The Formation of Barack Obama: Conclusion

Continuing our look at those who shaped and formed the mind and heart of Barack Obama in those areas that count in terms of his qualification to serve as President, we consider William Ayres. Mr. Ayres has received a lot of media attention, so I don’t have to go into great detail on his background, but we do need to understand his current mindset to understand whether he has been rehabilitated, as Barack Obama claims. Suffice it to say that he was a domestic terrorist, member of the Weather Underground, bombed the Pentagon and other government buildings, in the process killing five police officers, three of whom were Sergeant Brian McDonnell, Officer Waverly Brown, and Sergeant Edward O'Grady. Ayres and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, were on the FBI’s most wanted list for several years. Ayers and Dohrn later became legal guardians to the son of former Weathermen David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin after the boy's parents were convicted and sent to prison for their part in the Brinks Robbery of 1981. The Wikipedia article on Bill Ayres points out that Ayres is known for the radical nature of his activism in the 1960s and 1970s as well as his current work in education reform, curriculum, and instruction. In 1969 he co-founded the radical left organization the Weather Underground, which conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s. In 1970 he "went underground" with several associates after the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, in which Weatherman members Ted Gold, Ayers' close friend Terry Robbins, and Ayers' girlfriend, Diana Oughton, were killed when a nail bomb (an anti-personnel device) they were assembling exploded. Ayers was not facing criminal charges at the time, but the federal government later filed charges against him. Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and The Pentagon in 1972. In Chicago, he was eventually rewarded for his efforts by positions on the board of the same organizations as Barack Obama. Ayres earned his D.Ed. at Columbia in 1987, where Barack Obama had graduated in 1983. He is now a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar. He and Obama worked together to establish education policies for Illinois citizens. His 1974 book is dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Robert Kennedy. Obama says he was only 8 years old when Bill Ayres was engaged in his terrorist activity, Ayres has been rehabilitated, and so that doesn’t matter any more. Obama says that Ayers has become a respectable member of the community, and therefore is no longer a terrorist. By Obama’s reasoning, neither Timothy McVeigh, Osama Bin Laden, or any other person who at one time killed innocents in terrorist attacks can be considered terrorists at a later time if by that time they are no longer involved in such activities. But has Ayres been rehabilitated? Have his mind and heart changed? Not exactly. The article in Wikipedia states “Much of the controversy about Ayers during the decade since 2000 stems from an interview he gave to The New York Times on the occasion of his memoir's publication. The reporter quoted him as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again," as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility. ..."We weren't terrorists," Ayers told an interviewer for the Chicago Tribune in 2001. "The reason we weren't terrorists is because we did not commit random acts of terror against people. Terrorism was what was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam by the United States." ... Ayers was asked in a January 2004 interview, "How do you feel about what you did? Would you do it again under similar circumstances?" He replied: "I've thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it's impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don't think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable." ...In an interview published in 1995, Ayers characterized his political beliefs at that time and in the 1960s and 1970s: "I am a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist ... Maybe I'm the last communist who is willing to admit it. We have always been small 'c' communists in the sense that we were never in the Communist party and never Stalinists. The ethics of communism still appeal to me." And around 2001 he was interviewed for an article in Chicago Magazine, and for the photo accompanying the article he stood on top of an American flag that was thrown to the ground outdoors. Some rehabilitation.

In a statement issued on 15 July 2008 the Communist Party of USA (CPUSA) made this comment: "A broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama’s “Hope, change and unity” campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda. The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path will not end with Obama’s election. But that step will shift the ground for successful struggles going forward."

In addition to these, there is his relationship with Tony Rezko, a Syrian-American businessman. Rezko was a member of Obama’s 2003 finance committee. In October 2006 Rezko was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend Gov. Blagojevich. Salon.com reported that “Obama's dealings with his hinky friend have never led him afoul of the law, but they show that, despite his high-minded politics, he was no purer -- or no savvier -- than Illinois' biggest hacks in his weakness for a generous contributor. He wouldn't even say no when Rezko cooked up a deal to help the newly elected senator buy a gracious Georgian-revival home. Rezko, after all, built part of his fortune by exploiting the black community that Obama had served in the state Senate, and by milking government programs meant to benefit black-owned businesses. But Obama took Rezko's money even after the businessman was sued by the city of Chicago for failing to heat his low-income apartments, and even after Rezko was caught using a black business partner to obtain a minority set-aside for a fast-food franchise at O'Hare Airport.” Federal prosecutors maintain that $10,000 from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama's run for the U.S. Senate. Obama gave the money to charity after his association with this criminal was made public. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, in June 2005, Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining parcels in Kenwood. The then junior state senator paid $1.65 million for a Georgian revival mansion (no explanation of how he got that kind of money or could afford such a mortgage), while Rezko paid $625,000 for the adjacent, undeveloped lot. Both closed on their properties on the same day. In January 2006, aiming to increase the size of his sideyard, Obama paid Rezko $104,500 for a strip of his land. The transaction occurred at a time when it was widely known Tony Rezko was under investigation by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and as other Illinois politicians befriended by Rezko distanced themselves from him. In the Sun-Times interview, Obama acknowledged approaching Rezko about the two properties being up for sale and that Rezko developed an immediate interest. Obama did not explain why he reached out to Rezko given the developer's growing problems. Obama said he regrets purchasing land from politcal fundraiser Antoin Rezko.

These and other associations show what his political formation has been, but what about his spiritual formation? Obama says he was introduced to Christianity by Jeremiah Wright, his pastor of 20 years, and that Wright was his spiritual mentor, a spiritual mentor who is indistinguishable ideologically from black supremacist Louis Farrakhan. If those in the media knew anything at all about the conversion phenomenon, they would know that no one could ever characterize their spiritual mentor as “a crazy old uncle.” Yet, for political reasons, that is precisely what Obama has done. Outside of Jesus Christ Himself, a Christian cannot but regard his spiritual mentor as the one person above all others to whom he is most indebted for the salvation of his own soul. That is the Obama-Wright 20 year relationship.
Farrakhan, who received a major award from Wright's church, was the first one to call Obama a Messiah. Obama speaks lovingly of Wright in his autobiography, and based the title of one of his books, The Audacity of Hope, on one of Wright's sermons.
But is Wright a Christian? Wright preached racial hatred, and hatred for the United States. In his now famous sermons, spurred on by the enthusiastic and vocal support of the congregation, he shouted, “God damn America”, and “The US of KKK America.” Posted in Wright's 2005 church publication, Wright suggested "white America" had the 9/11 attacks coming, while calling for business "divestment from Israel," which he refers to as a "racist" state along with America. In the November/December 2007 issue of Trumpet, Wright sang the praises of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has described whites as "blue-eyed devils" and Jews as "bloodsuckers." Wright held Farrakhan up as a pillar of "integrity." Obama has said he is "proud" of Wright and his values.

Wright is also a disciple of the black liberation theology of James Cone. For a long time, until the Obama campaign brought so much exposure to the hateful and racist preaching of Wright, Cone’s book was advertized on the Trinity Baptist Church website and was considered required reading for the congregation. The Wikipedia article on Cone reports that “Cone is an advocate of Black Liberation Theology, a theology grounded in the experience of African Americans, and related to other Christian liberation theologies. In 1969, his book "Black Theology and Black Power" provided a new way to articulate the distinctiveness of theology in the black Church. Cone's theology also received significant inspiration from a frustration with the Black struggle for civil rights; he felt that Black Christians in North America should not follow the "white Church", on the grounds that it was a willing part of the system that had oppressed black people. Accordingly, his theology was heavily influenced by Malcolm X and the Black Power movement. His theology developed further in response to critiques by black women, leading Cone to consider gender issues more prominently and foster the development of womanist theology, and also in dialogue with Marxist analysis and the sociology of knowledge. Cone's thought, with Tillich, stresses the idea that theology is not universal, but tied to specific historical contexts; he thus critiques the Western tradition of abstract theologizing by examining its social context. Cone formulates a theology of liberation from within the context of the Black experience of oppression, interpreting the central kernel of the Gospels as Jesus' identification with the poor and oppressed, the resurrection as the ultimate act of liberation. As part of his theological analysis, Cone argues for God's own identification with "blackness": “The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God's experience, or God is a God of racism.... The blackness of God means that God has made the oppressed condition God's own condition.”

It is therefore evident that Obama’s formation, both political and spiritual, was Marxist in its roots. It is also decidedly non-Christian. In the Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew Chapter 5, Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?” One cannot follow Jesus Christ and also accept the teachings of James Cone and Jeremiah Wright, for their teachings are diametrically opposed. There is no valid theology of hatred, or valid theology limited by race. God is the Father of us all. If Wright was the spiritual mentor of Obama, and Obama had no other, then Obama is not a true Christian either. Obama has tried to distance himself from Wright for political reasons, but it is impossible for one to admit having a spiritual mentor and simultaneously reject the teaching of that mentor, as Obama has tried to do.

So what can we conclude? Obama is a malignantly narcissistic politician whose only real interest is in himself, with a fundamentally Marxist based philosophy, who will associate with anyone if it brings him some political advantage, and will promise anything if it brings him political gain. The thing I find particularly frightening is that if he is elected, he will, by the necessity of his office, be privy to the most sensitive classified information this country possesses, and under any other circumstance, because of his associations and philosophy, he would be unable to get even a Secret clearance. He will be singularly one of the most important security risks this country faces.

There is not enough space in this blog entry to go into the details of Barack Obama’s narcissism, but I simply refer you to the following for more detailed discussions on that issue.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/obama_oprah_and_the_guru_malig_1.html

http://sharprightturn.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/all-about-obama-narcissism-and-cult-of-personality/

http://www.extremewisdom.com/?p=1293


http://heroesforhillary.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/air-faux-one-obamas-plane-makeover/

The Formation of Barack Obama: Part 2

In addition to the reasons given previously, we should be very concerned about the formation of Barack Obama because, thanks to his mentors, he fully intends to embark on a program of redistribution of wealth through restructure of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Instead of a Bill of Rights focused on citizens, Obama wants to convert it into a Bill of Government Rights. In the 2001 radio interview mentioned in my last blog post, he discusses how the Constitution mandates what the government cannot do instead of what it should be obligated to do. He says the Constitution, the document which, as President, he would have to swear to uphold and defend, is fundamentally flawed. His community organization background has blinded him to the reasons our forefathers had for structuring the Constitution the way they did. Our forefathers understood absolute government power. It is what they came here to get away from. It is why they issued the Declaration of Independence. Obama wants to change the government from a government of, by, and for the people, to a government of domination of the people. Obama wants to restructure the Constitution to give the government the power to take wealth from those who have worked for it and give it to those who have not, so that things can be “evened out.” You don’t have to take my word for it. You can listen to his thoughts for yourself in these clips. Just double click on the links.

Obama BOMBSHELL Redistribution of Wealth Audio UNCOVERED.flv

Obama redistribution.flv


How did this happen? In addition to the influence Frank Davis had on Obama, as mentioned in my last blog, he was also greatly influenced by his community organizer mentor, Saul Alinsky, a confirmed and committed atheist. His philosophy was to answer only to yourself, and not be sidetracked by moral issues. Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals, the handbook for radical community organizers, and the one book which had a great influence on Barack Obama. On the dedication page of his book, removed in later reprints, Alinsky wrote: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer." Alinsky then goes on to describe how community organizers should manipulate people, both in small and large groups. His goal is revolution, Soviet style. Alinsky wrote: “There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky 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."

The theme of “Change” is certainly not lost on anyone who has been following this election. But note also the emotional manipulation of the unsuspected.

In following these Alinsky methods, applied doing community organization in Chicago suburbs, Obama had a four-year education, which he describes as the best he ever got anywhere, even better than Harvard. It was an education in how to manipulate and control people. As a confirmed atheist, Alinsky believed that the here and now is all there is, and therefore he had no qualms about assorted versions of morality in the pursuit of worldly power. And he helped shape the man we know as Barack Obama.

According to Alinsky, and see if this does not strike a chord for you in Obama’s speeches during this campaign, first convince people they are indeed miserable, and then convince them that their misery is not their fault but that of some one or some thing else, in most cases governments or greedy corporations. Then you unite them to demand what you convince them they deserve, and to make such a stink that the governments and corporations will grant whatever it is that causes the harassment to cease.

This is Alinsky’s definition of community organization, and it seems to be Obama’s definition of how to conduct a political campaign. But what government or corporation is going to give in? The government of the United States, led by Obama, and the corporations he will tax out of existence or out of the country. From what I see of his plans, he is organizing a national level community economic disaster because if he wins he should have to answer to those he agitated into voting for him, and he does not have the experience or intelligence to do so, and is also enough of a narcissist to believe he answers to no one but himself anyway, something else he learned from Alinsky. Barack Obama does not have one single hour of meaningful executive experience. How can anyone believe he is ready to run the most powerful nation on earth?

TO BE CONTINUED:

The Formation of Barack Obama: Part 1

Barack Obama’s childhood has been widely discussed. Many questions have arisen, including whether he was actually born outside the United States. A Federal lawsuit has been filed in Pennsylvania, and in a few other states, seeking to have Barack Obama produce a certified copy of his birth certificate. He is under a court order to do so, but has refused, and the date by which he was to produce the document has passed. Certainly makes you wonder what he is trying to hide. The subterfuge of the alleged birth certificate Obama has posted on his web site raises more doubt and question than it does to provide answers.

But possibly more important, since he may be able to hide the answer to his birth place long enough to get through the election, is his formation. Who is Barack Obama, really? Who formed the man, politically and spiritually? Who shaped his heart and instilled his philosophy? Who formed him is extremely important because what he is now is the result of that formation, regardless of whether he continues to associate today with his mentors, even whether or not they are still alive. It is all the more important because as young as he is, with virtually no experience, and no executive experience of any kind, when he sits in the oval office, who will be behind him? Who will be pulling his strings? What kind of Manchurian candidate will he be? Who will be the real president?

Although identified only as Frank in Mr Obama’s own memoir Dreams from My Father, it was proved by Accuracy In Media (AIM), based on several authentic sources, that “Frank” was in fact Frank Davis, investigated and known by the FBI and various congressional and official inquiries as a member of the Communist Party of the USA and a pedophile. Cliff Kincaid broke the story in an article he wrote for Accuracy in Media (http://www.aim.org/), titled Obama’s Communist Mentor. Davis became a member of the secret communist apparatus in the 1950s after the CP-USA in Hawaii was reorganized on an underground basis. Frank Davis died in 1987. Davis was a friend of Barack Obama’s maternal grandfather and that is how the 10 year old Barack, then known as Barry, met this mysterious Frank, of whom he spoke so fondly in his book, noting how much he was influenced by Frank. As an adult, and naturally, knowing he was planning a political career, and having his sights set on the presidency, Obama kept his reference to “Frank” obscure even though his ego could not avoid mentioning Frank. Abdicating their journalist responsibility in favor of politics, none of the main stream media pursued this since they all want him to be coronated as president. It was Accuracy in Media, and some foreign media, like The London Telegraph, who had the tenacity to investigate and make this known. Kincaid wrote, "Obama's communist connection adds to mounting public concern about a candidate who has come out of virtually nowhere, with a brief U.S. Senate legislative record [measured in days instead of years], to become the Democratic Party frontrunner for the U.S. presidency." The movie, Manchurian Candidate, comes to mind with no effort. In Obama's book, "Dreams From My Father," he repeatedly refers to his friend and adviser as "Frank." "The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities, to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii, identified him as a CPUSA member. What's more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several Communist front organizations." Obama's political opponent in 2004, Alan Keyes, referred to Barack Obama as a “hard core academic Marxist.” See more information at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=65066.

We can now begin to see where Obama got his socialist ideas and redistribution goals. We can also understand why, in a radio interview in 2001, Obama spoke about how the Constitution, the document he will have to swear to defend and uphold if he is sworn in, was a flawed document and how the Warren Court was not active enough in reshaping the Constitution. He doesn't want to uphold the Constitution, and has no intention of doing so. He wants to change it into a document giving the Federal government powers our founding deliberately prohibited for they knew the dangers of unchecked governmental power. Obama wants power without limit.

If Obama was already being groomed for his run for the presidency when he wrote Dreams From My Father, he had to know that an association with a known Communist could be a problem for him getting a security clearance, especially a Top Secret clearance with the special acesses required of the President, and so he only referred to his friend as “Frank”, without ever giving any other identifying details. This, and the other associations noted in follow-on entries, could be a significant security risk issue, one that would make him unable and unfit to serve as the Commander in Chief.

TO BE CONTINUED:

Obama's Black Genocide

Barack Obama, is one-fourth black, one-fourth arab, and one-half white. What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it. Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively, and now claims he is the first black candidate to run for President of the United States (Makes you wonder how white he would have to be for him to consider himself white).
Supported by the media frenzy blind to any rational examination of his qualifications, he has established himself as the abortion candidate. In the Illinois state legislature, and in Congress, and in speeches before Planned Parenthood and NARAL, he has consistently, at every opportunity, defended abortion of any kind, at any time, for any reason, including partial birth abortion. When Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure." Michelle has been subjected to the same influences, has drunk the same kool-aid.

When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women." Even when an innocent human being is born alive because of a botched late term abortion attempt, he voted against the law that would grant that child all the necessary rights and protections it deserves, including access to medical care. His choice is to set the child aside in some closet until it dies for lack of care. Three times, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste. If, as Obama contends, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath? Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. He will resort to any means, even infanticide, to protect Roe vs Wade or anything else that promotes abortion. In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. He will, in essence, nationalize abortion and prevent the courts from interfering with this slaughter. In doing so, he will force all Americans to pay for this massacre with their tax money. The National Organization for Women says doing this would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion, something which they relish.

Why do I title this blog entry black genocide? The primary target of the abortion industry in the United Stats is black women. The abortion rate in the United States is 28 per 1000 Hispanic women, and 50 per 1000 black women. 37% of all abortions in this country are performed on black women even though the black population - men, women and children, is only 13.4% of the total population. Assuming black women of child bearing age constitute half the total black population, 37% of all abortions are performed on slightly over 6% of the population. He claims to be the first black candidate, but he is doing all he can to exploit black women. He is such a malignant narcissist he may not even realize it himself, or he is so self-consumed he does not care as long as it gets him votes.

And Barack Obama says he is the candidate of the black community. At this rate, within a couple of generations there won’t be any community left to represent, and they can thank him for that.

Render Unto Caesar

I hope you had the chance to hear all or most of Barack Obama’s press conference today. When all the flack over the Rev. Wright sermons, the award his church gave to Louis Farrakan and Wright’s trip with Louis Farrakan to Tripoli, broke several weeks ago, Obama made several public comments about how the statements were taken out of context, that he had never been present to hear Wright's sermons, that he did not agree with Farakan but that he could not disassociate himself from Rev. Wright, and on and on, trying to minimize the effect and do damage control. It didn’t work, so then a couple of weeks ago he had to say he did not agree with Rev. Wright. In his recent talk, Wright threw Obama under the train, saying Obama's comments were motivated by politics, and then he repeated much of what he had previously said, but not as stridently. Wright claims the US Government invented Aids to infect the black community, and all the rest of the drivel he preaches. So today Barack Obama had to publicly dissociate himself from Wright, his spiritual mentor of 20 years. It did not work. His statements were not the least bit credible. To say, today, he was surprised to hear what Wright said, after sitting in his congregation for 20 years, has the same credibility as Hillary Clinton announcing she was divorcing Bill because she found out for the first time today he had been unfaithful. Obama did nothing to distance himself from the stench of his association with Wright.

But on to the main topic of this post. Both Obama and Clinton are playing emotionally to the poor and middle class voters, saying they are going to make those big bad rich guys pay the taxes they should and give some tax breaks to the little guys. Both of them know this kind of claim has no validity or credibility, but neither will admit it because they perceive they will gain votes by propagating a lie to the public so they can get the vote of unions and other hourly workers. But the truth is a far different story.

According to the official data from the Treasury Department, the top 1% of taxpayers pay over 33% of all individual income taxes. Since 1990, this groups tax share has grown faster than their income share. The top 5% of taxpayers paid over half of all individual income taxes, but report only one-third of the total income. Taxpayers who rank in the top 50% income of taxpayers pay virtually all of the individual income taxes. Since 1990 this group has paid over 90% of the individual income taxes, and in 2000, 2001 and 2002, this group paid over 96% of the individual income taxes. In 2005, when the Bush tax cuts took full effect, the income tax for lower-income tax payers fell and the tax for higher income taxpayers rose. The bottom 50% pay only 3.6% of the individual income taxes.

The tax cuts created the opportunity for job growth, which has been consistently high. Unemployment has been consistently low. Right now we are in a slowdown, but not as much as we would have if the tax cuts were revoked, which is what both Obama and Clinton want to do, because this is an emotionally charged issue and they both know most people do not know what the actual tax payment distribution looks like.

McCain wants to keep the capital gains tax rate where it is and make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Obama and Clinton want to immediately extinguish the Bush tax cuts. Obama wants to raise capital gains tax to 28%, and Clinton wants to set it at 24%. The effect is that if you sell your home and make a profit, 28% of your gain is taxed. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home goes to taxes. That is almost a third of your gain from your investment in your home. This will affect the elderly who need the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.

As to your stock dividends, Obama and Clinton want a 39.6% tax. McCain wants to keep it at 15%, less that one-half of what Obama and Clinton proposed tax rate. If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned in taxes if Obama or Clinton become president. The experts predict that "Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit."

How about individual income taxes, the one that directly hits you in the paycheck? McCain wants to keep the current tax. This means, in general:
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

Obama wants to revert to pre-Bush tax cuts, and this means:
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750

Clinton wants to do the same and this means:
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750

If either Obama or Clinton win, you lose. They also both want to repeal the Bush tax cuts and reinstate the inheritance tax. They want to tax once again money you already paid taxes on, possibly multiple times, and deprive your children of their inheritance you worked all your life to provide for them.

The Pharisees asked Jesus if it is right to pay taxes. He responded to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. In his time, what is Caesar’s was something they had no control over. Today, what is Caesar’s is something we can control at the voting booth.

Tu Es Petrus

My family had the privilege of attending the Papal Mass at National Stadium in Washington. It was very exciting, but it was also thrilling to see the bishops processing in, and then see Pope Benedict come in and go around the stadium before going to the altar. As he entered, the first thing that crossed my mind was Tu Es Petrus, You Are Peter, and upon this rock our Church was built and is maintained. You, dear Benedict, are our Peter. You, dear Benedict, stand in his shoes. You have his office, you have his responsibility, you have his power and authority. You also have his love for our Church and for your people. You are the Chancellor of Jesus Christ’s Church. You hold the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, given to you by Jesus Himself, first to Peter and from Peter down through time to each of Peter’s successors in office. You lead over 1 Billion Catholics world wide. You lead the oldest continually existing institution in the world, and it is going strong in spite of some problems. You understand her problems, her issues, her strengths. And, like Peter, you don’t shy away from dealing with the tough issues, as was evident in your address to the bishops.

When you came here, you affirmed that abortion is evil, at any stage. You also said, “God bless America.” What a contrast to Rev. Wright who said, “God damn America,” and who called the United States the United States of K.K.K. America. George Bush has deep respect for Benedict XVI. Barack Obama has long standing respect for Rev. Wright. Who would Obama be more influenced by, someone like Rev. Wright or someone like Benedict XVI?

We have to ask ourselves the same question. Which of the two would influence you? Are you influenced by Benedict XVI? Is Benedict XVI a model to follow? Is he Peter to you? Do you love and respect him enough to be a real Catholic and not a sort-of Catholic or cafeteria Catholic? Benedict XVI is committed to being fully Catholic. Are you? If you are, how does you life reflect that commitment?

Who is Barack Obama?

Do you know who Barack Obama is? Does Barack Obama really know who he is? Does his wife? It appears he believes he is a black man who is competing for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. That prospect apparently excites his wife because Michelle Obama said recently that for the first time in her adult life she is proud to be an American. We are not sure if Barack Obama is proud to be an American since he refuses to wear an American flag lapel pin.

One question of particular importance is who Barack Obama answers to. Does he only answer to himself? Is he his own man, or has he been shaped and groomed by others, perhaps without realizing it. Who pulls his strings? Why does he court the rich liberals and the young, inexperienced college students? What are Obama’s convictions? We have learned recently that he has been greatly influenced for at least 20 years by his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an angry, racist, America-hating bigot. The dear Reverend is Obama’s spiritual mentor and confidant, and the inspiration for one of Obama’s books. He married the Obamas and baptized their children. Is Wright’s version of Christianity that of Obama? How could it be even possible that Wright’s anti-American bigotry could not have rubbed off on Obama? Is that also why in all of her adult life, Michelle Obama had never before been proud to be an American?

Obama has also admitted a friendship with Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground and an admitted terrorist who bombed the Pentagon, among other places. Ayers has said, on September 11, 2001, he wished he had done more. Can Barack Obama credibly serve as Commander in Chief of the United States military with friends like that? What does Obama stand for? What is he committed to? He says it is “Change”, but change from what to what? He has not made that clear. So, what has he done or what has he stood for so far? He has no executive experience of any kind, no experience at all dealing with foreign leaders, and although he is a Harvard educated lawyer, he has no background at all in economics or economic policy. And yet he tells us he is going to fix the economy and health care and all the other things he feels are broken. How? Based on what experience? That’s the rub. Who’s experience and backgrounds is he going to be dependent on? Who is going to tell this neophyte what to do and what policy to push. Who is going to be his handler if and when he sits in the Oval Office? Is he another kind of “Manchurian Candidate?”

Can he stand up to terrorists and leaders of states sponsoring terrorism? How about his stand on gang violence in Chicago, his home town? If he is weak on gang violence, could he be strong on terrorism? How? So what is his stand on gang violence? According to a new political ad based on his voting record in Illinois, a woman was killed by a gang shooting when leaving choir practice while shielding her 6-year-old daughter; after a gang member crashed into his car, a 15-year-old boy was beaten to death with bricks; and a 14-year-old boy refused to give a gang hand signal, so he was shot in the back five times. All of these people died in Chicago in 2001 when Obama was an Illinois state senator.

That same year, a bill was before the legislature to expand the death penalty for gang-related murders. Barack Obama voted against the bill. What reason did he give? Was it because so many gang members are black? Is he that much a racist that he would shield murderers based on color? Obama defended his opposition to the gang death penalty bill because, he argued, it would unevenly apply to minorities. Barrack Obama says he supports the death penalty for the "most heinous" of crimes. How heinous does it have to get? Obama said he believed there is a strong connection between gang membership and young black men. “I think it s problematic for them to be singled out as more likely to receive the death penalty for carrying out certain acts than are others who do the same thing,” Obama said. So what, to him, is heinous enough to be colorblind? Is anything?

But Barrack Obama is as white as he is black. His father was black and his mother was white. Why is he painting himself with the black brush and ignoring his white half? Is he ashamed of his white half? We will deal with that in another blog.