-hundred dollars; today it cost over nine-hundred. What happens when consumers decide the cost is too high? Will Microsoft drop their prices, or will they begin laying-off workers? Because if this or any other company cannot maintain its profitability, it will simply fold . . . and the well-paid workers will become eligible for the welfare programs socialist politicians love to provide. Yes, even if that means driving more companies out of business.

Examine the plight of White Trucking Company, a profitable manufacturer of quality automobiles and trucks from 1900 to 1981. They also produced bicycles, sewing machines, lathes, and roller skates. After World War II, White manufactured Freightliner trucks for its parent company, while at the same time producing its own brands: White, Autocar, and Western Star trucks. It employed hundreds of unionized workers in Ohio, all of whom demanded ever-higher wages and benefits. In the late 1970s, White could no longer afford to pay its workers the salaries they demanded, so workers walked off the job. In disgust, White closed its plant and sold its assets to Volvo and General Motors. Employees, who were making a good wage suddenly found themselves working as burger jockeys for minimum wages. When this once profitable company folded, it caused a significant economic depression in Ohio.

The way to make things fair is not to punish the rich by making them poorer. The way to make things fair is to make the poor richer.

“One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of ‘working families.’”
“It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

 

“For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit.” Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

“Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to non-taxpayers. Once upon a time, we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.” [Note: my grandparents would call it an outright lie—Ed.]

 

“The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.”

• Government doesn’t make money; it spends it.

• Government doesn’t create wealth, people do.

• For every dollar collected by the government in taxes, there is one dollar less for American workers to spend on their families and themselves.

• Every investment entails some risk (home ownership, stocks, and bonds); there is an equal chance of earning money, as there is of losing it.

• Since government has no risk of loss, government has no business meddling in a market economy.

After my friend left the Coast Guard, in that interim period before finding or deciding on a career vocation, he went to work on his grandfather’s Central-Texas ranch. He lived in a rather well appointed, though rustic “line shack” several miles from the main house, and from this location, he completed the chores assigned to him. He told me his grandfather never ran out of things for him to do; at the end of the day, after twelve or fourteen hours of work, he never had any trouble falling to sleep at night.

Grandfather was a Christian, so Sunday was a day for rest at the ranch. My friend, who was not the early riser on his only day off, was still asleep at 8 a.m. when a sudden banging at the door drove him out of his bed. Dressed in his boxer shorts, his eyes full of the sandman’s residue, his hair all disheveled, he stumbled over to the door and opened it. There stood his grandfather and one of his long-time cronies.

“Hey, grandpa . . . what’s up?”

Grandfather looked my friend over and said, “I decided that since you can’t go to church with us on Sunday, you can figure out how to deal with rattlers,” and then he suddenly thrust forward a monstrous sized rattlesnake. “Hold him right here, behind the head.”

My friend jumped back, “What . . .?”

“Just grab the snake behind the head, boy.”

So my friend reached over and took the snake behind the head, replacing his grandfather’s grip with his own.

“Got a good hold,” asked grandfather.

“Yes’r,” my friend replied.

Grandfather let go of the snake, turned around and headed for his 1950’s era Ford pickup truck, tapping his friend on the shoulder. “Let’s go,” he said, chuckling quietly.

“Grandfather . . .” my friend shouted, “What do you want me to do with this snake?”

Grandfather turned around from the side of his old truck and said, “You can do what you want. But I’d suggest you put it down without getting yourself bit.”

“How do I do that?”

“Oh . . . I’m sure you’ll figure it out,” said grandfather. He and his friend got into the truck and drove away, both of them laughing, while my friend stood outside the line shack in his skivvies, barefooted, holding a seven or eight foot rattlesnake.

Thinking about this story, it reminds me of our current predicament in the 2008 presidential race. Americans are left holding this dangerous snake, and we’re trying to figure out how to put him down without suffering a fatal bite. Barack Obama is the snake, and there is no question (in my mind) that the danger he poses to the United States is venomous.

Obama is dangerous for several reasons. From his very beginning, Obama has aligned himself with forces who champion the destruction of our American traditions and values. They are anti-American, anti-White, and pro-Marxist. In college, he became an acolyte of Saul Alinsky, an anarchist who spend his entire life drafting “Rules for Radicals,” a how-to for organizing the masses to seize power and change traditional political structures. Alinsky wrote:

"There's another reason for working inside the system.  Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most.  Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people.  They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.  This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.  To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971].  They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hardhat.  They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging.  If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right.  Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default.”

Following Alinsky’s death in 1972, his Industrial Areas Foundation moved toward a congregation-based organizing model, targeting disaffected blacks and forming alliances with Catholic churches in poor sections of large cities. 

From his early days working as a so-called community organizer with the Associations of Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Obama has followed Alinsky’s advice. He learned how to engage in fraudulent voter registration, he adopted the anger of black-separatists, sat in the church of Jeremiah Wright and accepted the ridiculous notions that black Americans were the target of a white conspiracy to infect the former with Aids viruses. He directed community projects for three years, increasing his staff from one to thirteen, and his annual budget from $70,00 to more than $400,000 – funds raised (we assume) from among those who appreciate Alinsky’s contributions to the destruction of the United States. Sowing the seeds of racial divide, Obama achieved success and a reputation from among tenant’s rights organizations; he later worked for the Gamaliel Foundation, an international concern that adopted the Alinsky model, dedicating itself to resolving Afro-centric issues . . . particularly those concerned with property ownership and purchasing homes for African-Americans.

Immediately after Law School, a Chicago-based publishing house offered Barack Obama the opportunity to write a book on race-relations . . . one that turned out to be a memoir, mostly written in Bali, Indonesia published in 1995 as Dreams from my Father. Two years later, Obama was a state legislator; seven years after that he was in the United States Senate; 150 days after that, he announced his intention to run for the presidency. So between 1991 and the present day, Barack Obama has aligned himself with the ideology of Saul Alinsky, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and domestic terrorist William Ayers. In this time, Obama became amazingly financially well off and well funded.

Today, of course, Barack Obama doesn’t discuss Alinsky and claims that he was only eight-years-old when William Ayers was a member of the Weathermen, the SDS, and the so-called “Jesse James Gang” in Chicago. This would be the same Ayers who participated in the now infamous “Days of Rage,” who attended a war-counsel meeting in Flint, Michigan, and whose nail-bombs killed a long-time friend and girlfriend. This would be the same William Ayers who escaped prosecution because of issues relating to (police) investigative misconduct. This would be the same William Ayers who published his memoirs on 10 September 2001, and whose pre-sale publicity included a vibrant defense of his terrorist acts.

But is there a connection between “educational reformer” William Ayers and Barack Hussein Obama? Some believe there is a connection . . . one involving Mayor Richard Daley, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, The Woods Fund Project, and of course ACORN (itself a beneficiary of government funding from Democrats in Congress) – funneling millions of dollars into a concerted effort to implement Alinsky’s dream of destroying our country.

Today, voters are wondering how to put down a venomous snake without suffering injury to our country and all it stands for. I have noted some interesting articles in the “blogosphere” that discuss “what if” Obama loses. Nearly every article suggests serious race riots in cities with a predominant Negro population. Social Sense does not have a crystal ball, of course, but even without civil violence, we can be assured that an Obama loss will result in the hideous charges of a racist America, and claims that a black man can’t be elected to high political office in this country. I don’t believe this for a second . . . I can think of several black Americans I would welcome in the White House. None of them is named Barack Obama. 

Like my friend many years ago, we have to put the snake down. He accomplished this by taking the snake’s tail in his other hand and while letting go of his head, swinging the snake away, and letting go – quickly and smoothly. That’s what we need to do as voters. We need to swing Barack Obama away and let him go . . . and we can do that by marshalling anti-Obama forces, by encouraging everyone we know to contact everyone they know, and getting the word out. Americans must not trust the Obama agenda. Indeed, he is a dangerous snake, and we must put him aside. If we fail to defeat Obama, he will implement policies and programs that will forever change our beloved America.