sunset from behind the wire

sunset from behind the wire

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Obama Socialist Impact

Trick or Treat:  The neighborhood kids come around for a hand-out of candy, dressed up to scare or delight. You turn your lights on and decorate to lure them to your home and drop a Snickers of Almond Joy into a bag or pillow case. If you opt not to give the kids candy, you simply turn off the light and the hoards of sugar-crazed children go elsewhere to harvest.

It's up to you. Decide to participate or not to participate as you are moved to do. If you don't turn your light on, you miss the kids decked out in their finest. I buy two or three bags of the good candy from Costco and stand by for the ghosts and goblins to arrive, flanked by caring parents.

-- I'm big on metaphors these days -- 

I did the same a many Americans who were too lazy to cook on a Saturday Halloween night - I ordered a pizza. Can you believe it? When the pizza delivery guy brought a fresh, hot, fragrant pizza, he expected me to pay for it! He was a white kid - likely a racist and a capitalist (today all capitalists are painted as racists or traitors to their race) because he hinted at a tip for bringing the pizza on time, cooked to order. If I snatched the pizza and slammed the door without paying, I'd have been a thief. If everyone defrauded them, the pizza shop, the delivery boy and the people who supply the pizza shop with ingredients would all go out of business.

Socialism is a form of robbery - theft - and it has the same social impact as my and others' failure to pay for pizza. There is no more pizza. No more jobs for the guys who make the sausage, whirl the dough, grow the onions and peppers, or blend the sauce. At the State Pizza Shop, you stand in line like a beggar, waiting for the pizza. It arrives cold, the dough isn't baked (a green pizza made without energy) and there isn't sauce, cheese or anything on it. However, all pizzas are the same now.

The kids in their costumes wear one costume - perhaps that of young pioneer - and come around to shake you down, threatening to denounce you to the Dear Leader unless you pay them (does that sound like SEIU?). The love of voluntary contributions is gone, the joy of giving becomes a cancer that eats the giver and the republic is replaced by a sinister force that is feared.

Which is the better part? For me, for my family and my friends, we're fine with working and earning, ordering a pizza with the money we earned and when the kids come around, they're going to get two or three large pieces of candy - not because we're forced to do it, but because that's what we want the world to be like.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Reef Fish (a metaphor for the Obama Nation)

While the nation recoils at Speaker Pelosi's 1900 page (easy to understand) healthcare bill - don't bother reading it, just vote for it - We have an army in the field in Afghanistan. And Barack Hussein Obama is dithering over this and that. It's a prime characteristic of the ObamaNation. So much goes on that's completely wrong that it's difficult to remain focused. The Chicago crowd go for the shotgun effect and you need to hand it to them. Their aggressive campaign to push the United States into a strange permutation of utopian national socialism requires constant attention.

I dove a reef in Hawaii today. Yes a pod of dolphins were present - they sleep on the surface during the day in shallower water and hunt at night. There was one green turtle laying on the bottom, getting his shell cleaned by some of the reef fish.

It wasn't striking in its strangeness but in its similarity to other dives in other years. Many of the reef fish have stripes in order to confuse predators. Which fish in the huge school of striped fish does the predator eat? It's a metaphor for the ObamaNation's program of abominable practices where they come at us so fast, all disguised and need to be dissected to understand that they hope the system of opposition (which means us) is overwhelmed. Their strategy did not spring into being without conscious thought the way the reef fish did.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009


It's not only about foolish national healthcare programs that will trash 20% of the economy, or government take over of AIG (Insurance), the banking industry, the auto industry and so forth. It's about the shifty way Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, their ACORN operatives and Barack Hussein Obama, their leader operates. Doesn't it appear that the moral relativism is off the scale?

It didn't happen overnight. It's a gradual thing. However over the last year or so it becomes exponentially more evident.  We as a nation are not simply financially bankrupt. We first bankrupted ourselves morally. And we are drifting with a foolish jester in the White House (I can hear the steam calliope playing in the background every time the president/ring master lifts a microphone and states into a teleprompter.

Dr. Charles Krauthammer Interview

Q & A from Der Spiegel (Deutschland/Germany)

10/26/2009 07:04 PM
Interview with Dr. Charles Krauthammer

SPIEGEL: Mr. Krauthammer, did the Nobel Commitee in Oslo honor or doom the Obama presidency by awarding him the Peace Prize?

Charles Krauthammer:It is so comical. Absurd. Any prize that goes to Kellogg and Briand, Le Duc Tho and Arafat, and Rigoberta Menchú, and ends up with Obama, tells you all you need to know. For Obama it's not very good because it reaffirms the stereotypes about him as the empty celebrity.

SPIEGEL:Why does it?

Krauthammer:He is a man of perpetual promise. There used to be a cruel joke that said Brazil is the country of the future, and always will be; Obama is the Brazil of today's politicians. He has obviously achieved nothing. And in the American context, to be the hero of five Norwegian leftists, is not exactly politically positive.

SPIEGEL:It hardly makes sense to blame him for losing the Olympic bid in one week, and then for winning the Nobel Prize the next.

Krauthammer:He should have simply said: "This is very nice, I appreciate the gesture, but I haven't achieved what I want to achieve." But he is not the kind of man that does that.

SPIEGEL:Should he have turned down the prize?

Krauthammer:He would never turn that down. The presidency is all about him. Just think about the speech he gave in Berlin. There is something so preposterous about a presidential candidate speaking in Berlin. And it was replete with all these universalist clichés, which is basically what he's been giving us for nine months.

SPIEGEL:Why do Europeans react so positively to him?

Krauthammer:Because Europe, for very understandable reasons, has been chaffing for 60 years under the protection, but also the subtle or not so subtle domination of America. Europeans like to see the big guy cut down to size, it's a natural reaction. You know, Europe ran the world for 400 or 500 years until the civilizational suicide of the two World Wars. And then America emerged as the world hegemon, with no competition and unchallenged. The irony is America is the only hegemonic power that never sought hegemony, unlike, for example, Napoleonic France. Americans are not intrinsically imperial, but we ended up dominant by default: Europe disappeared after the Second World War, the Soviet Union disappeared in 1991, so here we are. Of course Europeans like to see the hegemon diminished, and Obama is the perfect man to do that.

SPIEGEL:Maybe Europeans want to just see a different America, one they can admire again.

Krauthammer: Admire? Look at Obama's speech at the UN General Assembly: "No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation." Take the first half of that sentence: No nation can dominate another. There is no eight year old who would say that -- it's so absurd. And the second half? That is adolescent utopianism. Obama talks in platitudes, but offers a vision to the world of America diminished or constrained, and willing to share leadership in a way that no other presidency and no other great power would. Could you imagine if the Russians were hegemonic, or the Chinese, or the Germans -- that they would speak like this?

SPIEGEL:Is America's power not already diminished?

Krauthammer:Relative to what?

SPIEGEL: To emerging powers.

Krauthammer: The Chinese are rising, the Indians have a very long way to go. But I'm old enough to remember the late 1980s, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy and the prevailing view that America was in decline and Japan was the rising power. The fashion now is that the Chinese will overtake the United States. As with the great Japan panic, there are all kinds of reasons why that will not happen.

Look, eventually American hegemony will fade. In time, yes. But now? Economically we now have serious problems, creating huge amounts of debt that we cannot afford and that could bring down the dollar and even cause hyperinflation. But nothing is inevitable. If we make the right choices, if we keep our economic house in order, we can avert an economic collapse. We can choose to decline or to stay strong.

SPIEGEL:Do you really believe that Obama deliberately wants to weaken the US?

Krauthammer:The liberal vision of America is that it should be less arrogant, less unilateral, more internationalist. In Obama's view, America would subsume itself under a fuzzy internationalism in which the international community, which I think is a fiction, governs itself through the UN.

SPIEGEL:A nightmare?

Krauthammer: Worse than that: an absurdity. I can't even imagine serious people would believe it, but I think Obama does. There is a way America will decline -- if we choose first to wreck our economy and then to constrain our freedom of action through subordinating ourselves to international institutions which are 90 percent worthless and 10 percent harmful.

SPIEGEL:And there is not even 1 percent that is constructive?

Krauthammer: No. The UN is worse than disaster. The UN creates conflicts. Look at the disgraceful UN Human Rights Council: It transmits norms which are harmful, anti-liberty, and anti-Semitic among other things. The world would be better off in its absence.

SPIEGEL:And Obama is, in your eyes, …

Krauthammer:He's becoming ordinary. In the course of his presidency, Obama has gone from an almost magical charismatic figure to an ordinary politician. Ordinary. Average. His approval ratings are roughly equal to what the last five presidents' were at the same time in their first term. Other people have already said he's done and finished because his health care plans ran into trouble; but I say they're wrong. He's going to come back, he will pass something on health care, there's no question. He will have a blip, be somewhat rehabilitated politically, but he won't be able to pass anything on climate change. He will not be the great transformer he imagines himself to be. A president like others -- with successes and failures.

SPIEGEL: Every incoming president to the White House has to confront reality and disappoint voters.

Krauthammer: True. But what made Obama unique was that he was the ultimate charismatic politician -- the most unknown stranger ever to achieve the presidency in the United States. No one knew who he was, he came out of nowhere, he had this incredible persona that floated him above the fray, destroyed Hillary, took over the Democratic Party and became president. This is truly unprecedented: A young unknown with no history, no paper trail, no well-known associates, self-created.

There was tremendous goodwill, even I was thrilled on Election Day, even though I had voted against him and argued against him.

SPIEGEL:What moved you that day?

Krauthammer: It's redemptive for a country that began in the sin of slavery to see the day, I didn't think I would live to see the day, when a black president would be elected.

Now he was not my candidate. I would have preferred the first black president to have been somebody ideologically congenial to me, say, Colin Powell (whom I encouraged to run in 2000) or Condoleezza Rice. But I felt truly proud to be an American as I saw him sworn in. I remain proud of this historic achievement.

SPIEGEL:What major mistakes has Obama made?

Krauthammer:I don't know whether I should call it a mistake, but it turns out he is a left-liberal, not center-right the way Bill Clinton was. The analogy I give is that in America we play the game between the 40-yard lines, in Europe you go all the way from goal line to goal line. You have communist parties, you have fascist parties, we don't have that, we have very centrist parties.

So Obama wants to push us to the 30-yard line, which for America is pretty far. Right after he was elected, he gave an address to Congress and promised to basically remake the basic pillars of American society -- education , energy and health care. All this would move America toward a social democratic European-style state. It is outside of the norm of America.

SPIEGEL:Yet, he had promised these reforms during the campaign.

Krauthammer: Hardly. He's now pushing a cap-and-trade energy reform. During the campaign he said that would cause skyrocketing utility rates. On healthcare, the reason he's had such resistance is because he promised reform, not a radical remaking of the whole system.

SPIEGEL:So he didn't see the massive resistance coming?

Krauthammer: Obama misread his mandate. He was elected six weeks after a financial collapse unlike any seen in 60 years; after eight years of a presidency which had tired the country; in the middle of two wars that made the country opposed to the Republican government that involved us in the wars; and against a completely inept opponent, John McCain. Nevertheless, Obama still only won by 7 points. But he thought it was a great sweeping mandate and he could implement his social democratic agenda.

SPIEGEL:Part of the problem when it comes to health care is the lack of solidarity in the American way of thinking. Can a president change a country?

Krauthammer:Yes. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it. Back then, we didn't have a welfare state, we didn't have old age pensions, we didn't have unemployment insurance. This country was the Wild West until FDR. Yes, you can change the spirit of America.

SPIEGEL:If Obama is so radical, why is the left wing of the Democratic Party so unhappy with him?

Krauthammer:They are disillusioned because he has ignored some of their social agenda, such as gay rights; continued some of the Bush policies he had once denounced, such as the detention without trial for terrorists; and on his large agenda for education and energy, where he has had no success.

SPIEGEL:How could Obama still win Republican support for healthcare reform?

Krauthammer:He should finally realize that we need to reform our insane malpractice system. The US is spending between $60 and $200 billion a year on protection against lawsuits. I used to be a doctor, I know how much is wasted on defensive medicine. Everybody I practiced with spends hours and enormous amounts of money on wasted tests, diagnostic and procedures -- all to avoid lawsuits. The Democrats will not touch it. When Howard Dean was asked why, he said honestly and explicitly that Democrats don't want to antagonize the trial lawyers who donate huge amounts of money to the Democrats.

SPIEGEL:What would be your solution?

KrauthammerI would make Americans pay half a percent tax on their health insurance and create a pool to socialize the cost of medical errors. That would save hundreds of billions of dollars that could be used to insure the uninsured. And second, I would abolish the absurd prohibition against buying health insurance in another state -- that reduces competition and keeps health insurance rates artificially high.

SPIEGEL:But you also need to cut back on healthcare expenses.

Krauthammer:It is absolutely crazy that in America employees receive health insurance from their employers -- and at the same time a tax break for this from the federal government. It's a $250 billion a year loophole in the government's budget. If you taxed healthcare benefits, you would have enough revenue for the government to give back to the individual to purchase their own insurance. If you did those two reforms alone, you would have the basis for affordable health insurance in America.

What the Democrats seem to be aiming for, however, is something somewhat different: the government gets control of the healthcare system by proxy; you heavily regulate the insurance companies, you subsidize the uninsured. That kind of reform would also work, but less efficiently -- and because of its unsustainable costs, we would, in the end, have to go to a system of rationing, the way the British do, the way the Canadians do, there is no other way. Obama can't say any of that, the word rationing is too unpopular.

SPIEGEL:Mr. Krauthammer, can a Nobel Peace Prize winner send more troops to Afghanistan?

Krauthammer:Sure, I don't see why not. The prize could have two contrary effects. It could give him an incentive to send more troops to show his own people that he is not an instrument of five Norwegian leftists. Or it can work the other way where in order not to lose the popularity he obviously feels from Europe, he would be less inclined. I think whatever impulses come out of those considerations neutralize each other. The prize will have zero effect on his decision.

'What the Obama Administration Pretends Is Realism Is Naïve Nonsense'

SPIEGEL:You have called him a "young Hamlet" over his hesitation about making a decision on Afghanistan. However, he's just carefully considering the options after Bush shot so often from the hip.

Krauthammer:No. The strategy he's revising is not the Bush strategy, it's the Obama strategy. On March 27, he stood there with a background of flags, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on one side and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on the other, and said: "Today, I'm announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." So don't tell me this is revising eight years of Bush, he's not. For all these weeks and months he's been revising his own strategy, and that's okay, you're allowed to do that. But if you're president and you're commander-in-chief, and your guys are getting shot and killed in the field, and you think "maybe the strategy I myself announced with great fanfare six months ago needs to be revised," do it in quiet. Don't show the world that you're utterly at sea and have no idea what to do! Your European allies already are skittish and reluctant, and wondering whether they ought to go ahead. It's your own strategy, if it's not working, then you revise it and fix it. You just don't demoralize your allies.

SPIEGEL:Is Afghanistan still a war of necessity, still a strategic interest?

Krauthammer:The phrase "war of necessity and war of choice" is a phrase that came out of a different context. Milan Kundera once wrote, "a small country is a country that can disappear and knows it." He was thinking of prewar Czechoslovakia. Israel is a country that can disappear and knows it. America, Germany, France, Britain, are not countries that can disappear. They can be defeated but they cannot disappear. For the great powers, and especially for the world superpower, very few wars are wars of necessity. In theory, America could adopt a foreign policy of isolationism and survive. We could fight nowhere, withdraw from everywhere -- South Korea, Germany, Japan, NATO, the United Nations -- if we so chose. From that perspective, every war since World War II has been a war of choice.
So using those categories -- wars of necessity, wars of choice -- is unhelpful in thinking through contemporary American intervention. In Afghanistan the question is: Do the dangers of leaving exceed the dangers of staying.

SPIEGEL:General Stanley McCrystal is asking for more troops. Is that really the right strategy?

Krauthammer:General Stanley McCrystal is the world expert on counterterrorism. For five years he ran the most successful counterterrorism operation probably in the history of the world: His guys went after the bad guys in Iraq, they ran special ops, they used the Predators and they killed thousands of jihadists that we don't even know about, it was all under the radar. And now this same general tells Obama that the counterterrorism strategy in Afghanistan will fail, you have to do counterinsurgency, population protection. That would seem an extremely persuasive case that counterterrorism would not work.

SPIEGEL:You famously coined the term "Reagan Doctrine" to describe Ronald Reagan's foreign policy. What is the "Obama Doctrine?"

Krauthammer:I would say his vision of the world appears to me to be so naïve that I am not even sure he's able to develop a doctrine. He has a view of the world as regulated by self-enforcing international norms, where the peace is kept by some kind of vague international consensus, something called the international community, which to me is a fiction, acting through obviously inadequate and worthless international agencies. I wouldn't elevate that kind of thinking to a doctrine because I have too much respect for the word doctrine.

SPIEGEL: Are you saying that diplomacy always fails?

Krauthammer: No, foolishness does. Perhaps when he gets nowhere on Iran, nowhere with North Korea, when he gets nothing from the Russians in return for what he did to the Poles and the Czechs, gets nowhere in the Middle East peace talks -- maybe at that point he'll begin to rethink whether the world really runs by international norms, consensus, and sweetness and light, or whether it rests on the foundation of American and Western power that, in the final analysis, guarantees peace.

SPIEGEL: That is the cynical approach.

Krauthammer: The realist approach. Henry Kissinger once said that peace can be achieved only one of two ways: hegemony or balance of power. Now that is real realism. What the Obama administration pretends is realism is naïve nonsense.

SPIEGEL: How do you solve problems like climate change if international institutions are failing?

Krauthammer: It's not the institution that does it, it's the confluence of interests. Where there is a confluence of interests among nations, as, for example the swine flu or polio, you can get well functioning international institutions like the World Health Organization. And you can act. Climate change is different, because the science remains hypothetical and the potential costs staggering.

SPIEGEL: You think it's a speculative theory?

Krauthammer: My own view is that there is man-made warming. On several occasions I have written that I don't think you can pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere indefinitely and not have a reaction. But there are great scientists such as Freeman Dyson, one of the greatest physicists of the last hundred years, who has studied the question, who believes quite the opposite. The reason transnational action is so difficult is because the major problem with climate change is, A, that there is no consensus, and, B, that the economic cost is simply staggering. Reversing it completely might mean undoing the modern industrial economy.

I'm not against international institutions that would try to tackle it. But the way to go, at least in the short run, is to go to nuclear power. It's amazing to me that people who are so alarmed about global warming are so reluctant to adopt the obvious short-term solution -- the bridge until the day when we have affordable renewable energy -- of nuclear power. It seems to me intellectually dishonest. Nuclear is obviously not the final answer because it produces its own waste -- but you have a choice. There's no free lunch. If you want an industrial economy, you need energy. If you want energy, it will produce pollution. You can have it in two forms. You can have it dissipated in the atmosphere -- like carbon dioxide -- which then you cannot recover, or you can have the waste concentrated in one small space like nuclear. That is far easier to deal with. The idea that you can be able to create renewable energy at a price anywhere near the current price for oil or gas or coal is a fantasy.

SPIEGEL: Do you basically think Obama is going to be a one-term president?

Krauthammer: No, I think he has a very good chance of being reelected. For two reasons. First, there's no real candidate on the other side, and you can't beat something with nothing. Secondly, it'll depend on the economy -- and just from American history, in the normal economic cycles, presidents who have their recessions at the beginning of their first term get reelected (Reagan, Clinton, the second Bush), and presidents who have them at the end of their first term don't (Carter, the first Bush). Obama will lose a lot of seats in next year's Congressional election, but the economy should be on the upswing in 2012.

SPIEGEL: Is the conservative movement in the United States in decline?

Krauthammer: When George W. Bush won in 2004, there was lots of stuff written that about the end of liberalism and the death of the Democratic Party. Look where we are now.

SPIEGEL: A Democrat is back in the White House, the party also controls Congress.

Krauthammer: Exactly. We see the usual overreading of history whenever one side loses. Look, there are cycles in American politics. US cycles are even more pronounced because we Americans have a totally entrepreneurial presidential system. We don't have parliamentary opposition parties with a shadow prime minister and shadow cabinets. Every four years, the opposition reinvents itself. We have no idea who will be the Republican nominee in 2012. The party structures are very fluid. We have a history of political parties being thrown out of the White House after two terms -- as has happened every single time with only one exception (Ronald Reagan) since World War II. The idea that one party is done in the US is silly. The Republicans got killed in 2006 and 2008, but they will be back.

SPIEGEL: The party lacks a strong, intelligent leader.

Krauthammer: Yes. And if the Republicans don't have one by 2012, they'll lose and they'll have to wait till 2016. It could take eight years to develop. You know, people say -- the White House was pushing this idea -- that the radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the opposition because there's no other leader. Well, ask yourself, in 2001 and 2002 and 2003, who was the leader of the Democratic Party? There was none. We don't have a parliamentary system in which opposition leaders are designated.

SPIEGEL: Some people say you're that leader.

Krauthammer: I'm just getting to an age where a lot of my contemporaries are retiring or dying. So I'm on default a voice of authority. I don't attribute very much to that.

SPIEGEL: Who will be the next leader of the Republican Party?

Krauthammer: Some presidential candidates from last year will return in 2012. Sarah Palin is not a serious contender, but somebody like Mitt Romney will be. He is a serious guy, he understands the economy. There will also be some young people many haven't yet heard about, such as Rep. Paul Ryan or Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Or outsiders like the mastermind behind the surge in Iraq, General David Petraeus, who might retire from the military and run for President on the Republican ticket.

SPIEGEL: Many people, however, currently think the Republicans are the party of "no."

Krauthammer: That perception is a serious problem for them.

SPIEGEL: At the end of Bush's second term, he granted you a long interview. Afterwards, you wrote that history would judge Bush kindly. Why?

Krauthammer: Basically I think Bush will have the same historical rehabilitation that Harry Truman did.

SPIEGEL: And why is that?

Krauthammer: Truman left in the middle of an unpopular war, to use your phrase, a war of choice. Truman didn't have to go into South Korea. And he was reviled and ridiculed for the stalemate that resulted. Now, he's seen as one of the great presidents of the 20th century.

I think Bush actually handled the Iraq War better than Truman handled the Korean War. For one thing, the number of losses is about one-tenth. Secondly, he made the right decision with the surge. Thirdly, if Iraq turns out well, meaning becomes a country fairly self-sufficient and fairly friendly to the West, it will have a more important effect on the West than having a non-communist South Korea. The Middle East is strategically a far more important region.

Bush's worst mistake was the conduct of the Iraq war in the middle years -- 2004-2006 -- and the attempt to win on the cheap, with a light footprint.

On the other hand, I think he did exactly the right thing after 9/11. Look at the Patriot Act, which revolutionized how we deal with domestic terrorism, passed within six weeks of 9/11 in the fury of the moment. Testimony to how well Bush got it right is that Democrats, who now control Congress and had been highly critical of it, are now after eight years reauthorizing it with almost no significant changes.

Afghanistan is more problematic. Our success in overthrowing the Taliban in 100 days was remarkable. It's one of the great military achievements of all time. On the other hand, holding Afghanistan is a lot harder than taking it, and to this day we are not sure how to do it. But the initial success in 2001-2002 did decimate and scatter al-Qaida. It is no accident that we have not suffered a second attack -- something no one who lived in Washington on Sept. 11 thought possible. I'm sure he will be rehabilitated in the long term.

Clare Booth Luce once said that every president is remembered for one thing, and that's what Bush will be remembered for. He kept us safe.

SPIEGEL: Is it too early to foresee what Obama will be remembered for?

Krauthammer:It is quite early. It could be his election.

SPIEGEL:Mr. Krauthammer, we thank you for this interview.

Interview conducted by Klaus Brinkbäumer and Gregor-Peter Schmitz.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Is this the "Justice System"?

Three years ago, six Islamic freaks sued US Airways and the Minneapolis Airport Police for discrimination and false arrest after they were bounced from a Phoenix-bound flight for behaving much like the 9/11 hijackers.

What do these mass murderers all have in
common besides being the 9/11 hijackers?

Facts Not In Dispute:

The six Islamic 'activists' chanted,  "Allah, Allah, Allah," and changed their seats while asking for seat belt extensions they never used. Though situated throughout the cabin, the six men appeared to be acting in concert. Witnesses also said they loudly cursed the U.S. Half of them had no checked baggage and what appeared to be one-way tickets.

If you were the one who made the decision to allow them to fly or not, what would you have decided? The police decided they would not fly. I personally agree with that decision. Not so, Federal Judge Ann Montgomery, who felt that the Islamic Activists were the victims of DISCRIMINATION. Her opinion strongly favored the Islamic Radicals who sued and WON.

I'm putting it in writing here on the blog so the government can use it against me later: If six scroungy looking rag heads get on an airplane where I am a passenger, start screaming and chanting Allah-u-Akhbar and acting freaky, the police can arrest me and take the flying Imams to the frigging hospital. Then they can sue me for kicking their Islamic asses. I am one man - but still I am one man. Take a look at the photo to the left and recall for one moment how you felt on that day. I feel the same way TODAY as I did then!

Judge Montgomery, you are a disgrace to the Federal Bench. The Islamic radicals are gloating today with their cash settlement. If you (Judge Montgomery) had made that decision on 9/12/2001, the public would have HUNG YOU BY THE NECK UNTIL DEAD from the nearest light pole.
The imams' attorney — a board member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which financed the case — says the deal involves an undisclosed amount paid to his clients by airport police. Details are sealed. The airport authority issued a statement saying insurance limits its liability to $50,000.
"The settlement of this case is a clear victory for justice and civil rights," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. - Investors' Business Daily

Before the settlement, Awad tried to equate the case with a landmark civil-rights case. "If we win in this case," he intoned, "this will go down in history, like Rosa Parks did 50 years ago." But CAIR's agenda goes far beyond civil rights. The FBI says CAIR is a Hamas front and has cut off formal ties to it. The Justice Department has blacklisted the group as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror finance case in U.S. history - IBD

And you politicians wonder why we protest and scratch your heads at the Tea Party Movement. It's not only about taxes. We see insane behavior by the government, we see foolishness in the courts and we want this pandering to ENEMIES of America to stop. 

Abortion and Murder

For my purposes here I'll rely on California Law and the California Penal Code. Other states may have slightly different law, however I have no intent to cover the nation with this blog posting.


CPC 187 - Murder Defined
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. 
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon' s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not. (3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus. 
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

Under California State Law, a fetus is separated from the definition of a human being - presumably because it is not 'independently viable'. However the punishment for murder is identical - unless the life is taken by a mother or a physician.

So should you kill a pregnant mother, you could be/would be charged with a double murder. If the mother of the child solicits you to aid or abet in the murder of her unborn child, it's legal.


Am I the only one who doesn't understand why it's MURDER in one case and somehow socially acceptable in another? If you presume that an unborn child is somehow less than human - how could you call its death under any circumstances a MURDER? It simply doesn't make sense.

The Democrats really hated Sarah Palin because of her stand on this issue. 

Where do you stand?

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Planned Political Kidnapping

“Really, my dear chap, you seem to be reading too many romantic thrillers. This is no romance dear friend, this is reality.” –John Forsythe, The Day of the Jackal                  
To date, we haven't seen planned political kidnapping conducted by the US Government against US Citizens on American soil, but it doesn't mean it won't happen. Certainly it would be folly to presume that it's beyond the Obama Administration and their Chicago political machine to engage in this practice as their hold on power diminishes and as the possible election of another candidate to the office of President of the United States becomes a possibility.

If it happens, this brief post will educate you very briefly in the taxonomy of the problem. I'm not suggesting that it will happen. I merely provide information to aid you, the reader (the investigator), in the event it happens. I wish to thank Mr. W. L. Cassidy. His monograph on the subject was freely used as source material. I also thank others who schooled me in the craft when I was in my youth, in the service of the United States Government.

The incidence if political kidnappings are relatively small in the United States, but worldwide they are more the rule rather than the exception. To the person charged with such an investigaton, they can pose a daunting task. Because of the nature of the crime there will be inevitable political interest, media interest and bureaucratic pressure to “solve the crime” will be profound. It is only through an appreciation of the mindset of determined people, and the general process by which these actions are planned and carried out that the investigator begins to formulate the investigative process he will use to “solve the crime.”

The word kidnap entered the English language in the late seventeenth century, as a means to describe the practice of stealing children for forced labor. The practice of redeeming captives, whether adults or children, by payment of valuables or performance of some service was regarded as a separate issue. Originally, this latter practice was described, from the early fourteenth century, and thence, for a period of approximately four centuries, by the general term, ransoming. During the eighteenth century, kidnap replaced ransoming in popular usage, and the trend has continued to the present time. In many kidnap situations in the present age the victim of political kidnapping is killed even after the payment of ransom and thus the crime becomes assassination. (Cassidy)

Kidnapping is defined as the unlawful control of persons leading to (or believed to lead to) an end which motivates such control. Kidnapping may be subjective or objective in character, covert or clandestine. Abduction, though the essence of kidnapping, is but one means of control to be employed in a kidnapping action.

Subjective Kidnapping

Subjective kidnapping is a criminal act rather than a political activity. Such kidnapping may also stem from persons afflicted with mental or emotional illness. Subjective kidnapping only becomes political if a political figure has been targeted.

Objective Kidnapping

This category may be either political or military in nature, though it may proceed from what we would regard as mercenary motives. The deed of kidnapping exists apart from the kidnappers as personalities and definite political or military objectives are deemed served by the kidnapping. In this instance, the target will be kidnapped no matter who the kidnappers happen to be.

A closer definition of kidnapping is possible only when one approaches the subject of motive, or purpose. There are twelve principal motivations or “ends” which are served by the tactic of kidnapping.

1. Kidnapping for money, gems or other negotiable valuables.

2. Kidnapping for physical possession of a person. (For intelligence purposes or forced labor as an example)

3. Kidnapping for a cause of action.

4. Kidnapping to prevent an action.

5. Kidnapping for the purposes of psychological propaganda.

6. Kidnapping as a prelude to killing.

7. Kidnapping as an operational element of a larger action.

8. Kidnapping as a purely disruptive activity.

9. Kidnapping for the purposes of a mentally or emotionally disturbed person.

10. Kidnapping for revenge.

11. Kidnapping to execute a pseudo-legalistic sentence.

12. Kidnapping as a protective measure (to protect another person or the kidnappers themselves).

All the motives above tend to overlap one another to a greater or lesser degree. Because kidnapper's motives overlap considerably, it is important to divide them into subjective and objective categories.

Management by Kidnappers

To what degree is the political kidnapping managed by those apart from those committing the actual kidnap attempt? Operational planning is present in every sort of kidnapping, whether political or otherwise, and even complex planning is regarded as normal. Planning and even careful planning is not a good criterion to use when attempting to determine whether the kidnapping was managed by those outside the actual event.

The determination of outside involvement may only be made after a very precise examination of:

1. The specific nature of evident planning;

2. The number and nature of persons involved in the event;

3. The parties best served by kidnapping;

4. The identity of the target;

5. Groups capable of such actions;

6. “Signatures” left by virtue of the kidnapper’s training.

Political kidnapping actions reliably portend several implications. At the very least: A group capable of conceiving, supporting, conducting and protecting complex offensive actions to completion. Such capabilities require substantial funding; a training program; a sophisticated intelligence system, and select personnel.

Capability as isolated criteria is valueless as an indicator of who may have carried out a political kidnapping. Almost any nation, military or security organization, any disciplined aggregate of trained individuals, and many multi-national corporations are capable.

The political character if kidnapping is not necessarily decided by the identity of the target. It is decided by the ultimate impact of the kidnapping itself.

It is possible that a lone individual could successfully execute a political kidnapping, but it is not probable. Actions by squads or teams are, by far, the most common type. Such teams vary widely in numbers. Groups from two to fifty have been observed in the latter half of the twentieth century. Modern teams should be expected to have between fifteen and twenty-five being encountered—more in wartime than in times of lesser tension. Men, women and children often participate. These teams may be an element of a civilian resistance movement; a nationally or internationally maintained terrorist or counter-terrorist capability; a criminal organization; a national security capability; a separatist organization; an unavowable terrorist organization or they may be privately supported.

Would the US Government begin a program of planned political kidnapping targeting dissenters, with the kidnapping being blamed on "Domestic Terrorists"1?  The answer is that I don't know. But if it happens, you have a place to start when attempting to uncover the event.

If you are disturbed by my suggestion that it can happen here, too bad, sports fans. It's only through being alert and aware to potential situations that we can be prepared to deal with them.

1 Domestic Terrorists have been defined loosely by Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano as people who are opposed to abortion, people who are in favor of ownership of firearms, people who are opposed to illegal immigration, Americans returning from military service, etc.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

The Art of Listening (in warfare)

President Obama said the right thing when he ran for office. He said that he'd listen to his generals. The past eight years of post 9/11 war has created some of the best and brightest generals America has produced. Some great and insightful warriors have come to lead US troops and the military trusts them. The would-be commander-in-chief said he trusted them when he was spewing out campaign rhetoric. The truth is something else. And Barack Hussein Obama is trashing the slender thread of hope the military had in his leadership potential. At present, he (the President) is stalling in a war that he adopted and called "necessary" for the good of America and of the world.
The Pentagon consensus is that the window to win is closing and the opportunity will be lost soon. Instead of acting on the August recommendations of our commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to send 40,000 reinforcements, the administration is delaying that hard decision. In an eerie echo of the criticism anti-war Democrats made against South Vietnam before it was abandoned to the communists, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said over the weekend that new troops would have to wait because of the electoral woes. (Investor's Business Daily)
President Barack Hussein Obama seems unable to formulate a long term strategy to confront the threat that we face in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The criteria for doing that is well known to Generals Petreus and McChrystal, and it's not new here:

  1. Deciding whether our interests are better served by intervening in and by mitigating the process of political and religious ferment in the Muslim world, or by containing spillover of violence and unrest in to Western communities.
  2. Deciding how to allocate resources among military and non-military segments of national power.
  3. Deciding how much to spend (resources and lives) on this problem.
  4. Deciding how to prioritize geographically.
If the problem is counter-insurgency in Afghanistan, as seems to be the case, we need to balance military and civilian efforts on the ground. This is something both General Petreus and McChrystal favor. I hold common cause with them as an insignificant blogger. The advice they provide their president is carefully considered and is sound. Getting the politician to pay attention to it - and keeping the military's morale up while he stalls is a challenge.

The stall is a sop to the liberal community who don't want us in Afghanistan at all. He may also be stalling until he actually receives his Nobel Peace Prize before committing 60,000 more combat troops to Afghanistan. I don't know, but suspect his motives move along priorities other than what's good for our soldiers in foreign fields who fight and die while the commander-in-chief continues to lie.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Pragmatism in US Foreign Relations

Realism vs Idealism

The bedrock of sound foreign policy should be one of comprehensive pragmatism rather than utopian hopes. Our Founding Fathers understood clearly that good government was founded on a "sly understanding of men's passions."

As the Cold War drew to a close a furious debate spun up in intellectual circles as to the nature of the emerging world order. Today we understand that the world has become a more difficult and in some ways more dangerous place. Whether it was due to the "clash of civilizations" or the continuation for the Hegelian struggle for recognition, Samuel P. Huntington was accurate in his assessment that "the moment of euphoria at the end of the Cold War generated an illusion of harmony, which was soon revealed to be exactly that."

The Obama Administration's idealistic whimsy as a methodology for foreign policy is a disaster now realized that will continue to deteriorate so long as the principal actors in the Executive and Legislative Branches of government are in office, wielding power.

America was soundly founded on a tradition of skepticism and constructive realism. The success of American Republic and capitalism is due to inherent checks against human excesses in government, and appeals to human self-interest in commerce. The Founding Fathers were sober realists who possessed a rather grim perspective on the human condition. The dour restraints on the new republic reflected not only their own political experiences but also their devotion to the works of Hobbes. 

The dark forces of human nature that lie just beneath the veneer of civilization compels us to look not to the morality of intent but the morality of consequence. The pursuit of self-interest is not so much the advocacy of national aggrandizement but the realization of our own limits accompanied by an analysis of the consequences of failure. When we consider US foreign policy, we need to place a premium on self-preservation as opposed to sacrifice, public virtue over private virtue, pride in achievements over humility. It is a continuous exercise in realism that accepts the universality of human nature yet acknowledges the various wavelengths of morality that serve to contain it. Individual moral perfection and a utopian state of man, while the grist of academic discussion must be set aside for the practical realities of the world that surrounds us.
Machiavelli wrote, "Anyone wishing to see what is to be must consider what has been: all the things of this world in every era have their counterparts in ancient times." (The Prince)
The leaders of the American nation are not students of history, unless that history covers the failed disasters that are utopian socialism and Marxism. They work fine in the classroom but not in the harsh world we as a nation are forced to live in. They need to school themselves in order to understand not only what they must do, but why they need to do it.

Realism and Idealism are polar opposites, often defining the conflicts we see in our political system.* Realism defines human nature as inherently bringing about conflict. All people act on self-interest as their motivating factor. Both Madison and Hamilton believed in realism and used its tenets as principles in crafting our Constitutional government. When we founder in our foreign affairs, it is because the administration rejects this completely.

A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell --and-- Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos by Robert Kaplan

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Black Liberation Theology - Making Hatred Legitimate

The Reverend Al Sharpton and The President Barack Hussein Obama Jr.

How can you make hatred (particularly racial hatred) institutionalized and acceptable. The Klu Klux Klan did it in portions of the South and of course in the State of West Virginia, where Senator Robert Byrd (a Democrat and ranking Senator in the US Senate) served as Exalted Cyclops.
He (Senator Byrd) said he had joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist.However, in 1946 or 1947 he wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation." (Wikipedia)
I suspect it's ok for a Democrat, particularly a powerful (though presently senile) Democrat to serve despite his violent racist background.

But we're talking about Black Liberation Theology, the faith of Barack Hussein Obama (when he's not being a Black Muslim) here, not the racist Klan - aren't we?

Yes and no, we're talking about legitimizing racial hatred through institutionalized religion - - time to discuss the black version of the KKK - which is also the faith of the Reverend Jessie Jackson (famous professional racial agitator).

How and what does the President of the United States worship:

According to James H. Cone (CLICK HERE) who developed what would be called Black Liberation Theology (CLICK HERE) it came out of the "need for black people to define the scope and meaning of black existence in a white society", and emerged in the last two decades in the wave of liberation movements as an expression of "black consciousness". (Wikipedia)
Does that smack of racism to you? Just a little?

All religion has some ties to salvation - and vindication of right and wrong, doesn't it? Certainly Christianity does as does Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. How is this central concept handled in Black Liberation Theology - the "christian" faith of Barack Hussein Obama and his mentor, Dr. Jeremiah Wright?
Salvation is freedom from the oppression and pertains to blacks in this life. Proponents of black theology are concerned specifically with the political and theological aspects of salvation more than the spiritual. In other words, salvation is physically liberation from white oppression, or "The white enemy" (Cone) rather than freedom from the sinful nature and acts of each individual person. Presenting heaven as a reward for following Christ is seen as an attempt to dissuade blacks from the goal of real liberation of their whole persons. (Wikipedia)
Do you see anything that smacks of racial hatred there? Barack Hussein Obama attended a church that preached this as its principal doctrine for over twenty years.

Surely since Barack Hussein Obama is a follower of Jesus Christ, his faith would deal with issues pertaining to Christ, wouldn't it?
Jesus is seen as a non-white, social liberator who focused on the emancipation of the poor and of the marginalized, and many parallel are made with the emancipation efforts of black people in the United States. Christ's message is interpreted as encouraging "black power" (Henry). His intrinsic nature and spiritual activity receive little or no attention. Some even deny his role as the atoning sacrifice for the world's sins and provider of eternal life (Shrine).
To read more about the beliefs of Black Liberation Theology - and to better understand the alleged faith of President Barack Hussein Obama, check out these books at your local library (I wouldn't pay for them).

*Cone, James H. God of the Oppressed, New York: Seabury Press, 1975

*Cone, James H. For My People: Black Theology and the Black Church, New York: Orbis Books, 1984

*Cone, James H. My Soul Looks Back, New York: Orbis Books, 1986

*Cone, James H. Black Theology and Black Power (20th Anniversary Edition), New York: Harper SanFrancisco, 1989

*Hopkins, Dwight N. Introducing Black Theology of Liberation, New York: Orbis book, 1999

*Hopkins, Dwight N. Down, Up and Over: Slave Religion and Black Theology, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000

Black Liberation Theology teaches hatred of white people on the basis of RACE ALONE. The only plank on which it stands is that simple guiding principal. If you don't believe me, explore the faith for yourself. I gave preference to the works of James Cone (above) since Rev. Jeremiah Wright, President Obama's pastor, mentor, teacher and counsellor (for 20 years) said that "Cone's writings forms a cornerstone of my faith." (Wright)

Obama - Chavez

President Barack Hussein Obama promised to reach out to our enemies and to embrace them as friends. It was one campaign promise he made good. The president has a talent for embracing third world potentates and petty dictators. Chavez may be the very worst of the coterie of fans who have pandered to the narcissistic American.

Chavez bullied a referendum through on February 15, 2009 which means he can be "president for life". It's a goal that his good friend Barack Hussein Obama aspires to but it may not work out the same for Obama. Chaves said that he "needs another ten years in office for Venezuela's socialist revolution to take root properly." (Time) At present, Venezuela's ambitions are not imperialistic, however since Russia is now their principal military supplier and they are arming for war, it may only be a matter of time before they start finding reasons to expand their borders at their neighbors expense - and for the sake of spreading their brand of national socialism throughout South America.

Where will the US be in all this? Are we now an ally of Venezuela in Chavez's vision of an expanded and "enlarged" nation? The US contained Castro - Obama seems content to get into bed with Chavez.

The British seem to love him as much as Obama does. (video above)

Personally I think the US should assist in regime change in Venezuela with extreme prejudice but we need to wait for another president to make that dream a reality.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

America vs The World

I think it's time to check the facts and see how the United States stacks up in the world. It's true, we have the worst president and congressional leadership in our history, but we're not out of the game to spite being very poorly led.

Let's take a moment to compare measurable numbers and see how we stack up.

US Economy:  $14.3 Trillion/year (2009 numbers)

That's three times as large as the second largest economy - Japan. It's about a trillion less than the next four largest economies combined (China, Germany, Japan and France).  The entire European Union has an economy of $18 Trillion, but they don't get along, can't make a joint decision and don't county as a nation so much as a trading block.

US Per Capita Income:  $47,000.00 per inhabitant (based on the economy above)

Germany and France follow with about $44,000.00 per inhabitant, Japan at $38,000 and China at $2,900. China's balance looks good because of account surplus. When you look at the standard of living of 80% of the 1.3 billion people who live there, it's grim indeed.

US Military Power: $607 billion spent on the military in 2008.

The next nine largest-spending nations spent $476 billion.

US Naval Strength: US Navy tonnage exceeds the world's next largest 17 fleets combined. (as of 2005)

Higher Education: Of the world's top twenty universities, all but 3 are in the US. Of the top 50, all but eleven are located in the US.

Warrior Culture: US Has it.
It's required to fight wars. Europe, though it has a greater population than the US does not have the mindset that made it master of the world long ago. The EU is not proud of its military. It has the US to back its play so it can play the pacifist with the understanding that the "imperialist" across the ocean will rescue it if pacifism ends them in hot water.

My bet is with the United States of America.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Please contact your representatives about the national health care bill currently being slammed through Washington. It is a bad program (where other good options are available).

Consider the words of President Barack Hussein Obama's Doctor:

Monday, October 12, 2009

CAHO - A nut fell from the ACORN tree?

There are a lot of acronyms floated around in all industries and businesses. It's important to keep them straight and know which pieces of the puzzle fit where.

For those of you who worked in organized labor shops, were you ever asked to conduct a census for the US Government? It sounds crazy, doesn't it. You might be involved in union business from time to time but it always has to do with your real job. If you're a shop steward, for example, you are concerned with the rules being fairly applied by the company as covered in a contract. You don't usually go door to door with census tracts.

(Chart above Source: Criminal Investigation of ACORN by Lake County, IL)

Yet that's what the (Service Employee's International Union) SEIU seems to be poised to do now that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) lost their contract with the US Census Bureau for vote rigging and fraud. SEIU should not be involved with the US Census either. The Chicago Sun Times seems to agree with me. (CLICK HERE FOR THE ARTICLE) written by Abdon M. Pallasch, political reporter for the Sun Times.

I want to discuss the COMMUNITY ADVOCACY HOME OWNERSHIP (CAHO) organization but before I go there, I need to refresh your memories just a bit. To do so, I'm going to post a timeline by the Free Republic. The timeline is important because it helps explain the interwoven nature of SEIU and ACORN

SEIU and ACORN Timeline in Illinois

1983 – SEIU Local 880 claims it first organized through ACORN

2002 – SEIU Local 880 files tax return using ACORN email address as contact

2006 – Local 880’s Web site last updated; email ; address 209 W. Jackson, Chicago

2006 – SEIU Local 880 (located at 209 W. Jackson, Suite 201) disburses $92,006 to Illinois ACORN WNB (located at 209 W. Jackson) for “Membership Campaign Service”

2007 – SEIU Local 880 (located at 209 W. Jackson, Suite 201) disburses $60,118 to ACORN Chicago (located at 209 W. Jackson) for “Membership Services”

2007 – SEIU Local 880 employs former ACORN Illinois President Denise Dixon

2008 – SEIU Local 1 (located at 111 E. Wacker in Chicago) disburses $58,150 to “Houston ACORN” for “Reimbursements for Lost Time” and another $20,000 to “Support Election Efforts”

2008 – Lake County voter registration fraud allegations linked to SEIU coordinator

2008 – Illinois Secretary of State revokes status of ACORN on November 14th

2008 – ACORN’s Web site lists Chicago ACORN’s “Tax and Benefit Access Center” at 209 W. Jackson, 2nd Floor in Chicago

2008 – SEIU Health Care Illinois & Indiana pays rent to Chicago Organizing and Support Center

2009 – Illinois Secretary of State revokes status of ACORN Community Labor Organizing Center on January 9th

2009 – SEIU Local 880’s Form LM-2 (located at 209 W. Jackson) declares Local 880 ceased operations as of March 31, 2009 and transferred all remaining assets to “SEIU Health Care Illinois Indiana”; SEIU Health Care Illinois & Indiana’s Web site shows address at 209 W. Jackson, Suite 200 in Chicago

2009 – U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on July 23rd names 361 entities in the “ACORN Council,” including Chicago Organizing and Support Center

2009 – Illinois Secretary of State reports “involuntary dissolution” of ACORN Community Land Association of Illinois on August 14th

2009 – IL Secretary of State revokes status of Chicago Organizing and Support Center on Sept. 11th 

It leaves you wondering what the difference is between a labor union and a community advocacy group, doesn't it? Do labor union members usually consider themselves community advocates? Ok, anywhere outside Chicago?

Now, you are asking yourself what all this has to do with CAHO, aren't you? Outside of this blog have you ever heard of CAHO?  It's been under the radar, and is being formed quietly through a series of conventions being held nationwide under the rubric "Save the Dream Tour"

Why? To take over the job ACORN was doing. 

Who is doing this? I don't have all the answers. It seems to be sponsored by the (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America) NACA. I invite you to Google Search Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America for yourself. The results are mixed and not very encouraging. Bruce Marks, CEO of NACA is intent on feasting on the carcass of his competitor, ACORN by cloning it in the form of CAHO and sending it forth. 

So is CAHO the same thing as ACORN? In function, yes. Under different management. And it's big business. Bruce Marks of the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America won loan commitments totaling $3.8 billion from Bank of America, First Union Corporation, and the Fleet Financial Group in Boston alone.

Will it be a racketeer influenced and corrupt organization the way ACORN was? It's too soon to tell. Since the legacy media no longer seems to do any serious investigative reporting, I can't tell you whether or not anyone will look into this from the media.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

The NEW Acorn? - CAHO

As you all may know, ACORN is more or less dead. However, has the phoenix risen from the ashes? Somebody call Glenn Beck!

Over the last four days, yellow shirted volunteers, many thousands, formerly employed by ACORN, gathered together in Las Vegas, Nevada at the Las Vegas Convention Center to move forward with the new ACORN, called:

Community Advocacy and Homeownership Organization

What were they discussing in the convention? (CLICK HERE)
And in case the link goes dead, here is their press release:

NACA Press Conference for Save the Dream Tour: Las Vegas Convention Center on October 8, 1 p.m.

October 07, 2009

- Las Vegas is the next stop of the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America's (NACA) nationwide Save the Dream tour. It is coming to the Las Vegas Convention Center on Friday, October 9, through Monday, October 12, 2009. 

What: Press conference to launch the Las Vegas event
When: Thursday, October 8, 1 p.m.

Where: Las Vegas Convention Center, North Hall 3 and 4
This is the third city in the Western U.S. leg of the NACA tour. Los Angeles, the first city on the

 Western U.S. tour, drew more than 50,000 homeowners looking for mortgage restructuring relief, and the second city, Phoenix, drew approximately 40,000 homeowners.
NACA provides a free effective solution for at-risk homeowners with unaffordable mortgages by permanently reducing the interest rate often to 4%, 3% and 2% and, if necessary, reducing the outstanding principal to what homeowners can afford. NACA can do this because it has secured legally

 binding agreements with most of the major lenders and servicers, which covers 90% of the at-risk homeowners.
'Our thousands of volunteers work with homeowners at the event to prepare a budget that verifies and documents what the homeowners can afford. We then present these documents onsite to our over 200 bank representatives for approval,' said Bruce Marks, CEO of NAC

A. 'Many attendees of the Save the Dream tour events come away with a lower monthly payment and sometimes a lower principal. As our tour generates more and more interest, the banks are more willing to cooperate with us which really helps these troubled homeowners.'
Over 230,000 participants have already participated in NACA's Save the Dream tour in Cleveland, Chicago, St. Louis, Atlanta, Los Angeles and Phoenix, providing same day

 solutions to thousands of homeowners, helping to avoid foreclosure, restructure mortgages, and reduce interest rates. Click here for media coverage from all the previous events.
The incredible success of NACA was also featured recently on national television. Click here to view ABC News Nightline feature on NACA's Save the Dream tour. The feature went on the frontlines with NACA CEO Bruce Marks, 'a man trying to restore the American Dream.' 
All of NACA's services are free. Homeowners drive and fly from long distances to attend these extraordinary Save the Dream events. The last stop on NACA's Western U.S. Save the Dream tour is

 the San Francisco Bay Area on October 16-20.
Anyone interested in attending the Save the Dream event Friday, 

October 9, through Monday, October 12, at the Las Vegas Convention Center should pre-register for an appointment at (,%20


The website also lists documents that homeowners need to bring with t

hem to the event. Homeowners can also register by calling toll-free (888) 499-6222.

About the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA

Founded in 1988, NACA is a national non-profit community advocacy and homeownership organization headquartered in Boston. Through its 38 offices nationwide and 

two call centers, NACA has set the national standard in restructuring thousands of mortgages to what the homeowners can afford, as well as providing the best mortgage in America for homebuyers.
News of NACA's program and advocacy has been featured in nation

al and local media. 

News of NACA's program and advocacy has been featured in n

ational and local media. Boston Globe chose Bruce Marks, founder and CEO of the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA), as its 2007 Bostonian of the Year. There is tremendous recognition for the effectiveness of NACA's advocacy and for providing re

al, affordable homeownership solutions for working people.
Darren Duarte
NACA Director of Communications & Public AffairsCell: 617 947 2632 
Email: DDuarte(at)NACA(dot)com

From what I can determine, CAHO is a spin-off from NACA, and if it's not the new ACORN, it sure LOOKS like the new ACORN.

The people attending the convention wore the yellow shirts of NACA, but the acronym was CAHO.