… of Islam? Well, that’s the reference but …  Obama has five pillars on which to rebuild the US economy. 

In yet another ‘major speech’ – he likes to make them as often as possible among flags and cameras, becoming ever more like all the other dear leaders of the peoples who have centrally-planned economies –  he declared yesterday (in small but central part): 

We must build our house upon a rock.  We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity – a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest; where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad.

It’s a foundation built upon five pillars that will grow our economy and make this new century another American century:  new rules for Wall Street that will reward drive and innovation; new investments in education that will make our workforce more skilled and competitive; new investments in renewable energy and technology that will create new jobs and industries; new investments in health care that will cut costs for families and businesses; and new savings in our federal budget that will bring down the debt for future generations.  That is the new foundation we must build.  That must be our future – and my Administration’s policies are designed to achieve that future. 

So the First Pillar is a continuing interference in, and tighter control of the economy by the federal government 

The Second Pillar is reinforced leftist indoctrination in the schools under stricter federal government authority 

The Third Pillar is the provision of insecure and very expensive energy, its uses ever more regulated by the government so that lives become poorer and harder

The Fourth Pillar is the establishment of nationalized healthcare, being a huge extension of the welfare state and the augmentation of  governmental power of decision over the life and death of every individual  

The Fifth Pillar is a fantasy, a pretense, a fairy story that future federal budgets will get smaller and the monstrous deficits  will be ‘halved’ in a blink of the dear leader’s eye.  

 From Power Line:

Professor [Frank] Tipler notes the discreditable role played by Obama’s chief science adviser, the left-wing partisan John Holdren:

 AGW supporters are also bringing back the Inquisition, where the power of the state is used to silence one’s scientific opponents. The case of Bjorn Lomborg is illustrative. Lomborg is a tenured professor of mathematics in Denmark. Shortly after his book, "The Skeptical  Environmentalist," was published by Cambridge University Press, Lomborg was charged and convicted (later reversed) of scientific fraud for being critical of the "consensus" view on AGW and other environmental questions. Had the conviction been upheld, Lomborg would  have been fired. …

 I find it very disturbing that part of the Danish Inquisition’s case against Lomborg was written by John Holdren, Obama’s new science advisor. Holdren has recently written that people like Lomborg are "dangerous." I think it is people like Holdren who are  dangerous, because they are willing to use state power to silence their scientific opponents.

Finally, he points out how toxic the combination of government (which is to say, politics) and science can be:

 I agree … that the AGW nonsense is generated by government funding of science. If a guy agrees with AGW, then he can get a government contract. If he is a skeptic, then no contract. 

 This is why I am astounded that people who should know better, like Newt Gingrich, advocate increased government funding for scientific research. We had better science, and a more rapid advance of science, in the early part of the 20th century when there was no  centralized government funding for science. Einstein discovered relativity on his own time, while he was employed as a patent clerk. Where are the Einsteins of today? …  

 Science is an economic good like everything else, and it is very bad for production of high quality goods for the government to control the means of production. Why can’t Newt Gingrich understand this? Milton Friedman understood it, and advocated cutting off government  funding for science.

 Take this newly revealed information (from an article by Jacob Laksin all of which is worth reading here) 

 Among those who’ve made a total of $492 million in contributions to the Clinton Foundation are several troubling figures and governments – including supporters of the terrorist group Hezbollah, and the rulers of Saudi Arabia – whose identities the former president would have preferred to keep private.

with this from the Washington Times

The incoming Obama administration plans to create a new position to coordinate outreach to Iran and is considering a number of senior career diplomats, State Department officials and Iran specialists say… A State Department official said the idea of naming a senior Iranian outreach coordinator was broached in the first transition meetings with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama’s choice for secretary of state, and her transition team earlier this month. "The idea is that the position should build on the existing diplomatic framework," the official said. He asked not to be named because a nominee has not been announced. A spokeswoman for Mrs. Clinton declined to comment for this article. Brooke Anderson, a spokeswoman for the transition, also would not comment. However, several Iran specialists said such a position was in the works.

and recall that Hizbollah – ‘the Party of God’ – is an Iranian creation and that Saudi Arabia is financing the Islamic conquest of the Western world by mean of ‘soft jihad’.

Then let’s ask rhetorically whether Hillary Clinton, against whom there have been plausible allegations of corruption, is really the best choice for the position of Secretary of State, to look after American interests in a world in which the greatest menace to America, to freedom, to the West in general comes from Islam, above all from Iran and Saudi Arabia.  

Will those who pay the piper no longer insist on calling the tune?  And is there no reason to suspect that the Clintons are a venal couple? 

 Power Line aptly comments:

Eric Holder has come in for considerable criticism from conservatives for his role in the pardon scandal at the end of Bill Clinton’s second term. And properly so. But conservatives have had little to say about substantial allegations of corruption on the part of Hillary Clinton throughout the Clinton presidency.

All but our youngest readers will recall the particulars – Whitewater (which led to the appointment of an independent counsel), cattle futures, and the White House travel office scandal. In fact, Clinton was nearly indicted by Ken Starr’s office for giving testimony inconsistent with what the prosecutors had learned from other key witnesses and that the prosecutors were convinced was false.

Hillary Clinton was also involved with the pardon scandals that may come back to haunt Holder. Her brother Hugh Rodhamreceived $400,000 for working on two pardons, one of which was granted and the other of which resulted in commutation of the sentence. (Hillary claimed that she was unaware of the transaction, and Rodman apparently returned the money). Tony Rodham, another brother, also received financial consideration in connection with another of the Clinton pardons.

Bill Clinton also pardoned the FALN terrorists, pardons that have led to criticism of Holder because federal guidelines were circumvented. But the impetus for the pardons seems to have been Hillary’s race for the Senate, a number of prominent Hispanic politicians from New York having pushed on behalf of the terrorists. Absent such political calculation, it is almost impossible to understand why Bill Clinton would have pardoned this lot, the members of which apparently had not even asked to be pardoned (two of the terrorists refused their pardons). Hillary backed away from the pardons at the last minute, but her fingerprints are on them nonetheless.

Why are we hearing so much criticism of Holder and so little of Clinton? One explanation might be that Holder has been nominated to be the nation’s chief law enforcement officer and Hillary has not. But this is hardly a satisfactory basis for giving Clinton a pass; having a corrupt Secretary of State is no small matter.

It’s also possible that conservatives are holding their fire because they are reasonably happy with the Clinton nomination for substantive reasons, considering the alternatives. But Clinton is hardly the only mainstream liberal Democrat Obama could have selected, and it’s become clear that Obama has no interest in offering high profile positions like Secretary of State to someone from the far left wing of the party.

In any event, it’s not as if conservatives can block the nomination of Clinton (or, for that matter, of Holder in all likelihood). The point in both cases should be to raise legitimate questions, and the questions about Clinton seem at least as legitimate as those about Holder. 

 From Debkafile:

US intelligence’s amended estimate, that Iran will be ready to build its first bomb just one month after the next US president is sworn in, is disclosed by DEBKAfile’s Washington sources as having been relayed as a guideline to the Middle East teams of both presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. The information prompted the assertion by Democratic vice presidential nominee Joseph Biden in Seattle Sunday, Oct. 19: “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.” (McCain retorted Tuesday, Oct. 21: “America does not need a president that needs to be tested. I’ve been tested. I was aboard the Enterprise off the coast of Cuba. I’ve been there.”)

Israel has (nearly) run out of time. 

 So says this Investor’s Business Daily editorial:

ACORN was so impressed with Obama’s work with and for ACORN that, according to Foulkes, "Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office."

Last November, Obama told the group, "I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran (the) Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."

Obama appreciates ACORN’s work so much, and vice versa, that Obama last December promised to implement ACORN’s agenda as president. On Dec. 1, 2007, Obama spoke at the Heartland Democratic Presidential Forum organized by Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change. When asked if Obama would sit down with community organizers in the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama said, "Yes, but let me even say before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we’ll be calling all of you (community organizers) in to help us shape the agenda."

Obama pledged before leaders of community organizing groups including Gamaliel and ACORN: "We’re gonna be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America."

That’s what we were afraid of.

And this Townhall article:

Even liberal commentator Andrew Sullivan called the Obama tactics "a disgraceful attempt to intimidate journalists trying to get at the facts."

If other slimy strategies fail, Obama critics are subjected to the nuclear option ‹ the race card ‹ often by a reliably hypersensitive, sycophantic media.

Associated Press "analyst" Douglass Daniel tied himself in knots explaining how Sarah Palin’s comment about Obama "palling around" with terrorists ‹ again referring to Ayers and his wife, both of whom are white ‹ "carried a racially tinged subtext."

Remember, too, the supposed racial overtones ascribed to McCain’s ad comparing the accomplishment-free Obama to similarly-credentialed starlets Paris Hilton and Britney Spears ‹ again, both white.

Mentioning Obama’s accounts of his own use of marijuana or cocaine is off limits because that’s racist, too. And, of course, to vote for someone other than Obama is the telltale sign of racism.

If this is the treatment Obama’s critics receive now ­ when he’s merely a freshman senator from Illinois  there’s plenty to fear from an Obama presidency.

 And this one also from Townhall:

It would be bad enough if the Stalinesque stench engulfing the messiah’s campaign were limited merely to its efforts to elect him. But what we fear is that these campaign tactics are of a piece with his policy agenda and his vision for America.

Sincerely intending no melodrama here, it’s hard not to conclude that Obama aims to change America in fundamental ways, the common denominator of which would be to diminish individual liberties, the most distinguishing feature of the unique American system. Sadly, most Obama supporters have no clue what Obama is ultimately about or how his innocuous-sounding ideas could permanently destroy our freedoms.

And this one from Front Page Magazine:

And when financial institutions across the board saw that they could make money by trading what would once have been considered junk loans, the profit motive kicked in. But the bad seed that started it all was ACORN.

How does Barack Obama fit into all of this? Obama has been a key ally of Chicago ACORN going back to his days as a community organizer.

Later, as a young lawyer, he offered leadership training to the activists who were forcing Chicago banks into high-risk subprime loans. And when he made it on to the boards of Chicago’s Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he channeled money ACORN’s way.

Obama was perfectly aware of ACORN’s intimidation tactics – indeed, he oversaw a Woods Fund report that boasted of managing to fund the radical group despite its shocking behavior.

And as a lawmaker, in Illinois and in Washington, he has continued to back ACORN’s legislative agenda.

ACORN’s high-pressure tactics live on. And congressional Democrats are still covering for ACORN, funneling it money and doing its legislative bidding. ACORN also continues its shady ways, using a vast network of technically separate but in fact quite interconnected organizations to evade federal laws on the politicized use of government money.

Perhaps most disturbing of all, the Obama campaign appears to have little more regard for freedom of speech than Reps. Kennedy or Waters did when they backed up ACORN’s thugs in 1995. The campaign actually practices ACORN-style tactics, sending out "action wires" that call on supporters to block Obama critics from radio appearances (a tactic once applied to me) and demanding legal actions against unfriendly political advertisers.

As a presidential candidate, Obama promises a massive national-service program closely allied with the nonprofit sector. He wants to remove "barriers for smaller nonprofits to participate in government programs."

In other words, he plans a massive effort to funnel America’s youth into volunteer work alongside the likes of ACORN. So Obama’s favorite community organizers may soon be training your child.

ACORN’s alliance with the Democratic Party is at the root of the current financial meltdown. And Barack Obama has stayed true to ACORN’s ways.

Read them all, in full, to find out in detail why you should be afraid. Be very afraid. 

 Shawn Akers writes in Townhall:

            Whatever else may be said, Mr. Obama’s personality cult campaign has been an unmitigated success, creating, almost ex nihilo, a “beloved leader” out of a largely inexperienced and unknown man, void of business, executive, and foreign policy credentials.  This fact alone is cause for substantial concern, but, unfortunately for the American people, what has been true of the form of the Obama campaign is now materializing in its function as individuals cloaked in the appearance of state authority seek to silence dissent and indoctrinate the masses.

            The largest portion of the media has progressed in its leftist agenda so overtly in the current presidential race that we are hardly surprised when television news “anchors” swoon at the very mention of Barak Obama while taking every opportunity to belittle Governor Sara Palin, feigning objectivity and savoring superiority all the while.  Such private sector propaganda is so common it is almost passé.  What is far more troubling is when individuals holding powerful and intimidating public posts – police officers and prosecutors, individuals who, by the very power of their offices, can strip citizens of their liberty – use their positions to intimidate anyone who dares speak against Mr. Obama.  When Missouri prosecutor Bob McCulloch takes to the air waves, placing the public on notice that he is a member of Mr. Obama’s “truth squad” and that he and other Missouri prosecutors and law enforcement officials plan to “respond immediately” to any critical speech concerning Mr. Obama that “might violate Missouri ethics laws,” the message, with all of its implications, is crystal clear – “speak out against our beloved leader and all the fury of the state will fall on you.”   

 Thomas Lifson reveals in The American Thinker:

Another piece in the puzzle of Barack Obama has been revealed, greatly strengthening the picture of a man groomed by an older generation of radical leftists for insertion into the American political process, trading on good looks, brains, educational pedigree, and the desire of the vast majority of the voting public to right the historical racial wrongs of the land.

The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left. It was an attempt to regroup the forces on the left in a new strategy to take power, burrowing from within. The party only lasted until 1998, when its strategy of "fusion" failed to withstand a Supreme Court ruling. But dissolving the party didn’t stop the membership, including Barack Obama, from continuing to move the Democrats leftward with spectacular success. 

 From an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily:

Why does Obama pay homage to the middle class now? Presidential votes. He’s using the middle class as a means to an end — the end being the power to enact his radical agenda. In this, he’s following his hero Saul "The Red" Alinsky’s playbook.

Alinsky, the socialist street agitator who wrote "Rules for Radicals," detested the bourgeois "materialism" of the American middle class. But he advised his student radicals to court the middle class, even radicalize them when possible in favor of the cause.

Don’t be like 1960s revolutionaries who made fun of the bourgeoisie, he warned. Learn the language of the middle class; share their experience. "Start them easy," he said. "Don’t scare them off."

Alinsky revolutionaries don’t flaunt their radicalism. They keep their hair trimmed and wear suits and ties. They’re never outwardly rude. They don’t use vulgar language in public. They show respect for authorities. Some even have mortgages and families.

But don’t be fooled. Obama is an elitist who skipped the middle class and went straight to his Georgian mansion. He doesn’t share your values, but he wants you to share your earnings to pay for his radical social experiment.

As McCain accurately argued during the debate, Obama this March voted for a Senate measure raising taxes on workers making $42,000 a year. So who’s really on the side of the middle class?

 

 From today’s Investor’s Business Daily:

Here’s how James B. Lockhart III, head of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, described the two companies back in 2006, before the meltdown occurred:

"The result of (Fannie’s and Freddie’s) rapid growth unconstrained by market forces and a weak regulator was years of mismanagement, flagrant earnings manipulation, and systems-and-controls problems. Managements of both companies were forced out, earnings were misstated by an estimated $16 billion, fines exceeding one-half billion dollars were imposed, and remedial costs will exceed $2 billion."

Yet Congress did nothing. Fannie and Freddie continued to enjoy a virtual monopoly of the housing finance market, holding nearly half the nation’s $12 trillion in mortgage assets in 2007.

And what happened to Fannie’s and Freddie’s top executives, almost all with deep ties to the Democratic Party? Did they get perp-walked to prison like WorldCom’s Bernie Ebbers, Tyco’s Dennis Koslowski, Adelphia’s John Rigas, ImClone’s Sam Waksal, or any of the others who did time for corporate misdeeds in the early 2000s?

No. Jim Johnson, former Walter Mondale aide, became head of Barack Obama’s vice presidential search committee. Franklin Raines, who headed Fannie from 1998 to 2004, the years of its worst excesses, pocketed nearly $100 million in pay and bonuses from Fannie. He, too, became an adviser to Obama.

Other Fannie-Freddie alumni did equally well. Rep. Rahm Emanuel has been front and center in crafting a new rescue bill. Ex-Clinton Justice official Jamie Gorelick careens from career catastrophe to catastrophe, and still gets top jobs. It pays to have ties.

Meanwhile, as previously documented, Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd repeatedly thwarted reforms. Yet today they stand front-and-center as Democrats try to "fix" a problem they created.

As such, any investigation into Fannie and Freddie must include Congress, both current and past.

There’s lots of evidence that the two mortgage giants had become little more than taxpayer-guaranteed front companies for Democrats, who used them to reward supporters with cheap loans and to provide jobs for out-of-work politicians.