Monday, September 28, 2009

The Democrat’s New Tax Math

An analysis of the data on the proposed Democratic tax plan shows that it would have to top 30% of all U.S. income earners paying almost all of the income taxes.

The top 30% of U.S. income earners begins at $68,400/year!

There are a number of things interesting about all this, the first being that G W Bush’s across-the-board income tax rate cuts not only had income tax revenues skyrocketing in their wake, but actually increased the percentage of taxes the highest income earners paid!

In 2007 the top 5% of income earners in America paid well over half of all income taxes (57%) even though they only earned only 33% of the total income. The top 1% of U.S. income earners took in 19% of the total or annual aggregate income but paid 37% of all income taxes.

Way back in 2004, economist Robert Rector noted that “The Census income distribution figures are the foundation of most class-warfare rhetoric. On the surface, these figures show a high level of inequality: The top fifth of households have $14.30 of income for every $1.00 at the bottom.

However, these figures are flawed by the exclusion of taxes and social safety net spending and by the fact that the "fifths" do not contain equal numbers of people. Adjustment for these factors radically alters the picture of income distribution: The top fifth of the population has $4.21 of income for every $1.00 at the bottom.

“The remaining inequality in society is heavily influenced by the lack of work at the bottom. If working-age adults in the lower quintiles worked as much as their higher-income counterparts, the income disparity of the top to the bottom quintiles would fall to $2.91 to $1.00.”

“Still, the top fifth of U.S. households (with incomes above $84,000) remain perennial targets of class-warfare enmity. These families, however, perform a third of all labor in the economy. They contain the best educated and most productive workers, and they provide a disproportionate share of the investment needed to create jobs and spur economic growth. Nearly all are married-couple families, many with two or more earners. Far from shirking the tax burden, these families pay 82.5 percent of total federal income taxes and two-thirds of federal taxes overall. By contrast, the bottom quintile pays 1.1 percent of total federal taxes.”

Moreover, while some of the disparity in income is due to the fact that some skills are simply far more valuable than others, which is why a surgeon earns many times what a schoolteacher does, along with the fact that the top fifth of taxpayers do one third of all the work, a large bulk of the income disparity is due to the wide disparities in the cost of living in various areas across the country.

It simply costs a LOT more to live in places like the D.C. metro area, the New York metropolitan area, the Boston hub, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. than it does to live in places like southern and western Virginia, South Dakota, northern Nevada, etc.

What the Democrat’s new tax plan would do would be a boom to those living in low cost of living locales, while punishing those working in the larger, costlier urban areas.

This will be a boom to those mostly reliably "Red" low cost of living locales and to Conservatives and possibly the GOP (so long as the Conservative agenda controls that Party) because (1) those rural voters, while happily taking the tax cut, will NEVER support the “godless liberal agenda” sadly associated with the Democratic Party and (2) many of those moderates and independents in those very Blue urban areas could easily be turned Republican once they suffer enough under the liberal’s burden.

So long as they just weakly oppose the Democratic tax plan, there’s really no downside in all this for them. They can just sit back and reap the coming wave of taxpayer resentment that’s sure to come.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Who’s Lying About Healthcare Reform?...

Just this week the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) told Senator Max Baucus (meanly depicted at left) and his health care committee that his plan to cut $127 BILLION from Medicare Advantage (a program that gives almost a quarter of all seniors private health insurance options) would result in LOWER BENEFITS and some 2.7 MILLION Americans LOSING COVERAGE.

When the insurance company Humana sent its customers a mailing telling THEM exactly what the CBO told Senator Baucus’ committee, Senator Baucus ordered that those mailings be immediately halted and directed Medicare regulators to investigate Humana for apparently trying to educate their customers.

Jonathan Blum (the current acting director of the offices of Medicare and Medicaid Services) called the Humana mailings “misleading and confusing to beneficiaries...” and banned all Advantage contractors from telling their customers what the CBO just told the Baucus committee!

Meanwhile, AARP’s website erroneously claims that it’s a “fact” that “none of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress will cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs.”

According to the CBO, what AARP is claiming is UNTRUE, or to put it in the parlance of the other side, “A LIE.”

Douglas Elmendorf (director of the CBO) has said that cuts to the Medicare Advantage program “could lead many plans to limit the benefits they offer, raise their premiums, or withdraw from the program.”

Again, why all these lies and obfuscations from the health care reform advocates?

Look, the bottom-line is that neither government nor industry likes the current system of employer-paid healthcare. Government covets all that untaxed compensation and our businesses and industries are looking to shed those costs to become more competitive in the global economy.

The primary (almost the sole) reason for the skyrocketing cost of American healthcare is, simply put that we GIVE AWAY far too much advanced and high-tech medical care to people unwilling and unable to pay for it. Like it or not, THAT'S our current "healthcare problem" in a nutshell.

Honesty demands that we acknowledge that “cost cutting” actually means rationing and restrictions in health care reform parlance.

And to be honest, there’s NOTHING at all wrong with that.

IF DONE RIGHT (with a combination of a strictly rationed and restricted expanded public option along with available private supplemental insurance), such an expanded public option would (1) make the American workforce even more cost-effective, productive and competitive in the global marketplace, (2) make America’s businesses and industries far more globally competitive virtually overnight and (3) eradicate BILLIONS in “untaxed compensation” that most full-time workers (especially government workers) now get.

Such an expanded public option, so long as it is tightly rationed and heavily restricted, would also serve to REDUCE the costs of illegal immigrants and others unwilling/unable to pay for advanced care by rationing ans restricting the amount and level of care they could get, and it would introduce new restrictions and rationing of care to Medicaid in particular, but also to Medicare, as well.

This COULD easily save the U.S. BILLIONS of dollars and transform our industries into global juggernauts very quickly. So long as supplemental private insurance is available to those willing and able to pay to avoid the restrictions and rationing that’ll come with the “free” expanded public option, the people MOST negatively impacted by those restrictions and rationed care would be the least productive and the most reckless and irresponsible among us (“’s saying no one’s going to carry YOUR burdens anymore...” – President B.H. Obama). And those very Reaganesque sentiments would not be at all a bad thing for the U.S. economy overall.
So WHY the lies? Why tell people they’re going to get BETTER healthcare and cheaper healthcare, when, in fact, we’ll be doling out LESS care, MORE rationed and restricted care, in exchange for a more vibrant economy and more “fairness,” and by “fairness” I mean, an end to those unwilling/unable to pay mooching off those who can...and do? Why sell something that DOES have its own substantial merits as something that it’s not?’re trying to keep all the dupes who THINK they’ll be getting something MORE for less, or even “free,” continuing to believe that delusion.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Yet ANOTHER College Rape Hoax....ONLY....

This past week, we've had yet another major rape hoax story, this time out of Hofstra University on Long Island.

Of course, this time, while the accuser is yet another black female, it was not a maliciously false charge, triggered by money and blatantly racially motivated, on the accuser's part, as it was in the Duke rape haox, it was simply a troubled young woman (18 y/o Danmell Ndonye, pictured above) making a false charge, because she didn't want her new boyfriend to think she was a slut (yes, taking on four guys at once sexually, in a dormitory bathroom, can tarnish your reputation a bit). Still, DON'T expect this case to be the cause celeb the Duke Hoax was among media mavens and academic light-weights. It's (no pun intended) just too vanilla.

Thankfully, in THIS case, the detectives were able to get hold of a cell phone video that showed Danmell was a willing participant and her story quickly unravelled. The Durham police never seemed to think of THAT - questioning or "breaking" Crystal Gail Mangum's ever-changing story. A lapse that speaks volumes about the professionalism of that particular Department.

I'm thankful that all four young men in this case were quickly exonerated, BUT, it offers more proof, if more were needed, that a moment's BAD JUDGMENT can have potentially long lasting BAD EFFECTS.

File This Under: They Actually Said THAT?!

In the wake of federal court judge Nicholas Garaufus declaring both the 1999 and 2007 Fire Department entrance exams discriminatory against blacks, Captain Paul Washington (pictured left, in dress blue uniform), the former President of the FDNY's Vulcan Society (the FDNY’s black fraternity) had THIS to say; We celebrate today’s decision recognizing that unfair firefighter exams and other employment schemes THAT ONLY SERVE TO BLOCK UNQUALIFIED CANDIDATES have no place in public service.” SEE:

The “unfair firefighter exams” Captain Washington was referring to were set to a documented 8th Grade reading level. The FDNY requires 60 College credits to apply, which would appear to require a minimum of a 12th grade reading, YES, just as Paul Washington stated, judge Garaufus’ decision seemed to oppose any standards that “block UNQUALIFIED candidates” from passing. WHY do some blacks keep on insisting on linking blackness to incompetence? Seriously, I really don't get that. Isn't that....hmmm....exactly what they tend to call conservative blacks - SELF-HATING. Really, what could be more self-hating than championing the "unqualified" as championing your own racial/ethnic group???

This will certainly be an interesting standard when applied to the MCAT (for medical schools) and LSAT (for law schools) exams and the various and sundry certification exams from the Medical and Law Boards to the CPA qualifying exams. I even have their slogan already made up, "Unqualified workers of the world, UNITE!"
The City of New York is considering appealing the decision

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Sometimes Pesident Obama Gets It Right...

I’ve said this from way back before the 2008 election – Barack Obama, like G W Bush was going to be a “mixed bag.”

Both men seem like personable and charming enough guys – affable and easy-going, even moderate in their approaches to most issues. Just as more liberal/left-leaning people had some issues with G W Bush's affiliations, like Bob Jones University, more Conservative and Libertarian people tend to have some serious issues with Barack Obama's ties to radical bigots, from Reverend Wright to the odious Van Jones and even more radical groups like the "Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now" - ACORN.
Both men have gotten some things right and some things wrong. G W Bush got the war on terror right (the most momentous issue in the last fifty years...and President Obama's continuing the bulk of the "Bush Doctrine" proves that out) and he got the tax cut issue right too – Bush’s Cap Gains cut (from 20% to 15%) had Capital Gains revenues skyrocketing in its wake. Likewise, his across-the-board income tax rate cuts also saw income tax revenues skyrocket.

Unfortunately, President Bush used those revenues NOT to pay down the already ponderous U.S. Debt, but to keep on spending (he spent MORE, even adjusted for inflation, on reckless, wasteful social spending than even, LBJ did), while conducting two massively expensive wars. He also joined with the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in expanding mortgages for “lower income” people (read “deadbeats). Bush signed the 0% down FHA mortgage that triggered the frenzy of subprime lending that Congress pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to GUARANTEE/”buy” and package as triple A rated “mortgage-backed securities” on an unsuspecting world market, ultimately resulting in a banking implosion here, that spread rapidly around the world.

For his part, Barack Obama, has looked at the Bush mistakes and come to a completely illogical and almost certainly disastrous conclusion, buying into the absurd meme that “Bush’s tax cuts and deregulation led to the financial meltdown and that MORE government intervention was necessary," President Obama has embarked on a massive spending program that has quadrupled the Deficit in just 8 months AND increased the Debt burden from 64% of GDP to nearly 75% of GDP virtually overnight.

Of course, MORE government intervention for a problem CAUSED BY government intervention is as foolish as believing that a problem (the exploding U.S. debt ratio) caused by excessive government spending could be cured by even MORE government spending!

But along the way, Obama’s also gotten some vital things right, and that’s why I’m often just as shocked and saddened by some Conservatives looking to fight Obama on EVERYTHING, as I am that Liberals who railed against things like the rendition program and the NSA Surveillance program, seem to have lost their principles, as well as their voices, in the face of Barack Obama continuing the bulk of the Bush anti-terror policies.

NO ONE gets it ALL wrong, ALL the time and both Barack Obama and G W Bush are no exceptions.

Barack Obama has NOT moved us out of Iraq. The last troop reduction happened over a year ago! He has NOT abandoned the NSA Surveillance program the nutty Left once claimed was “shredding the Constitution,” he’s even defended it in court and continued it, cloaked in secrecy, as it should be. Obama has also called for about $500 BILLION in cuts from Medicaid and Medicare and is proposing what would ultimately be a bare-bones tightly rationed and strictly restricted government healthcare option that would have to be supplemented with private insurance, if one were to avoid the rationing and restrictions. Bottom-line, it would actually end a “free” entitlement (employer-driven health insurance) and replace it with a bare-bones public option, complete with rationing of care and restrictions, that would ultimately deliver LESS care to those less able to pay!

Over the last two days President Obama has sought to ratchet up the war in Afghanistan, looking to deploy MORE U.S. troops there, in the face of strong Liberal opposition AND the Obama administration, just yesterday (Tuesday, 9/15/09) sought to extend three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year. Those key provisions would preserve the post-Sept. 11 law's authority to access business records, as well as monitor so-called "lone wolf" terrorists and conduct roving wiretaps.

ALL three had been vehemently opposed by the far-Left...expect nothing but silence NOW.

Any time you get that silence from the far-Left, that’s proof that Obama got one right.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

The Fatal Flaw on The Left

Liberalism and EVERY Left-leaning movement (Communism, Socialism, Communalism), hereon called “Leftism,” is a LIE because it is itself based on a lie.

Leftism is purportedly based on the ideal of selfLESSness and it claims to seek to SERVE and HELP others, especially the “poor and downtrodden,” but it is not that at all.

Selflessness requires that we seek no gain and especially no power or control for ourselves, that we, in fact, truly elevate others before and over ourselves. SELFLESSNESS is very hard, Leftism/Liberalism is very easy.

Contemporary American Liberalism/Leftism is a movement that seeks power and control over others. It doesn’t SERVE others, it seeks to MAKE others “good” by its own definition of the term “good.” Liberals feel superior to others, and not merely “morally superior,” but more intelligent, more kind and generally “better people.”

That is why the Left has always attracted the most misanthropic people among us, from Hitler, perhaps whose most disgusting sentiments were uttered on May 1st, 1927 when he said, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." - Adolf Hitler
(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

Sure, the mass murder and the racial purity of Hitler’s regime were as horrific as the mass murder and class-hatred endorsed by other leading Leftists of his day (Mao and Stalin, for instance), but THESE sentiments alone condemn Hitler as a repugnant monster, the worst kind of misanthrope – the “anti-Capitalist.” The anti-Capitalist stands primarily against the freedom of human action, primarily out of envy and often a feeling of meaningless on his part, but his hatred is fueled by the free action of others and his hatred for other people’s success.

To this day, such are the kinds of people who populate the precincts of the far-Left.

Environmentalism: Covert Misanthropy

Today, there is less tolerance for grandiose ideas like “equality,” as it’s been misused so many times throughout history. Na├»ve idealism has also run its course. Such people are generally not taken seriously, no matter how much the media may exalt them.

Environmentalism has provided a much needed cover for the seething misanthrope of this age.

Unlike the Conservation movement that has always fought for people to be “good stewards of the earth,” the environmental movement has always provided sanctuary for those who’d seek to rationalize their misanthropy (their hatred for mankind) by claiming that all they sought was to put nature, or the earth above or ahead of man’s selfish wants.

From **** who argued in favor of forcibly reducing human populations to “save the earth” to vile racial bigots and wild conspiracy kooks, like Van Jones, the environmentalist movement has always welcomed the most misanthropic and hate-filled fringe among us.

What the environmentalist movement has done is to allow for a little more honesty from the Left. It’s allowed those so inclined to openly indulge in their misanthropic and anti-human impulses under the “respectable guise” of “loving the earth.” FINALLY the haters are free to espouse their anti-human hatred!

Environmentalism’s Poor Antecedent: Ludditism

Before environmentalism, the prevailing anti-Capitalist and anti-human doctrine was Ludditism – the anti-industrial dogma from which modern-day environmentalism sprang.

The Luddites fought industrialization as “impoverishing and discounting” workers and transforming the bucolic landscape into a forest of smoke stacks.

But the benefits of industrialization in terms of increased comforts and prosperity doomed that movement from gaining much ground except among the most ardent of misanthropic zealots.

Equality Versus Liberty/Freedom

Inequality is the natural state of all mankind. That much is obvious and undeniable. All one needs do is look around and observe that people are naturally born with DIFFERENT and VARYING abilities and qualities, some are far better looking, some as far smarter, others are incredibly clever and some seem to have no discernable marketable skills.

In that regard, EQUALITY is ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE and in all cases, the enemy of individual LIBERTY. Free people are NOT equal.

People born with varying skills and varying will never be equal. The unskilled and less motivated will NEVER produce as much as the highly skilled and motivated individual.

Leftism sees that natural disparity in abilities and production to be a flaw that must be overcome, while FREEDOM-lovers revel in those kinds of differences and disparities between individuals.

ALL of America’s Founders were FREEDOM-lovers. ALL of them were individualists who saw in government a tendency to overreach and ultimately oppress and suppress the governed, which is why they shackled the U.S. government with the chains of the Bill of Rights.

Even in this country’s Declaration of Independence, the term “happiness” is defined as PROPERTY in the Federalist Papers.

The private ownership of property is a prerequisite of individual LIBERTY a/k/a FREEDOM.

Leftists, like Noam Chomsky (pictured above), argue that, “So long as there is the private ownership of property, there will be gross inequities between people and the suffering of the many for the benefit of the few.”

The FIRST part of Chomsky’s statement is true. So long as there is private property, people will remain largely free and unequal, BUT those inequities are based on productivity and value. Those who create the most benefit for others, also reap the most personal benefit for themselves. That’s what motivates producers to produce and gives the less motivated, something to aspire to, which spurns further productivity.

So, those who produce less and accrue less, are not “suffering,” they’re making a conscious, deliberate choice to work/produce less, in effect, trading LESS productivity or work, for MORE time.

So, just as the most productive among us tend to be resource (ie. Money) rich and time poor, the less productive tend to be time rich and resource poor. In the end it all depends upon perspective. In a very real sense, it’s all relative, so Chomsky is wrong about “the many suffering for the benefit of a few.” That doesn’t happen in any free society, where private property rights are honored and the market-based economy is the economy of choice.

Personal Hubris and Liberalism – the Helper is ALWAYS Look DOWN on Those He “HELPS”

One of the attractions Leftism has for control-freaks and others who seek power over their fellow men is its covering their lust for power and control behind the lie of selfless dedication to “serving the people.”

Leftists always present themselves as “helpers,” but the helper is always looking DOWN upon those he/she seeks to help...and THAT is the essence of the hubris of Leftism – the “helper” always looking down on the hapless, helpless “helpees.”

This alone reduces the “selfless” allure of the philosophy of the Left to nothing more than a vile con.

The Anti-Freedom Ethos

Today, as in the past, anti-freedom zealots use the banner of “the public good” and “equality” to trump and undermine freedom, but FREE people are NOT equal and when people ARE equal, they are NEVER free!

America’s Founders enshrined private property rights in America and made individual Liberty, which is incompatible with ANY form of Leftism. “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness/property” clearly meant, you had the right to OWN your own life and make your own way in this world, clearly on your own efforts. That you had the right to INDIVIDUAL liberty – the right to own and exchange property without any outside coercion or interference, AND you had the right to PURSUE your own PROPERTY/happiness, although no one had the right to pursue your own success and your own development, but NOT any guarantee that you will attain or achieve what you want.

There is no debate about any of that, even we’ve veered vary far away from that standard (and to our detriment), THAT remains the essence of Americanism.

Monday, September 7, 2009

Free Healthcare and It’s Discontents....

Why is there so much confusion over the current healthcare debate?

The information (FACTS) are all out there, so there shouldn’t be any confusion at all, but there IS.

FACT: Healthcare costs have been skyrocketing in the USA for years. They've far exceeded the rate of inflation and have swamped most worker’s wage increases over the last decade or so. Those costs have gone up due PRIMARILY to Americans, across the board, having access to the latest (and most expensive) health care technologies.

FACT: America’s existing “public options” (Medicare and Medicaid) have failed. They will BOTH implode, but Medicaid especially, by 2016, with its projected $5 TRILLION deficit! Those two programs are suffering under monumentous mismanagement, incompetence, waste, abuse and outright fraud.

FACT: BOTH Democrats and Republicans ARE and HAVE BEEN actively seeking a way to CUT America’s costs and NOT “offer more or better healthcare to more people.”

FACT: There is no “public option” now being considered that would provide long-term care to seniors at government (taxpayer) expense. Moreover, there is no indication of any broad public support for such a program. In fact, most Americans acknowledge the growing national debt as our biggest problem. In response to that the Obama administration has sought to “pay for” its universal care by CUTTING about $500 BILLION from Medicare and Medicaid!

Of course, that number is not close to paying for the projected $1.6 TRILLION cost of this universal care.

Ted Kennedy, less than a month before he died, called for the rationing of healthcare to those on any public options, and that is exactly in line with what the Congressional Democrat’s Bill would deliver.

FACT: The reason most American working people would be WORSE off with an expanded public option is that their employers would have no reason to maintain their current health plans. It would be far cheaper to simply shunt those folks onto the public option. BOTH private sector and public sector (state, local and federal) workers would eventually be placed on the public option.

The government simply CAN’T pay for the current unlimited access to the best and most high-tech healthcare in the world. America’s survival rate for early detected prostate and breast cancers is nearly 100% compared to England’s 77%! There's no question that Americans get the best and most high-tech healthcare, but the unfortunate reality is that it can no longer be given away to all, regardless of whether they're insured or not.

With those fiscal realities in place, the government would have to severely restrict and heavily ration the healthcare offered under its public option. Those workers who now get the bulk of their healthcare paid for by their employers, would have to pay high insurance premiums merely to circumvent the restrictions and rationing the public option will come with, just to maintain the same level of access they currently enjoy. Those who now take home more money each payday by opting not to pay into their share of their company healthcare premiums would have that option or CHOICE denied them. They’d have the option of the free and rationed public option chosen for them...they'd only be able to deny paying for the private insurance needed to circumvent the rationing the public option will come with.

Those who can’t or won’t pay the gap-insurance premiums needed to circumvent the public option restrictions and rationing would face the possibility of being given pain pills instead of access to more expensive treatments for advanced care. That’s not only the existing reality in places like England, it’s also the existing reality in places like Oregon, where older people on Oregon’s statewide plan are often offered $50 pain kills instead of $4,000 anti-cancer drugs, as government must always balance individual benefit, which is minimal for the poor and elderly, versus the cost.

Most workers sense that they’ll be worse off under such a system, but that their companies and our state, local and federal governments will ALL be much better off!

Almost overnight, American businesses will become more profitable and competitive in the global market. That would mean, American workers would become significantly more productive within the global labor pool, which should mean more job creation. Likewise, our state, local and federal governments will be able to shed BILLIONS each year in healthcare premiums it now pays for its workers and insurance companies will reap a huge bonanza in hawking the needed gap-insurance, for those who want to avoid the rationing and restrictions of the public option. It's a veritable WIN-WIN-WIN, for everyone EXCEPT the working taxpayers of this country. They get to pay MORE, for LESS care.

With the great boom this will be to BOTH big business and the government, the only strange thing about universal healthcare is, why it’s taken so long for it to be implemented.

What’s With Barack Obama’s Rogue’s Gallery of Radical "Friends"...

OK, with the sudden, late Sunday evening resignation of “Green Czar” Van Jones (above left), over a litany of anti-Capitalist, thus anti-American and flat out racist/bigoted statements, consideration must be brought back to Barack Obama’s veritable rogue’s gallery of unsavory and generally far-Left radical “friends.”

Sure, the first such “friend” we all noticed was the Pastor who Baptized both his children and served as his “spiritual mentor” for nearly twenty years, the now infamous "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright, but before Wright, there was Tony Rezko, the Syrian-born real estate mogul and felon, who became an Obama fundraiser and a personal “friend” who helped Obama get a home at below market prices.
And before Rezko there was Alice Palmer, a former Illinois state Senator who hand-picked Barack Obama to be her successor in the Senate. She’s a former member of the U.S. Peace Council, which is listed as a Communist front group and was a strong supporter of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Her closest friends include William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Barack Obama.

But BEFORE even Palmer and Rezko, there was Khalid al-Mansour, a Black Muslim who’d served as an advisor to a Saudi billionaire. It was allegedly al-Mansour who helped Obama get into Harvard, by asking Percy Sutton to write a letter on Obama’s behalf for his admission to Harvard.

In the Illinois state, then Senate President Emil Jones became Obama’s mentor in the state Senate. In 2007, Jones tried to block legislation that would put the name of state subcontractors on the Internet – apparently because his stepson’s tech firm does millions of dollars of business with the state.
In his teen years, Barrack (then “Barry”) Obama was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis, during Obama’s teenage years in Hawaii. Davis was a Communist and black liberationist whose loyalty was to the Soviet Union, not America.

Now there’s Van Jones, whose views align perfectly with the equally odious views of Wright, Davis and Monsour, not to mention another “FOB” (Friend of Barry’s), the former Weather Underground terrorists, Bill Ayers (above right).

IN fact, in keeping with all those also mentioned nitwits, Van Jones is apparently also a 9-11 Truther, as he signed a petition put out by those kooky conspiracy theorists alleging that “the Bush administration was responsible for the attacks of 9-11-01 as an excuse for war.” The petition he signed and now claims he “never read” was HEADED, “9-11 was an Inside Job.”

As troubling as Van Jones views are, and they are mightily so, the current President’s rogue’s gallery of friends should be even more troubling.
American Ideas Click Here!